Work In Progress

There are huge numbers of aeroplanes out there with zero-camber wings - almost everything designed for competition aerobatics in the last 40 years - but they are not flat-plate wings. There are also very successful aeroplanes out there with wings with airfoils which have completely flat sections over large parts of their surfaces. The Extra 200 and most of the variations on the Extra 300 are like that, the front 20% or so of the chord is a conventional curved D box and then they have flat upper and lower surfaces running from just aft of the mainspar down to the trailing edge. This gives a tremendously quick transition from stalled to unstalled, enabling very precise starting and stopping of flick manouevres. With about 5mm of stick movement you can turn the stalled state on and off like a light switch. (Because the aileron is deflected this also shows to advantage how the hinge point is well inset into the aileron, greatly lightening the control forces)

Not that box art matters much in the world but, blimey, they could have made it look just a *little* less like the long-standing 1/48 version

Such innocence

Kermit seems to be cutting back these days and already has far too many aeroplanes to fly.

Apologies for not actually answering the question, but al alternative thought. Given that what you are trying to replicate is not the usual natural metal look but that very rare thing, a genuinely mirror-polished aeroplane, and that you're not an airbrush user, I think there is a strong argument for using the shiniest grade of Bare Metal Foil, panel by panel. Not hard to do, especially if you practice on something from the spares box.

I like your generally gung-ho parts replacement policy. I think a lot of people are scared of crash-moulding but you're setting a good example here.

Still trying to find a buyer at a price that covers the massive investment he has in it, I gather. Which, morally, seems fair enough. But the problem seems to be question of whether there really are potential buyers who have the technical and financial means to acquire and operate it at that sort of figure, combined with sufficient desire to do so, rather than some of the alternatives which become available with that level of commitment. Sadly it's not the sort of thing for which there is a ready market at all, not helped by its non-participation in WW2. The Air & Space article is available free online here https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/last-long-distance-escorts-180973974/

If you put a massive whirly thing on an aeroplane that whirls only one way, you effectively make the aeroplane asymmetric when you put power on. So there are various things you can do to help the pilot, and adjusting the thrustline is a common one. Real question is why didn't everything else do it? Part of the answer is long in-line engines like the Kestrel and Merlin and other hot-water twelves where dramatic changes in the thrustline are difficult because of the form factor. On the radial Hellcat and Bearcat though you will note significant downthrust, and on the Chipmunk, oddly, the engine is set up with a midge of sidethrust the wrong way, i.e. to make the swing worse, better to train pilots who were (at the time of the original design) expected to move onto more powerful taildraggers to expect to have to use a lot of rudder on take-off and with power changes generally. Another trick often used is offset fins, as on a lot of Hawkers, and the Macchi MC.202 and 205 even had one wing longer than the other. Incidentally while the Walrus is a draggy old thing it is not short of power. 750 hp in an aeroplane that weighs less than 5000 lb empty is really quite a lot, enough to required a significant degree of respect in handling the beast. The P-47D has 2000 hp but it's twice the empty weight.

I would just build it straight out of the box and get some more painting practice in before you start worrying about rescribing or trying to make the kit more accurate.

If you are doing it in its well-known and much-photographed nicely painted air show blue-gray scheme, then think about NOT scribing the wing planking because the whole airframe was filled and sanded before painting. Lots of filler too, because later it started falling off in sheets and became dead scruffy. In this respect the display replica, while it reflects the construction of the original wing, does not reflect its appearance when dolled up for its public debut in that paint. You will note there are no visible panel lines of non-opening things in any of the photos of it in that filler and paint job

Yes, a stunning bargain and you obviously chose exceptionally wisely when you married! Do put a link here to your thread in https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/52-work-in-progress-aircraft/ when you get started, I'd love to watch. I'm sure your m-i-l will be pleased to see the end result!

I imagine you are working off this description? (from https://www.bajanthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/85-AF-75-Douglas-Dakota-IVKN645.pdf) "The aircraft was fitted out as a VIP aircraft, with kitchen, armchairs, settees, cocktail cabinet and toilet and used for a time by Lord Montgomery, and in 1947 by Lord Wavell." Can't give you anything airframe-specific but for a convincing sample of practice at the time, and which would therefore be a plausible source to copy from if you have to guesstimate it, try this Canadair one, from https://canavbooks.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/old-canadair-originals-surface-mostly-a-tale-of-dc-3s/ Caption of this pic says: "The interior of a typical Canadair VIP DC-3 conversion. Oversized comfy seats were de rigeur. Note the other furnishings of the day — curtains, telephone, cabinetry, lamp, etc. This view looks aft toward the door into the biffy." So that implies you can ignore the toilet by walling it off, and that the principal seating was rearward-facing. Which was generally RAF practice for post-war passenger transports as it's safer. Note there is a central bulkhead and an additional little compartment with more barely-visible seating before you get to the toilet door. And note in this pic, there's something partially obscuring the last couple of windows at the starboard rear. That might be a sofa as in the above pic - it's the right sort of height. Or possibly some galley equipment. But if I were doing a VIP Dakota I'd put the galley behind the cockpit because then you can feed the beasts in charge without the self-loading freight getting jealous

The Dinky one was white underneath. Maybe whoever does the Italeri instructions played with his as much as I did with mine

great example!

Normal practice at the time was for fabric to be first red-doped - on the outside, but it bleeds through to make the fabric air-tight - and then aluminium doped for UV proofing (and in a lot of both inter-war and post-war types that was of course the final finish), with anything else like yellow for trainers, or camouflage, being applied over the top of the aluminium. So where you are seeing the external fabric skin of the aeroplane from inside the aircraft it is reddish. The fabric was not actually painted on the inside face. You can't see anything at all of the external colours from inside. The red dope is completely opaque.