Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


Sadly Missed
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edgar

  1. Same with Gleed and his Squadron:_
  2. Um, well, yes, thank you for the compliments, but, if you look closely (not recommended,) you'll see the faint residue of egg on my face, from the many times when I got things wrong. I've been given the posh title of researcher, but I'm just a collector of information, who just happens to like searching. Having been a modeller (of sorts) since 1952, I've always tended to take my photos from a modeller's point of view, which is coming in very handy in these days of the net.
  3. I should have added that the return of roundels to the undersides of fighters was decided on July 23rd., 1940, and promulgated 11-8-40.
  4. 1-5-40 Order for yellow ring to be added to fuselage roundel, plus fin stripes. 11-5-40 Order for underwing r/w/b (only, not yellow) roundels, as large as possible, but not encroaching on ailerons or their hinges. 12-6-40 Order for Sky, obliterating all roundels. On the same date, due to the shortage of Sky and until stocks became available, aircraft were to retain the black/white scheme, but the port wing's roundel was to be outlined in yellow (not less than a quarter, and not more than the full, width of the blue band,) once again without encroaching on the aileron, etc. This meant that the Air Ministry had to accept that there was a temporary likelihood of seeing both schemes in operation at the same time.
  5. It's a Mk.IX, which was sitting, as part of the RAF Museum's reserve collection, at St. Athan, around 30 years ago; it was MK356.
  6. Actually, looking at the photo (properly) again, it seems that the lack of serial might be due to the censor doing his mucky little job (again.) There's a mark, which might be the residue of the serial; the letters and numbers would be light, on the negative, so relatively easy to doctor. Rawlings gives two JU-R airframes, RR239, which seems unlikely, and MJ927, though, of course, there might be others which he left out.
  7. Judging by the (presumably) Sky spinner, and the painted-out "N" beside the "R," it looks as if it's been transferred from another Squadron, maybe even sent out in a hurry, straight from the U.K. (at the end of 1942, Park was pleading for IXs, to cope with the 109G.) There's a hint that the tail band has been painted out, as well, which could explain the lack of the serial.
  8. The cannon barrel is far too long for a IXe; the middle parallel section was removed, leaving just the tapered section, because the cannon was further back in the wing. During 1943, a modification, to remove the outer cannon mounting, was introduced on the Vc & IX; it was eventually rescinded, in late 1943, when the E wing was likely to appear, but it's probably been responsible for many misidentified (especially alleged "Vb" & "IXb") airframes.
  9. Almost; there's an extra (arrestor hook) warning light next to the elevator trim tabs position indicator on the instrument panel, and an air intake control (also on the tropical Spitfire) under the throttle box on the port wall. On the starboard wall, the remote contactor is deleted and replaced by a remote control wave tuner, with a T.R.1196 morsing key below that, resting on the main longeron. There's an extra (R.1147) controller above the emergency u/c lowering control and an R.1147/R.T. switch above that. There's a release control, for the arrestor hook beside the right side of the seat, and a Very pistol "holster" would be attached to the seat beside the pilot's right elbow. The seat also has the double rack of cartridge stowage on the front of the seat, but with the middle of the front row cut out, leaving just three each side.
  10. I have an Aeromaster sheet, with two car-door FM-B & JE-D, plus four bubble canopy, F3-T, BR-M, I8-R & TP-F, which is surplus to requirements, since I have the 1/24 kit to build. PM me with an address, and I can post it off next week sometime.
  11. Do you have cans of worms for breakfast? When first manufactured (in 1918-ish) the harness was designed to go through a hole in the back of the seat (which is exactly what happened with the Hurricane's [metal] seat.) So far I've found only one metal Spitfire seat, and it has no hole. There was obviously some problem with the Spitfire, because Dowding had to ask for the straps to be lengthened (which pair isn't clear) since short and tall pilots were being put into some discomfort, due to the harness now passing through the armour. I've spoken to a man who's worked on Spitfires, and he's adamant that the plastic seat would not have stood up to the strain of the straps coming through the hole, and he also asked, "How often have you seen any chafing, around that hole, caused by the belts?" This is the illustration of the harness, taken from the Patrick Stephens book on the 1/24 Airfix kit, and, at the time, we were told that they had the chance to inspect the Mk.I at the Imperial War Museum:- While by no means definitive, these are the illustrations from the relevant A.P.s for the Hurricane and Spitfire; note how the back straps, on the Hurricane, are drawn with a slight kink where they pass through the hole in the seat, while those on the Spitfire have no such kink:- One last thing to note; the plastic seat did not see service until mid-May 1940, the metal seat did not have the lozenge-shaped depression, and was either cockpit grey-green or (possibly) black. The armour behind the seat was often black, as well.
  12. Part 1 locked itself before my problems with Photobucket were resolved; this is the earliest Sutton, as fitted to the Spitfire (Kew holds a 1:1 drawing.) All that changed, during its use on the Spitfire were the length of the straps, and the position of the thigh straps:- Although this one looks grey, it's actually faded black, which is what yours should be; note that this a slightly later version, since the first ones had oval sight glasses.
  13. The difficulty comes in knowing how many airframes had the flat-topped canopy. According to Supermarine, from 22-9-38,, there was a mod "Increasing headroom in pilot's hood," but with no indication of what this entailed; at that time, production appears to have stood at 9 (K9787-9794 + 9798.) 20-12-38 another mod "Incorporating pilot's domed hood" (which appears to be self-explanatory) was introduced, by which time production had reached K9831 (45 airframes.) There remains the vexed question, was the latter mod retrospective?
  14. A friend just dropped the kit off, here, for me to look at, and his set of clear parts contains a flat-sided canopy (parts 3 & 6.) As well as the two different u/c retraction systems, there is also an extra starboard cockpit wall (so don't mix them up,) without the IFF destructor buttons, which is correct for 1940. The door, being left over from the Vb, has the crowbar, so some scraping will be needed, and you're told to paint the gunbays green, when they should be silver.
  15. The bubble-canopy fuselage drawing is 35927, and, although I only have a couple, the cut-down fuselage formers are also in the 359-- range.
  16. It's very doubtful; after checking (always a good idea,) the four-cannon drawings are all in the 359-- series, which was the low-back VIII prototype, so it rather looks as if the layout was for the planned low-back VIII, which never happened.
  17. Sorry, Peter, but the VIII was planned to have 4 cannon as an option, in fact this pertained until the end of 1943, when the cannon door, on the V & IX, on mod 782, had their broad bulge replaced by a single narrow type; in the case of the VIII, the broad bulge was replaced by two narrow (modification 769,) which would only be needed for a pair of cannon each side.
  18. Tyres would have been entirely the province of the Squadron, since it would depend on the airfield surface, Grass = smooth tread, but, after that, your guess is as good as mine. From photos, wheels appear to have been four-spoke, and this is backed up by, when the four-spoke was introduced as a modification, the Mk.VIII was missed out, hinting that it already had them.
  19. PM me with an E-mail address, and I can send you photos from the official XVI Pilot's Notes (not the IX, which is generally used); the remote contactor doesn't feature, so was probably never fitted (it was deleted on the XIV & 21.)
  20. Judging by the paint loss on the front of the radiator of SN-M, it's doubtful if the Squadron carried out any retouching, and it probably predates the employment of Aircraft Finishers. Also, filling and smoothing the seams and rivet "divots," on the wings' leading edges, was not discussed until August 1942, was not planned to start until mid-September, and would only be on airframes painted with synthetic paint, not cellulose. Canvas patches were not 100% red; maybe an erk decided to make it look pretty for the photographer, although they might still have had some of the old covers (which just filled the muzzle holes) left to use up.
  21. It might have been CRC; there has been talk that Caldwell, at some time, had a four-cannon VIII.
  22. Not for those of us who played table tennis.
  23. Yet again we come up against 21st Century thinking, which cannot be applied to 1940s (wartime) Britain. You didn't have camera shops all over town; if you were lucky you might find cameras and film in your local chemist, who would very often do the developing and printing for you (so you had no choice how they looked.) Filters? Don't be daft, it wasn't normally possible to buy a lenshood, and the predominant film was 620 rollfilm, and you made every shot count, since it was so hard to find. Even Charles E Brown tried to use only one shot of (imported) Kodachrome on each subject. If you did your own processing, you had to buy chemicals from the same chemist and mix your own; prints for printing had to be on glossy paper, which deepened the contrast. You also had to decide how to expose and develop the film; while one friend did scenic photos, so gave his film extra development and therefore contrast, I did portraits, which needed over-exposure (of the film) and a cut in development time, which lowered contrast. The same system was needed for wedding photos, to get detail in the white wedding dress, while avoiding having a groom looking as if he was carved out of ebony. And, yes, speed of film did make a difference, as did the grade of paper on which it was printed, development time and temperature (of both.) Some paper was actually brown (sepia,) and when transferred to black and white, all sorts of fun could ensue. The short answer is, no, you can't tell colour from black and white photos, and anyone, who tells you he can, is conning you.
  • Create New...