Don149

There`s still room for a late Spitfire , Mk 14 or 18 , and a P82 Twin Mustang but I wish the makers would cast their nets a bit wider .

Why ? .

Every time any news appears on this kit the release date has moved back another month , anyone else noticed this ? . Stated as a Mk 1/3 , does someone know if this is so, paddle bladed props et al ? . I/m hoping so `cos I/ve been nursing the Phantom of the Rhur transfer sheet for the past year or so . My old paws are trembling in anticipation , or maybe its because I/ve had them for 83 years !. Currently building the ZK Ta 152 H . Don .

Yes ! ,it looks the part

You`ve got me blinded with science Giorgio !. I date back to the No 4 Lee Enfield , Bren and Sten .

Although quite similar , they were not the same . No parts were interchangeable , except the cartridge , which was a rimmed 9m/m with a slightly longer/heavier bullet . The Webley was made by Webley and Scott of Birmingham and the Enfield revolver by the Singer Sewing Machine Co . and the Albion Motor Co . of Glasgow , if you`re interested in a bit of their history .

I`m envious of your 455 S&W , Milne Bay. It`s the one piece my collection is missing . My 455 Webley has just made antique , being dated 1918 .

I never saw a Very ( flare ) pistol on the end of a lanyard ! .

Gabriel, if you have the book "Typhoon and Tempest at War" byArthur Reed and Roland Beamont there`s a pic of NZ. Tempest pilots at Grimbergen airfield in Belgium in November 44 and they are all wearing sidearms . Most likely 38 Webley ,or 38 S+Wesson chambered for the British cartridge .I read somewhere that the RAF were issued with them. When I "joined-up" at the end of 52 there were only the 38 Webley`s in RAF service, maybe the Colts and S+W were only on Lend - Lease , although I have a pre. L. L. S+W in my collection , chambered for the British round . MSnell , the revolver in your post is wrongly captioned , it`s an Enfield Mk 1, the grips and fore sight are different to the Webley . `hope this is of interest , Don .

No Jack , the parts fit together so well its doubtful if they could be fitted the wrong way up . I think a little surgery may be needed . Thanks, Don .

I`m building the Tamiya Archer and have hit a snag with the suspension bogies coded B ,the ones coded A are fine with the stub axles parallel with the ground , but the two B units have the line of the axles going "uphill" . All the parts went together as easily as Tamiya parts do ,but the fault is there. Have I made a boo-boo and can`t see it, or has anyone else found the same thing ? . Help ! . Don.

The cockpit/turret masks should be interesting !, Eduard presumably .

Well done Heather, show us blokes what ladies dainty hands can do !.

Yes , those useless little windows on the Mk1 and 2 ,the needle bladed props ,paddle blades on the Mk3 ,later pitot head ,and the H2S radome carried on many Mk 3s ,and not forgetting the longer,much better looking bombaimers blister .Altogether a better looking kite. But that`s just my twopennyworth !. Also, I agree with those who say the Halifax was a better looking aeroplane ,so long as you mean the Mk3 onwards .The Mk1 was an ugly looking sod ! . Don .

The position of the W/OPs window is correct ,it just looks a bit too large .Back in `48 some of us Air Cadets had a half hour "flip" in one, I sat in this position for take-off and landing ,spent the rest of the flight with my head in the astrodome, marvellous !.