Scott Hemsley

Chris - what do you make of this? I've posted this hi-res photo of 426's OW-Q (DS708) with Carl Vincent's permission. FWIW, it's the one that sparked this entire thread. I've looked at several other 426 & 408 Sqn. Lancaster B.II's that have appeared in articles Carl has written and it can be argued either way, that a fair number (not all) show the same pattern/signs of a 'Kilfrost' application as shown in this photo. Check out the leading edges of that port wing and the fin. Oddly enough, the meeting of upper and lower camouflage colours of the tailplane's leading edge, look untouched. I'm not concluding there was a 'Kilfrost' application, but that's not the upper cam colours wrapping around the leading edge, either. IMO, the rough appearance of the Lancaster's leading edge does seem rather similar to the rough condition of the 'Kilfrost' in the Stirling photo that Chris posted above. If it matters at all, I believe 6 Grp started receiving the Lancaster B.II to replace their Wellingtons, but does anyone know if these were new aircraft or did they inherit hand-me-downs as the feared Merlin engine shortage didn't materialize and Merlin-powered Lancaster's resumed their deliveries to RAF units? Scott

Thanks for the pics, Chris ... but returning to my choosen Lancaster B.II, OW-Q ... was this Kilfrost' ever used on the Lanc? I've yet to see any photo showing that it was ... yet this photo certainly suggests it or something, had been at one time. I've found another online shot of OW-Q taken from behind and above (the port side). Even at that angle, enough of the wing is clearly visible that if 'Kifrost" had been used, traces would've shown up in the photo as it curled onto the upper portion of the wing. However, it appears the wings, etc. had been repainted, thus removing all trace of 'Kilfrost' ... therefore I'll probably end up doing the build like that. Takes any guess-work out of the equation. Besides, it agrees with other shots of 6 Grp. Lancaster B.II's taken about the same period. Thanks gentlemen, for the information on 'Kilfrost" Most interesting. I'd modelled both the Halifax and the Wellington with 'Kilfrost' on the wings, tail-planes and fin without knowing exactly what it was, only that it was there in photos. Scott

Mainly out of curiosity at this point, but can anyone enlighten me about the mustard looking de-icing paste seen frequently in wartime operational photos of the early Halifax and Wellington aircraft? I'm not looking for technical data on it, but rather how was it applied and how often was re-applied. It's my understanding it was a temporary measure and had to be re-applied periodically. What brought this about was a photo of a Lancaster Mk.II - 426 Sqn.'s "Q - Queen of Spades" (DS708), sitting at a dispersal. Looking at the leading edge of the wing between the engines and outboard, of the same, there appears evidence that something was carefully applied then removed. On first glance, the pattern is reminiscent of the de-icing boots that were fitted to post-wat Lancasters. A copy of this photo can be seen here. It may be a bit dark, but you can still see the areas of the leading edge that I was referring to. Anybody comment on either the 'paste' or the photo? Scott

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that the XIV's serving in the SEAC theatre did have the two outboard guns, while those in the ETO & MTO, didn't, but since the box art depicts a scoreboard of German kits below the windscreen, I assume the kit decals depict an aircraft serving in the ETO. It also doesn't have the expected yellow leading edge outboard of the guns. I'd say that AZ simply made an error with the boxart. Scott

Jari: Thanks for the links. The first link clearly shows the Lanc is fitted with bulged doors and by their appearance from the front, I'd have to conclude that they're the full-length style of a bulged bombay door. I don't think the ventral turret nor the fairing was fitted with these style of bombay doors and if the aircrews had any say (according to the accounts in 408 Squadron History - my copy is in storage so I can't furnish publisher info, sorry) the ventral turret would be gone. Apparently they viewed it as next to useless. However, I would question the Wiki caption. If the photographed aircraft is indeed EQ*C, according to Kostenuk & Griffin's RCAF Squadrons and Aircraft the serial for EQ*C was LL699. In the same book, there is a small photo of EQ*D (DS858) that clearly shows the early 1/2-length bulged bombay doors fitted with the fairing for the ventral turret in place, minus the turret. The nose art is just an inscription, but I might be able to do up a decal on the inkjet for that. That's an option. Chris: Thank Carl for me. The last photo is the one I was referring to in my initial post. More telling is the 2nd photo ... the one with the open bombay doors at a very good angle showing that they were indeed the full-length style of bombay door (you can see the bulge in the door by the curvature of the bottom edge. Question is, do I still have the Paragon full-length bulged doors (as seen on some B.X's) stuck with my Lancs in storage? I know I've got Paragon's early 1/2 length style of bulged bomb doors. I originally got the full-length bulged doors for a planned B,X, but I've since got a few photos of my chosen subject fitted with the regular doors - making the resin doors surplus ... until now! Upon closer examination of the sprues, I also noticed that the kit only has the early(?) style short scoops atop of the cowling. Some B.II's (EQ*D - DS858) for example) appeared to have longer style cowl scoops, along with the 1/2-length bulged bombay doors and ventral turret fairing .... so check your references. Scott

It's one of the decal options in the Airfix Lancaster B.II kit as well as the B.II option on the Zotz OOP(?) "Sexy Lancs" decal sheet. They both agree on the markings and serial, but there the similarity ends. The question I have is what style of bombay doors did it have in 1943 - 44? The Airfix kit calls for the regular 'un-bulged' doors, while the profile on the Zotz decal sheet shows the late-style of full-length bulged doors with the dorsal gun fairing (less the dorsal turret) still fitted. For some reason, I'm leaning towards the early bulged doors (about 1/2 the length) with the dorsal turret fair (less turret) fitted, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. There is a well-circulated PR photo of the port-side nose of 'Zombie' that includes the front portion of the opened bomb doors, but IMO, that's rather inconclusive ... regular bomb doors or full-length bulged doors - it's anybody's guess. Does anyone either have or know of an online source for a 'profile style' photo of 'Zombie' (EQ*Z) or at least one that 's angled, but shows conclusively the style of bomb doors and if the doors were bulged, the presence of the dorsal turret fairing? A future build depends on it. Scott

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the suggestion(s), Dave. I believe this LHS also stocks some Tamyia paints, so I'll have look there as well. Scott

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

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

Check your email. Scott

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, I'm turning to the BM community for the answer. Currently, I'm inquiring for a Hurricane IIc that's finished in desert cam, circa 1942, but I'll be looking at the same question when I do a UK-based Hurricane IIb, circa '41-'42. a) What colour was the decking immediately under the windscreen (above the IP). Was it in the adjacent cam, RAF Interior Green or something else? b) For that matter, what colour was the housing directly behind the seat - that bit of structure hidden by the last clear frame of a closed canopy. Again, was it in the adjacent cam colour, RAF Interior Green or something else? Thanks for even considering the questions. Scott iic

Thanks, Troy. Scott

Quick question: I'm currently working on the Arma Hurricane IIc and I was wondering if anyone could tell me the colour of the single ID(?) light on the fuselage underside, just to the rear of the radiator. The kit provides a clear piece (T8), but no colour/tint callout. I've a feeling that this should be an amber lens, but thought I'd check here first. Any thoughts? Scott

The European-based RCAF CF-100's were all MK.4B's in which the de-icing vanes were standard. The Belgian CF-100's were all Mk.5's and therefore were not fitted with the vanes. I emailed Chris and pointed out that the Obscureco wheels were basically copes of the Hobbycraft plastic. - and he agreed they should've been changed. In comparing the two resin sets mentioned and only going by online images of the Flight Engineering set, I would go with the Obscureco set for the cockpit interior as it gives that critical structure between the crew while the FE set didn't appear to offer it. However, if I may, give a bit of warning as the OP mentioned that he intended to apply the resin to the Astra CF-100. The Obscureco set says it was intended for the Hobbycraft kit and they meant it! It does not fit well with the Astra kit ... ask me how I know. 🙂 Intending to do the Astra kit with the Hobbycraft as a donor, I ended up with Hobbycraft plastic as much more than just a casual donor. It supplied both halves of the fwd fuselage while the Astra kit supplied the wings, canopy and the entire rear portion of the airframe. Hobbycraft incorporated certain location assists in the fwd fuselage that made using the cockpit interior and the MLG much more challenging than I was prepared for. Fortunately, Hobbycraft did an excellent job of cloning Astra's fwd fuselage and externally, both are virtually identical. If you're interested, my summary of the build & RFI can be found here. Scott

Colin, would it be possible to post some comparison photos of the bomb doors between a B.XVI and a TT35 along with an explanation of the differences , for those unfamiliar with the type(s) - like me (at least where the TT35 is concerned)? If I manage to snag one of the new releases, I'd want to think abut doing it as a 400 Sqn. PR,XVI. Scott