Antti_K

Hello Jason, here are some photos: Note the "grey-green" paint on both fuselages. On the right the Airacobra has been towed to the shore. As you possibly know, the remains of the pilot were still in the cockpit... In this photo the "grey-green" looks different. Look especially the lower part of the reinforcement plate; it looks like "black-green". There is also a clear demarcation line running along the fuselage. The darker areas were buried in the silt. And finally the "Finnish" example. It looks like the "grey-green" paint has been applied by brush. The paint layer is thin and yet it completely covers the original Olive Drab. The paint has also chipped away. Along the hatch edges the colour looks like "olive-green"; like AMT-4. This colour doesn't show at all in B&W wartime photos of "26". I think that despite two very different colours were used, they have a close reflectivity value. What do you think? Cheers, Antti

Hello Anthony, by heart I would say that you are correct about the serials: both FG.1s and FGR.2s were equipped with flight controls in the front office only (XV...) and with dual controls (XT...). There were some exceptions to this rule, but I can't remember the details. I think that there is a listing in FG.1 Pilot's Notes about the control arrangements. I just need to find the manual... Poor Navs who had to operate the radar in its stowed position... Tamiya clearly meant the canopies to be in the open position and it takes some work to make them look good if closed. There is also an error in the clear parts. The aluminium coloured strip with screws on it and the camouflaged strip had swapped places (fill the holes and drill new ones). Lovely work with the rear fuselage! Cheers, Antti

Hello Jason, that's the interesting thing; the Airacobra on display here in Finland doesn't have the reinforce plates neither on fuselage sides nor on the fin leading edge. The one salvaged from a lake in Russia has them both. It is also interesting that the "Russian" example has been lying under water since the war whereas the "Finnish" example has been kept indoors since the war. And yet this grey-green area is visible on both fuselages. Cheers, Antti

Hello Massimo, somehow Il-28R popped to my mind at first. It has all interior surfaces painted with various shades of yellow. For example in pilot's and navigator's cockpits the colour is a very bright yellow (like A-6 in table II). Only those surfaces not covered with the green insulator blanket are painted with olive green. Rear fuselage camera bay and engine gondola interiors are painted with dull yellow (like chamoise). In our museum example (that was transferred to the museum shortly after it arrived from a major overhaul in the USSR) the bomb bay doors and main landing gear bays were painted with orange that might be close to MV-4 in table XX. About WWII paint colours then: I'm wondering about the paints used in the Airacobra now on display at Hyrylä. - there are rectangular areas on both sides of the nose painted with black. Actually the paint looks like "black olive" and it is crudely applied with a paint brush (the brush strokes are clearly visible). Close inspection shows that either a yellow number 7 or a letter Z has been painted over. - the sides of the rear fuselage has been painted with a green colour. Today it looks like grey-green and the same painting is clearly visible on the Airacobra that was salvaged from Lake Martjaur. Closer inspection shows olive green paint residue in the panel seams. - the white circles on wing undersides are crudely painted over with a paint brush using a dull green or blue-green paint Do you have more information about the paints used? And why the rear fuselage was painted hastily with green paint on both examples, as the US "Stars and Bars" was neatly covered (you can see the "edges" caused by the masking tape) in the USA with Olive Drab? Cheers, Antti

Hello Massimo, those scans are excellent. Thank you for the trouble and for sharing them at your site. There are interesting paint chips visible, as "same" colours were also used on later Soviet aircraft; like in IL-28s. I wonder, whether they were using the same paints... Cheers, Antti

Hello guys, I have no experience of the Eduard Focke-Wulffs, but I'm currently building their 1/48 scale P-39Q Airacobra (kit #8470). The fit is OK, no big nasty surprises there. The kit is rather inaccurate when compared against the real thing and some factory drawings. Here are my findings: - the nose is pretty accurate. There are some hatches that shouldn't be there and some missing - the fuselage overall shape is good - the number of screws is wrong on many panels (usually one missing) - replace the air outlets on the nose with scratch built items as the kit parts are out of shape and too small - the wing leading edge is located at the right position - the wing chord is some 3 millimeters too short! - the wing cross section is completely wrong and especially the trailing edge is far too thick - the wing panel lines are completely wrong for a P-39Q; especially on the under sides - some bulges are missing from the fuselage bottom - main gear bays are over simplified - painting instructions for interiors and details are inaccurate Then comes the really nasty part: - the clear parts are 1,3 millimeters too tall (look at the door window shape. It is a demanding and frustrating correction to do) - thanks to the "narrow" wing, all rear fuselage panels are of wrong size and at wrong locations. Eduard has done a great job masking this problem out of sight - aileron, rudder and elevator hinge lines are far too shallow - at least half of the stencils are missing from the decal sheet (Foxbot offers a very good looking set for P-39Q) I'm not impressed by this kit. I was expecting a lot better mainly because Eduard kits are so popular. It seems I have to try my hands on a couple of more Eduard kits to see if they are better. Cheers, Antti

Hello Dave, and thank you for all the information. We were flying Aerogeophysical survey missions mainly on areas where there was no snow. On the other hand, some missions in Africa were flown over desert. A couple of months ago I got home from the local hobby shop carrying the Italeri 1/48 scale TR-1 kit. I will build it as an U-2R. I'm still looking for information about the camera bay and camera equipment. Can you help me with that? Cheers, Antti

Dave, Thank you for your post. More interesting stuff there. Actually we were having problems with the Doppler over ground (hills, meadows, forest,...). I most used to a British Mk.IX bubble sextant. It was easily obtainable, easy to overhaul and calibrate and so on. I've also "shot" celestial observations using a periscope sextant but I prefer the British hand-held model. On a periscope sextant the field of view is upside down thus complicating things further. I've been wondering why the S-4 magnitude values (for the ANS) are still published in the Air Almanac. Is the system still used in ER-1s? Cheers, Antti

Hello Dave, and thank you for an interesting and informative post. we indeed had problems with the Doppler unit as it momentarily "lost its bearings" only too often. As we were in a hurry with the project, we simply reasoned that it wasn't suitable for such a low altitude and skipped the system. An old school INS was also problematic on survey missions (where long parallel lines are flown) but that was before my time. Do you have an explanation for this as it had caused me some head scratching over the years? We had a procedure for updating the INS using Astro Fixing but it was rather complicated. I never had the guts to try it myself. In Africa we were flying survey lines 200 NM in length and the best "aid" was oil burned in a drum placed at the end point of a flight line. A pillar of black smoke rose up thus creating a "Fix"... Nowadays a flight crew performing such an operation would end up in prison. We still do instruct our pilots at Finnair for Polar operations and explain them the Tonta Grid -system and its use in detail. Cheers, Antti

Kiitos Mike! You got it almost right if you meant something like A Texan by birth, a Finn by heart. Hopefully the OP will forgive me a slight "drift" from Original Topic. Mike, we got the first AT-6 "Texan" in Finnish registry in full USN colours. She was performing at the Kaivopuisto Airshow at Helsinki. Loved that sound by the seaside over the old Suomenlinna castle in a lovely summer evening... Cheers, Antti

We tried a Doppler navigation in our Twin-Otter for low-level (100 ft AGL) work and weren't impressed by its performance. There is however, one feature that beats both INS and GPS: you can use Doppler also on Polar regions where older INS units and GPS won't work at all. On one flight to Svalbard in a Cessna Citation GPS was completely lost just a few miles after passing the legendary Bjornoya (Bear Island) roughly at latitude 70 N. From there on navigation was based on WX Radar on MAP -mode, because the Citation carried on integrated avionics suite that is solely based on GPS. Running both an INS and GPS side by side will create (on long distance flights) a phenomenon where the two start to show an increasing difference between positions. Further on the two positions start get closer to each other again. The explanation is pretty simple: an INS "understands" only a perfect sphere whereas GPS "understands" only an ellipsoid (on which our aeronautical charts are based on). Therefore only the INS shows a correct Convergence between longitudes along a Great Circle route. GPS will show the correct Convergence only once during the Great Circle route when passing the Parallel of Origin (where the chart projection runs parallel with the Earth's surface). On long distance flights INS is always affected by the Ground Speed over the Meridians. The reading must be corrected by the heading maintained and Ground Speed. The Apparent Wander, 15,04 degrees/hour x sin Mean Latitude, is only a theoretical basis for these calculations. There is also one fundamental difference between these three systems: GPS and Doppler provide the navigator with Fix and INS a DR -Position (best estimate). DR -Position can also be calculated with some basic tools (plotter, ruler, compass and an aviation computer) and it is the basis for all Fixing techniques (radio, Pressure Pattern, Radar or Astro). Sorry guys, an old Air Navigator broke loose Cheers, Antti

OK, a fresh start. I found two photos showing PR.XVIs. First plane (NS688/Q): - silver/PRU Blue - silver prop spinners - paddle blades - no black bands - three coloured roundel on fuselage - no wing drop tanks - visible tread pattern on main wheels Second plane (RG137) - looks like PRU Blue overall - two coloured roundel on fuselage - three coloured fin flash (narrow white) - wing drop tanks - yellow prop blade tips also on the back side - paddle blades - no bulged bomb bay doors Third plane (head-on photo) - Silver / PRU Blue - narrow prop blades - silver prop spinners HTH, Cheers, Antti

Sorry Paul, my mistake. I have the book at hand, so I can check it for you. Stay tuned... Cheers, Antti

Anthony, this is getting better and better. I think you have reached the point where one all of the sudden finds "new energy" for the project and some "inner peace" not to rush things but even start again with some earlier finished detail. The model will look superb once finished and people want to see it over and over again. Excellent work! Cheers, Antti

Hello Simon, I guess there wouldn't be not that many options as later marks had MB 3J -seats. Here is one possible resin set: ttps://www.hpmhobbies.com/high-planes-martin-baker-mk-3js-ejector-seats-x2-g/ Cheers, Antti

Hello Paul, this book has what you are looking for: photos of silver/PRU Blue Mosquito PR.34s. https://www.bookdepository.com/Mosquito-Reconnaissance-Units-World-War-2-Martin-Bowman/9781855328914 If you wish further information, PM me. Cheers, Antti

Hello Colin, I had a chance to study a shot down example. All wing interiors were painted with RLM 02 (when peering through the inspection hatches). It seems possible that also the fuselage interiors were painted with the same colour. But this is simple guesswork. I would say that the areas beneath the slats were painted with final camouflage colour as normally components like slats are being assembled after the camouflage paint is done. Cheers, Antti

Hello Pat, I do like your lovely Blenheim! Extra points for that Winter War camouflage. As V-P said, pour yourself a drink of Jaloviina; you've deserved it Cheers, Antti

Hello Simon, the "Biged -set" for a Javelin isn't that useful in my opinion. The seat belts look pretty, but they are completely wrong for the type. Instrument panels are pretty good and they represent the last modification status for an aeroplane operated in Europe (You need a different IP for the navigator's cockpit; no GEE but ADF). Most useful aftermarket parts are the resin air intake scoops. And of course those numerous antennas the kit lacks (you need to scratch build them) but check your references carefully. If you have the nerves (and lots of spare time) you might want to consider the Alleycat set providing PE Vortex generators and nice decals (although rather translucent). Have you seen my WIP explaining the details? Cheers, Antti

Hello Rob & Co., I did a quick online search about the book Tempestfan mentioned, but it wasn't that we had. There is also a German online resource (RLM cockpits or something like that) with probably hundreds of scanned LDv and RLM manuals and documents. I just can't find the site. I had it in my bookmarks in my previous computer. I think I saw a manual about ground equipment there. Cheers, Antti

Thank you for an interesting photo. I think this is the first colour photo I ever see showing Anson interiors. There is clearly a colour that is very close to that sample in the "RAF Museum book". It also looks a close match (judging from a scanned photo) to that paint used in the Hurricane we have here in Finland in its original paint. But the other colour is confusing. How do we know it is Grey Green in the first place? Cheers, Antti

Hello Tojo 72, having worked with MiG-21 BIS aircraft, I've noticed that wheel rims are painted with various greens. I can't tell whether the same paints were used on MiG-31s; possibly. I haven't seen as dark green as Hu 3 though. Here is the most common. Closest FS match is 14090 which is slightly too light: Two different greens visible in here: the rim was NCS S4550-G20Y. Look how the brake assembly is more olive. Cheers, Antti

Jan, I thought it has something to do with different paint bases. That different pigment requires a different base and these react poorly when mixed with each other. Never thought of that old formula, new formula thing. I must hurry with my Whirlwind, Hurricane and Blenheim... I also noticed that Hu 23 is a very good (if not excellent) match for Sky. Humbrol 90 is far too dark and too brownish. Cheers, Antti

Hello Rob, the other two volumes were about German aircraft (both powered and gliders) and aerodynamics (or Principles of Flight). I still can't remember the name... Cheers, Antti

Hello guys, I bought a couple of tins of Humbrol 78 (enamel) just last week. I then painted a chip to compare the colour against the colour chart published in "British Aviation Colours of World War Two". Here's the result; my chip on the right. It is interesting to note that after a day or two the painted chip looked too grey and too dark. It is still too dark but now it looks more green. Anyway, I wanted as accurate colours for my Westland Whirlwind as possible and ended up mixing my own paint (on the left). I started by adding Humbrol 23 to Hu 78. Some bright green (Hu 3) was also required. To my eye the result is good and accurate enough. I've also noticed that when mixing Humbrol enamels the paint should be used pretty quickly as these mixed paints turn into sticky goo in weeks. Cheers, Antti