Jump to content
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. :)


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,165 Excellent

About Seahawk

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6,649 profile views
  1. Malta 1949

    Correct: NI is not a valid serial prefix for any RAF aircraft. That is a photo of ex-RH821 as sold to Pakistan as N1126. The other one is presumably N1125 (ex RH820). N1126 was returned to the RAF after evaluation, reserialled as WA560 and converted to a T.4. N1125 didn't even make it to Pakistan: it was written off at Shaibah after the ferry pilot allowed it to swing on take-off, resulting in a collapsed undercarriage. Looks as if British markings were retained for the ferry flight.
  2. Building a wartime Watch Office

    In 1955 the ROC were given the new role of monitoring and reporting fallout as part of the UK Warning and Monitoring Organisation, funded by the Home Office. At that point posts began to be relocated underground though the reporting platforms lingered on for a while afterwards: I think I can remember a rusty relic on the peak of a wet and misty hill at Black Rock, Camborne. The aircraft reporting role died out in the early 1960s. Members of the organisation continued to wear RAF uniform and, perhaps as incentives to perform a grim role, jollies in aircraft from various RAF stations continued, in my father's case RAF St Mawgan and RNAS Culdrose. The organisation was stood down in 1991 as part of the "peace dividend" (remember that?) in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall. For anyone walking the South West Coastal Path there is a preserved post, lovingly tended by ex-ROC members under National Trust protection at Veryan on the south coast of Cornwall. http://www.roc-heritage.co.uk/england.html
  3. Nowadays Gator glue is apparently The Thing to use to affix clear parts. I've thinking about using it on the small side windows of a Whitley and Lancaster I'm fiddling around with but am a bit nervous: as I understand it, the stuff is only glorified PVA glue (or maybe even just PVA glue) which is water soluble, which suggests to me the windows might fall/be poked out irretrievably into the interior when the model is washed pre painting. Has anyone had this actually happen to them? Or is anyone able to offer tips to overcome the problem? Would be delighted to be told I'm worrying unnecessarily. Thnaks in advance. (I've just been readinf CedB's Ju 52 build thread but didn't want to hijack it.)
  4. NB the man said Seafire XVII. You may come across an older Airfix 1/48 kit marketed as a Seafire III: not one of Airfix's finest hours. And no folded wing option.
  5. Fairey Albacore in Far East Service Questions ?

    The actual caption narrows the location down to Puttalam. Ballance: FAA Squadrons and Units lists only 2 2nd-line units being based there: 729 and 757 Squadrons of which only 757 is recorded as operating the Fulmar. The example given is BP778, in July 1944. Sturtivant's FAA Aircraft 1939-45 records this aircraft as making a forced landing after suffering engine failure on take-off: result was Cat Z damage ("likely to be struck off charge"). Although the aircraft in the photo has clearly not suffered Cat Z damage, the coincidence with the date inclines me to speculate rpt speculate whether BP778 is shown. I wouldn't have thought there would have been too many Fulmars hanging around out there by then.
  6. Airfix Me262 - a look in the box

    Efim Gordon's German Aircraft in the Soviet Union and Russia (Midlands, 2008) says (p.222-3) that during Soviet testing a tendency became apparent to enter an uncontrollable dive at high speeds. According to him German test pilots had found the same thing. Apart from this "perfidious" behaviour at high speeds, Soviet pilots gave a generally positive assessment of its handling, though noting its poor takeoff performance, necessitating long runways or RATO (p.226). Apparently serious consideration was given to putting a reverse-engineered Me 262 into production but (p.228) A S Yakovlev records in his memoirs that, at a meeting chaired by Stalin, he (Yakovlev) said he was dead against it: he considered it "a poor quality machine, difficult in handling and notorious for a number of fatal accidents it had suffered in Germany. If adopted in the USSR, it would, in Yakovlev's opinion, discourage Soviet pilots from mastering jet-powered aircraft. Furthermore, allocating all the resources to copying a German design would seriously prejudice the development of indigenous Soviet designs and be damaging to indigenous Soviet jet aircraft technology." [Said the completely disinterested designer of the Yak-15!!] I suspect the last sentence applied in the UK and US, only more so.
  7. And that's where Airfix get you: regardless of the quality issues (and the regrettable deviations into 1/48), you can't fault their subject selection. Apart from the inexcusable ignoring of the Blackburn Shark TT.III, of course.
  8. 734 Sqn FAA Whitley VII

    If I had to hazard a guess at the identity of the 734 Sq Whitley in Bomber Command style camouflage (see post 2), out of all the 734 Sq Whitleys identified by Sturtivant (see post 5) I would plump for BD565. It was part of the same batch of 20 aircraft as BD622 which we know (see photo in link in post 7) was a GR.VII in BC camouflage. In fact owing to a blackout block in the serial allocation it's actually just 12 airframes away from it. (BD561-BD625: 20 Whitley VIIs delivered in July 1942.)
  9. 734 Sqn FAA Whitley VII

    Very well found! Certainly no aerials under the wings: spine not visible. No markings whatsoever visible. It has dark upper surfaces with no visible camouflage pattern and light undersides. The upper/lower camo demarcation sweeps down from the leading edge of the wing to follow a low demarcation around the nose. That low demarcation seems to rule out the EDSG/DSG/white scheme. The light undersides seem to rule out a standard Bomber Command scheme. That would incline me to think of a Temperate Sea Scheme (EDSG/DSG/Sky with low demarcation) but I can't for the life of me recall ever having seen a Whitley in such a scheme. And I don't think the FAA, at that stage of the war, would bother repainting an ancient relic ekeing out her days as a flying classroom into "proper" FAA colours. Would be interested in what others think. BTW on page 47 of the Air Britain Whitley File there is a photo of LA794 (which went on to become 734 Sq's W0Y) during its previous life as a trials aircraft with Armstrong Whitworth: it is in the late Coastal Command scheme (all white with EDSG only on surfaces visible from directly above). She has a full aerial suite. I doubt if she was repainted before going to 734 Sq but fitting her out as an engine handling classroom may well have encompassed removing the aerials. 734 may not have had many Whitleys but it seems they were in at least 3 schemes! PS See this thread for discussion of Whitley VIIs apparently delivered in Bomber Command finish, as per one of the aircraft in the photo I mentioned in post 2: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235023294-whitley-question/&tab=comments#comment-2757095
  10. Fairey Albacore in Far East Service Questions ?

    Please do: fascinating! In a very old copy of Flypast a photo of a Fulmar with blue/white roundels was used as wallpaper over which the article text was printed. No identification markings visible. ISTR that my request on here years back for further information drew a nil return. As elusive as Singapore Sharks apparently.
  11. 734 Sqn FAA Whitley VII

    Only indirectly. From the link you provide, the initial idea was to replace 734's Whitleys with Lancasters but instead 734 disbanded and the Lancasters went to 780 Sq which reformed at Hinstock a month later. This time the idea was to use them for observer, rather than engine handling, training. Sturtivant's FAA Aircraft 1939-45 lists a total of 16 Whitleys (1 B.V and 15 GR.VII) in FAA hands, but concrete information of only 8, all GR.VIIs, serving with 734 Sq. These are Z9379 W0X, BD425 W0Z, BD429 also W0Z, BD430, BD431, BD565, EB393 and LA794 W0Y. Both BD425 and BD429 are attested as retaining the W0Z code after leaving 734 Sq so it's apparently not an error.
  12. 734 Sqn FAA Whitley VII

    Yes, there's a photo on p.40 of Theo Ballance's The Squadrons and Units of the Fleet Air Arm (Air Britain, 2016). However it's a distant shot, "tantalising" as Ballance describes it. All you can say is that it's a pair of Whitleys on an airfield with some other types. We'll have to take Ballance's word for it that the airfield is Worthy Down, the date Aug 1944 and that the Whitleys are Mk VIIs of 734 Sq. The accompanying writeup about the squadron lists Whitley VII LA794 as coded "W0Y" but offers no details on how the code was presented: I would surmise in yellow in a single block aft of the roundels but that is pure speculation. The Air Britain serial listing for LA794 confirms it as a Mk.VII delivered between Nov and Dec 1942 and simply says "To Admiralty 2/2/44." From the photo one Whitley appears to have a high fuselage colour demarcation, with the undersides and fins in black, the other a low fuselage colour demarcation. Even at distance demarcations are visible in the upper surface colours, which suggests more Dark Earth/Dark Green than Temperate Sea Scheme. 734 Sq had a short existence: the Whitleys were flying classrooms to teach Barracuda pilots Merlin engine handling techniques eg the effects of various boost and throttle settings. It formed at Worthy Down on 14 Aug 1944, moved to Hinstock on 21 Aug 1945 and disbanded on 21 Feb 1946.
  13. Fairey Gannet AS.4, Marineflieger

    Very nicely done. The kit is a bit over-engineered but, as you have shown, worth it in the end From the number of people complaining about broken canopies with this kit, I have a theory that Revell employed a man specially to make sure that all Gannet canopies went out pre-snapped.
  14. Airfix Focke Wulf 189

    Many thanks. Looking through Patrick's list I thought that or the 3-parter in Modelworld the most likely candidates. Yes, think I've got an Airfix Fw 189 stashed away somewhere.
  15. Aoshima - are they rare?

    Not sure what subjects you are talking about. If aircraft, the phrase "made some years back by Aoshima" set alarm bells ringing. Back in the 1970s one of the medium-sized model shops started marketing about 8 Aoshima 1/72 aircraft kits, all of Japanese subjects. The SAM was one of them, I think there may have been a JUDY in there as well. I ordered them sight unseen: they were quite horrible - I wouldn't have wanted the neighbours seeing me put them in my bin. More recently (like over the last 20 years), however, they have produced a number of excellent 1/72 aircraft kits, which are highly regarded: I think there is a GEORGE. Similar story with 1/700 waterline warships. When the big 4 (Tamiya, Hasegawa, Fujimi, Aoshima) carved up the Japanese WW2 navy between them, Aoshima were by far the weakest link. (Tamiya were excellent, Hasegawa pretty good, Fujimi usable and Aoshima worth buying only if you cared passionately about the subject.) However I understand they have put out some 1/700 waterlines in recent years that stand comparison with the best of their competitors. Edit: oops, didn't spot this in the car section. Apologies.