Airborne SF

Thank you for your reponses. I appreciate those of you who responded.

Here's the link to the image. I'm doing something wrong trying to post it. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/bf109-WRG-0032314.jpg

Looking for experts on the early BF-109E models. The two cowl MG-17 machine guns were mounted in an ofset position. The right side gun was mounted slightly behind the left hand gun due to the position of the ammunition boxes and the feeds to the guns. The is meant that the ends of the barrels were at different distances behind the nose. They barrels fire through a (let's call it a trough as I don't know the proper term) in the cowling over the engine. Were the back ends of these troughs also offset, i.e., was one further back than the other? I have yet to find a picture showing the troughs to advantage as it would have to be taken from above looking down on the nose. This gun arraingment was redone in the "F" models, I believe, but I could be wrong on that. Picture attached showing what I'm referring to. Any answers would be appreciated.

Thanks for your response. I was wondering if these are photos from an XE class boat? How much different are the XE's than the X's? The main deck is flush in the XE and a step up in the X, but I assume there are more changes than that. Were the charges different designs? Being a secret project it sure is hard to find a lot of good photos of them!

Question for the sub guys. On the X-craft the explosives were attached to both sides as no doubt everyone knows! It appears that they were in three pieces and I'm assuming that they were a hydrodynamic shaped nose and tail to prevent excessive drag and a center core section with the explosives. It appears from photo 1 that the nose section has flood holes drilled into it to get rid of the air when submerging. I assume they were all dropped as one piece and were not rigidly attached to each other as this photo shows them seperated. Is this correct?

Question for the experts out there. Is the Pom-Pom quad mount the same as the octuple mount minus four guns and their associated ammunition boxes and feeds. The ammunition boxes especis;;y look like 2 were left out per side and the outer guns in the center were left out. Is this correct or were they totally different designs? As always, thanks everyone for your help.

Hull Red seems to differ from navy to navy. The German color, at least in WWII is based on RAL 8013 and has a very definite brownish hue to the red. Is the Royal Navy color similar or is it a brighter red? I am mainly interested in the period from HMS Dreadnought to the end of WWII. Thanks

I am building the HobbyBoss 1/350 HMS Lord Nelson. At the stern of the ship there are two small PE cages hung over the side just forward of the Admiral's walk. They appear to be a cage for a life preserver or small flotation device of some kind. The piece that goes inside looks like four small balls joined together. Similar to a four leaf clover but with balls instead of leaves. Anybody have any idea what it is and more importantly, what color it should be painted? Thanks for your help.

Yep, you guys are right. I got my decks and ships backwards. Oh well, not my first mistake . . .

As I understand it on German WWII tanks the pioneer tools were attached before the tank was painted, so they were not bare wood. They came out painted in the same camo as the tank itself. I am presently doing final point on the Hobby Boss T-35 Russian Heavy. Mine is one of the earlier versions and I am doing it as painted pre war, in other words the stripes are still on the turrets. Did the Russians follow the same paint practises as the Germans or would their tools have had wood grain handles. Thanks in advance for responses.

Thanks everyone for your responses. I especially like the Schnapps comment, I might have signed on myself if they were carrying that much Schnapps! In response to "terryn's" comments and photos, thanks for posting them, but it is real hard to determine time period for them during her career. In the following photo, the name "Deutschland" appears on the stern. I believe this is from the period Graf Spee ran in full disguise. The real ship carried her name under the torpedo tubes, whereas this name appears well aft of them. It was reported that Graf Spee painted the name on her stern to confuse survivors of her victims and spread confusion. Notice there is no evidence of the tanks on the stern, and this would be about 3 to 4 weeks before her destruction. In the second photo taken in Montevideo by the British Consulate, one tank is evident on the stern on the port side. It is located directly above the stern anchor and is viewed from the end. A fender is hanging on the starboard side and they are totally different in size. This photo can be directly pinned to a location and date whereas the first one cannot. The be all and end all of it is I have no idea of what they are, when they were added or deleted or anything else about them. Thanks for your effort folks, I appreciate the responses even if we didn't figure it out.

Onboard every German warship there were many different reels onboard most of them covered. Were these for fire hoses or ropes? Anyway to tell them apart if it's for both. A picture is attached to show which reels I'm referring to. In this photo the reel is covered, but in many they are not, but the photos aren't sharp enough to tell whats on them.

VeryFire's HMS Renown. Has anyone heard what rig she will be in. I personally hope late WWII, she was a stunningly good looking ship after the major refits.

I have found several more photos of this model. From this photo and one other it would appear that the model is of Tirpitz rather than Bismarck. Although I have found additional photos on Pinterest, I still haven't identified who or where it is being built, but I believe it is 1:100 scale. Whoever is building it is doing really beautiful work. Kudos to the builder.

On the photo of Graf Spee's stern there are four cylindrical tanks. Two are right at the stern and the other two are port and starboard behind the torpedo tubes. Does anyone know what these were used for? In the US Navy, I would have said fuel storage for the scout planes, but they hardly seem big enough to keep the plane in the air for more than a couple of flights, Any other ideas?

I found this photo online during one of my Kriegsmarine searches. It was unidentified as to what it was or where it came from. It appears to be the starboard aft searchlight platform on Bismarck looking towards the bow, and judging from the background it is a very large scale model. The detail on the model is amazing and gorgeous. Does anybody have a link to more photos online?

First of all let me say what a pleasure it is to ask questions on this site. I have not been berated for stupid questions or had people argue or call me names. This has to be the nicest forum I belong to and the answers to my questions sofar have been first rate. Thank you everybody. On to the Lancaster, Question 1: The pitot tube seems to change positions, I assume it was moved at some point. It seems to be down by the bomb aimer in early units and then is moved to the longeron just above the bomb bay doors on the port side. It seems to be in one place or the other, but never in both locations. Am I correct on this? The reason I ask is the preproduction shots of the HK kit show it in both locations. Question 2: Reference the radar antenna located on both sides just forward of the cockpit, shaped like an "H". Is this part of the H2S radar or does it have a seperate purpose. I can't seem to find info on this in my internet searches. Also how many aircraft carried it? I don't see many period photos showing it. Question 3: How many aircraft actually carried the H2S radar? In my research, it seems like it was very common, but most of the Lancaster photos from the war don't show it. Thanks again for everyone's help from the misplaced Brit (my parents emigrated to the States when I was 4, I was born in Portishead, Somerset). It is appreciated.

On the Lancaster when they were fitted with H2S, photos show that the back of the radar dome appears to be clear on about 50% of the WWII period photos I've looked at. The other 50% show it as black painted. Most of the current aircraft have it as clear. Does anyone know why they would have a clear panel in the dome? Thanks in advance for responses.

I am building the Hasegawa version of the Lancaster Bomber, billed as either a Mk I or a Mk III. As I understand it (and I am definitely not an expert on Lancs) the only difference between the two was the engine, Rolls Royce Merlins in the Mk I and Packard Merlins in the Mk III. Please correct me if I have anything wrong on my assumption. The question comes up on the fairing on the rear of the fuselage just forward of the rear turret. I have seen photos of aircraft in my research that show a fairing that follows the lines of the fuselage all the way back to the turret, and I have also seen photos that show the flared fairing that expands outward just before the turret. Can anyone please enlighten my as to the development of the fairing. Was it random, or did it start on the early units and then fade out or vice versa? Any help would be appreciated Thank you

Carl, Obviously I'm kind of inexperienced on this forum and didn't see your reply to my email from last June!! I need to turn something on so I can see replies. Do you by chance still have the PCM decals? I would love to get them if possible, as my Spitfire still sits in shame. I've done nothing with it since last year. This time, I'll look for a response and turn notifications on. Thanks you Paul

I have both books and they are truly excellent works. I was unsure though due to the photos I have seen whether or not the decks are wood grates or steel. In my research, someone mentioned that they are removable grates. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. The case would then become, when Bismarck was going into battle, where the grates removed and stowed? Another option is that this could be a difference between Bismarck and Tirpitz. I guess the smart thing to do would be to post this on the website. Thanks for your response, I appreciate your time.

Hello all. I am building Trumpeter's 1/200 Bismarck, and have several questions. I'll post them one at a time. First, the bridge decks. Bismarck had three bridges, using the terms in "Anatomy of the Ship" (please correct me if there is a more accurate term), the Admiral's Bridge (high one), the Lower Mast Deck Bridge (surrounding the armored conning tower) and the Bridge Deck (lowest of the three). The lower two bridges are shown in most models as having a wooden grating covering them, but I can only find one picture showing a wooden grating. Two other photos show them as dark grey paint on steel. The wreck photos also show steel decking. The area is not burnt as the paint still exists on the bulkheads. I am modeling her as she was when she left Norway on 21 May 1941. Any answers would be appreciated.

Hi Folks, I'm modeling the beast of metal track builds, the Object 279, 4 tracks each with about 90 links per track. I did not like the plastic links in the kit i bought (Panda) so I bought a set of metal links by MasterClub. Although the tracks are okay, assembly is a real pain, each link requires drilling and filing to clean up the pin area. 20 links take me over an hour to get assembled and I have nearly 400 to do. Friulmodel and Spade-Ace do not make Object 279 links, but I found a company called San Xin that does. Has anybody ever heard of them and can you comment on whether or not they are worth it? I'm scared to plunk down another $60 US for a second set of tracks. At this point I might just use the plastic links rather than continue with the Masterclub ones. Again, thanks in advance for your replies.

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I tried it at the start, and then gave up on it. To anyone who made the PE work, you a better man (or woman) than me. I ended up drilling through the top wing, and running .010 x .030 styrene through it. First time I did it I taped all the styrene and then made the mistake of gluing with Tamiya thin set. It softens the styrene, and since they were under tension, they all snapped. I then redid the whole thing and glued it with super glue. I built the wing as a separate piece with bracing between the lower wings. After painting, I'll gently remove the braces and slide the wing onto the fuselage. Man, I hope that works!!!

Sorry, my eyes didn't see it was WWI, I thought I was in WWII