72modeler

Is this your Fort? https://b17flyingfortress.de/en/b17/43-38972-lucie-aka-duke-spook/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/6333255711633529/visual-search/?x=16&y=16&w=532&h=532&cropSource=6&surfaceType=flashlight https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/aircraft/43-38972

Dennis, I seem to recall seeing a photo of your B-17; IIRC, it had the nsme "The Spook" along with a caricature of a Skull wearing a top hat, and I think holding a cane and white gloves, but for the life of me, I don't remember in what book I saw it. I found some data on what might be the same B-17F; the codes were ET-J., serial was 42-29704. Here is what I have found so far; in the photo with the crew, you can see the name and I think behind it and covered by the prop hub, is the nose art. Best I can do right now, but maybe this info will jog somebody's memory. I will dig into my B-17 reference books to see what I can find, Is this a great hobby, or what? Mike Delivered Cheyenne 6/2/43; Rapid City 20/2/43; Kearney 12/3/43; Assigned 336BS/95BG [ET-J] Alconbury 29/3/43; Framlingham 12/5/43; 2m, battle damaged ... https://95thbgdb.com/aircraft/29 https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205360906 Evidently there were several B-17's with the same name! (I am really confused, now!) https://books.google.com/books?id=Zq231WMxUXYC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=B+17f+42+29704+the+spook+crash&source=bl&ots=miLORliLiX&sig=ACfU3U0-PBmXxz1SL1z_luNQ0ZhgLC9XjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb6qzqk9uFAxUTnokEHab8BTI4ChDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=B 17f 42 29704 the spook crash&f=false

As for the package guns, I'm not entirely sure on those yet. Best I've seen so far is a cutaway drawing that makes it look like there were ammo boxes underneath tables in the navigator/radio operator compartment behind the cockpit. Matt, you are correct about the package guns; the guns themselves were contained in the blister fairings, and there was a slot in the fuselage adjacent to each gun where the rounds were fed from boxes within the fuselage, I seem to recall seeing a photo of the boxes as well as the guns with the blisters removed that showed where the rounds were fed from inside, but for the life of me, I can't recall where I saw them, and I didn't think to save them- most likely because I thought at the time, "My, that's very interesting." but since it wouldn't be visible, especially in my preferred scale, I neglected to save the information...dumb, I know! Mike

Curses, Tony! Saw that after I posted- thanks for the reminder! Mike

As Graham has stated, the H and J were very similar; see below for some description of the differences between both types, taken from B-24 Liberator, 1940-45. If you can look at a copy of the MMP B-24 Consolidated Mess, which has been reprinted, IIRC,you can see the detail differences in every production block from every assembly plant for every B-24 that had a nose turret fitted. Mike B-24J In many respects the B-24J resembled the B-24H but in NMF. The Emerson nose turret (cylindrical) became standard production although the Consolidated Turret (sloped front) was used on several blocks at CO. Enclosed waist guns with jetisonable K-6 mounts were added. The pitot tubes were now located at a slightly raised angle and above the navigator's observation window. A new redesigned autopilot and bombsight were added. There were also minor differences in the Libs produced at the different plants within the production pool. Such things as boot-type de-icers, different bombardiers scan windows, flush type pitots, different paint schematic for the anti-glare panel, inward/outward nose gear door panels and wingtip lights ALL of which could give mechanics working in the various Theatres of Operation nightmares. Several different sets of prints were required to understand which parts were "interchangeable" or "custom" depending upon the originating plant." It should be noted also that the "J" was built in larger numbers than all the other variants and was built at all five plants within the Liberator Production Pool. B-24H Very similar to the B-24G, the B-24H coincided with some of the activities going on with the "G." Improvements were made to waist gun location that staggered the gunners on each side. The Emerson turrets for the nose and the MPC for the tail were now standard. The overall length of the Liberator now grew to 67' 3 & 3/16" or almost a foot longer than the "D" or "E." Increased protective armor plating was installed around the pilot's deck. Yet, one of the most effective changes was the addition of the left (port) aileron that greatly enhanced the trimming of either wing. Also the OD paint was discontinued with the "H" at all facilities in March of 1944 so that all ships would now be shipped with their natural metal finish (NMF).

Oh, good golly, Miss Molly! Let's see what we have here: speed brakes the correct shape- check! correct narrow chord slatted wings- check! gun blast panels with both styles of gun ports- check! positionable control surfaces- check! accurate V-shaped windscreen - check! (Hard to tell in the photo, but what I can see looks pretty good!) correct stabilizers and stabilizer root fairings- check! ...and they will be doing one in God;s Own Scale as well? Put me down for at lest one of each, please! Looks like the way they have engineered the A kit, they would need to do completely new fuselage halves for an E or F-10. That being said, we all owe you, big-time, Duncan! 'Mike

If you go to the 368th FG Association website, you can find several photos of the P-47D's you asked about: http://www.368thfightergroup.com/ I found photos of: 33-33576 D3-K underlined,r 'Hard to Get' 44-33136 D3-K 44-21018 D3-X 'The Old Man' I also think your airplane was K rather than X .The K's used on 368th FG were an unusual style; there was a photo of D3-K and D3-K underlined; if there was more than airplane in a squadron with the same individual aircraft letter, the letter of the second aircraft was underlined with a bar the same color as the code letter. I found no evidence on the website that there was a Jug with an underllined X code letter. Hope this helps! Perhaps a shout out to @Tbolt might get you better information. Mike

Thomas, I have a copy of the William Wolf book The B-26 Marauder- The Ultimate Look. I looked at the text and photos in the armament section, and I can provide some information that might be useful. The Martin 250 top turret was fed from four 200 round ammo boxes, two of which were located on the LH and RH side of the turret assembly- one on the top of the other. There was a booster motor attached to each gun to draw the rounds from the boxes to the guns. Each waist gun was fed via a 240 round ammo box located in the ceiling forward of each gun position, with the ammo being led from the ammo box to each gun via a flexible belt. The tail guns were fed from an ammo box located on each side of the fuselage- each box held 200 rounds and traveled to the tail guns through a long metal roller track made by the Lionel model train company. that ran along each side of the rear fuselage; each roller track held 300 rounds, and the rounds were stacked vertically. There was a booster motor fitted to each of the tail guns that were used to draw the rounds from the ammo boxes and roller tracks to each gun. The photos showed the ammo boxes for the top turret and waist guns, but not the boxes for the tail turret, although the roller feed track was illustrated. None of the photos of preserved Marauders showed the ammo boxes for the tail gun. Perhaps photos of B-26B 'Flak Bait' might show the tail gun ammo boxes, but might not have the same setup as the other preserved Marauders, which are all B-26G's IIRC. I'm not a 1/48 modeler, and I'm not familiar with the new ICM kit, so maybe another Marauder maniac can be more helpful. Best I can do from my references- sorry! Mike

I don't really understand the rationale behind this, either, and I'm even less an aerodynamicist than you, Graham, but I also recall reading about getting the B-24 'on the step' a couple of times from some articles or monographs on the Liberator. From the B-24D pilot's manual: 'After reaching cruising altitude, level off- get on the step, and pick up speed before power is reduced to cruise settings. If power is reduced too soon and before the aircraft has picked up full momentum for cruising, it would mush along in a high drag, high angle of attack attitude in trying to regain speed under reduced power, and would probably be quite sluggish. Approach the cruising condition from the top- both speed and altitude; never from the bottom!' (I have NO idea how or why this procedure was recommended!) From Wikipedia on flying the B-24: 'I was necessary when flying the B-24, to get "on step". This meant climbing to about 500 ft (150 m) above cruise altitude, leveling off, achieving a cruise speed of 165–170 mph (266–274 km/h), then descending to assigned altitude. Failing to do this meant that the B-24 flew slightly nose high, and it used more fuel. ' My only thought is that this procedure might have something to do with the characteristics of the Davis aerofoil.... basically, you got me, my friend! (Is this a great hobby or what?) Mike

Yep- we had a discussion on this very topic back in 2021! Here it is, for your reading enjoyment- glad to see the exact figure was 2.5 degrees- thanks @don f! Mike https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235096512-b-24-liberator-rudders-are-angled-up/

YESSSSS! Thank you, Duncan, on behalf of all of us, for your efforts in making this possible! I hope also that Clear Prop will do as they have done before and release the kit in both scales; regardless, I will certainly get the 1/48 one, as I have always wanted to do Bruce Hinton's 'Squanee.' As you stated, they are going to sell a TON of these, and hopefully somewhere down the line, give us an F-86E/F-10 ! Whoo hoo! Mike @SabrejetTime to begin work on getting us an Avon Sabre, Duncan, and assure your place in the Modelers Hall of Fame!

I believe it was one of the two Tomahawk IIb's listed as being part of No. 73 OTU at Fayid. I have a friend whose uncle flew this very airplane when he was at Fayid for advanced training, and Neville Duke was one of his instructors; my friend has his uncle's logbook, F/O Raymond Harlow, and AK431 EoD is listed as one of the P-40's he flew; he later went on to fly Hurricane IIc's and P-47D's in the CBI, and Spitfire XVI's postwar with 695 Squadron. I am working on building the 1/48 Airfix kit in these same markings as a tribute to my friend's uncle to give to him. He was thrilled that I was able to find a period photo of one of the planes his uncle flew, as seen above. Mike

Wow! I learned something new today! Thanks, Chris! Mike

As @theplasticsurgeon stated, the 1/72 Sword T-28C kit would be the easiest way, but I don't know how available that kit is, as they were released in 2012, and I don't think they have eved been re-released. If you can get a Sword T-28B, all you need to do is shorten the prop blades slightly, (Done to prevent the prop from striking the deck on arrested landings.) and do the cutout under the rear fuselage and rudder for the arresting hook, as can be seen in the photo you posted. IIRC, I don't believe that the T-28C had catapault hooks, but I have the Naval Fighters book on the T-38, and I could look that up. Not sure how available the Sword T-28B kit is, either. That being said, if you can''t find either Sword kit, you could convert the Heller T-28 Fennec kit, but you would need to source new canopies, as the canopies on the Fennec were taller than the USAF/USN T-28B/C. Yoiu would also need to remove the under wing gun pod and fill the voids,, and of, course do the prop and fuselage/arrestor hook mods, too. Good luck on your project! Mike Here is a link to @Tailspin TurtleTommy Thomason's Tailhook Topics blog that should tell you everything you need to know about the differences between the T-28B and T-28C. Note that the T-28C had a 9' 4" prop. TT is the best source for all things related to modeling USN aircraft. (No, we're not related, and I don't get any compensation or favors for recommending his website,, but he has helped so many modelers on both sides of the pond, and I want to show my gratitude).

If by underwing tanks, do you mean the ones carried on the inner wing pylons that also carried bombs on the F-84G? Never recall seeing lights on the nose of those tanks, but after looking at some photos, I think that on some F-84G's, the underwing tanks were the same tanks as the ones used on the wingtips, but without the fins and nav lights. In the attached photo, it looks like the nose cap in which the nav lght would be mounted when used as a tip tank has been capped off with a flat panel. on both of the underwing tanks. That being said, it appears that the 1/48 Tamiya F-84G kit does have lights covered by a clear dome on the underwing fuel tanks. IIRC, the straight winged F-84's had a landing light fitted to each of the inner landing gear doors, so there would be no reason for the underwing tanks to have lights that I could think of. A wild guess would be if a tip tank was used on the underwing pylon, and the light was not removed and capped, then you would see a clear cover on the nose of such tanks. That's as far as my thinking takes me, and might explain why the underwing tanks on the 1/48 Tamiya kit have clear covers. Puzzling, to be sure! Maybe Martin @RidgeRunner might know. What are your thoughts, TB? Mike photo via wikipedia:

Luis, I am not aware of any conversion or upgrade set in 1/72 scale to build an F-10 from a B-25 kit. I have the William Wolf book on the B-25, which is the most comprehensive reference on the Mitchell, and I can take a look to see if there are any diagrams or photos of the F-10. Perhaps @ReccePhreak might have some information. Mike

Not at all- I just thought that it was harder to build that intricate boarding ladder than it was to build the kit! They are both outstanding builds! Mike

Very nice model! Might I ask what the brick red panels are at the wing and stabilizer roots? Replacement panels that are still in primer? Pardon my ignorance! Mike

Nice one! Mike

Museum quality, in all respects! Mike

Very beautiful and realistic metal finish. One of the best builds of the Flying Flatiron I have seen in a long time. Well done! Looks like building the ladder was harder than the kit! Mike

Words fail me! What an incredible build! Looks like you nailed the NIVO, too! You should be proud of this one. Mike

Peter, All I could find was this photo of AM923, a sister ship to your AM925. Although not your Liberator, it should at least help you with fit and color scheme; note the 20mm gun pack under the fuselage. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! Because of the sensitive nature of the radar fit, there might not have been very many photos, if any, allowed. Mike https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=692997227492535&set=pcb.692997334159191

One reason that you don't see photos of Corsairs in the Atlantic Sea Search scheme might be due to the fact that all of the ASW types were based on escort carriers, and maybe Corsairs could not operate from them like Wildcats and Avengers could, As both Hellcats and Corsairs were desperately needed in the PTO, and Wildcats were more than capable to carry out the mission, perhaps that's why you don't see them in the grey/white sea search scheme. That being said, Dennis, I vaguely recall seeing a photo somewhere of a Hellcat in that scheme, but it might have been one of the several types that were used to test the various color combinations that were used to develop that scheme. (I'll see if I can find that photo.) Mike I've seen photos of Wildcats, Avengers, Helldivers, Dauntlesses, Catalinas, Venturas, Liberators, Mitchells, Bolos, and Mariners in the Atlantic scheme, but no Hellcats or Corsairs.