Andrew

hi @Whirly, There's a black & white picture of 9444 in AG51 markings here - the profile seems accurate. A colour picture of a similar jet, 9499 (with JG74 markings), suggests again that the profile is useful. This picture by Michael Thorne on Flickr taken in 1970 also suggests that the main features of the profile are good. The different seats used at this point in Luftwaffe service might be the biggest concern regarding accuracy. cheers, Andrew.

Hi Cameron, You were right to identify @Jim Rotramel as a likely source of information; in this ARC Forum thread he's kindly included his scale drawing of the weapons bay, which shows the location and length of the ECM pod pylon. I too was once keen to add a pylon and pod in that forward location to my Hasegawa Pig (no doubt inspired by @Old Viper Tester's photographs in this thread), but given that Reskit have made such lovely addons for the kit in 1/72, who am I to not utilise the goodness and just mount the pod up aft?

Hi Chris, Wow! Thanks very much for your kind offer of the decals, but I have plenty of markings for Beaufighters, including some 455 Sqn aircraft at Dallachy (or perhaps Langham?), as well as other Coastal Command units. I've recently completed an earlier 404 Sqn aircraft, NV173 as EE-X, and am now keen to complete a 16 Sqn SAAF aircraft from the Mediterranean theatre as my next Beaufighter build, but this isn't essential by any stretch. If Roger @Dunny prefers to keep it to Dallachy or Coastal Command aircraft then that's completely fine! I'm just keen to participate by building another Airfix Beau! Andrew.

Hi Chris, I'm keen to participate - does it have to be a Dallachy Beaufighter?

That's lovely progress, David, and your choice of colours for the wash looks spot on. Thanks for sharing.

thanks for sharing your progress and impressions, Barry. What a wonderful result, testament to the kit and builder!

thanks Barry. Looking forward to seeing more of both aircraft!

Lovely work with both construction and painting, Barry. I'm trying to guess what the undersides look like after applying the black, but am failing dismally. Any chance of a photo? Thanks muchly.

Thanks David, that's gorgeous work by Roy.

Great progress to date and I'm very pleased you've resumed work on the Skyraider - your posts and threads are always educational and inspiring! Plus, watching your progress with the Skyraider means that I will delay asking about how your Wyvern is going (thread from 2015) ... apologies, I seem to be making a habit of asking annoying questions.

will do! Thanks very much and I'm looking forward to your next instalment. Oh, Dorothy Dix sends her regards...

David, could I please trouble you to tell us about free-flow resin powder and how it was combined with CA to restore form and finesse to the intake lip of your Crusader?

You thought correctly - that will look just like a bought one when painted. I'm pleased that SATAN102 resumes her journey, but you needn't be surprised - I'm confident there's always be an audience for your well-illustrated projects, be they Crusaders, Buccaneers or Skywarriors. Certainly true in my little corner of Britmodeller! And before I forget, thanks for the update!

hi David, Have you made any further progress with this? What you've illustrated looks fantabulous!

I had the same question when I saw the news of KP's impending release - thanks for asking! And thanks @Yasa for answering. Much appreciated.

thanks very much @ttyng0904 - I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Hello and thanks very much! Could you please help with something else - Mr Suzuki makes reference to the F-104 (at roughly 3:06) in that video. What is he saying? My overly developed wishful-thinking gene is hopeful that he's discussing a possible future release by Fine Molds. Thanks very much in advance.

I think you've nailed it Des, I'm a bit of both! Thanks though to you and Kev for your contributions, but the analogy doesn't work for me. If Phantoms had been operated by other elements of the Royal Navy, such as the Submarine Service or the Hydrographic Survey chaps (thank heavens for 'Droggies), and the book only dealt with their use by the Fleet Air Arm, then I could understand the distinction. However, unless there was some really interesting employment of Phantoms in the RN that we're not aware of, it's just redundant to refer to use both 'Royal Navy' and 'Fleet Air Arm' in the title. By contrast, the title of volume 2, The FGR.2 in RAF service, says just what it needs to. There's no attempt to list elements of the RAF that flew the Phantom, such as Strike Command or RAF Germany, as well; there's just no need. In an effort to stop being a nag and offer something useful (and admittedly without having read the book), may I humbly suggest that the title of volume 1 be amended to 'The Phantom FG.1 in Royal Navy and A&AEE service'. If the book covers use by the RAF of the FG.1 variant (and I'm wondering now if it does), then the title could be 'The Phantom FG.1 in Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and A&AEE service'.

Hi Kevin, was I too slow with the suggestion? Or is there a distinction between 'Royal Navy' and 'Fleet Air Arm' that eludes me?

Including a photo on page 20 of the publication itself (which appears as one of the sample pages on the book's entry at KLP). While changes are being made, perhaps @EELightning you could remove reference to either the 'Royal Navy' or the 'Fleet Air Arm' in the book's title? Surely they're one and the same, at least as far as Royal Naval Phantom employment goes?

A new NSI (small-mouth) intake would also be necessary; to date Tamiya hasn't done this is 1/72.

hi @boom.boom et al., I hope you don't mind a belated contribution, but I'd like to suggest some other Gunze colours for Dark Slate Grey. From their aqueous range, H48 Field Grey (II) is in the ballpark, but it is a little dark straight from the bottle, so could stand some lightening with a flesh (H44) or buff tone (H85) to preserve the colour's olive hint. Similar colours exist in their acrylic lacquer range, being C52 and C112 (a pink flesh) or C111 (a pale tan flesh!) respectively. I'd love to be able to point you to my results with these colours (long though I've wanted to employ them in anger on a project), but the simple truth is that I haven't had to as yet; I have easy access to straight-from-the-bottle offerings of Dark Slate Grey and have therefore used those. All the same, I hope my suggestions are helpful. cheers, Andrew.

That's promising news - thanks for the update and for continuing to ask Dream Model for information. It's good to hear that there's life yet in the project!

thanks Daniel. Ah okay! Thanks for clarifying. I'm a duffer! I thought you were referring to the horizontal tails. But yes, there's no line where the vertical tails join; it's a very smooth transition. thanks again for this excellent thread - I'm very curious about this new kit and you've documented your progress and corrections/enhancements very well! Keep up the great work.

Hi Daniel, lovely progress and your painting is very crisp. What do you mean by the absence of panel lines 'underneath the tailplanes', please? Do you mean on the fuselage where the tailplanes pivot?