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".

Graham Boak

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,206 Excellent

1 Follower

About Graham Boak

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. I don't model for competitions, and don't really understand why people think it a good idea anyway. However, if models are to be judged then accuracy of appearance, fit and detail are all important. After all, what is it a model of? To answer Rossm's main point: it is impossible for judges to know everything about everything, so I rather like the scale flying models approach to competitions. Models are submitted for judging with photos and details of the fit and the scheme, so that the modeller's skills can be checked against what the model should look like, rather than merely what the modeller felt looked good on the day. Research is part of a modeller's skill: if you are submitting a model specified to be in a given period where part of it is only appropriate before a given day, and another part only appropriate for some months after, then the model deserves to be marked down. Not doing this makes the whole exercise seem pretty pointless to me. I presume offering a Spitfire Mk.IX in the Day Fighter Scheme as a Battle of Britain example would be unacceptable, but where is the line to be drawn? Get It Right - or at least show where the information you are working from lead you to what you are submitting. At the very least, you have a responsibility to those looking at your models not to spread falsity. I know that fake news is very popular at the moment... but let's restrict that to politics? Which has nothing to do with whatever you model at home.
  2. If you follow this route, note that G-AFKX had a different nose. Probably just the nose ring ahead of the exhausts, but it didn't taper to the same extent as the production aircraft and ended with the same diameter as the Rotol spinner, so that there was no step behind it as seen on V6787 above. Also, the first prototype had a different cowling shape, slightly higher and less wide at the top, because the design of the Merlin cylinder head changed for production.
  3. I don't have it to hand, but from the description it is a photo that has appeared in several publications on the Blenheim. Which, if so, does show how differences can be missed when you "know" what you are looking at!
  4. The problem with the Airfix Mk.IX's wings are that they are too broad - whether this means that the leading edge is too far forward, or the trailing edge is too far aft, I don't recall. Some people fail to be able to see this. I believe that the leading edge is too far forward on the Mk.XIX, hence a suspicion of too short a nose on this model, but I don't know whether that reads across or not. The Airfix Mk.IX does have an excellent fuselage. The Italeri Mk.IX, apart from any other faults, is too short in the nose and the engine cowling is too slim. However, it should be possible to place the Italeri cockpit interior into the Airfix kit without too much work. You might want to replace the crude Airfix undercarriage with the Italeri parts too, but I don't know what the fit would be like in the wing.
  5. Perhaps a bit late, but I did get a copy from Transport Models and last time I was in they were still stocking the book. It's every bit as good as you'd expect.
  6. A much better source than Mason would be the Air Britain series of books covering all RAF serials. If you restricted yourself to serial blocks including Hurricane Mk.IIs that would make it more accessible - still quite a few, though. Perhaps your local library could help, as I'm not sure that all are still in print?
  7. I entirely agree that £8 is too high a handling fee for small deliveries such as to ourselves: presumably it is aimed at business customers or (shock horror gasp) it is an accurate reflection of the total costs to themselves of doing this. It's amazing how real costs do racket up when fully accounted for. However, there's nothing new in this: I've been charged on-and-off for VAT for a long time now, and the handling charge (level aside) is a reasonable claim by the delivering agency. What is wrong, in my opinion, is that the level of VAT-free cost has not risen in decades, despite considerable inflation over this period. The kits you could get in free 20 years ago will never make it now. (If anything it has fallen: I'm sure it was £18 and it is now £15.)
  8. Thanks for that information, but the NA57 kits correctly have the higher roofline of the AT-6 and the rear of the later Canadian-built Harvards. Had they remained transparent they would have been fine for a Harvard Mk.II
  9. The only code combination given in Air Britain's Flying Training and Support Units for an 11 OTU Wellington is KJ-A/DV778. The unit was formed with 52 Wellingtons, and so used codes KJ, OP and TX. At some stage it seems that the early part of the alphabet was used with KJ- for the units support aircraft rather than the Wellingtons. Good luck, but this kind of link is rare for training units. You may be able to get more from the unit's records at the National Archives.
  10. Not Tony, but what he says agrees with what I have found on the subject. The more powerful engine required increased cooling. You can see the same factor in development of all aircraft of all nations at this time. Of course, it isn't quite as simple as that because there were developments in cooling that produced a trend to smaller radiators (from water to glycol to pressurised water) but in this case the effect was a visibly larger radiator. I'm not so sure about the side intakes - I think that they are an intrinsic part of the Mk.II design but would appreciate confirmation.
  11. I gather there was some problem about the Canadian change from Sky to Medium Sea Grey because the Canadians were somewhat less than precise about the name. It is fair to point out that Sky was not simply a pale yellowish green (as presented by some model paints) but, as the common name says, a duck egg blue. This does contain some blue and can appear more so to some people.
  12. It is also a nice picture of the dinghy carrier on an ASR Lysander.
  13. JG5 served in Norway. However, a similar camouflage can be seen on some Bf109Gs in Tunisia, although I believe that these had a tan base rather than grey.
  14. On the AT-6, the short rear section is designed to be able to rotate back into the canopy, to cope with a gunner in the rear position. This was specifically seen on the AT-6B, so I suspect it was fixed on other variants, but can be seen on all armed versions of the NA-16 family earlier than the AT-6. The longer (earlier) rear to the canopy has a different shape to that of the AT-6, so a simple extension won't work. The AZ/Azur kit captures this shape quite well. Falcon does two different Harvard/Texan canopies, one short AT-6 and one longer earlier/Canadian style. Be careful of earlier versions than the NA.57 (eg BT-9 family) as they had a lower canopy with a more squared-off top and a flat windscreen with flat triangular quarterlights, unlike the familiar curved AT-6/Harvard windscreen. I don't know offhand whether the Azur kit has captured this variation. There are a lot of differences between variants once you look back before the AT-6 itself. However my Azur examples all have yellowed canopies anyway, and I'm still awaiting my RS Yale...
  15. I don't think the Walrus fin flash is reversed: compare it with the same effect on the fuselage roundel. The film used is one of the orthochromatic ones, where the red appears darker than the blue. Ortho film does not always make the yellow look black, despite some common examples where it does just that. I presume that this difference is one of the filter used on the camera lens.