tempestfan

YES, count me in - not that I matter... His drawings are the ONLY set (and I have looked at a couple) to feature the shallow but visible - if one takes a look or two - teardrop blister between the main spar panel line and the outboard case ejector slots on the 6-gun wing. I had a brief correspondence on this topic with Rich Dann on Hyperscale after his In Action #191 (IIRC) came out, and he stated it was not on Grumman's drawings (IIRC - it was some 16 years or so ago, and is not meant to be a take on him). But then drawings in the first Detail & Scale on the Hellcat were also based on "official" Grumman drawings I think ( @Dana Bell -correct me if I'm wrong!) and missed a full rib on the elevator. leading to a rather exaggerated tip curve. So - as great as the Grumman Historical Archives (and the incredibly-often referenced Lois Lovisolo) were - either their filing system had room for improvement, or they didn't file everything that should have been. Did I say those 100-10 Martlet II's keep fascinating me? They are the Navy's Boston III...

I am not a techie but think that if the original file linked to is a pdf or jpg, you will have to download.

I do not want to blame anyone but the 81/82/83 "all green" theory may be rooted with Smith/Creek - in their 335 books, they present a Dornier camou diagram referring to "81 Dunkelgrün/82 Dunkelgrün", then state this diagram is the only one known to actually spell out the names of those Farbtöne, and then deduce Dornier got it wrong because 81 is known to be Braunviolett. If in fact 81 was something similar to US OD, and possibly with a range of acceptable compositions, this would obviate the need to have either 82 or 83 as Grass Green or alternatively Dark Green, respectively. In my very humble opinion I fully agree (see sister thread), and the bombing not only concerned the transport network, but also the sites producing the paints and/or raw materials (coal liquification at Leuna, for instance). I do not think dogmatism has a place in late war Luftwaffe colours, and heated debates should be avoided, simply because colour photos are more than tricky in most instances and no-one of us had the privilege (or otherwise) of being there. Hindsight in some cases is significantly less than 20/20

I do not quite see the point of issuing three different formulae, of which one results in a notably different colour, and giving it the same nomenclature. Please don't get me wrong, this is neither critical of you nor of the publication you quote - but it sounds strange, unless RLM recognised that raw material shortages were imminent and started thinking in "ranges" for each Farbton, setting outer boundaries within which a Farbton could be produced and still be up to specification. I wouldn't dare to guess whether that's 74/75 or 81/71, or a brown and a green 81 used together. Aber die stirbt doch zuletzt ... I think the order to use up stocks of at least 71 has been reported by Smith/Creek on several occasions, e.g. in the various incarnations of their 335 book (even though they state that Dornier got it wrong in their camou diagram in calling both 81 and 82 "Dunkelgrün", if I'm not mistaken...). That this was a general doctrine in new to me (which doesn't mean anything) but makes sense, considering that everything oil based would be precious after losing access to the Romanian oil fields in particular and that the petrochemical complex was subject to constant strategic bombing as well as the railway lines on which most of the paints would have been distributed. I do not propose "anything goes", but I also think there is not much merit in being dogmatic about paints used in the final year of the war (not directed at you @Troy Smith, it's just here because you quoted MU). I am pretty sure no Luftwaffe final inspector would have rejected a batch of G-10s or D-9s because they were not painted in the correct shades; I am equally sure no assembly plant would have rejected a batch of paint (at least when out of stock on that colour) because, due to e.g. shortage of one pigment, it was out of specifications. And I am even more sure that no one responsible at a plant would withhold a batch of planes because the specified shade was temporarily unavailable while an acceptable substitute was, either for still believing in the Endsieg, or simply for not wanting to come to and quick and painful end after becoming accused of sabotage of the war effort. And just another tiny aspect: IIRC the average life expectancy of an airframe in 1944 was something like 20 to 25 flying hours. Most of them were lost before Allied intelligence could note that the Germans were not painting their aircraft to their own specs, which may have hinted to a certain amount of problems... In case anyone is interested, my own personal belief is that 82 is the rather light "grassy" green, that 81 in its brownish variations is similar to US OD and something like a "reverse Ford T" (in other words, anything apart from black), and that in many instances of 1944-built airframes the "green" dark green may well be from stocks of 71. In any event, I will paint my D-9 - soon to be seen in your neighbourhood theatre during the next decade - in what I think best matches what I see in the references I use.

Not sure how it was in the US, but in Europe the 72nd D only ever was released by Revell I think, right after the Revellogram combination. I am pretty certain they have retained the mould(s), in particular if it was in Europe. The Great Mould Dump apparently only affected the moulds in storage in the US. I am generally a big fan of the Palitoy-era Airfix kits, but the 105 may be the weakest (tied with the Mi-24). It came out just about concurrently with the Mono kit, and they are worlds apart particularly detail-wise. And while I'm no hogster, it simply does not look right even on that photobox.

Isn't that the kit that had some inspiration by (read: copy of with modifications to the spine) the KP kit?

Willkommen im Team! I have always claimed 1972 was the last year in which just about every boy built at least one model (guess how I know :-)), but you possibly prove me wrong. Or you may be an odd man out Grüße aus dem Hamburger Speckgürtel Claus

If I'm not mistaken, the OEZ kit also had an SMT option - but probably few people would consider going for it when there's an state-of-the-art Eduard around...

That is a question I have been asking myself for some 20 years now. None of the publications I own says anything about this, or shows any pics IIRC. Obviously internally - but where and how? The same position would make sense, but then the pronounced cowling lip would "shade" the airflow from reaching the intake. Most likely the Grumman Historical Archives and Lois Lovisolo could have provided an answer if asked kindly. --- EDIT: OK, Lois retired in 2017. I have no idea which retirement age applies but I guess that would make her something like 70 to 72 years - hopefully she fully enjoys her retirement. I am not quite sure what happened to the Grumman archives after Northrop's incredibly wise decision that history is just looking backwards and it costs money without obvious/tangible benefits so should be put in a bin but don't think everything has been dumped. As @Dana Bell has started to cover the Wildcat, I am pretty sure he is in contact with her, so she may have some leads that help to resolve this topic.

Hmmm... I am pretty certain that I bought #191 just when it came out (I did, ordered from Squadron in 2004 when usually I only went for their incredible bargains), but do not recall this photo (and do not recall to have ever seen it before, and I stared at quite a few Wildcat and especially Martlet (II) photos back in the day). I don't think there are many pics of Wildcats with unfaired gun through and blistered gun panel; and I am also not sure of ever having taken notice before of the two "ejectors" on the gills of the one in the background (but that's a batch 3 one I guess?). Looks like I'll have to dig out all my Wildcat stuff with notes etc. and re.acquaint myself! Do they have red-bordered stars'n'bars? And the pic of 958 tells me I really have to get at that Martlet II stuff. As it's almost 20 years that I was in love a lot has been forgotten. I guess the Carb intake and domed prop substantiate the fact that the first 10 IIs actually were -3s. What I'd really ever wanted to know is if that also applies to the wings - @Bruce Archer states so, and most likely the straight pitot right above says "that's true" - but I'd really prefer a non-folding 6-gun wing, for some reason And @GiampieroSilvestri - I guess bringing up a topic at least remotely connected with Martlets will expose a huge amount of expertise - it looks like the Martlet is loved by quite a few people

In the -4B pics posted by @Finn, the fins look the same colour as the propellant section to me - but AF and Navy (or in this case, likely USMC) may have had a different approach.

Lovely close-ups of -4B's! I think I should save them... Does anyone do wheels with all that intricate detail? Looks like the maker's name cast into it. And the bird above looks to have a replacement upper (or lower) cowl as the checks don't line up. --- Not intending to hijack this, back to HVARs. A detail I never noticed before is the fusing wire coming from the pylon leading edge. Incredibly sharp pics, the guy who took them really knew his business.

I am late to the party and guess everything has been said already, but I can echo what the others have said - I have one set which came with a started (original) Airfix Vulcan. From what is visible through the unopened blister, straight recasts of the Airfix parts, and yet bent. Straightening them would likely impair their strength.

Ah, that's great! I just looked in his build article but didn't see any links, and didn't have the time to go through his complete works - which is impressive. Just one blade shape for the XIV drawn by him, however.

Thank YOU for co-authoring it BTW, what I always wanted to ask but always forget is: Do you happen to have been at an Eggebek open day with a real Canberra under your arm, probably in August 2003? If so, do you remember the (then MUCH younger) bloke with the tape measure?

I did, and regrettably the coverage of development, mods and the technical side is, shall we say - brief. I also had a quick look in an ancient booklet by Alan Hall and Eric Taylor (Almark 1972 - now that was a good year...), but while some mods are mentioned, I did not see any reference to the bracing. As they were just beside that booklet and the File, I also flicked through the Pilot's notes, but as expected they do not mention anything and besides are part of the same 1943 AP as posted above, so of no use regarding the topic.

I thought Jumpei Temma may have drawn the XVI, but I haven't seen XIV drawings from a quick scroll. The old Aeromodeller drawings by Peter Cooke (1978/9 ?) would likely be of some help giving shapes.

Vol. 1 also arrived here a couple of weeks ago, but not yet had time to do a real look inside. @canberra kid: Do you happen to know whether Fonthill take part in one of the import VAT up-front collecting schemes? Probably not, that's why I bought mine off a platform (but still at a great price), as that handling fee for collecting the VAT on delivery that all carriers apply just about kills off every direct (non-platform) purchase outside the EU.

God bless that blast screen, otherwise the rear would have been messed up, too...

Has anybody yet had a look into the Anson File? It's been some 30 years since I did, but it's not that far away, so I could think about walking over and picking it from the cabinet if no one else has yet.

Did you notice the instructions ? 212 pages of fun

Indeed - all "legacy" kits from Revell over Airfix to Hase took advantage of this, offering only rather tiny openings IIRC.

Someone recently posted a link here to a massive pdf stencil placement guide by Fündekals - I guess that should be some help. I downloaded the document on 21 July, but I guess you may find it quicker if you go straight to their site rather than searching for the thread with the link.

Probably not - all (I think) major manufacturers have been running a "direct" replacement service for decades. I guess in the case of Airfix that may have been a condition from Woolworth's to get listed there. But if that system was economically unviable, it would not have persisted for close to 70 years. This of course does not mean that the seller ISN'T legally responsible for supplying a defect-free kit. The big problem for Airfix is that - from all the threads I have seen - usually one (or two) specific part(s) is/are affected by the short-shot issue. If (only) half the kits suffer, they'd need a special run of (likely) one specific sprue to cater for the spares. I have no idea how the Vulcan's mould is arranged, but such special run would probably take some effort (blocking unrequired sprues in the mould or whatever). And leave them with a huge quantity of parts not required as spares, and of course not saleable. They could despatch one complete sprue to every customer affected, which would cut down labour cost for detaching the spares, but increase mailing cost. Weighing - oh yes, I had some clash with the then-head of Revell's Abteilung X well over 20 years ago, who claimed no Revell kit could suffer from missing parts for that very reason. My sealed Victor definitely was missing its clear sprue. That weighing claim may just have been a measure to fend off customers. I quieted him by opening a random selection of about 30 kits and sending him the (rubbish) decals. That got him thinking... I didn't get the Victor sprue, but I'll claim at least part of the merit that Revell ditched their local decal printer (code letter D, reportedly Dreier) and turned to Zanchetti and Cartograf instead. I have no idea how the situation is in the UK, but I know from personal experience that manufacturers moulding plastic parts for the automotive sector are having a fairly tough time in Germany. Yes, not every IM machine is compatible with any mould and/or moulding material, but if I were them (Airfix), I'd explore that because some companies may give them a good deal just in order to keep their trained work force.

If l am not very mistaken, this is a Trimaster original and now well over 30 years old. IIRC, none of the Dragon kits from around 1990 to the mid 90s, be it their own or ex-Trimaster, was renowned for good fit.