fishplanebeer

Thinking about it the carb intakes are no longer there so I'm assuming the oblong has something to do with this which would make this set up definitely post-war, Regards Colin.

As per the link from wmcgill the intakes have a vertical line so presumably are the tropical fit, which would make sense, but no idea what the central oblong is ahead of the radiators though. Regards Colin. Ps. still a bit surprised that nobody has sought to capture this change in the form of any plans or detailed drawings which is a pity.

This probably shows my ignorance of the subject but I've never seen any scale plans or pics that show or prove that there was any actual difference so I too would welcome some definitive evidence. I've read previous posts which refer to the enlarged radiator intakes but can only presume the difference was quite subtle as none of my many photos show a difference at all, at least not that would be noticeable in 72nd scale. Regards Colin. Ps. given that the war in the Far East ended before 'Tiger Force' was ready to be deployed I wonder to what extent such a mod, assuming it exists, was actually implemented by Avro?

Not sure where I read about the 'broom handles' but it makes a nice story even if, as Graham suggests, it may have been a slight exaggeration of the truth. That said there is no evidence to confirm to the contrary so I'm happy to believe, as well as in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy! Regards Colin. Ps. I've checked quite a few of my Lancaster pics and can't see guns with round perforations which suggests they were far less common

Just an anecdote but some of the very early Lancs had guns fitted that were actually broom handles for press pics due to the shortage of supply, but no idea if such had any perforations! Regards Colin.

AFAIK the B.X's were built in Canada and flown to the UK without turrets which were installed when they arrived so it's unlikely that these would have been the sole recipients of guns with round perforations. I know Quickboost do guns for the Lanc in 72nd scale with both oval and round perforations but I can't find any reference as to when the round versions were produced or introduced so perhaps some one out there can shed more light on this? Regards Colin.

Just a quick aside, what are filters as I've always been amazed at the fading effects people are able to achieve on RFI to the basic airframe colour but have no idea how this is achieved as even after applying a panel wash it still leaves the base colour as is and not weathered or faded in any way? I've seen the Flory video on using oils to add fading but there again the chap doing it has done it before and makes it look so easy which I'm sure it isn't! I won't be using much in the way of weathering on this project as it's taken me almost 6 months to get to this stage and it's already been in the bin once already (and I then spent 2 hours the following day retrieving it after sifting through the bin bag) but it would be nice to know so that I can practice on a mule for my next project. Regards Colin. Ps. I will be so glad when this one is over the line as it has been one disaster after another.

Thanks for all the advice but it still leaves me with the problem of what wash can be safely and effectively used over an enamel varnish, which is why I thought of using ink as a safe option. I did try using acrylic/water based varnishes but couldn't get the hang of them (Galeria and Klear) as the spray was too coarse and I ended up with puddles everywhere whereas the enamel varnishes I use go on perfectly using the same thinning ratio and psi. Maybe I'll have to resort to Flory washes (to my mind greatly over hyped) or use thinned acrylic paint with a drop of detergent. Thanks again. Regards Colin.

The problem I have is that my varnish is oil based (Humbrol 'cote') so I can't risk a wash that is thinned using terps or similar as it will just eat away at everything underneath, a lesson learned form bitter experience a while ago even though I'd let the varnish harden for over 2 days so thought it would be OK. I do have some W&N acrylic paints in tubes that look the same as their oils so I could use these thinned with distilled water but I suspect the pigments will not flow so freely. Regards Colin. Ps. it seems all current makers of 'washes' assume they are being applied over an acrylic varnish and therefore 'enamel' users are being left with relatively few options other than using oils and pastels, and possibly inks

This probably should go in the tools & tips section so apologies but I'm now at the point of highlighting the panel lines and making a start on the weathering so I'm looking for some advice please regarding using black ink. I have some Flory washes but never had much success with them as they have always tended to disappear after applying the final varnish coat and sometimes the rubbing process removes the decals even though hey are sealed under an oil based varnish. As such I'm now toying with the possibility of using black ink instead but wondered if anyone else has gone down this route for panel lines and what would be the possible pitfalls? Another possibility is using thinned Tamiya 'smoke' as well but not sure that its solvent would cause damage to the underlying varnish so ink sounds a safer bet in theory. Regards Colin.

The early Spitfire had no seat and head rest armour so presumably it was possible to fit it, and conversely remove it, without greatly affecting the CG? Regards Colin.

As far as I'm aware it was the FR.IX that was painted in a 'pink' colour as these were used at low level where the scheme was deemed to be most effective. Regards Colin. Ps. notwithstanding this fact I still intend to paint my KP X in a very pale pink just to provide a nice contrast to my other Spits.

The early Spitfire 1's also had no armour fitted so the headrest was fixed directly to the frame behind the seat (frame 11). When armour was introduced the seat armour fitted directly behind the seat (with a cut out on the port side to fit around the existing cockpit equipment) and the triangular head armour piece was placed slightly behind this and incorporated the head rest. It's more than possible that in order to save weight some local adaptations were made to the factory fit armour as the expectation was that these aircraft would not be intercepted so no longer required armament or armour. HTH. Regards Colin.

Just to add that I also have the Eduard He111H-6 pe set for my forthcoming H-8 variant based upon the H-3 model and the parts fit over the existing H-3 cockpit parts perfectly, so Hasegawa have assumed that the H-6 and H-3 are the same in this respect. Regards Colin.

Many rear gunners removed the perspex in the rear turret of the FN versions in order to improve vision due to misting/frosting and the inevitable scratches that would occur so the 'open' nature of the Rose turret would not have come as an unpleasant surprise to them. The Rose turret is akin in some ways to the MB.5 in that it was a wonderful design and would have been the best option but existing designs were already in mass production and able to meet the essential requirements. Plus as the war was very close to being won there was so no real need to change things and disrupt existing production lines which would soon be run down after VE/VJ day anyway. Regards Colin.

In terms of the temperature inside the turret apparently (see the link from Troy) it was only a few degrees lower and due to its shape was not drafty as it deflected the slipstream, so in relative terms a much more 'comfortable' turret than the FN versions. And as already mentioned it was roomy enough to accommodate two gunners which is quite significant having sat in the FN82 turret of 'Just Jane' where cramp would have been a major issue given its restricted confines! Regards Colin.

I think the benefit of the RR turret was that the gunner could bail out from the front instead of having to traverse the gun and then open the rear hatch/door as with the FN turrets. Regards Colin.

Perhaps not that relevant but did this machine have the original sloped windscreen or the later more stepped version which was adopted due to the original leaking quite badly? As you say it is a late version it probably had the latter but might just be worth checking perhaps? Regards Colin.

Like all Lancs that survived long enough to require a major service the airframe was broken down into its key components with only the nose section retaining its original identity, R5868 being a good case in point. It would then have had completely different sections from those it originally came off the production line with, plus incorporating all the various mods that had been made since that time such as paddle blade props, enlarged bomb aimer blister, H2S blister and even Packard Merlins as well possibly, although that is another subject previously discussed. I think, and I could be wrong, but roughly half of the Lancs produced were either lost or written off so many never got to this stage, notwithstanding the fact that many may/were upgraded during their service life, so again at some point in their life they would not be as they were when they originally left the factory. The best bet as always is to find actual photos, or failing that consult the serial number register to pick a late production model which would very probably have had the mods you are looking for. A good example being PP687 in the Garbett & Goulding book which was a late production B.1 made at Castle Bromwich and served briefly before the end of the war with 149 squadron. HTH. Regards Colin.

Just to add that you may need to enlist the help of our resident Lanc experts in terms of when certain mods were introduced as quite often in photos you can see/determine the prop type and H2S blister but not the windows and in others the windows and the blister are visible but not the props. However if you know the serial number that would help to clarify the likely details. Regards Colin.

A very good start would be R5868 'S' sugar at Hendon which meets all these requirements although perhaps you are looking for a less famous example? Regards Colin.

This probably explains why my library is continually expanding and why I have multiple books on many aircraft and theatres of operations, but even so I still use this forum to double, double check and also consult DUCIMUS for anything RAF related. I very muck look forward to seeing the Defiant in due course even if I model in 72nd scale. Kind Regards Colin.

What books if any do you have on the Lancaster? There are plenty out there that will provide suitable pics but it depends upon what you already have and how much you want to spend so It's difficult to recommend a particular one. Also bear in mind that colour profiles in books/publications can be less than accurate. Regards Colin. Ps. The Garbett & Goulding 'Lancaster At War' combined volume (volumes 1 & 2) is quite cheap and would be a good start point

I'm not in the process of, or considering, building a Defiant but picked up the book very cheaply to add to my library as us modellers tend to do. I just suggested it as it had the 48th scale plans that were being sought plus it has lots of period pics and pics of the Hendon example plus extracts from the aircraft manual so thought it was worth mentioning in an effort to try and help. I appreciate that this author has a reputation for getting details wrong or completely missed as I also have his books on the Lancaster, Typhoon, Tempest and Griffon Spitfires which bear testimony to this but they are still very helpful as long as you cross reference with another source. This is something I tend to do when referring/using any book that I have including Shacklady, so 'never trust a profile without a photo' could also read 'never trust any reference/book without corroboration' Regards Colin.

Rather harsh to dismiss this book without having viewed it. The plans are by Caruana, it has a plethora of pics, both period and of the Hendon example, plus many/most of the diagrams and schematics are taken from the actual Defiant manual itself so should be accurate. Regards Colin.