Edgar

I suspect that we're apparently disagreeing, when, in fact, we think the same. The fabric patches were introduced, as an official mod, from September 24th., 1940. Before that there were "Covers" for the gun tunnels and empty case chutes. They could be anything, in fact, I'd never heard the term, before last Tuesday (more research!) There's a black and white photo, in Bader's book "Fight for the Sky," of 65 Squadron Spitfires, with the pre-war "FZ" codes, and most appear to have open gunports, except the nearest, which could have something white stuffed into three of the ports (could be a damaged negative, too, but I don't think so.) Edgar

Not according to the colour photos, that I've found. In "The Royal Air Force of World War Two in colour," the patches vary, in shade, very similar to the roundel red, of the time, bright red early on, and dull red, later. One photo, in the desert, has SAAF Spitfire with bright blue patches, while, in others, RAF a/c have dark blue, even black. For years, it's been assumed that the patches were plain, and were doped on with coloured dope. I believe (can't prove it, of course) that they were pre-coloured, then covered with clear dope. Several photos have dark, odd-shaped, areas around the patches (normally perfectly shaped, sharp-edged, oblongs, or squares,) which, I believe, signifies clear dope, not coloured. Edgar

Talk about livid; there's a Hunter F.6 at Halton, which is a gate guardian. I could walk across to it, take 5 minutes, with a tape measure, and be gone. A platoon (flight, Squadron, whatever) could watch me, with loaded rifles, and I'd be visible from a main road, but my request, for permission, has been met with total silence. Maybe they're making plans to go to their parents' weddings. Can we have a "BAS----S" icon, please? Edgar

Just to clear things up, the wording, on the mod, was "Delete covers for gun tunnels and empty case chutes and substitute fabric patches." I still suspect that the patches had a double purpose, being a visual indicator, too, that the guns were loaded and cocked. I doubt that anyone would be very keen on walking in front, when they were in that condition. Edgar

If you want to DIY, and need cockpit photos, let me know. Edgar

Er, John, 24-9-40 was before October 16th Actually, it was minuted, as a possibility, for inclusion, July 3rd., so someone must have tried it, for sure. Edgar

If, by chance, it's EG-T, MM417, it was DG/OG, upper surfaces, MSG undersides, with Sky codes, and MSG spinners. There's a photo in "Camouflage & Markings," no. 6. Edgar

Even if a pilot had his own aircraft, when it was due for service, or repair (and that was a regular occurrence, for Typhoons,) he would take another, possibly that of a pilot, who was on leave. Early, in the war, it was rare for a pilot to have his own mount, unless he was C.O., in which case he usually nicked the best one. On the P.R. Squadrons, it was quite common to see the same aircraft flown by three different pilots, in one day. Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, Easy, Fox, George, How, Item, Jig, King, etc. Edgar

One small detail, which I found in the mod list, at the RAF Museum, today - don't put gun patches on your early Spitfires, unless you have a photo to prove it. The fabric patches replaced gun, and empty case chute, covers from 24-9-40, as mod 259. The two-bar rudder pedals were mod 269, from 27-7-40. According to my nearest shop, the kit is due in the next two weeks. Edgar

Right; I've measured 4 Hunters, all different, a T.7, a T.8, an FGA.9, and an FR.10. I took three measurements: from the rear of the transport joint to the rear end; last, but one, panel line to the rear end; from the tail-cone joint to the rear end. In the same order, as above, they are :- 195.5", 53.25", 41.5" (T.7) 195.25", 53.5", 41.25" (T.8) 196.25", 54", 41.25" (FGA.9) 196.5", 54.25", 42.25" (FR.10.) Unless someone comes up with anything different, and remembering that Hunters were, virtually, hand-built, I'd say that it looks as though John Adams, and Frank Brown, were right. Edgar

Didn't have much; 24-11-54 went to Farnborough; 12-2-55 internal transfer, without engine; 21-2-55 sent to St. Athan, as instructional airframe 7407M; 2-4-57 Returned to RAF. Edgar

The impossible we do every day; miracles take a little longer Edgar

How long have you got? Marks 50,51, 52 = ex-F.4; 53 = ex-T.7; 56 = F.6; 56A = F.6A; 57 = F.6; 58 = F.6; 58A = F.6A/FGA.9; 59 = F.6 (ex-Belgium); 62 = T.7; 66 = T.7; 66A = G-APUX demonstrator + parts from damaged ex-Belgian F.6 + forward fuselage of Indian T.66; 66B = trainers converted from ex-Dutch F.6; 66D = trainer conversion of F.6; 67, 68, 69 = trainer conversion of F.6; 70, 71, 73A, 73B, 74, 74B, 76, 78 = FGA9; 71A, 76A = FR10; 72, 75, 77, 79, 80 = trainer conversion of FGA.9. That's all, folks! Edgar

Mk.50 - Sweden; 51 & T.53 - Denmark; 58, F.58A & T.68 - Switzerland; FGA.76, FR.76A & T.77 - Abu Dhabi; FGA.78 & T.79 - Qatar; F.6 & T.7 Saudi Arabia; 57 & T.67 - Kuwait; F.6, FGA.70, FGA.70A & T.66C - Lebanon; 6, FGA.9 FR.73B & T.66B - Jordan; 6, FGA.59, FGA.59A, FGA.59B & T.69 - Iraq; F.56, F.56A, T.66, T.66D & T66E - India; FGA.9 & T.81 - Kenya; FGA.9 & T.80 - Rhodesia; F.52 & T.62 - Peru; FGA.71, FR.71A & T.72 - Chile; FGA.74, FR.74A & T.75 - Singapore. It's all in the Warpaint. Edgar

Both of the Gannets, in Yeovilton, and the singleton, in Duxford, have black cockpits. Edgar

Warpaint, no. 8, is probably your best bet. The first 5 Marks were, basically, the same airframe, except for the (one and only) 3, which was the airspeed record Hunter, and was, actually, the prototype, with a reheated engine. 1 & 4 were Avon-engined, 2 & 5 were Sapphire-engined. The 6 had an up-rated Avon, with a bigger exhaust. The 7 & 8 were trainers. The (FGA) 9 was a 6, with strengthened wings, and a parachute housing on the tail. The 10 was a fighter reconnaiscance, the 11 was a Navy version. There was only one 12, a trainer, with the same, larger, Avon as the 9. Edgar

Hannant's; Airwaves AES 48093 @ £2.99. It's designed for the Academy kit, but you'll only need to deepen the horn, a little, and carve about 1/16" off the fin top. Edgar

Being an old fogey/stick-in-the-mud, I still occasionally use film (remember them) for my photos, and use the cassette holder for my paint. I can never be sure that all of the paint is thoroughly stirred, especially if it's been settled for some time, so I pour the initial stirred mixture into the container, then half-fill the tinlet, with thinners, stir that, thoroughly, and add it to the paint. This ensures no residue, left behind; the idea of using a full tinlet, every time, might sound expensive, but it's always paid off, for me, with no streaking, or drying problems. Edgar

Factory-applied camouflage was hard-edged, and had to be precise, since the fuselage (for instance) was manufactured in three sections, and the pattern needed to match up precisely. When bolted together, the joins were covered with tape, and then retouched by hand. If an airframe needed repair, at an M.U., or depot, it could be painted free-hand, but the specification was for no more than 1", of overspray, on the upper colours, with 2" permitted between the upper and lower areas. One small detail, so often missed, on that kit; Tamiya made a couple of errors in the rear turret. B38 & B39 are shown the wrong way round; the triangular portions, which represent the chutes, for the empties, should face to the rear, and line up with the holes in F7. Also, they appear to show B41 as having the centre pair of barrels above the outer pair; in fact they were lower. There were two circular windows, in F8, which if you show them, will mean that you can look straight down the fuselage, and that brings another lot of fun into play. Scale Models, around 1975, had a good article, on the kit; unfortunately, I can't, at present, find a copy. Edgar

Well, I tried; did F.A.S.T., at Farnborough, and Tangmere Museums, today, and someone's nicking Hunters. Tangmere's F.5 has disappeared, and Farnborough's F.51 has gone to Ireland (bit out of my reach.) Should have asked, first, I suppose, but at least no-one else will waste time on them. I did get a T.7, and I know where an F.6 should be, so there'll be some news, eventually. (I hope not.) Edgar

I don't know about the difference, but, at its widest point, it's 33.5" Peter Cooke's drawings, of the narrower rudder, scale out to around 30", while his wider rudder scales out to 34.5" (fairly close, in 1/72nd scale!) The height is 71.5", with the horn 16" long, and 12.5" high, at the apex. These measurements were taken from a F.R.XIVE, at Duxford. I couldn't find a XIV with the narrower rudder. If anyone wants to scratchbuild his, or her, own rudder, I have rather more comprehensive measurements available. Edgar

It wouldn't have been necessary; remember that there's a transport joint, just in front of the tail area. It would have been easy to fit a new tail/fin, then add a larger rudder, and I think that the bigger rudder was, originally, necessary (because of the lack of a spine,) for directional control. No.1 Squadron's 21 has a piece of wood, at the top of the fin, to fill in the gap, which was left when it reverted to single prop/ XIV rudder configuration. Edgar P.S. Sorry for the two answers; couldn't figure out how to get two quotes into one reply.

Now, steady on; it's extremely difficult to do research, with sweaty palms :whistling: In Aircam no.8 there are photos of (post-war) Belgian F.R.XIVs, with both types of rudder, but, so far, I can't find, anywhere, photos of wartime XIVs with anything other than the standard, smaller, rudder. Even the photo, of XVIII SM843, which was the trials a/c, has the XIV rudder. I've found the specs, for the 21, at last, and the fin, and rudder, areas are exactly the same as the XIV, XVIII, and XIX. All this leads me, still, to believe that the bigger, XVIII, rudder was a post-war mod, which was retro-fitted to some (but not all) F.R.XIVs, and it was found to be necessary on the contra-prop 21, to counteract the fin offset. It's a pity that there are no Seafire 47s, in this country, because it would be interesting to check on the (lack of?) fin offset, since there might have been none, with the aircraft always designed to have contra-props. Edgar

There might well have been a mod., but I haven't found it. Photographs don't bear out John's theory; No.2 Squadron's F.R.XIVEs, photographed in Gatow, 1946, still have the standard XIV rudder, with the small horn. The only clear photos, that, so far, I've been able to find, of XVIIIs, (but taken around 1948/50,) do have the bigger rudder & the deeper horn, but the specs., for the fin, and rudder, areas, for all marks of XIVs(including the high-backed) & XVIII, in the "Spitfire bible," are identical, and I believe that this could only be true, if the XVIII fin/rudder was altered at a later stage. Edgar

Actually, that's not, strictly, true. The standard 21 used the same fin, and rudder, as the XIV, but the contra-prop version used the rudder from the XVIII, which had a bigger, overall, area, longer cross-section, and the "kinked" trim tab. Additionally, on the 21, only, the horn was made deeper, which took a small amount out of the fin. Inspection of the photos, in "Spitfire the History," will show this. I suspect that the larger rudder was needed because the fin still had the offset, for the Griffon engine, (which would cause its own torque,)and the deeper horn was necessary to stop overbalancing. Edgar