FinnAndersen

Why don't you buy a decal sheet and then choose a kit to match one of the tempting options? /Finn

I have the excellent "Carrier pilot" by Norman Hanson. There are pictures of deck crew in shorts, but a picture of pilots returning from an operation shows pilots in full dress. once you are a few thousand feet up, it's mostly bloody cold, so take a guess why. As for kit, each item had it's purpose. As Richard Hillary found out, gloves protect hands from burns, goggles the eyes, you get the idea... / Finn

Reading some former BB pilots autobiographies, it was not uncommon to place the parachute on the tailplane, allowing the pilot to duck under the tailplane and grabbing the parachute by the shoulder straps. Having been a skydiver (parachutist for the uneducated) I can confirm the impracticality of running with a parachute strapped on, it's nearly impossibly. /Finn

As a modeller, I do like Spitfires. In that sense it's very helpful having the various suffixes on the kits I buy, so that I can choose the right kit for the chosen subject. For a wartime pilot or erks, I suppose suffixes were pretty much useless. They had the planes they had, and that was it. The supply chain was of course quite another matter, but they are geared to that kind of problems and have techniques, practices and administrative tools to cope. /Finn

Take a look here https://allspitfirepilots.org/aircraft/BR114 and here

this is off topic, but what amazes me is what Supermarine was able to press out of the original Mitchell design ( the mk V and IX) and then when they tried to make it better with the Spiteful, how they failed. Quill states the the original wing was better than they thought and the new laminar wing was worse than they had anticipated. Such are the fortunes of war and engineering, neither is an exact science. /Finn

Take a look a few posts up

I too just used the Brigade nose on a Hasegawa IX + the usual extras (oil cooler etc). I gave up on the CMR as I thought the fuselage was too thick, but you may easily be right that the error is the length. I'm very interested in your project of mating the Sword nose to a Eduard VIII. Hopefully you will knock up a WIP thread when you start. /Finn

It requires practice, simple as that. Don't expect your first attempt to turn out as a winner. Find another model, perhaps the Freightdog conversion of the Airfix Spitfire XIX to XI. It's a resin nose and fin to give you an idea of more complex modelling and how to use resin. /Finn

Well, I made one and while I completed it, I can't recommend the kit. I had to make major surgery on the nose to end with a circular end that fitted the spinner. Other modellers may be luckier. /Finn

Just to grind some salt into the wound, I consider the old and OOP Paragon XII conversion as the best and easiest way to a decent XII. One could hope that another active conversion manufacturer would do a similar job, this time for an Eduard Spit IX. The interest is there, just look at the responses each time a new XII thread is launched. /Finn

I have, and it's buildable. It has a rather fat fuselage and being a resin kit with Vacform canopy not one for a unskilled modeller. I ditched it before painting as I had a issue with the canopy which I managed to botch two times. Enough was enough. /Finn

I've not built a Sword Seafire XV, but a lot of their V and XIV's and my opinion on Sword Spitfires are that they take quite some modelling skills to complete. One thing to watch for is the fuselage width in the aft canopy section which can be off (too wide for the canopy) so a rather difficult phase of dry fitting early in the assembly process. For a XII, it still may be the easiest way, but my approach would be the nose from the XV grafted on a Eduard IX or VIII (can't remember which has the correct ailerons). That way you will have a canopy that fits. You will of course need the circular oil cooler, but that still applies to the Sword. Either way, a lot of work. For a decent XII, there is no shortcuts around modelling skills. /Finn

The XII has previously been discussed at length in a number of threads, so try to find as many as you can cope. This is best done via google, including Britmodeller in the search string. A detail bothered me a great deal: If you are doing a 41 sqn plane, you will find that this squadron had a practice of applying 22" code letters. Such letters cannot be found on any generic RAF code sheets, believe me. At least they were consistent, the same size was used on their XIV later in the war. I would refrain from the Brigade conversion. The Seafire approach look definitely easier, but will still require more than basic modelling skills /Finn

Hehe, you need to show us the wishlist to get any kind of suggestions 🙂 As for showing built up models, I can recommend the Ready For Inspection section right here on this forum https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/87-ready-for-inspection-aircraft/. You might get a hit or two there. /Finn

Not everyone is able to make Telford winners and indeed this is not the purpose of the hobby or this forum. Nobody should poke fingers at others with different (lower) skill levels, but then again it's not quite alright to dismiss techniques as being too advanced, just because you don't possess them. Vacform canopies have arrived to stay and like you, I feel that they are a pain and a nuisance, but they may be the only option, so I grit my teeth and get on with it. /Finn

It wasn't. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/dk-decals-72069-wellington-mkic-dwi-mkviii--1184091 Then again, one could use some artistic license as nobody can prove you wrong. /Finn

I've had similar issues with my Tamiya extra thin cement, that was fixed by changing to AMMO extra thin. Perhaps the cement degenerates over time? And yes, you have to scratch build the turnover assembly. /Finn

I'm not sure, but I vaguely recall that Sword made different wings (upper/lower) for the C and E wings. Others may know more, but for me, the main difference is the placement of the 20mm cannon and the corresponding upper wing blister. Supermarine, as I have perceived, was extremely reluctant to change anything, presumeably to avoid production delays so it makes sense that they kept the E wing as it were with machine gun bays. Perhaps the E just denote cannon and 0.5 inch gun fitted in a universal wing that could be fitted with cannon and two machine guns or indeed 4 machine guns? /Finn

Yes of course, my bad

All I can say is "Take your time". The Sword XIV is not the easiest kit to build. It takes care and a lot of dry fitting to make into a decent model. If you have the Highback, be very observant on the fitting of the canopy. You may find that the fuselage is a bit too wide. Also the forward fuselage requires extreme care to fit the rocker covers precisely. But if you manage all this, you will have a very good looking model. /Finn PS: The Academy is somewhat portly and look definitely "off" when compared to a properly made Sword.

Instructions are only the manufactors opinion. It's entirely OK to know better. 😉

Could you make a makeshift tool out of some play dough, clay or silicon?

Quite, but there was this

I too have the KP, although in an unbuilt form. I do have a lot of experience in cross-kitting, but in this instance, I will refrain, as I believe that the benefits will be marginal as you will have too much (difficult) modification of the Eduard fuselage to make it worth your while. /Finn