This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here:

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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About deecee

  • Rank
    New Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. I posted this reply before I noticed the additional responses!! A further thanks - there's plenty for me to be delving into. deecee
  2. Thank you, guys, for your responses. That's particularly neat of you, Mike, to match the two images and I have to say they are pretty close. I haven't searched yet for vessels in this class so I'll see what comes up. I did guess initially at the Red Sea - because of the palm trees!! - but maybe the background is too mountainous for that. It does appear very similar to that shown behind your image of Bridgwater. In fact, the skyline of the hills is almost identical, it must surely be Caribbean Station. My mother-in-law is too ill now to try and remember, in fact they were not married at that time so she may not have known his naval history. My brother-in-law may have some knowledge and if I find out more I will pass it on. You are most welcome to copy and use the image. Thanks again for your help, deecee
  3. Hi Guys I've recently come across this very nice photo in my father-in-law's house, and I'm hoping someone may be able to identify it for me. I don't have any info at all on the ship or where the photo was taken. I do know that he served on this ship at some time in his naval career, but sadly he is no longer with us to ask. Hoping someone can help, Thanks, deecee
  4. Hi Garry Thanks for posting the images - they are going to be really useful in correcting the simplified arrangement that Airfix have provided. I notice that the main linkage to the wing spar (centred between the sway braces for and aft) which is visible in the pics is missing from the kit and should really be represented as this supports the tank. The sway braces are not quite correct either, The forward brace being like an inverted 'M' shape and the rear one is different again, being a mere inverted 'Y', shaped to grip the rear of the tank. It seems a bit odd to me to have this assymetric set up , maybe Dana can shed some light? The tank with fins is interesting too. Must be a field adaptation, surely! (or should I say carrier adaptation?). The sway braces look like bent pipes and I notice the disconnected fuel line, in front of which are two pipes sticking up which I guess could be for topping up the napalm! I must offer here my thanks to you, Dana, for not being too harsh on Garry, especially as it was his first attempt at posting images. I tried several sources for your book here in UK after Garry suggested it and I would have bought it had one been available, because I have got hardly anything on the Wildcat. Any suggestions for a UK stockist? Thanks again guys for your support - I'm definitely going to scratch build these! cheers deecee
  5. Hi Garry That sounds great - just what I was looking for. Would you be able to attach the image to this thread, or PM me and we could arrange something? Thanks for your reply, deecee
  6. Hi guys I'm hoping someone may have a bit more knowledge of Wildcats than I do. I'm particularly interested in the wing tanks. The standard Airfix kit has a pair on the sprue, but they are not mentioned in the instructions so presumably are not intended to be used on this version. The Starter Set however, has a very nice picture of a F4F-4 landing carrying a pair of tanks and so I would guess that the instructions in this boxing would include these and give directions on clearing the holes for mounting etc. My only reference is Sq Sig number 84 on the Wildcat. I've been looking through this and some photos towards the end in the Eastern Aircraft FM-1 and FM-2 sections show these fitted. What I'd like to know is were tanks only used in the later stages of the war, and were they used for particular missions? My other query is the wing mounts. Airfix have rather simplified these and made them rather 'chunky' and I'd like to see a close-up of the mounts if there is such a photo. In Sq Sig there is a drawing showing the mounting brackets and sway braces with a separate fuel hose to the wing in a more forward position. Altogether more delicate. I would like to replace the moulded mounts with this more detailed representation - or at least give it a go! I'm getting to like this kit! Having the wingfold option is a real bonus. Wings folded, tanks fitted. Yes. Any help with photos would be much appreciated. Thanks deecee
  7. Hi guys, Just had a reply to my PM from Terry with some further pictures. He has said it's okay to post them, so here goes . . . . . Hi guys A lovely set of images I'm sure you'll agree. Of course the one that I'm really pleased with is Fig.6 with the cupola closed and the quick-release mechanism clearly shown, as moulded in the Airfix kit. Brilliant! Thanks again guys for all your help, deecee (aka David Holland)
  8. Thanks Terry for the generous information you supplied. That's fantastic. It goes a long way to clarifying things. PM sent cheers deecee
  9. Wow !!!! Chris, those 3 pictures are fantastic! You can see that the gun is clearly mounted on the cupola and not the fuselage in this late series and in fact there is quite a bit of detail to pick up on in picture 3. That would make a great pose in a diorama. It's interesting that Work in Progress spotted the circular pads inside the earlier cupola. I note these are still there on the later series. I would go along with your suggestion, Jason, as to their use. In the last picture of the Beau getting a 'wash and brush up', the cupola is the late version, but no evidence of fasteners or connecting wire on the port side. I'm not so sure now that the raised detail on the kit should be there. The fasteners are definitely internal as shown in the drawings from Chris. Maybe an even later addition? Why else would the Airfix drawings show it? Thanks guys, there's been some interesting stuff revealed. It's late now so I'll sign off. Good night deecee.
  10. Thanks for your reply, Chris. Unfortunately this is the earlier standard cupola. To quote from the article in Airfix MW for May, Terry Higgins states: "Early aircraft delivered to Coastal Command with earlier standard cupola had it replaced with the Bristol B.20 rear-defence gun cupola - initially at user unit airfield and later at MUs. B.20 appears to have become a standard production item through the early summer of 1944". As the Airfix kit represents a TF.X it's this cupola that I wanted to use, but am a bit puzzled about the detail. Nice picture of the earlier cupola though! Cheers deecee
  11. The Airfix moulding shows some raised detail on the port side of the fuselage just beneath the cupola, but not quite defined enough to show what it actually is. Now I'm guessing that it's a form of quick release for external access, but I could be wrong. It looks as though the two fasteners are linked by a cord or wire. I have trawled my Beaufighter references, but can find no close-up detail of the configuration. Here's what I have found so far: p.50 Beaufighter Squadrons - canopy slightly ajar with 3 bits of raised detail which is indistinct: no cord/wire visible. photo p.136 Beaufighter at War - canopy open: no external detail: you can however make out the fasteners hanging loose. What is interesting though is the gun barrel pointing up but not from where you would expect - being fixed to the rear of the opening as Airfix have it. It looks as if it is attached to the open cupola. Would this be correct? photo There are various photos of internal fittings in Modellers Datafile by Richard Franks, but it's the external view I need. I would really appreciate some help with this, A drawing or photo would be great. Incidentally, the drawings in Airfix Model World (May 2015) by Terry Higgins are suburb, accurate and with a wealth of information. They show the position of the fasteners and linkage (first drawings ever to do this ?) but is it raised or flush, cord or wire or what? And one more thing ... what is the black dot on the stbd side of the cupola? Cheers deecee
  12. Forget to include this photo in my last post: Isn't this a poor fit for the inner flap!! It seems to be much too small. Surely this is not correct, is it? deecee
  13. Following on from this thread I have a few observations regarding the wing trailing edge. It appears from the photo that the flap trailing edge when raised fits into a shallow rebate, ie, it doesn't quite finish level with the top surface trailing edge. This means that if you decided to drop the flap then you would also need to add a narrow bead of plastic to the upper wing trailing edge to show there is a rebate, and this would need to be painted the undersurface colour, not the internal flap colour. The photo shows this. ( It could be useful if someone knows the actual width of the strip so it could be scaled accurately.) I know the new Airfix MK.Vb does not show this feature. Both upper and lower wing trailing edges finish the same and there is no engraving on the lower wing to show there should be a rebate. Don't know about Revell's new kit, although I see that Tamiya has it marked on the underside. Not many, if any, drawings show this either. Just thought I'd mention it. deecee
  14. Take a look at these two views of the Tiger Moth taken from as near to being in line with the front cabane struts as I could find. You will see that the top cowling panel finishes just in front of the cabane struts and the side panels finish a little further to the rear. This is the same arrangement on all Moths. . . . . and Airfix have got it wrong!! Their front moulding finishes aft of the cabane struts with a step forward to clear the strut and then goes down to be in line with the rear of the side panel. Well when it's glued together it sort of looks OK, but it does affect several things. Firstly, the tread-plate comes too far back and so if you put rigging in line with the front struts as you should, it will go through the tread-plate which is wrong. In fact, the appearance is of an overlong nose with only a short space in front of the windscreen. It can be rectified, but it does require some surgery. I would suggest cutting off the top of the nose moulding down as far as the side panels just enough to leave a little over hang of the side panels. You then need to use plastic card to rebuild the front of the fuselage to meet and match the shortened cowling. Alternatively, you could leave as is and shorten the tread-plate by filing off a small part at the rear, fill and smooth the upper join and scribe a new panel/fuselage join line in front of the struts. . . .or just leave it as is! But it is wrong. There has been a lot said about this new kit and mostly very favourable, but I have to say there are a number of things that irritate me. I do not like the way they have chosen to give the option of rear fuselage strakes. There must be a better way of doing this than serious surgery! I can envisage younger modellers having real trouble with this because it will involve accurate cutting and much filling and smoothing if you don't get it right. This was one of the things that Mark Davies mentioned in his recent review on Hyperscale. Even if you do this accurately it does not represent the top surface correctly. There should be join lines (which are not parallel) and rivets, not just a smooth surface. I also don't like the huge blanked-off holes in the cockpit. Whether you use them or not they still have to be filled and smoothed without damaging the interior details. And finally I can't understand why there is a line of holes underneath the tailplane. This is an internal feature and is surely covered with fabric. I can't find any shots to show this. I just filled them in! I would also have preferred separate venturi (as in the Hurricane kit) rather than being moulded on. I like the kit, but mistakes have been made. deecee.
  15. Hi occa Same aircraft, same day, same daylight, different aircraft attitude. . . . Hardly any under surface detail is visible to the same extent. I'm not sure you are correct about the extra tubes at the side behind the engine. There aren't any. I think it is to do with the way the flooring is mounted between the tubular framework, and it is this framework that appears prominent. cheers, deecee