Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      PhotoBucket are no longer permitting 3rd party hosting   01/07/17

      As most of you are now painfully aware, Photobucket (PB) are stopping/have stopped allowing their members to link their accumulated years of photos into forums and the like, which they call 3rd party linking.  You can give them a non-refundable $399 a year to allow links, but I doubt that many will be rushing to take them up on that offer.  If you've previously paid them for the Pro account, it looks like you've got until your renewal to find another place to host your files, but you too will be subject to this ban unless you fork over a lot of cash.   PB seem to be making a concerted move to another type of customer, having been the butt of much displeasure over the years of a constantly worsening user interface, sloth and advertising pop-ups, with the result that they clearly don't give a hoot about the free members anymore.  If you don't have web space included in your internet package, you need to start looking for another photo host, but choose carefully, as some may follow suit and ditch their "free" members at some point.  The lesson there is keep local backups on your hard drive of everything you upload, so you can walk away if the same thing happens.   There's a thread on the subject here, so please use that to curse them, look for solutions or generall grouse about their mental capacity.   Not a nice situation for the forum users that hosted all their photos there, and there will now be a host of useless threads that relied heavily on photos from PB, but as there's not much we can do other than petition for a more equitable solution, I suggest we make the best of what we have and move on.  One thing is for certain.  It won't win them any friends, but they may not care at this point.    Mike.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

824 Excellent

About mhaselden

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

3,556 profile views
  1. Ed, I don't think it's colourised. I know the guy who posted these images. He's the son of an AVG pilot and has access to some incredible colour images. Cheers, Mark
  2. Perhaps we were all cowed by the unspoken but persistent threat of a tentacled invasion (War of the Worlds, Independence Day, Invasion of the Body Snatchers etc)?
  3. Looks like a computer-generated emulation to me. It could be a colourised version of a similar image if such an image exists (the French article Troy posted had 2 of images of this formation and there could be more). That said, the clarity of the ground details screams CGI to me, as do the differences in the actual airframes (like the mirrors and the antenna masts) which suggest a flight sim model was used with individual skins created to replicate the 73 Sqn markings.
  4. Great to have you aboard! As you can see from the responses, there's a great interest in your father's modelling skills and techniques.
  5. To me it looks like an airframe that's been extensively touched up over time and in desperate need of an overall repaint. The whole appearance, from the overpainted fuselage code to the general grubbiness and (probably) paint fading, is one of a very war-weary bird.
  6. I was looking at that image of TP-D. It certainly looks odd. A couple of thoughts spring to mind. Firstly, the wing itself should be white but it's clearly "grubby" to say the least. The shade of the general wing, particularly around the wing tip, is very similar to the "white" of the underwing roundel. Also of interest is the overpainting of the serial number which shows up much whiter than the wing itself. Finally, the port wing is clearly black and has a standard Type A roundel. I wonder if the starboard wing suffered from some superficial heat damage? That might explain the odd light tone to the blue of the roundel, as well as the overall grubby appearance of the wing. It's the only thing I can think of that might cause the roundel to look like it does.
  7. Mea culpa. Guess I'll go sit in a corner and wear the dunce hat.
  8. The formation photos were taken prior to early May 1940 because that's when the fin flash and yellow surround to the fuselage roundel were introduced (note the rudder markings on these 73 Sqn machines were worn by some RAF units in France for recognition purposes and were not official markings). The ribs are really hard to see on most photos so I wouldn't use that as a frame of reference. One potential indicator is the short "stick" antenna mast which was primarily seen on fabric-winged airframes (it's not an unique indicator, but it's a good general guide).
  9. These were probably all fabric wing airframes as deployed to France in 1940.
  10. Great info, Troy. I particularly like the lower pic. Fantastic shot of some short-lived but interesting markings.
  11. I never met John but corresponded frequently with him in the '90s. He was a real gent and very generous with his research. Mon Dieu will be sadly missed!
  12. The upper wing undercarriage fairing is also more bulged in section and less pointed in plan view on the Bolingbroke than on the Blenheim, hence the problems in that area on the Airfix kit.
  13. Thanks Fernando. Appreciate the mention of the panel lines. Looking at various pics which show them (they weren't visible in the earlier photos) it's clear there is some difference to the length of the canopy between the MkI and the MkIV. Hi Garry, Thanks for the clarification. I was getting my versions and my canopy lengths muddled. A longer canopy on the MkIV makes much more sense. I had it backwards in my mind...creeping senility (yet) again. Several US manufacturers did, in fact, apply decals for national markings. When the ex-RAF P-40s were handed over to the Chinese for use by the AVG, the RAF roundels were taken off and the Chinese decals added. Simples. I think the use of decals explains the sheen visible on the roundels under certain conditions (eg in the video posted by ClaudioN).
  14. There's a discussion about this on another forum I frequent (yes, I know it's sacrilege to go anywhere other than BM...I beg forgiveness and will buy 20 new aircraft books as penance!) To be honest, it's hard to tell that we're even looking at Caucasians, while the seated person could be either male or female. To add to the confusion, the ship identified as the Koshu Maru in the "Earhart" photo has significant differences from other photos of the same vessel, notably the location of the aft mast while the "aircraft" being "towed behind the Koshu Maru" could be anything from another vessel to a tarp over some cargo . Frankly, I think people are seeing what they want to see...and I have 20 years' experience as an image analyst. I wouldn't make the calls that the "experts" have made on this grainy image.
  15. Maybe Martian Hale knows something? I'm sure he has his tentacles in all sorts of intergalactic pies.