Scott Hemsley

A member of one of the IPMS chapters I belonged to, was a reletive of a former 418 Sqn. rear gunner on Bostons. When the sqn re-equipped with Mosquitos, he transferred to an RAF sqn that still operated the Boston. Anyway to answer your question - according to his uncle, the rear gunner enjoyed a twin gun installation. Scott

I'm currently looking into a future build for a 400 Sqn. PR.XI and I wondered if anyone would have photos/drawings of the instrument panel showing the additional instrumentation for operation of the cameras. I've seen a photo (through a closed canopy) that clearly showed some kind of a panel where the gunsight would normally be located, but the angle was such that 'detail' was missing. Scott

All the photos I've come across of high-backed XIV's in RCAF service, do have the full eliptical wings. Similarily, all the photos I've encountered of bubble-canopy FR.XIV's in RCAF service, have been sporting clipped wings. Robert Bracken's book "Spitfire; the Canadians" has several photos of bubble canopy Mk.XIV's flying with RCAF squadrons, but admittedly it's unclear if those photos were taken immedately post-war (only one specifically states it was taken during the squadron's Occupation Duties) or not. There is, however ... one photo dated Apr.'45... of a 'clipped winged', bubble canopied 414 Sqn. FR.XIV ("S"; MV348) flown by F/L Ken Lawson, sporting the name "Violet-Dorothy III" on the port cowling'. Also ... according to the book "RCAF Squadrons and Aircraft" (S.Kostenuk/J.Griffin) , 414 Squadron flew FR.XIV's from April to August '45 and in the squadron summary that is included in the 414 Squadron entry, it states the squadron flew it's last mission of WW2 on May 5 1945. It also has a B&W photo of "B" (NM896) from Apr-May '45. Again, both FR.XIV's are clipped wing. Scott

I don't have, nor have I seen, the Montforton book ... but the A.R. Clint drawings in Bracken's book seem quite accurate and detailed. They're what I've chosen to follow for my builds. Scott

One critisim of the Italeri E/H kits that the engine nacelles more suited to the earlier "A's" and therefore too short for the later models. According to an engine tech and a modeller, in the Canadian Forces - he measured the actual nacelles of a CC-130E/H to be 98" long (firewall to spinner backplate), meaning the Italeri nacelles fall short by approx. 5mm. Resin replacements correct that problem. Scott

It is.... Scott

Just to clarify if anyone wishes to refer to these drawings. The appeared in Vol.1 of "Spitfire; the Canadians" by Robert Bracken. The drawings, drawn by A.R. Clint, were all initailly done to 1/72 scale but the publishers insisted on a fit-the-box approach and printed each of them full-page - which I think works out to about 1/96. However, if you scale them up to 1/72 (there is a 1/72 12' scale rule on each drawing), you wind up with a lovely set of plans. Bracken's book contains covering all the varients flown by the RCAF and therefore has scale plans for a Spitfire Vb/IXc/FR XIVe (bubble canopy) and a LF XVIe (bubble canopy). He also has "1/72 profiles" (given the same treatment by the publishers) for a Spitfire IIa/Vb (trop)/VIII/early IXc with the cowling bulges/PR XI/LF XVIe (high-back) and a XIVe (high-back). In addition, there are upper/lower plan views of the wing/cockpit area - in this case, showcasing the PR.XI with an additional scrap view of the extended tips for a VIII. All beautifully done. Scott

It's nice to learn that Liberty is still producing the Buffalo. As for decals, CanMilAir do several sheets for the DHC-5 Buffalo, including the yellow SAR scheme. Being ALPS decals, he can adjust scales as requested. I've used several of his sets & I can recommend them, but being ALPS decals, he suggests that you brush a generous coat of a product like MicroScale's Liquid Decal Paper over them prior to use. Scott

You can do it, but it won't be anything near accurate. Besides scratching a new wing, fin/rudder/tailplane assembly, etc ... the Caribou fuselage had an entirely different x-section than the Buffalo. The Buffalo is/was much more square - that's the main reason why I haven't converted the Hobbycraft Caribou to a DHC-5 Buffalo. There's plenty photos of Canadian Forces DHC-5 Buffalo on Airliners.net and here... at Hazer's Flightline (http://www.hazersflightline.com/buffalo.htm), but when it comes to sticking a camera into the wheel well... I'm afraid you won't find much, if anything. How does the resin kit treat the wheel well? Scott

I recall being told by a former RAF groundcrew (retired in the late 50's), that the torque links compensated for the additional abuse of operating off paved runways and only came into use late in the war as the Allies increaingly found themselves operating less from grass and more from prepared airfields. Scott

There are documented cases of Spit VIII's, serving with 417 Squadron in Italy (also in the Midstone/DE/Azure Blue cam) with DE spinners and NOT the red of the desert air force. Scott

That pretty well says it all - "cheap and simple but fairly accurate, with great possibilities for pretty easy superdetailing." Since price did become a major concern, all your advice seems to confirm that the Airfix kit will not only fit into the budget, but fit my style of building just fine and as a result, I've instructed my hobby shop to include it on their next Airfix order. Thank you for all your input, gentlemen. Scott

First I've heard anyone say anything about it, either. All I've heard is, that it works out dimensionally rather nicely. That begs a further question for olda. If it's too long ... it's too long by how much and as John asks - where? Any way you can post comparative photos of the Airfix vs Sword and/or AZ kits? Scott

Don't worry, I've got my eye on it - particularily that prop! Scott

I plan on an aftermarket cockpit interior anyways, as I'd like to open it up. What do you think about taking the Airfix fuselage and cross-kitting it with the Hasegawa wings? Like I said... my first choice, but I've yet to be able to touch one or see what the Canadian retail is. Even Hannants doesn't have it listed yet. A very viable option worthy of serious consideration. I like the fact the cannons are separate, as are the cannon bulges and I have multiple early Mk.IX rudders in the spares box. While it's roughly twice the price (in Cdn) compared to the Airfix kit at Hannants, it might be worth it if the idea of cross-kitting proves to be more trouble than it's worth. Thanks! Scott

While the AZ Mk.IXc is my first choice, availability and price on this side of the pond may prove a deciding factor. Therefore, I'm also exploring other options, including cross-kitting. My primary question right now is concerning the 'new' Airfix Mk.IX. I've read 'vague' mention of 'issues' with the kit, along with a few equally vague positive remarks ... but I don't think I've come across anyone spelling them out - so to speak. Do I see any volunteers to correct that? I've also seen this 'correction' of the 1/48 Hasegawa Mk.IX fuselage (http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/correctingspitfireix_1.htm) and wondered if applying this correction in 1/72 might be the way to go ... or if need be, cross-kitting it with the Airfix fuselage? I don't regard myself as a 'expert' when it comes to the accuracy of a Spitfire kit, but I do want to end up with a decent kit on the shelf - so your thoughts please, gentlemen. Scott

... and there's the real value of a board like this! Upon reading this thread, I checked my Fujimi Mk.XIV - realised you gentlemen were right and promptly sifted through my (clear) parts box, aftermarket and Spitfire kits (looking for a suitable spare multi-piece canopy) until I was able to find several 'replacements' from which to choose. While doing that, I also noticed that the Fujimi kit is designed to accept a canopy with the deeper aft transparency (aka the pressurized canopy of the Spit. Mk.VI) .... so either I'll mask it off to the correct 'depth' and scribe in the canopy rails or graft the required pieces from an expendable Spit fuselage onto the Fujimi kit so that it accepts the smaller (and correct) aft transparency. Of course, if I open it up, the canopy guides won't really matter, will they? Scott

Followig your link, I had no problems bringing them up. Try again? Scott

I know there's issues with the Academy kit (the main landing gear), but gawd ... that looks good! I think both of my Academy kits, just jumped near the top of my "to-do" list. Scott

You forgot the RCAF! 417 Sqn. used them very successfully in the MTO, from Aug.'43 to Apr.'45. Scott

Thanks to this thread, I finally got curious and dug my Boston out of the stash & did some dry-fitting. I found the same problem with the width of the nose transparancies, so following the advice of Chuck1945, I e-mailed MPM using their online form (www.mpmshop.cz). If I get a response, I'll pass it along to the forum. Otherwise, I'll just have to spread the fuselage as others have suggested. Scott

Thanks for offering an explanation as to the mysterious ways of the B&W film. I guess we're stuck with just another run-of-the-mill DG/OG/MSG Hurricane. I looked at your link to Roy's explanation & as interesting as it was, could his explanation also be applied even though the film the photographed the Hurricane was obviously not the same 'type' that photographed his RAF Thunderbolt ... as shown by the way the yellow surround in the fuselage roundel reacted to the film & unlike the Thunderbolt, the fin flash of the Hurricane does not appear to have reversed colours. Just as an excersise in curiosity, do you think Roy's 'experiment' with grey's on the Thunderbolt can be duplicated with the Hurricane photo or does the type of film used prevent that? Scott

Interesting possibility, but the background lighting can (argueably) be a perfectly normal & natural occurance, given the conditions the original photo was taken. There's so much we don't know about the conditions behind the photo & B&W interpretation is often least understood by those of us who grew up in the days of colour prints/slides. B&W was regulated to only being a novelty! There's still the question of the obvious repaint - what was repainted, why & what colours were available to the 'erks' (squadron stocks weren't always stocked according to QR's - especially during times of continuous combat ops) at the time. Scott

I's here, Jim... I might agree with you Dave, but apply your explanation to the tail section. Beides looking at the nose of the Hurricane, I'd suggest a careful examination of the entire fuselage. It's clearly one scheme on the tail section, aft of the fuselage band - even if it is a little patched up & another for the rest of the fuselage. So... what does that make the rest of the fuselage? B&W may play tricks on exposure & appearence, but I've not come across a photo where the same colour takes on two very different appearences in the same photo. Also, there is no difference between one of the 'tones' & what we would all consider MSG unders - either on the nose or between the wings & tailplanes. It's noticable under the squadron codes, but admittedly more noticable on the views of the nose. I have two theories to toss out for consideration. a) for some unknown reason, the majority of the fuselage (don't know about the upper wings) is DG/MSG - foretelling the cam seen on the Mosquito, while the tail section is OG/DG & the underside is MSG. Looking at the DG pattern on the fuselage, there is ample evidence that the fuselage cam itself is a repaint at the squadron level - judging by the 'quality' of workmanship. As an example, take a look at the DG pattern around the "K". I'd love to here the story behind this example. the fuselage is indeed OG/DG over MSG (there appears to be a very faint line from the bottom of the DG on the nose to the spinner or is that hoping-to-see-one?) & the tail section is still DE/DG. Whatever the colours, I'm assuming the underside is MSG as there is a faint distinction of colours/tone of the 'sky' fuselage band & the underside, between the band & the tail wheel. If this explanation is correct, 'why' the two schemes on the same aircraft? It doesn't look like a replacement tail section as the DG pattern seems to be continuous & not the interruption in the pattern one would expect with replacement panels. Any enlightenment would be appreciated. In anycase, going by the photos.... this would make an interesting subject, if we can nail the cam down for the fuselage as well as the upper surfaces. BTW, the publication that this appeared in was the long OOP 'Aircam publication' for the Hawker Hurricane. Scott

Naw... job market! Scott