Aidrian

Paper drawings can sometimes be problematic as the paper used in plotters, magazines and many books is not usually a terribly stable material - it may shrink in one direction or both and not necessarily to the same degree across the page, which is why full size drawings routinely say "do not scale". The differences can be quite marked, and sometimes the only practical fix is to scan the drawing, and adjust the scale and aspect ratio to get the major dimensions right when you print. Drawings taken from aperture cards are often very wobbly indeed Printers and scanners can also give you slightly different scales in the X and Y axes which can compound the problem - CAD apps usually have a facility to re-scale a plot job in either direction to suit the plotter/printer being used.

Thanks - possibly too much NS light grey on the brain. I'll edit so some poor sod doent come across that in a few years and think that I knew what Iwas talking about...

Theere's no single correct answer. Most of this comes from carefully hoarded posts by Dana Bell who knows a thing or two about this.... For the landing gear (but not the wheels) Vought built machines kept using non specular gray for a while after the change to overall GSB, as Chrysler who made the gear had apparently laid in vast stocks of Light Gray paint. The Vought diagram below gives four options for this scheme - six if you allow for three different versions of blue. If your Corsair is to be in TSS using US equivalent colours these woudl be ANA 613 OD, 603 Sea Gray and 602 Light Gray ANA 610 Sky underneath and in the wheel wells, and the gear itself was almost certainly Non-Specular Light Gray Of curse, what happened with components that had been overhauled by the use is another matter - I blelive the standard RAF and FAA finish for repaired components that required repainting was aluminium, but don't have a definitive reference for this. The wheels themselves generally show up as a light colour even on overall blue machines, so that probably rules out all the blue shades even on machines with the landing gear finshed in GSB. It's not white, so that suggests NS light gray or more likely aluminium as some factory photos with nice fresh paint have a distinct shine which isn't something associated with NS Light Gray.This is not the modern bright silver colour usied on cars but something that looks distinctly grey at any distance other right up close. I use a mix of about 50/50 whiite and silver for this PIc

Blues were often problematic, especially when they used an ultramarine pigment, as the blue tends to bleach when mixed with zinc oxide white, which was the usual white used in this period. (Yes titanium white was well known back then, but most of it came from Norway, which made it a bit difficult to get hold of in large quantities). Prussian blue also fades in the presence of some other compounds, though the effect is slower and less startling. So, if the paint used for PRU had a significant amount of ultramarine in the mix and if the grey component contained zinc oxide, as seem almost certain, it would be likely to fade quickly. Heaing off on a tangent, this may be why the post-war roundel blue changed; the earlier version is very slightly warmer and suggests an ultramarine pigment but the 1964 version of BS381C has a new number (110) for Roundel Blue; from memory (not keen on spending an hour hunting through the shelves for what I need ) the old 1948 version (108) is called Aircraft Blue. The later colour is a very slightly cooler shade, which suggests pthalo blue, which is far more stable.

I havent seen one on a P-47 or in NW Europe before - but, yes, they were used in the Pacific; there are pics of Kiwi F4U-1Ds with a "daisy cutter" on one wing pylon and a depth charge on the other. I have sometimes wondered how they were fused; setting a hydrostatic fuse to zero feet as I read somewhere seems likely to be a bit frightening if one were to hang up.

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" - I think we might sometimes say something similar regarding some discussions of colour.

Philosophising can be illuminating sometimes, and can lead you down some very strange rabbit holes at other times. There are individual differences in perception which are not necessarily due to imperfect colour vision and which can be cultural as well as simply variations in interpretation. For example blue as a distinct colour was not known to many ancient civilisations; the dark yellows that some, like me, see as a dark greenish shade can apparetnly look brown to others - which latter, I suspect, might be one among many reasons for some of the electrons and ink (and vitriol) expended on discussions of PC10.

The book was published in 1976, reprinted some 35 years ago(???) and is not routinely available on the second hand market at prices accessible to most modellers. Two of the copies I inspected a few years ago had had the card removed by a previous owner, so do be careful if buying a used copy. Perhaps there is an unfilled need for an updated and more accessible version or at least a colour deck.

Skuas Rocs Baffins and Walruses (Walri?) are the only 1930s types I can think of that had aluminium paint on the metal parts, though the amount of visible metal on a Baffin was pretty limited . The Shark, which had a metal fuselage appears to have had Cerrux Grey paint on the fuselage.

Oooohhhh! Yes please.

Some RAF Buccaneers didn't have the covers for the hinges fitted; only the front covers were removed on some machines, both covers were taken off on others. As far as I can tell this started in the mid to late 1970s; a quick run though a collection of photos and books suggest that the remaining RN Buccaneers also had the covers removed about the same time. Photos from Thunder and Lightnings - https://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/

Ventura as noted above, or there's one from the Wellington Territorial Squadron on Xtradecal 48176. You'll want a Dallas hood as well from memory - one for the Monogram kits was issued by Falcon/Squadron, but I think this was updated while ago to suit the Tamiya kit, so may need some surgery to work with the Monogram kit. I might have an original one in the spares box if you get stuck.

Progress delayed waiting for back ordered bits. I gave up on the CMK wheels with the diamond tread tyres, they were just too skinny and the whole thing looked rather like an enormously fat man on a unicycle, Unfortunately the alternatives all seem to be backordered everywhere, so the plain tyres (ribbed with most of the tread worn off?) from the kit have been pressed into service in the interim. The canopy has a vey slight but noticeable bottle glass effect and I might go for a vacform one after all - backordered again... Added a "white" centre line tank with a bit of a dent in the nose; this combination seems very common on GSB machines. It's actually more a sort of grotty beige with chips and streaks, though the flash has overexposed it rather badly. I wonder if I need to add a little more dust and grot to the underside; I am trying to keep a bit of contrast between the top surfaces which were exposed to the sun and rain and the underside which spent most of its time shaded. I don't think I'll add the extra ferry tanks or ordnance, though I might eventually get round to making a trolley with a depth charge and a daisy cutter.

Good looks is a relative thing when thinking about some FAA types - impressive looks maybe, but with the possible exception of the Seahawk, an RN jet is not usually something I would automatically consider as an aesthetic treat. I have gnerally tended to go for wings extended, but that's just due to laziness and to the infernally cluttered look of many wingfolds, with various hydraulic lines and cylinders, locking pins, stays, and cables needing to be represented in what is often a very narrow space; getting a reasonably accurate wingfold thats strong enough to withstand occasional handling and cleaning isn't always straightforward. Some kits. like the Airfix quarter-inch scale Buccaneer and the Classic Airframes Seahawk, came with a wingfold option, but the mechanism often tends to be simplified - seeing that this area will be one of the more visible parts of the model (far more so than the cockpit) that might not be altogether a good thing. The geomery is crucial - get it right with both wings at the right angle and the wing tips level with each other and you will be thrilled with the look, but when building from raw materials it's very easy to get it slightly wrong - after a few goes trying to adjust the angle and position of several microscopic fittings you will probably want to take up Morris dancing instead. If you really want to do it, it's an ideal job for the 3D printer, but might I suggest you find away to include a way of adding a short length of piano wire or something similar to add a bit of strength?

Interesting - the same machine at a different time and place and being used by another Squadron come up othe IWM photos site. I wonder what the chances were of the same Liberator being photagraphed twice, so far apart? https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205209746