Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

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

      PhotoBucket are no longer permitting 3rd party hosting   01/07/17

      As most of you are now painfully aware, Photobucket (PB) are stopping/have stopped allowing their members to link their accumulated years of photos into forums and the like, which they call 3rd party linking.  You can give them a non-refundable $399 a year to allow links, but I doubt that many will be rushing to take them up on that offer.  If you've previously paid them for the Pro account, it looks like you've got until your renewal to find another place to host your files, but you too will be subject to this ban unless you fork over a lot of cash.   PB seem to be making a concerted move to another type of customer, having been the butt of much displeasure over the years of a constantly worsening user interface, sloth and advertising pop-ups, with the result that they clearly don't give a hoot about the free members anymore.  If you don't have web space included in your internet package, you need to start looking for another photo host, but choose carefully, as some may follow suit and ditch their "free" members at some point.  The lesson there is keep local backups on your hard drive of everything you upload, so you can walk away if the same thing happens.   There's a thread on the subject here, so please use that to curse them, look for solutions or generall grouse about their mental capacity.   Not a nice situation for the forum users that hosted all their photos there, and there will now be a host of useless threads that relied heavily on photos from PB, but as there's not much we can do other than petition for a more equitable solution, I suggest we make the best of what we have and move on.  One thing is for certain.  It won't win them any friends, but they may not care at this point.    Mike.

expositor

Members
  • Content count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About expositor

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

669 profile views
  1. Pappy, Nothing to add re: the lights and whatnot, but as to aerials, I started a thread over at J-Aircraft re: radio leads. You should check it out in the 'General' category. For the early Kates there were leads from the horizontal tails to a point just outside of the wing fold, with a connecting fuselage lead halfway between wing and tail to mid-fuselage, a diagram of which was posted by THE expert Jim Lansdale. For the later Kates with a canopy post, two leads went from vertical tail, one to the post, and from the same point to an insulator aft of the rear cockpit, about half-way to the tail. One of the photos posted faintly shows that. Hope this helps you.... Ciao!
  2. Hey Mad, Not to be naysayer here, but if I remember correctly, that kit has the later rear cockpit for the radar version, even though they provide markings for the earlier version...unless you do surgery to make the fuselage equipment cover look like a 55 gallon (well here in USA) fuel drum used in the Taranto raid....If you do the later version, as you indicated, no need for the lighter colors on the lower wing; but I've been known to be wrong!
  3. I'll give it another shot GB; thanks again!
  4. Hey Intruder, I recall in an SAM (the first one) from many years ago a feature article on the PBY. In the side and top profiles was one of the RAAF (don't remember which version, but probably a '-5') with a dark sea grey (maybe EDSG or their version) and a dark blue (Oxford?) scheme. I'll try to find it to get you particulars, but it'll take time....Maybe another of our forum mates remembers that one as well and can post pics in the meantime? Maybe those colors strike your fancy?
  5. Thanks for that link GB, but the site was shown to be insecure, so I refrained from joining. Have you or anyone else encountered that warning? Is my Firefox unduly alarmed??? Thanks again!
  6. Not that I'm an expert, but if I recall my time at the Luftwaffe Experten forum, the preponderance of opinion was that all of the earlier Ju-88's were in 70/71 before the use of the greys, whether used over land or sea. Much as I wanted to use 72/73 for a KG 40 '88, 70/71/65 is the way to go. As an aside, the Do-217's were probably in 72/73 regardless of unit mission, rather than 70/71....I really miss that forum!
  7. I too joined, 10 years ago now, to ask questions that now go unanswered as Jack stated. Like John, after the modeling threads were killed, I just go there infrequently. I used to like the 'crash' thread too, but one snarky bloke took the joy out of that for me....
  8. Hi M-M, As Dave mentioned, there were two threads about this, his from 2012 where he posted the cockpit picture from the Aeroguide which I mentioned in my thread of 2015; my search beforehand didn't turn up his thread which answered my question. You can see the goggled PPI just under the rear MG in said pic....Tony O posted some nice pics of his always great models there as well.
  9. We have gotten off the Bermuda....Since Nick was kind enough to post the text of DTD 360 in reference to a Fulmar photo that I too was confused about, might I ask if the diagrams it referred to are available as well? The text indicates a sky grey and sky pattern for the NF undersurfaces; a mirror of the upper surface pattern? Thanks!
  10. Dog's right...but legal actions? Really? Oh well, some sue to shame all into believing who knows what, but for arguing the colors of bloody airplanes...? Back to the photo if l may. Could there be a red-yellow-green shift altering the tint of what could be that dark tan color the US Army had, much like those Hudsons and B-17's in the photos in Dana's paperback, which is lighter than MAP dark earth? Don't the red and yellow of the insignias look a bit washed out? That red center shouldn't fade while the blue is so vibrant and new looking, no? Am l wrong to expect the insignia yellow to be closer to that used by the US services, since that in the photo looks more like the USN Lemon yellow carrier tail color than Insignia Yellow. I do not know the timeline for these particular planes and the production of US paints to British spec, so l could be all wet here...again. Ciao!
  11. Amen!!! You'll excuse a half-English American for that, no?
  12. Hoping my friends (if I'm not too presumptuous) at J-Aircraft won't mind, this link should help: http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/bill_sanborn/phmod21.pdf
  13. Tony, more great work! Thanks for sharing.
  14. Thanks GB, and all; very informative!!!
  15. OK GB, my understanding is that in FAA squadron marking procedure, the number indicated the mission and would differentiate separate squadrons within the same posting or ship. Many of the photos of FAA a/c in the US obviously deviate from that like the one in question. While we're at it, how about those strange codes seen on Corsairs like '7V7,' 'llVll,' (might be an l off?) etc. that don't fit into that station, mission, individual a/c protocol? Thanks for your time and expertise!