Jump to content

Scott Hemsley

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    SW Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    1/72 WW2 and post-war RCAF

Recent Profile Visitors

1,889 profile views

Scott Hemsley's Achievements

Established Member

Established Member (3/9)



  1. As mentioned, the waist positions were different from the B-25J, but while the "J" has staggered waist positions, the "D" did not. At some point, they also acquired a tail-gunner's position similar to that of the B-25J. I say 'similar' because I've heard it said that they were somewhat different (shallower?) on account of the depth of the B-25D's rear fuselage. I could only imagine manning both waist positions in addition to the rear-mounted dorsal turret, made for some really cramped conditions. How they came to acquire the waist positions and the tail gunner's position, I'm not entirely sure, but I have heard that these B-25D's were initially transferred from US stocks, to the RAF (hence the RAF serials that were retained for the life of the a/c, even in RCAF post-war service). Instead of going to the far-east as planned, they remained in Canada with 5 OTU) training crews for far-east duty. At wars end, they were transferred to the RCAF. If the tail position was indeed shallower, does anyone have the height difference of the tail gunner's glazing? In a past-project, using the Italeri B-25B/C as a base, I cross kitted both the waist positions and the entire tailplane from their B-25J kit in order to arrive at a post-war RCAF Mitchel II. There were other mods, mainly to the cowlings, but the end result looked right. I've since decided that I can do better, so sometime in the future, it will be replaced. Scott
  2. Not wanting to hijack this thread, I'll ask a similar but more specific question. I've already made the decision to go Airfix in the case of a Wellington Mk.II (ditching the MPM one), but what do you suggest for a Wellington Mk.III, Mk.X and a Mk.XIV or am I stuck with either Trumpeter or MPM? Scott
  3. I see this everytime the MPM/SH Boston is raised as a topic. If one thinks about it instead of assuming a "shake n' bake" kit, the cause and the solution to the issue of fit between the nose and the fuselage becomes a non-issue. I don't have experience with this specific kit, but I did build the original MPM release of the Boston III and quite enjoyed it, contrary to all the negative posts the kit got. It got to the point where I wondered if they even tried building the kit? I've downloaded the SH instructions, so I'll be referring to them. So, as a suggestion and assuming the basic plastic is identical between the MPM and SH kits (I see by the parts layout, the SH release has additional parts) -a) do not dry-fit the nose (part K1) to the fuselage with just the bare halves taped together! All you'll see to the 'horrid' step Dunny alluded to, earlier. Most of the posts re the MPM Boston III reached the conclusion that it was 'unbuildable' because of that 'step'. Instead.... - assemble the 'foundations' for the cockpit interior (parts A16, A18 and D21) and at the same time dry-fit the cockpit sidewalls (parts A19 and A20). - thin parts A19/A20 thickness if necessary and glue them in place (might as well, eh?) - now, dry-fit the assembled cockpit 'foundations' into the taped fuselage halves. As Dunny found out, the fit of the nose is much improved once the interior is fitted. I found out that a thin shim between A18 and the cockpit was required to widen the fuselage a tad to match the width of the cockpit transparency (part K6). That shim also proved to aid in the eventual fit of the nose piece. - upon examining the plastic nose glazing (part K6), one realizes it's rather flexible due to the thickness of the plastic. Left to it's own natural shape, the nose does indeed appear to be mis-matched to the fuselage, but if slight pressure is applied to the top and the bottom of the nose, essentially aligning those edges with the fuselage, one notices that the sides also slightly bulge out, thus bringing them into alignment with the fuselage sides. - again drawing from experience with the MPM issue of the Boston III, I fashioned a 360 degree 'lip' of thin styrene strip (10-thou?) to the inside of the fuselage (I can't recall if I sanded part A18 down a bit or that it wasn't the tightest fit to begin with), then when it came time to mate the nose and the fuselage, there was a nice lip to not only assist in mating the nose piece to the fuselage, but also result in it retaining the correct x-section for a good fit to the fuselage. Hope that helps with any concerns about the fit of the nose. Some other points to consider: If one wants to do TH-O (W8268) in the earlier overall black cam ('cam-b' in the instructions), profile in-flight photos of the starboard side of TH-O show conclusively that the "Ottawa Ontario" script was carried on both sides. Naming their aircraft after Canadian Cities (depending in the individual code letter) with the script on both sides was the norm and in the absence of photos of the second TH-O (AL468), I wouldn't have any reason to doubt that they didn't retain the practice of repeating the script on both sides, given they went through the trouble of restoring it to the port-side after the repaint. One other point .... if one chooses to model the original TH-O (W8268) in its overall black night intruder cam, note that it NEVER carried the belly gun-pack. W8268 was lost on ops prior to the squadron undertaking trials with the belly pack - that according to the publication "418 Squadron History" (my copy's inaccessible in storage so I can't furnish publication details, sorry). The presence of the belly-pack as 'seen' in an in-flight PR photo of W8268 has been shown that the 'belly-pack' is actually the lower portion of the nacelle, given the angle of the photo. That one statement from the 418 publication, makes any reference/profile drawing or whatever, showing the belly pack fitted - incorrect. OTOH, the gun-pack was a standard fit for the squadron's Boston's by the time the second TH-O (AL468) arrived on the scene. Dunny was correct to include it in his build. Adding nose-weight as Dunny did, behind the cockpit - is the most logical place for it. I seem to recall that I added up to 1oz. (about 28+ grams), with the result that it's not a tail-sitter and there was never a need to add an external support under the tail. Finally, when fitting the tail light (K4) to the fuselage, keep in mind that it is molded to the contours of the fuselage. If when dry-fitting it, it doesn't appear to line up, just twist it around until it does. Scott
  4. All good suggestions ... particularly having to lighten #78 enamel (I don't think this LHS stocks the acrylic, but I could be wrong). I'll also see if #120 is available at the store. Having a single source rather than having to lighten it with every use may be the way to go. Like I said, all good suggestions ... now to see what's physically in stock at this place. Scott
  5. Thanks for the suggestion(s), Dave. I believe this LHS also stocks some Tamyia paints, so I'll have look there as well. Scott
  6. My stash is deep enough that I don't think I'll have any problems putting off my Canso/Catalina kits a bit longer on the 'to-do rotation', if I have to. ' I'll wait... Scott
  7. I'm just looking for a good WW2 RAF Interior Green (I'm not hung up on 100% matches to any 'official' colour chip, but it should be visually 'in the ballpark') to include in a small 'modelling-bag' to at least allow me to tinker with some cockpit sub-assemblies. If Model Master was still an option, I wouldn't even be asking this - but I've got an Arma Hurricane IIb on the table that's screaming to be completed and it will be a while before I can mount a proper mail-order. On the other hand, a small LHS near me has a modest selection of Humbrol, including these two ... #78 Cockpit Green or #226 Interior Green. Which one would you recommend - assuming either of them is acceptable? Scott
  8. Scott, still haven't heard from you on the CC-130B.  Can you message me please?  I am interested in whatever information you can share on that.  Thanks.


  9. I have AK's RAF MTO colours and I find that their Azure Blue is very nice, More over, it matches my 2 remaining bottles of AeroMaster's Azure Blue, (still perfectly good, even though I've had them since the 80's) which I've always preferred due to their tendency towards 'a more scale appearance' as opposed to 'an intense factory fresh appearance'. FWIW, I also discovered that AK's Middle Stone (brushed) matched the Compucolour Middle Stone (again. an old tin, but still remarkably useable) when touching up a Hurricane's canopy framing. Scott
  10. I would also seriously question the short 'Texan' style exhaust on both 2564's and AJ733's profile. While my copy of Dave Fletcher's book on the Harvard is in storage (and thus I couldn't give you the exact date of the modification), Harvard II's - at least in Canada, sported the longer style exhaust as shown by Geoff McDonald's Harvard Mk.IV model in Wm. Beckley's post. Also, without Carl's photo in hand, I'd question the use of the diagonal black stripes on AJ733 for a trainer. As Wm Beckley pointed out, the stripes were used on target tug or gunnery trainers, - not trainers. Scott
  11. Again, thanks for the links to the sprue shots and instructions ... but what I'm really looking for is a shot of a dry-fitted or assembled wing from the UF-2 boxing, taken 'head-on' to outer edge of the wingtip, thus leaving no doubt as to the airfoil and thickness of the kit wing at that point. This would have to be done by someone who has the kit as no sprue shot or drawings in the instructions will show the wing from that angle. Scott
  12. Hugh, you mentioned that you were open to doing an RCAF Canso A (PBY-5A)? Aviaeology does a full 72nd sheet on RCAF Canso A (PBY-5A) covering the sub-killers from 162 (BR) Squadron ... all in RAF Coastal Command schemes. Scott
  13. Thanks for your suggestions, but I've recently had a link with the instructions PM'd to me. Looking at hem, I can only say it's a far more impressive kit than I first thought. Scott
  14. I'm looking at a future build of a CSR-110 Grumman Albatross (RCAF) and with that, I have to decide if I'm going to get the new Sova-M UF-2 or stay with my Monogram HU-16B Albatross. I've seen/studied the sprue shots of the Sova-M SA-16A & UF-2 in the old Rumormonger's thread about their impending release, but you can only determine so much from overhead sprue shots. I've yet to find an online source that will allow me to download the UF-2 instructions to get a better understanding of what the kit has to offer or what still has to be corrected/converted. If anyone has the UF-2 kit and would be willing to scan the instructions for me, drop me a PM. Thanks.... Scott
  • Create New...