airjiml2

The CWH do have a glass nose for "Hot Gen" but have never gotten around to fitting it. Their airplane is a B-25J and the original "Hot Gen" was a Mitchell II most likely FW275. The serial it carries, HD372, is a carry over from when it was marked as VO-D. The Museum has posted a photo of the original "Hot Gen" which, of course, confirms the glass nose. Sorry for the divergence from the original topic. Jim

I have no experience with Yaks so I can't compare, but when I hear about an airplane that would gradually grind down my bank account, the T-28 would far outstrip the T-6! Heck, it might not be so gradual. (I do love the T-28 and I get you point about its performance over the T-6, but IMO it is a whole level of spendy above the T-6.) And yes, we need a Harvard II or Harvard 4 in 1/72. I don't expect a mainstream manufacturer to get to it for all the reasons discussed in this thread, but I think it would be a steady and good seller for a short run maker. Jim

Jure, Xotic did a resin kit, but I'm not sure how widely they were available. I never got my hands on one. http://www.internetmodeler.com/2006/august/first-looks/xotic_p64.php Jim

Tony, Yea, I noticed that. In case I haven't mentioned it before, I grew up in Oshawa, so a Spitfire with City of Oshawa on the side is very attractive. However, if you choose that option, send me a message so I can get you some pictures. Revell missed a few things on it...for example the serial was repeated twice. Jim

Very nicely done. Jim

Wow Tony, you are making great strides on the Spitfire. Jim

I am very confusion by the Type B roundels under the wing. Was someone asleep in the paint shop? Nice job on the B-17, I may have to consider in Airfix kit in natural metal someday. Jim

Ha! Every time I've flown a Harvard, I fear I might have to actually use my seat cushion for something other than a cushion. That is what I keep a look out for decent landing sites! Great job on both Harvards. Jim

Nice job on the Harvard Tony...I really like that scheme. Jim

Rob, Was the T.30 a de Havilland Canada designation? I've not seen any RCAF document that uses the T.30 designation and was scratching my head when it appeared on the AZ box. Excellent article on Hyperscale, btw. Jim

That will teach me to say never... Jim

Canadian born John "Jackie" Rae flew Spitfires over Dieppe with 416 Squadron. (RCAF J15493) He was later the host of the "The Jackie Rae Show" on the CBC, "Spot the Tune" and "The Golden Shot" on the BBC, and wrote songs for Eddy Arnold, Andy Williams,Engelbert Humperdinck, and Tony Bennett. In the early 80s he formed the Spitfire Band. The first three LPs by the bend featured 416 Squadron Spitfires on the covers. Jim

Troy says that the Sea Hurricane Mk. I suffixes were not related to wing armament. Was this changed with the Mk. IIs? For example, does a Sea Hurricane Mk. IIB have the 12 gun wing and a Sea Hurricane Mk. IIC the four cannons? Are capitals correct or should the letter not be capitalized? Thanks, Jim

Trevor, My opinion has always been that the first aircraft is one of the BW*** Sea Hurricanes that ended up with the RCAF as the date is close to their construction period and the 602nd aircraft built would fall into that serial range. Jim

Those are Sea Hurricane IIbs, not Sea Hurricane XIIs. (There is no such thing, not matter how many times it is repeated in books.) As far as CCF was concerned they were either Sea Hurricane Mk. IIs or Hurricane Mk. IIs. (See below as to why the confusion.) At this point, I posit that the Hurricane XII and XIIA designations are RCAF only designations and never adopted by the RAF. There are indeed (Sea) Hurricanes in the JS block that ended up with the FAA as Sea Hurricane IIcs. JS310 and JS222 are examples. My opinion is they were built as (Sea) Hurricane IIBs in Canada and modified in the UK with cannon wings. I am unclear how many of the Sea Hurricanes were built as such in Canada. Clearly, at least a portion of the BW*** were built as Sea Hurricanes. I have no idea if some or all of the JS*** serials had hooks or not. I would assume they were built with hooks, but we all know about assumptions. As I said previously, so much more research is needed! (I will leave Graham or Tony to correct my Sea Hurricane a/d/c suffixes...I usually mess them up.) Jim

Yikes, Claudio, I didn't know you were going to post a masters thesis! I will try to respond to as much as I can. I will admit that my research has focused on RCAF involvement with the Hurricane and only related to CCF production when necessary for that story. The CCF production story is a mess, as it is hard to document some of the previous published material, as most primary documents are not surviving. The intent in my research was not to just rehash "known" facts, but to use primary document as much as possible. Even among a small group Canadian/UK researchers discussing these matters there is disagreement on a few key issues and every day more information is surfacing. A few quick hits: - A Merlin 29 is a Merlin 28 but with a prop shaft that will accept U.S. props. - Tony is indeed correct that the RCAF 13** serial Hurricanes were fitted with props and Merlins taken from RCAF Battles - The Hurricane X and XI were not CCF or RCAF designations. Hurricane X may have been a RAF designation, but most CCF Hurricanes were known as Hurricane I or Hurricane II in RAF service. It is possible that it was a Hawkers designation, but I've not seen it listed in any primary document. - There is an open debate as to when the switch from long to short fuselage took place. I am of the opinion that the 13** Hurricanes and BW*** serial Hurricanes that served with the RCAF were short fuselage. - There were not that many Merlin IIIs at CCF and many Hurricanes were shipped without engines to the UK. - Some of the previous published CCF product data appears to be in error. I know of at least one Hurricane that appears to have been completed long before its serial block was considered in production. - The MSFU does play into the picture, but not very many CCF Hurricanes, outside of the BW*** series, appear to be connected to the unit. - It is exceedingly unclear if all BW*** Hurricanes were built with hooks or not. Clearly a few aircraft didn't have hooks with their during their time with the RCAF. Currently it is unknown if that was how they were construction or a modification made at Dartmouth. Jim

So I will worn you that there is a shocking amount of misinformation out there about the CCF and RCAF Hurricanes. Sadly, those links repeat many of those misconceptions. I did the best I could with the articles for IPMS Canada and even then I have since discovered errors and additional information. I considered expanding the articles into a book, but there is so much left to learn and so many files to research that I've decided to shelf that plan for the time being. I am happy however to try to answer any questions. Jim

Interesting, Dave O'Mally claims that is Hugh Pawson: http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/402/An-Illustrious-Hero.aspx I've always thought it was interesting that the BPF bar covers the ROYAL NAVY in that photo. Jim

It is not impossible to find pictures of RCAF Mustangs with tanks, but generally they are either from 416 or 417 Squadrons and/or delivery flights from the U.S. (AKA early in service.) My understanding is that the tanks were rarely, or never, fitted to Auxiliary Mustangs. Very nice Mustang, btw! Jim

Very neat build and thank you for posting all the photos and other interesting tidbits. I've long wanted to build Power's field repainted violet Spitfire ever since Jonathan/Wally told me about it at a show years ago. Maybe this is the year... Jim

I picked one up at the local models shop on Saturday. So they have been released. Jim

The Captain of the Clouds Hurricane is most likely a Sea Hurricane from 118 Squadron, and it possible it was painted overall Extra Dark Sea Grey. I need to find the time to dive into the 118 Squadron and Dartmouth diaries to see if more info can be gleaned from those sources. Jim

Nick, Again, thank you! Jim

Nice job, but even after all the years the Beau looks odd with stars and bars. Jim

Neat project. Looking forward to more. Jim