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

203 Excellent

About ClaudioN

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,118 profile views
  1. Fairey Battle kits

    Yes, it' s a trainer AIRCRAFT OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE 1939-1945: FAIREY BATTLE. © IWM (CH 2141) IWM Non Commercial License
  2. Blackburn Shark 755 Sqn FAA 1939/40

    A few more bits, gleaned here and there... from F. K. Mason "The British Bomber since 1914": "By then, however (April 1937), it had become clear that recurring troubles with the inadequately developed Tiger engine would prevent the Shark from gaining the unqualified confidence of the Fleet Air Arm, particularly at sea. The expected significant increase in engine power had not yet materialised (...) (...) the Bristol Pegasus proved to be superior (as was suggested by flight trials of the pre-production Shark II, K4882) (...) (...) Pegasus engine was some 40 per cent cheaper than the troublesome Tiger, it was logical that the Shark should be taken out of service as soon as possible (...)" Another interesting piece of information is that "the majority of earlier versions" were "modified to the final production standard". Indeed, Sturtivant "FAA aircraft 1920-1939" has mention of many airframes passing through the makers at some time between late 1937 and early 1939. From 1938 work was carried out at the newly-opened Blackburn factory in Dumbarton, the first "rebuilt" Sharks undergoing test flights from nearby Abbotsinch in July ("Scottish Sharks", Flight magazine, July 14, 1938). What was involved in the modifications is not said, but seemingly this meant modification to Tiger-engined Mk. III configuration. Sturtivant book includes a photo of K5656/X3L of No. 755 Squadron, a Mk. II by serial, showing the enclosed canopy and three-bladed propeller. So far I failed to notice another obvious feature, namely that most, or possibly all Sharks in training units had their arrester hook removed. Claudio
  3. Blackburn Shark 755 Sqn FAA 1939/40

    Yes, it was said in an earlier Shark thread, here on Britmodeller. Sorry I can't find it now. By the way, apologies to everybody for repeating myself, as I just re-discovered: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234988960-wartime-shark/ Chris had posted a scanned a page of the Canada's Wings Vol.1 "The Blackburn Shark" book, that explains the Tiger vs. Pegasus story. By the way, I also found a Flight magazine picture of the Pegasus Shark, K4882. This was presented at the S.B.A.C. display at Hatfield on June 29th, 1936 (Note: the Shark Mk. III production specification 19/36 was dated June 16th and it was amended on July 7th.). Claudio
  4. Blackburn Shark 755 Sqn FAA 1939/40

    Never looked at the wing underside in the Flight photo! 'W4' is well visible. The individual letter, unfortunately, not. Claudio
  5. Blackburn Shark 755 Sqn FAA 1939/40

    Graham, thank you for the information. K4882 was one of the first three pre-production Mk. IIs. It was demonstrated at Hendon in 1936 with the Pegasus and closed canopy, Flight magazine typically emphasizing significantly improved performance. Interestingly, in his books Sturtivant reports the same engine for the Shark Mk. III and the Swordfish but, whereas in the latter the Pegasus III.M is rated at 690 h.p., power for the Shark Pegasus is given as 760 h.p. Was it really the same engine? Sturtivant also mentions S.19/36 for the last 95 Sharks and the date of the amendment implies a very quick change of mind. One thought... Around that time, Blackburn had to accept the Perseus in lieu of the Mercury on the Skua. Maybe engine production, availability and allocation to different types had a part in this. Claudio
  6. Blackburn Shark 755 Sqn FAA 1939/40

    Graham, a few aspects about the Shark Mk. III are unclear to me. Sturtivant book "FAA Aircraft, Units and Ships 1920 to 1939" reports 95 aircraft ordered as Mk. IIIs with Pegasus engine. It seems the FAA eventually decided to retain the Tiger engine (only some Canadian Sharks were fitted with the Pegasus), making the Mk. III just a Shark Mk. II with canopy and three-bladed prop. Some Sharks from the first batch of 45 Mk. IIIs (K8891 to K8935) are recorded as serving aboard carriers. I've never seen a photo of a carrier-based Shark with a canopy. Sturtivant notes Mk. III L2349 went to 820 Sqn. on Courageous for "trials with canopy" on 25 July 1938. Could it mean the canopy was a retrofit? K8518, a Mk. II, actually had the closed canopy as seen in this Flight photo. It was back with Blackburn at Brough between 1937 and 1938, possibly for conversion/fitting canopy? Should it be called a Mk. III from then on? From Sturtivant book, L2343 was returned to Brough on January 5th, 1938 for conversion to IIITT and is reported back at Gosport in June 1938. L2359 also went to Brough for conversion to IIITT, on November 24th, 1938 and work was quickly completed on January 3rd, 1939, which may suggest a rather simple conversion. This photo, also from 'Flight', shows two Sharks with the same white code letter 'F', which raises the question what kind of code 'F' actually was. A drawing of the canopy can be found in Flight magazine, 1936. Claudio
  7. Blackburn Shark 755 Sqn FAA 1939/40

    There is a photo of L2359 in the first edition of "The Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm". This aircraft also has low demarcation camouflage and no visible pattern, but roundels and fin flash are the later C/C1 type (narrow yellow and white). A large code 'F' is carried in white on the engine cowling (like in 755 Sqn. Lysanders), standard 4-inch 'ROYAL NAVY' legend and serial appear to be just behind the fuselage roundel. Although captioned as a Mk.II, L2359 is clearly a Mk.III (with enclosed cockpits), so you may need to find a greenhouse and a three-blade prop for your model. No idea about the colour scheme, but land camouflage (dark earth/dark green) is also possible for a second-line FAA aircraft. L2359 was converted to target tug in 1939 and served with No. 2 AACU before going to 755 Sqn. It is tempting to think of colourful yellow-black TT stripes for a model, unfortunately undersides are not visible in the photo. HTH Claudio
  8. Was there a standard size for Royal Navy/FAA serials?

    ... then there were exceptions. Swordfish built pre-war had 8-inch serials, RAF style. When camouflaged some were repainted, a few not. Several Seafires also had 8-inch serials without the 'ROYAL NAVY' legend that, in some cases, was then added in 4-inch characters. Incidentally, this legend appeared from 1941. Plus, some odd stencil styles were used when repainting serials. If you can get hold of Stuart Lloyd's "Fleet Air Arm Camouflage and Margings" 1937-1941, you'll find a lot of useful pictures there. This is Dalrymple & Verdun web page, the title appears to be available from them. Just scroll down the page. I may have seen some artwork of yours on the web? Claudio
  9. Fairey Battle kits

    Allowing for the uncertainty of my measuring equipment (ruler plus Mk.I eyeball), the span and length ratios I mentioned before are perhaps more conclusive. Assuming an average reduction ratio of 0.94 on the two axes, I'd think a copier with 106% enlargement may already return a satisfactory plan. If you have already done this, you know the copier stated ratio cannot be trusted and you need to double-check that. Cheers Claudio
  10. Supermarine Seafire Ib. Hasegawa, 1/48...

    No idea at all, sorry. My first thought was simply metal, very heavily worn metal panels, rather than primer. Hasegawa may know better than we do, but I have no idea whether primer is less subject to chipping off than camouflage colours. Claudio
  11. Fairey Battle kits

    Indeed. There are circles on the drawing to mark positions of roundels (much larger than wheels), but eccentricity is perhaps 0.5 mm on a 27mm (scale) roundel. Anyway, since main scale distances in millimetres are quoted on the drawing, proportions can be worked out proportions, which may be safer, if a bit more tedious. Claudio
  12. Supermarine Seafire Ib. Hasegawa, 1/48...

    Right, it's a Mk.IIC. Unfortunately, the serial appears to be overpainted. Meanwhile, I found the other IWM picture featuring MB345, taken in July 1943 right before Operation Husky. BIG BRITISH SHIPS IN THE IONIAN SEA AS INVASION OF SICILY BEGAN. 10 TO 16 JULY 1943, ON BOARD HMS FORMIDABLE. BIG SHIPS OF FORCE "H" WERE IN THE IONIAN SEA AT THE START OF THE SICILY INVASION.. © IWM (A 18314) IWM Non Commercial License
  13. Fairey Battle kits

    Not exactly: the ratio is 0.927 for length and 0.945 for span. Claudio
  14. Supermarine Seafire Ib. Hasegawa, 1/48...

    Sure, but look at this one THE ROYAL NAVY DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. © IWM (A 17076) IWM Non Commercial License From what I see from Sturtivant, "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939-1945", MB345 was with 801 Sqn. first, then went to 885 Sqn. in February 1943. The single-letter code might be usual for 801 Sqn. where, however, 'K' had been MB366. All three aircraft in this picture appear to be Mk. IBs with the Vokes filter: THE ROYAL NAVY DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. © IWM (A 17083) IWM Non Commercial License I would suggest the two pictures give us a view of both sides of O/6B. The Squadron Signal book "Fleet Air Arm", by Ron Mackay, has a picture of MB345, now fully coded O/6K, on the deck of Formidable together with MB182:O/6F. It would seem the Hasegawa box art reproduces part of this photo. Likely period is early 1943. HTH Claudio
  15. Fairey Battle kits

    I looked into my Battle references, if this can help. 48th scale plans by Ian Huntley were published in Scale Aircraft Modelling vol. 22, issue 2 (April 2000). This may possibly be a reprint of plans in Aviation News vol. 7, no. 6 (that I do not have). 72nd scale plans in SAM Publications Aviation Guide on the Fairey Battle appear to be scaled from the Ian Huntley plans, as far as I can tell. in October 2000, Scale Aircraft Modelling vol. 22, issue 8 included a feature by Paul Lloyd on correcting the Classic Airframes Battle. A partial plan and sketches are included, supposedly in 48th scale. Unfortunately, the plan appears to have been reduced to fit the page: the author gives the correct length of the Battle, 267.6 mm, but the plan length is just 248 mm. Half-span (what is shown in the drawings) is 162 mm instead of 171.45 mm. I do not know which kind of distortion this means. Correct distances (for 48th scale) are quoted in millimetres on the drawing, so this may still be useful regardless. Information are also given in the article about some airframe details. Claudio