This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here:

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".


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

140 Excellent

About ClaudioN

  • Rank
    Established Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

944 profile views
  1. Really a model? Excellent. Claudio
  2. Always fancied building 112/S, since I first saw a photo of it. Great build, very nice model. Claudio
  3. If you haven't already found it, the CMPR modellers' club in Ravenna, Italy, has some interesting stuff available on their web page: S.55A S.55M S.55X Enjoy Claudio
  4. IIRC, the S.55X was the final development of the S.55 line. There were subtle differences between subversions and, I'm afraid, this went as far as the shape of the two float/boats (commonly called "scarponi", literally "boots") and their spacing, i.e., the centre section width. The S.55X finish is elegant and comparatively colourful. If you wish to model a military version there may be more work waiting for you.
  5. Thank you very much for the link, I didn't know about the article, but I have to say I'm not that much into the Spanish Civil War. If you are interested in the Ethiopian War, THE reference I would suggest is an Italian book: "Guerra Aerea sull'Etiopia 1935-1939" by Roberto Gentilli, Edizioni Aeronautiche Italiane (EDAI), 1992 (224 pages). Very highly recommended... that is, if you can read Italian and if you can still find a copy. Best regards Claudio
  6. Looked into a couple of books. Predictably, plenty of space is given to the big formation flights, whereas peacetime military use is neglected. Italian military S.55s were operated throughout the Mediterranean, some of them from Rhodes with the Stormo Misto Egeo (Aegean Composite Wing), where they were replaced by the Cant. Z. 501. The aircraft was finally withdrawn from service in 1938, the last Regia Aeronautica units with the S.55 being 31° and 35° Stormo Bombardamento Marittimo (Maritime Bomber Wing). Its replacement in these two units was the Cant. Z. 506 three-engined floatplane bomber. In the few pictures I've seen, Italian S.55s appear to be painted aluminium overall, no trace of camouflage. A few had the characteristic red wing stripes employed by the Regia Aeronautica to make aircraft more conspicuous. Seemingly, three S.55X were flown during the Spanish civil war, carrying no markings at all. Romanian S.55's were identified by Roman numerals, which suggests that your picture of 'VI' shows indeed of a Romanian aircraft. My (very trivial) explanation for the late date in the caption is that digits may have been transposed in the record, actual year being 1934. Romanian aircraft carried the blue-yellow-red tricolour painted on the rudders, but possibly no roundels. I do not know how long they served, maybe these ones were eventually camouflaged? During the war with Ethiopia 141^ Squadriglia Ricognizione Marittima (Maritime Reconnaissance Squadron/Flight) was shipped to Abyssinia (Zula) where it operated between May 1936 and May 1938 with 9 (uncamouflaged) Cant. Z. 501, 4 CMASA MF4 and 3 Fiat CR 20. This was the only seaplane unit there. HTH Claudio
  7. I do not have my S.55 references at hand right now, but I cannot recall any uses by the Regia Aeronautica during WW II. I agree the 'Romanian' picture is slightly suspect. Only visible markings are the Savoia-Marchetti 'flag' on the tailboom and a Roman numeral 'VI' on the nose. WWII camouflage for an Italian maritime type would be 'dark sea grey' (Grigio Azzurro Scuro) over 'sky grey' (Grigio Azzurro Chiaro). I'll try to find out something more. Claudio
  8. The practice appears to have been common till the late 'thirties. Think of the radial-engined Hawker Hart export variants, for instance. To pursue a sale to the Romanian air force, Savoia-Marchetti in Italy went as far as turning their S.79 tri-motor into a twin with in-line Junkers Jumo engines.
  9. AFAIK, on the F4F the USN did want the 14-cylinder R-1830 with a two-speed, two-stage supercharger. Alternative engines were considered by Grummans for two reasons: the French export order in 1939, for which the Wright Cyclone was offered persisting development troubles with the two-stage supercharger, that led the USN to consider trials with two alternative, less complex engines: the Wright R-1820 Cyclone, for which two early airframes of the initial F4F-3 order were modified into XF4F-5s (earlier versions of the Cyclone already powered Brewster F2As, Grumman F3F-2s and F3F-3s) the single-stage Pratt and Whitney R-1830-90 Twin Wasp, for which a single prototype XF4F-6 was ordered, followed by stop-gap production of the F4F-3A I believe design work for the Cyclone powerplant was related to the French order. Curiously, things had gone the other way round with the previous F3F, where the 14-cylinder, two-row P&W R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior of the F3F-1 was replaced by the single-row Wright R-1820 of the later F3F variants, with minimal difference in overall length.
  10. The XF4F-3 was designed for the R-1830 and I think you are right thinking that the Cyclone engine mountings were "longer than needed" (probably, long enough to preserve balance). I have no experience of the Hasegawa F4F. The Airfix one, IMHO, is just 1-2 mm short, if you wish to care about. My feeling is that the difference is concentrated between the wing leading edge and the cowling, so it may be noticed by a keen eye, but it can also be easily modified, if needed.
  11. This: might help work out values for distances 'c' and 'd', but not for 'a' and 'b'. Scroll down the page and you'll find a quoted (in inches) fuselage profile with all stations from 2 onwards, that is, from the engine firewall to the rudder post. Personally, I do trust scale drawings by Jumpei Temma.
  12. Great find Simon! ...and very good idea Mark about the fuselage band. The photo is now also accessible at the IWM web site: There it is dated June 27th, 1942. It is part of a collection including shots from a visit by the C-in-C, Home Fleet and some deck-landing practice, so it must be close to the carrier commissioning. Photos immediately following the sequence of HMS Avenger pictures refer to a new destroyer trials on July 31st, so it might be a case of mis-dating, with July 27th being the actual date. Very good eyes, Simon, in noting the colour differences and I believe Mark has found a very likely explanation, particularly if one compares AF953 above with AE977 'S' in the picture below: The positioning of the 'ROYAL NAVY' titles and of the serial number over the Sky band are almost exactly the same as in AF953, which suggests overpaining of the Sky identification band before embarkation. By the way, both AE977 and AF953 are Canadian-built Hurricane Mk. Is. Claudio
  13. A quick search... - 2292.html HTH
  14. Perhaps this might help? It's a Gloster-built machine, BTW. Claudio
  15. Graham, you're right. Oversimplification on my part. The 1940 code system was revised at some point during the war and, of course, a number of shore stations had different letter codes. Claudio