Jump to content

JackG

Members
  • Posts

    3,482
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

6,587 profile views

JackG's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

3.6k

Reputation

  1. Have seen similar detail on the Light Tank VI, but midway left side fender. Usually some sort of rope or chain coiled around the 'horns', a museum example looks to have a cable. Have also seen a round jack placed there, and even a spare wheel: regards, Jack
  2. Are you trying to link an image from the internet or hard drive? If it's the latter, that can't be done and you have to first upload the image to a photo hosting site, and then link it from there. Plenty free providers out there to chose from. A quick image google does not give any detail you have described. In the mean time, can you further describe the Valentine mark, year, location, unit? regards, Jack
  3. As far as Special Hobby 1/72 kits go, the Kittyhawk Mk.IA and P-40E 'Claws and Teeth' are boxed with identical sprues. The Kittyhawk is only a better choice because it includes RAF roundels. Again, I can confirm SH provide a choice of either the long pitot tube with shark fin, as well as the cranked style. The forward fuselage includes the formations lights, but given the scale, this detail has been simplified. The frame around the lens should be flush, SH have it as thin raised circular outline. No clear lens is provided. One could drill out the plastic (@0.88mm) and use clear plastic cement for windows (which I think is just white glue?) to create a film over the hole. Maybe mixing some blue paint into the glue prior to application to give it a proper tint? regards, Jack
  4. AK670 falls in the group of serials allotted as the P-40D. Yes to the six gun armament, but these had the earlier flat access panels around the blast tubes. Special Hobby has this correctly illustrated on the box top and colour profile, but the plastic is the later style circular fairings introduced with the P-40E. For the wing pitot tube, it probably was the kinked style (L shaped) also supplied in the kit. regards, Jack
  5. JackG

    RAF Hurricane Code

    It does appear the opening post had the middle two numbers switched around, and the proper serial was V6548 https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16472094 Have also checked the latest publication on the subject, RED KITE Battle of Britain Combat Archive vol.8 that deals with August 30. Unfortunately no individual code listed. Not that many individual codes seem to be known, so that even using a process of elimination only gives a starting point. Some known serials and codes based on profiles: FT@X P3466 FT@D P3781 FT@K N2621 FT@E / FT@Y P3386 FT@J L1847 FT@H P3386 FT@U P3784 regards, Jack
  6. A bit better photo clearly showing opposite coloured tail markings, and is not the fault of photography. Dark (blue)forward on O coded frame, while that of K is light (red). As for modelling the upper surfaces, I think adding roundels or not is an open choice. For them to be missing must be just a specific moment in time and not have remained so for any length of time. A squadron was grounded for less reason (wrong underside colour) during the summer of 1940, so I would think a lack of national markings is something that would be even more crucial? regards, Jack
  7. It does seem glare and fade is the likely explanation for the 'disappearing' wing top roundels. A coloured filter is inconclusive... For straight Panchromatic type film, the fuselage roundel appears to match the photo's grey tones. The tail marking would then indicate it leads with blue which is not official standard, but am certain this anomaly exists has been discussed before? Have tried all seven colour filter options available to shift the roundel blue to be lighter than the Dk Green of the wing surface, but only 100% blue filter can do this. It also creates more problems that don't match the photo - yellow roundel is way too dark, and the tonal difference of the Dk Green and Dk Earth is all but gone. regards, Jack
  8. Would not know the reason why, but from the Australian War Memorial site: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C38707 regards, Jack
  9. It depends on the time period, the first contingent was European grey, followed by introduction of two sets of tropical colours in 1941 and 1942. Dunkelgelb only became official in February 1943, so maybe some in the Tunisia campaign.
  10. Colours look good, but it would be improper compare them to the illustrations from the models instructions. Those I had given you were also digitally altered (darkened and contrast dialed up) to better see the camou shapes. Also would have kept the hard edge to the camouflage, as it seems to be the style in the period photos. regards, Jack
  11. Review of the kit here: https://archive.armorama.com/review/5779/index.htm
  12. JackG

    turned cowlings

    As described above, one can make the project more technical, such as using a decal method. I tried something similar with an Oeffag Albatros. I made my own decals on clear film. The turned aluminum or swirl areas are designed to be see through on the decal, surrounded by a base background of a mid-light grey. These are applied over the cowl that is prepainted a metallic aluminum. After the fact observations are, I could have gone with a more darker printed grey, since clear film decals are fairly translucent. Also, this method is finicky when dealing with curved surfaces that run in more than one direction. The other method I've yet to try is creating a spray mask, wherein holes are made in sections of tape, followed by spraying a metallic paint of choice. I do foresee the same problems as decals in tackling curved surfaces. regards, Jack
  13. The various serials and squadrons he flew with are listed here, but not much help with the actual look of the aircraft: https://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/brown3.php regards, Jack
  14. @BS_w thanks kindly for that drawing of the formation light. Comparing it to a photo of an operational aircraft, and viewing details from exterior towards lens: - square pattern of rivets match - circular pattern of rivets match - outer frame with 6 rivets match - inner frame with 4 rivets not present on drawing So if an inner circular frame (with four rivets) is added, it seems I was pretty close with the 2.5 inch lens diameter, drawn in red over the blueprint. The outer diameter of the circular frame I was off by 5/16 of an inch - a 4.5" guesstimate as opposed to 4 3/16" on the drawing. regards, Jack
  15. Are the dimensions of the formation light known from technical documents, or any measurements taken from an existing aircraft? I took a close up of a Kittyhawk nicknamed The Maj, and scaled it to match the height between the two panel lines located above and below the discussed detail. Image was also tilted so the panel lines are running near horizontal as possible. Scale drawings seem to vary in accuracy, so went with the shorter height, as this matched the 1/72 Scale Hobby kit (which incidentally includes the formation lights). Results indicate a lens diameter of 2.5 inches, while the outer measurement of the framework is 4.5 inches. If the outer diameter is shrunk to an even 4 inches, then the lens measurement becomes 2 14/64 inches. regards, Jack
×
×
  • Create New...