Pappy

G'day people, I have corrected the damaged area It did not take much effort, I jut used some metho to remove the paint from the damaged area and re-applied the paint Back on track cheers, Pappy

Thanks George, that is what attracted me to the scheme as well. I find oddball stuff like this looks far more interesting than a uniformly applied camouflage pattern. I also prefer asymmetric weapon loads for the same reason but I am sure a pilot would disagree! cheers, Pappy

RDSG) G'day AW I could be right but I hate the idea of having to interpret B&W pics so I have decided I will stick with the painting guide viz the wing colours. G'day people, I have now applied the EDSG I was initially concerned that the RDSG a a little too washed out and would have insufficient contrast with the EDSG but I am very happy with how these have turned out. I have deliberately opted for a hard edged camouflage as I remember reading that the factory applied camo used rubber mats when spraying the camo. There would be some slight variation but overall the patterns would be uniform but there was also the A/B pattern whereby the colours were reversed. I don't know the reasoning behind this and would be happy to be enlightened I thought I could make a start on the next stage of the weathering process but unfortunately I have a small repair job first Annoying but should be easy enough to correct, cheers Pappy

G'day Mike, It is a pretty basic kit, but then again it is a pretty basic aircraft. One thing that is a little novel is that the fuselage is molded in clear plastic, I guess so that you can avoid installing the windows but there is an issue with the cockpit corner windows from memory, I think that the engraved panel lines depicting the corner frames are incorrect, cheers, Pappy

Thank Loren, the kit really is superb and practically fall together Hi Gerrard, thanks mate G'day people, I have come across a roadblock. The painting instructions suggest that the engine cowls were from a scrapped aircraft and were painted in the RAF temperate (land) scheme of Dark Earth and Dark Green over Sky. The instructions depict that the remainder of the airframe as RAF Dark Slate Grey (RDSG)/ Extra Dark Sea Grey (EDSG) over Sky, the temperate FAA (maritime) colours. I have included a pic from the Arma website of the particular aircraft, if this is a problem I am happy to remove it I think Arma have included an error in their painting instructions as the painting instructions for the upper colours seem to have a mis-match between the fuselage and the wing patterns as the two sections do not transition into each other, suggesting that the colours on either the fuselage or wings have been reversed. Also when comparing the kit box art (which is also my subject aircraft) with the painting instructions I noticed that the fuselage colours are reversed as the first colour immediately behind the engine panels is the EDSG instead of the RDSG. This is the opposite of the painting instructions. If I follow the box top suggestion, the wing camouflage now transitions into the fuselage and it all matches. I think that on balance, the box top is correct and the wing pattern is wrong - thoughts? The sliding hood portion of the canopy appears to be darker than the corresponding section of the fuselage suggesting it may also have been dark green? The port wing also appears to be much darker than the fuselage, could it be possible that the wing (or wings) were also in the RAF colours? cheers, Pappy

So, I have visited the link in Troy's post and it is the post on the Arma website written by Tony O'Toole that I had previously read which contains the pic posted above amongst others. Unfortunately it does not answer my question. The painting instructions suggest that the engine cowls were from a scrapped aircraft and were painted in the temperate (land) scheme of dark earth and dark green over sky. I am not disputing this. The instructions depict that the remainder of the airframe as RAF dark slate grey and extra dark sea grey over sky, the temperate (maritime) colours. Again. I agree. My issue is that the painting instructions seem to have a mis-match between the fuselage and the wing patterns as the two sections do not transition into each other, suggesting that the colours on either the fuselage or wings have been reversed. I think Arma have made an error in their painting instructions. Also when comparing the kit box art (which is also my subject aircraft) with the painting instructions I noticed that the fuselage colours are reversed as the first colour immediately behind the engine panels is the dark grey instead of the slate grey. This is the opposite of the painting instructions. If I follow the box top suggestion, the wing camouflage now transitions into the fuselageand it all matches. The pic that has been posted in Troy,s post ha also raised additional questions The sliding hood portion of the canopy appears to be darker than the corresponding section of the fuselage suggesting it may also have been dark green? The port wing also appears to be much darker than the fuselage, could it be possible that the wing (or wings) were also in the RAF colours? cheers, Pappy

Troy, I never stated it was a Sea Hurricane, but it was on strength with the FAA (released from RAF stocks) so I think my statement stands, I may have referred to the kit as a Sea Hurricane/Hurricat in an earlier post but I have since been edumacated I will have a look at the other link later as it does not work for me at the moment, cheers, Pappy

G'day people, I am building the 1/7 Arma kit for the "Here come the FAA" GB and I am in a bit of a quandary regarding the camouflage pattern. I think the painting instructions may have reversed the colour between the upper wing and the fuselage as the to areas do not 'match up' so to peak. If the wing camouflage is correct, then the fuselage colours have been revered and vice versa. Tony O'Toole wrote the info note on the Arma website which include some very nice B& pic and he used to be quite a prolific contributor on BM but it seems he is now banned! cheers Pappy

G'day people, Next layer applied today was the RDSG It looks a little grey and washed out but it is much better IRL. I also added a mottled distemper over the top of the base coat which is not really visible in the pics. cheers Pappy

No prob Rob, I think buying a 3D printer is the easy part, drawing stuff and also determining how to print is also a bit more involved as some designs may need to be printed on an angle to print sucessfully but good luck with it, it is an exciting area. As for the flash, I think that although described as 3D printed and no doubt some parts are, many parts are still resin cast, albeit based on a 3D printed original. The main capsule looks to be a resin cast for example based on the resin pour stubs. Typically, 3D printed stuff has a myriad of supporting legs that need to be removed first, cheers, Pappy

G'day Ron, Very glad to hear that you are keeping well. Ref the 3D decals, I have found that the easiest way is to use a PVA (wood) glue. Normal water soaking dissolves the glue on the decal backing paper pretty quickly to release the decal, then I just brush some PVA onto the spot where the decal needs to go and maybe some on the back of the decal if it is a larger one, cheer, Pappy

Thanks very much fellas, G'day people. The RAF Dark Green ha been applied now I will let this cure for a day and then make a start on the rest of the fuselage cheers Pappy

G'day people, Just a small update for today. I have applied the dark earth to the forward fuselage section My subject had the forward fuselage section cannibalized from a scrapped aircraft that was painted in the typical RAF Dark Earth/Dark Green over Sky scheme. The remainder of the airframe will be in RAF Dark Slate Grey (RDSG)/ Extra Dark Sea Grey (EDSG) over Sky. The fine surface details such as the delicate cowl fasteners are starting to pop out now cheer, Pappy

G'day Jerry, Wow! That was incredibly interesting and extremely relevant anfd useful. I honestly had no idea that the 'air rudder' was moveable. I trhought this was rigid and simply broke off after enetring the water. I also found the internal mech for stabilisation and depth keeping to be simple in desoign yet complex at the same time. Also interesting to note that the engine was operated on shale oil and belted out 250hp for something the size of a football! I am astounded that all of this was designed before CAD and the maths would have been worked out with slide rules and pencils. As modellers we tend to focus on the planes and pilots but the work done behind the scenes by the 'erks' (in this case armorers) is no less noteworthy as the prep and maintenance work evident in the video demonstrates. thaks very much, Pappy

G'day Colin, Lovely progress and I agree with Loren, splice a section of p,astic or even better some resin off-cut and sand to section. I personally think resin works better as it tends to sand better than styrene stock. cheers, Pappy

G'day people, I have finished painting up the u/c bits. I hadn't realised that there was a very subtle 'DUNLOP' logo present on the main wheels until the detail popped out during a light dry-brush, what a little gem! Likewise the prop and 'zorts Arma provide a separate windscreen and two sliding canopy sections, one to depict a closed cockpit and a slightly wider version to allow you to display the kit with the hood slid back. The closed hood fits perfectly so I decided to use this to mask the cockpit. I used two small blobs of PA to temporarily secure this during spraying so that it would not be blown away. I used a mask set to mask for the windscreen portion and a quick application of tape to the hood meant that the masking task was greatly expedited. Of course I will still need to mask the sliding hood -ugh! I started with a quick blast of IGG to ensure the interior canopy framing was the correct colour. One last thing for the airframe was to open up the two small air intakes immediately behind the spinner I have now applied the underside Sky type "S". There are lots of arguments over which shade is correct, I will leave that to those far more knowledgeable that me (not very hard!) but I am happy with the shade I have chosen. The kit provides the option to cut out the wingtip nav lights and replaced them with clear plastic ones. I decided that in 1/72, for e at least that the bite was not worth the chew, but it is nice that Arma gives you the option. I painted the area under/inside the radiator Sky as well. I am not sure if this is correct but it seems that the general practice was to paint this area in the same shade as the underside, makes sense to me. I went 'old skool' with the u/c bay masking and used some wet tissue as I was going for speed and simplicity with this build. It worked well and I only had some very minor touch-ups to perform. I hope to start getting the topside camo done next, cheers, Pappy

Cheers Dave, that is pretty much what I expected. I was trawling through some IWM pics and it seems that some units would add hastily applied camo to the torpedo's lower surfaces. It makes perfect sense since the aircraft's lower underside was painted black and then a ruddy great big silver torpedo would be half sticking out, it would tend to negate the camouflage somewhat! thanks very much, cheers, Pappy

G'day Dave, I don't think I was confusing left and right. When I referred to the stb'd gun I was talking about the twin gun turret set-up not the beam gun. I agree with all that you have said and I think I stated as much regarding the gun mounting in the turret. I was not aware that the original single turret VGO config was on its side, t Cool, all sorted then. I have a different question now. The destructions indicate the u/c should be painted silver, I don't know if this was unpainted natural metal or a doped silver, regardless, a silver colour. My question is: Was it just the external parts of the u/c that was silver or did the silver portions extend inside the u/c nacelles up into the gear bays? It would make sense to have all the internal bits painted in the interior grey green (IGG) that the rest of the u/c and weapons bay seems to have been painted, but as we all know I am a complete numpty and have no expertise in this area, I probably should not be allowed near sharp implements without a grown up present either cheers, Pappy

G'day Dave, No I don't think I am confused. I was referring to the left and right guns viz the twin VGO turret combination. The pic clearly shows that the aircraft does not have the stb'd beam gun modification as trialled by 22 SQN. Unfortunately, there is no pic of the port side, but I will defer to the painting guide and install the entry hatch/port beam gun modification. I agree with almost everything else and have said as much in my post but cannot concede that the pic of MWR is conclusive evidence of a single VGO turret installation. If I understand this correctly, the original single VGO gyn was horizontally mounted with the drum magazine vertical. The additional (second) VGO was added to the left side of the turret gun chassis in a vertical orientation, i.e., the drum magazine horizontal. In that case the in-flight pic of L9878 with the clearly vertically orientated VGO barrel visible would suggest that it is the twin VGO gun turret configuration. Perhaps it is my unfamiliarity with the subject, but the pic is not conclusive evidence for me. I have also just read through the Beaufort turrets link, wow what a huge boon of info and very helpful! I eventually want to build an RAAF DAP Mk.VIII, so also hugely relevant. It also answered my earlier question on how the entry hatch beam gun mod worked in practice and there is a wealth of reference material that will help with the addition of details to the rear turret, I had no idea how much stuff was missing., Big ups to the BM massif, cheers, Pappy

I agree. The instructions state that L98789 had the stb'd beam/entry hatch gun mod incorporated, which would indicate that the need for greater defensive armament was identified and this was a response, which logically would mean a second gun in the turret. The 'picture' clearly shows one gun visible but I think that the left gun could be obscuring the second turret gun as it was mounted on its side and hence had a lower profile. Even if it had a single gun when the pic was taken, as Graham stated, there is no reason why it could not have had a second gun added at some later point. Everyone is using phrases like I think , could, may etc but nobody really knows but it makes for a great discussion. On balance it is possible, perhaps probable that the turret in my subject had a twin gun set-up and that will be good enough for me cheers, Pappy

Great subject choice Marlin, I am looking forward to seeing what you do with it, cheers, Pappy

Well, I also doubt the antenna shadow theory. As for the second gun, it was mounted on its side i.e. rotated 90 degrees. I suspect this was because theere was insufficient room for both drum magazines if both mounted upright so the second drum would now be vertical. As such, although still parallel and the same length, it would have a lower profile and hence the stb'd gun could now obscure it when viewed from the right as in the pic in question. I agree that the turret installation would have begun life as a single gun but the operational need for greater armament would necessitate more guns. It is interesting that the stb'd beam gun has not been incorporated as there is still a window in place. The destructions indicate the port gun hatch mod was added. As Dave mentioned the stb'd beam gun was a 22SQN field mod so perhaps perhaps only the port gun and twin Vickers configuration at this stage. As Graham stated, the twin Vickers mod may have happened at some point after the pic in question, so I am still leaning towards a twin gun turret in the absence of definitive proof i.e. a pic of the turret with one gun only One further question from that pic - what is the red 'splodge' near the wing root inboard of the stb'd engine? cheers, Pappy

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as I said, in the absence of definitive photo evidence I will build to suit myself, cheers, Pappy

Thanks very much Dave, Pappy

Thank you all for the help. Graham, you can hope all you like but the instructions suggest the two options for the early turret installation but provide no further guidance as to which configuration is required for each option. Duggy, gold star mate! Those pics of L9878 are awesome. Although not conclusive, in the last (enlarged) pic of L9878 I think I can make out two Vickers gun barrels and immediately below them are two parallel shadows which would correspond to a twin gun set-up. In the absence of a conclusive photo to the contrary, that is what I am going with. Those pics also answer another question. The instructions suggest that an additional scoop could be added to the top of each wing just aft and to the right of the carby air inlets. The pic you linked to clearly shows these are not installed, so another win. They also show excellent paint details for weathering cues. Chris, that last pic is very interesting as it looks like it has been posed for the camera to depict an action configuration. I have not seen that plate below the entry hatch before (which does not mean much as my usual fare is jets) but would agree with your assessment as an additional applique armor panel. think I will just add the two hatches in place and have the beam Vickers poking out, cheers, Pappy