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

      Ongoing DDoS Attack causing Forum Slowness   26/04/17

      In case you have missed the announcement, the reason that the forum has been slow at times since the minor version update the other day is due to a Denial of Service attack, brute force attack on our email, and judging by the lag with our FTP response, that too.  If you're feeling like you're experiencing a glitch in the Matrix, you're not wrong.  This is the same MO as the attack in September 2016 that occurred when we transitioned to the new version 4 of the software.  We're currently working with US and UK cyber-crime departments, who specialise in this sort of thing, and we're hopeful that we'll be able to track them down this time by using the accumulated evidence already held.    We are pretty certain that it's a continuation of the same attack last year, only at a reduced intensity to deter people from using the site "because it's terribly slow", rather than taking it down completely, and we're also sure of the motivations of those responsible.  Spite.   Please bear with us in the interim, and wish us luck in dealing with these.... "people".

elger

Members
  • Content count

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

809 Excellent

1 Follower

About elger

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday 08/08/81

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

1,514 profile views
  1. The line in the film is "yellow stripes on the wing" which is then identified as a wng leader by the other character. However, I have never heard anything about this being used by the Luftwaffe to indicate wing leaders. Perhaps a bit of poor research in the movie?
  2. "A Malta Story" parts 1 and 2 by Paul Lucas, appearing in Volume 37 issue 10 (December 2015) and issue 11 (January 2016) of SAM, respectively.
  3. In part 2 of the article Lucas does describe how because there were so many Spitfires on board they did run out of paint, adding black to the mixture and towards the end having to thin the paint which by then was not much more than a dark blue gray wash. Lucas estimates that perhaps as few as one third of the Spitfires received a proper coat of Dark Mediterranean Blue with the supposed Sky blue undersides - BR124 2-U being a notable example of this. Some aircraft might not have been repainted on board - according to Lucas five aircraft were suspended from the ceiling making it difficult to repaint them. The identity of these aircraft is not known. Lucas concludes that "Because there was insufficient material to repaint all of the Spitfires, something like two thirds of the Spitfires might have left the USS Wasp in the same disruptive sea camouflage colours and Sky undersurfaces as they had been finished in when they were put aboard and consequently carried these colour schemes into combat" (part 2, page 53). Perhaps the darker, thinned wash made the aircraft look similar to the USN aircraft on board?
  4. @tonyot Lucas mentions it's the first of the two delivery missions, Operation Calendar, and according to the quote from the report, the paint was brought on board on April 13th, one day after the Squadron Leader had complained about the initial colours being wrong.
  5. If Lucas is right it's not a question of "why" - Lucas claims that paint was brought on board. He cites an RAF report on the operation to make this claim; the report states "In consequence the dope supplied by D.S.M. was put on board a.m. 13.4 with the necessary equipment for doping" (cited in part 1, page 53). According to Lucas' article, the reason for it was that just after loading, it was discovered by the squadron leader that the aircraft had been painted the wrong colour. But that is if Lucas is right.
  6. I really enjoyed Paul Lucas' two-part article - it was my first foray into the perils of discussing the Malta blue Spitfires. I was reading it in mind with perhaps eventually one day building Barnham's aircraft, BP955. According to Lucas, BP955 arrived in Scotland for shipment on April 11th, 1942. Citing an RAF report on the operation, Lucas claims that BP955 arrived in ASU sea camouflage (part 1 page 53). Earlier in the article, he convincingly argues that this ASU sea camouflage is Dark Sea Grey and Dark Slate Grey on top and Sky below (part 1 page 52). Once this batch of aircraft were on board the USS Wasp and the pilots arrived, according to the cited report "S/Ldr Gracey who was commanding one of the squadrons complained (...) that the A.S.U. colours were wrong (...). In consequence the dope supplied by D.S.M. was put on board a.m. 13.4 with the necessary equipment for doping" (part 1 page 53). In part 2 of the article, Lucas goes on to discuss in what colour the aircraft might have been repainted with on board the USS Wasp. His conclusion is that as many aircraft as possible were repainted with whatever paint was brought on board, which according to Lucas was most likely Dark Mediterranean Blue on top and Sky Blue below (part 2, page 53). Lucas cites Barnham, who describes the wings of his Spitfire as "blue-grey metal" which Lucas explains might be a partly repainted aircraft which had been delivered in the ASU sea camouflage. This makes sense (although Barnham in his book also consistently describes German aircraft as being all black so with all respect I'm not sure about the reliability of Barnham's recollection of colours). But let's have a look at the well known photo of Barnham's aircraft: First of all - all profiles of this aircraft show it in desert camouflage colours. Are all these previous interpretations wrong and is this aircraft not a sand yellow but actually Dark Sea Gray & Dark Slate Grey repainted perhaps in part with Dark Mediterranean blue? If so - why does the aircraft still appear to have two tones on top? Has one of the two original colours been repainted? Which? Secondly - the aircraft was coded J-1. In this photo, the "1" has been removed apparently. If it was removed on Malta was it scrubbed off somehow or was it repainted? If it's been repainted on Malta, after arrival, what colour did they cover the 1 with? The RN blue that @tonyot mentioned? But surely that's too dark? Whatever colour it is - it blends nicely with the rest of the aircraft. As I said, Lucas' article was my first proper introduction into the quagmire of Malta blue Spitfires - I understand why there is so much discussion about it! But apart from Barnham's aircraft - I do think Lucas makes a good point that at least some of the Malta Spitfires were Dark Mediterranean Blue on top and Sky Blue below. They were probably painted these colours on board the USS Wasp with paint that was brought on board, as was described in the RAF report on the operation which Lucas uses for his article.
  7. this has to be one of the best builds of the Revell kit. Great stuff!
  8. I recall reading something about this a while ago and I think you are correct - I think someone mentioned that the Airfix kit bomb bay is too shallow which results in the cockpit floor being too low otherwise.
  9. Okay I'll bite. 1) Eduard (no competition) 2) Tamiya (although Airfix slightly more accurate in terms of shape) 3) no opinion 4) Early (F/G/H): Hasegawa (correct intakes rear fuselage). Late (J/L) Academy (easier to build; more accurate forward engine nacelles) 5) no opinion 6) Eduard for detail; probably Zvezda for shape and ease of construction 7) Early (A2,3,4) Hasegawa [more accurate than Tamiya; at time of writing rumoured Eduard kits not available]; later (A6, 7, 8, F) also Hasegawa (accurate shape) or Eduard (less accurate shape, complex, but more detail). For D: probably Eduard 8) Hasegawa or Italeri or Eduard rebox of Hasegawa 9) no opinion 10) Tamiya (no competition)
  10. I found Jumpei Temma's drawing quite helpful for the location http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/spit47/spit47e-3.html (quite far down the page). The drawing is also useful for the differences between the 389 and 390 (panel lines around the cockpit). The antenna is offset to the left from the center line a bit.
  11. in my list of modifications I forgot to mention that you'll need to raise the fuselage sides at the rear section of the canopy too with about 1mm; the rear section that Airfix provides is for the pressurised version. I replaced the rear section (as well as the main canopy) with the Eduard IX parts. You'll need to raise the sides of the rear section of the fuselage in that section to make the regular, non pressurised, clear part fit.
  12. of course not! that's how we all learn thanks!
  13. Finished! Photos in Ready for Inspection here:
  14. This is my build of the Airfix Spitfire XIX backdated to type 389. Build thread here: Modifications included the following: Air scoop for compressor removed Fish tail exhausts from Quickboost Cockpit door from spare Eduard Brassin set Various panel lines on fuselage filled around cockpit Added external fuel tank hooks (from spare Special Hobby PE sheet) Added Rebecca beam antenna (scratch) Added canopy closing handle (from spare Special Hobby PE sheet) Replaced wheels with spare Eduard IX parts Cockpit detailed with Eduard and Barraduca parts Cockpit backdated to 389 specification with spare Eduard IX parts (including rear bulkhead) The vehicle in the final pictures is from Tamiya; one pilot figure is from Hasegawa and the other is a slightly modified ICM figure. Thanks for looking! Comments & feedback is welcome of course! - Elger