Matt_

I hope everyone who went had a great time. I got back late last night after packing up and driving all the way back to Sussex. We (Tangmere) had a couple of lovely club dinners, and lots of nice chats with people coming up to the table (so if any of those were you, hello! 👋) As usual, some of the stuff on display was stunning. Whilst it's often an exhausting experience, there are always many things to be inspired by for the year ahead. Personally I was inspired by a few builds around the show to grab my first Maschinen Krieger kit. Maybe if I can finish one of the five or six things I've got on the go at the moment, I may even do something with it for next year. Or is that just wishful thinking? 😅

While I'm sure there are many who would be happy for a cheery conflab, as someone who's ASD themselves I can say with certainty that there are many people who would not want to have to ask about the thousands of models that they look at during the weekend at SMW in order to find out a little more about them. To be clear, I'm not telling you that you have to label everything - that's up to you how you want to set up your SIG. Just asking that you think about the fact that not everyone is the same. If you don't want labels cluttering the table, maybe stick them to the underside of the models so people can have a look if they want. 😇

After 2 days, I'm absolutely frazzled. Managed to only buy an old magazine for £2 on Saturday! 🤯 (although I did mostly only look at the club tables on Sat). Took in the remaining club and SIG tables this morning, followed by a good nose around the competition, and then lastly round the traders - and still only spent another thirty quid. Hope everyone else had a great time, and has plenty of inspiration to feed them for the next 12 months.

Really looking forward to SMW this week. First time I've been organised enough to book somewhere to stay. I always end up running out of time to see everything on Saturday, so hopefully it can be a bit more relaxed this time. Even managed to blag dinner from my sister when I stop off on the drive up on Friday. 🍲 Good to see a couple of bigger companies other than just Airfix turning up this time. And huge thanks to all the people involved with running things - hope everything goes off without too much stress.

They're the little ports on either side of the camel's hump where the links that hold the ammo in a belt are ejected. I should note that is the Shuttleworth replica Camel

I was looking at this kit the other day after stumbling across it when researching for my WNW build. Looks fantastic. The link chutes do look very out of place compared with the rest of the fine detail though.

* looks around nervously * Oh dear. I seem to have made a terrible faux pas. 😅

Managed to grab a Bentley Camel from the recent Hannants stock. But sadly it's not in the stash as, shock horror, I'm building it!

@Magpie22 Thanks Peter. Interesting about the asymmetry. I didn't spot that in the Tamiya 1/32 instructions, but they do have it represented as such. I've just had another look through my books, and the Valiant Wings book has a drawing denoted as from the FBVI flight manual with both sides bulged. Caption says "later version". Next to it is is photo of flat-sided FBVI marked "earlier". There is also a drawing denoted as from from the FB26 manual that calls out only the starboard side as bulged. None of the 1/48 aftermarket canopies I'm aware of have the asymmetric setup. Not RF610, but I found a nice pic of RF608 and there is no bulge on the port side (given everything is covered in snow, I'm guessing it's probably Banff, though I don't have operational record for 608). In lieu of anything more concrete, and given bulge is not clearly apparent in any shot I have of Rf610, I think I'll probably go with that. If for no other reason than the Taurus canopy is like that and it's the best one. 😅

Yes. I agree. My point was more that the original photo was posted as proof that there was no dihedral issue, but imho it does not irrefutably show that. It was not my photo to prove the dihedral was wrong. I stated that I was not convinced it was evidence it was definitely correct.

Enough Jägermeisters and one might go crosseyed enough to think it looks right. 🤪 😜

I'm not entirely convinced. The picture showing the dihedral has a perfect straight line across the upper surfaces, whereas tips should be slightly above the root. At least they are on Arthur Bentley's drawings. However, overall the detail does look really nice.

How did this come out in the end @Heraldcoupe? I had a quick search, but it doesn't look like you have a build or RFI.

Thanks @EwenS That was my understanding too. Maybe some day an old photo may emerge with that one exception I'm dreaming of. Do you know anything about the fuel tanks or canopy? For the canopy, I know the 1/32 Tamiya kit has the canopy in multiple parts in order to allow the depiction of the blown side panels. Their callouts have LR303 and A52-518 (HR460) with the bulges, HX922 without. There is a clear picture of A52-518 fitted as such - though that's post the end of the war in Europe after it was shipped to Aus. I can't find a clear picture either way for LR303 or HX922 All those airframes were all built mid to late 43. HR460 is a Standard, HX922 and LR303 are Hatfield. So doesn't look specific to location. I guess I may just have to pick one. I'm even less clear about the internal tank setup. 🤔

What I really want, is to find evidence of a Banff Mossie loaded like the one below, but an earlier airframe that had seen service during D-Day and still showing some remnants of the invasion stripes. A man can dream. As I've drawn a complete blank on that front, I think my subject will be RF610 as she's in the strike wing config I'd like to model, and there's a decent amount of interest in the EDSG uppers. A 248 squadron MKVI build by Standard Motors, delivered late '44 or '45. Looks like it's fitted with 100 gallon tanks (silver? they look brighter than if they were Sky. Aviaeology seem to depict silver/metal in their literature), and dual stack rocket rails. I'm assuming it's EDSG over Sky, with serials showing on a background of the factory camo colours. Was there any upper stencil data re-applied other than the no-step panels over the rads? Fuselage codes look to me like they are probably 24 inch (relative size to the serial)? DM-R overpainted as DM-H For this period of Mk VI at Banff, does anyone know how the bomb bay would have been fitted-out? Would it have had just the small tanks in the rear of the bomb bay (did they carry bombs with this?), or would it have used the extra long-rage internal tank? I read somewhere that some later production FB VIs had bulged side windows on the cockpit. Can't tell from this pic. Anyone have any other useful reference/info ?