GrahamB

Here's the slightly modified Skua with the black port wheel well and much shortened catapult spools. Next time I'll get the interior right - Bill is on the right track. In this photo the Sky Blue shows very well - not as saturated in the original post. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Bill, looks like I messed up with this. The bulkhead looked as if it fitted in the right place (in the indicated 'groove') but I wasn't thinking far enough ahead about the canopy. If I do another Skua (quite likely) or Roc I'll follow your method of setting up the internal structure by attaching to the side walls rather than the floors. One lives and learns. Looking forward to seeing your model. Cheers, Graham PS. I think the prop thing is more or less resolved - the 11'6" prop does work but means that the kit blades could do with being about 1 mm longer each. Not much, but probably enough to make a visual difference. I've added the black port wheel well and shortened the catapult spools so it's done and dusted now, albeit with b----red up cockpit/canopy relationship.

Hi Bill, just test fit, gently trim, test fit, gently trim, and test fit the canopy attachment - I had to pare down the top/side of the pilot's seat bulkhead before I could get it to settle properly. I'm not sure that on mine the seat bulkhead is in quite the right place anyway- but this is the kit speaking. Perhaps it should align with the first vertical frame (rear of sliding canopy)? Also the 'diagonal framing' I'm sure is actually an internal brace for the headrest/bulkhead - too late/hard to correct on mine as it appears as external framing on the kit's canopy. Joys of modelling. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, thanks for comments again, guys. I'm still not happy with the kit's prop and am doing some measuring from photos to get a better idea - had a wee accident with the model and the prop came off - telling me something? At the moment (one photo in) I can see the prop blade extending beyond the cowling aperture by 1.2 x the aperture diameter - a couple more measures and the dimension of the aperture and I'll get a result. Thanks Graham for the pointer about the catapult spools - mine are too long. I just added a punched-out disc of plastic edge-on to the end of a piece of brass rod - but I'll shorten these by half now. I'll also take the opportunity to paint the port wheel well Night (or black?) as I missed this in the photo of '6F' (assuming it is the same 6F) on page 79 of Lloyd's book. Back to British - full circle after 50 years of modelling! Cheers, GrahamB

Thanks guys. A modest kit that scrubs up nicely - in spite of my misleadings with the prop. The AM Sky Blue (?) shows up slightly too saturated on the photo (and perhaps on the model as I probably overdid the tinting). I used Vallejo white airbrush primer tinted with a tiny drop or two, in equal measures, of Modelcolour 906 Pale Blue and 885 Pastel Green. I use Ian Huntley's Methuen call-out of 23A2 for the Sky Blue and the two Vallejo colours are excellent matches for hue for the 22 and 24 colours respectively, straddling 23. The 'Extra Dark Sea Grey' is Gunze (aqueous) Dark Sea Grey tinted with a little white and the 'Dark Slate Grey' is actually Gunze RAF Dark Green with a little of the Dark Sea Grey added - this seems to match a Nick Millman RGB value for DSG that I 'lightened' using a colour finder then found an exact match in my local Resene paint range (and real paint chip to hand) - Bob's your uncle. Sky Grey is a Vallejo mix of about 4:1:1-2 of 989, 992 and white. A Fulmar next I think, and I'll post up some pics of the 'Tropical Sea Scheme' trials Swordfish once I've added some aerial wires. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Libor, thanks for this. I'm not sure if the prototype and production props were intended to be shown as different lengths but at least I have actually found the dimensions of the 'standard' Skua prop - in the Roc chapter, page 30 - where it is indeed a DH 5/8 of 11'6" diameter (48.7mm in 1/72) - the Roc's was slightly larger at 12'. Anyway, what's done is done, and I've stuck the kit's (slightly, not grossly, undersized, Doh!) prop on and posted photos in the ready-for-inspection section. I'm still not wholly convinced by the accounts of the late pre-war and early war single finish Skuas but we'll probably never be certain now. Now to do a Fulmar with the mottled/scribbled leading edges (and there are some seemingly anomalous things going on with undersurface colours here too). Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, finally finished another model. This is a very nice kit that lends itself to a bit of detailing. I've added the catapult spools (a lash up as I've not found a clear photo of these), 'structures' on the wing leading edge in front of main undercarriage leg, the fasteners on the forward fuselage - here as punched out 'semi-discs' rather than wire hoops, a bomb crutch (?) seen on underside photo in the Willis book, wing-tip hand holds - by using round file then adding some fuse-wire; hacked out the fuselage footstep, opened up the rudder hinge aperture and added hinge; cut out flap apertures, added slide and arm, flaps from sheet; aerial wire from very fine elastic thread. Please don't call me out for the tonal contrast in the upper greys - it's not a faux pas - these early post-factory S1E schemes usually show the 'Extra Dark Sea Grey' being lighter than the 'Dark Slate Grey' rather than the correct relationship (EDSG just darker than DSG when fresh). Very nice Xtradecals but I've corrected the demarcation of the underside Sky Blue on the rear fuselage. Could do with some more 'weathering' but things can easily go downhill when I'm on the end of a paintbrush. Thanks for looking and thanks to Tony O'Toole for help with Skua queries. Happy Christmas from Kiwiland. GrahamB

Thanks John for this clarification - but what is your source or reference for this? It is annoying that figures get banded about without reference. If the 11' 6" value is correct, this equates to 48.5 mm in 1/72 so that the kit's (my measurement of 47 mm) is not far off - hardly worth any effort in lengthening the blades. It does not help when drawings, in what is most people's main source for the Roc-Skua series, are incorrect and inconsistent. So, I take back my criticism of the kit's propeller - pending confirmation that the value you give is correct. It still looks too short when looking at photos. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Libor, where is the quote for the propeller size in the Willis book? I cannot find it - but it is there? His drawings are inconsistent: the 1/72 side views (pages 12-13) show a diameter of 53 mm whereas the front view (page 16) show 45 mm!!! - similar to the value that you 'quote'. The kit's propeller I measure at 47 mm. My information comes from the articles by Tony O'Toole on the 1/48 SH versions and he believed the 13' 6" Hamilton Standard offered by Aeroclub was the appropriate version available. This is 57 mm in 1/72, so the drawings in Willis are only close if the side views are considered (but still short by 4mm - or 2mm per blade. ). Even if you are correct in saying that it was DH-made the design was still HS - a little pedantry from you there. You only need to look at photos to see that the blades extend beyond the cowling aperture further than the aperture diameter itself - the kit does not do this. "according to excellent Stuart Lloyd book the paint was aluminium dope," - my point exactly. Why does this expert author use the wrong terminology? Looking at some of the photos of the late 1939/1940 Ark Royal Skuas seem to show a flat appearance, not 'silver' or aluminium as one might expect. Does it not say somewhere that Sky Grey was to be applied overall as well? Some inconsistency here methinks. Still, it's only modelling. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Bill, yes, I've been confused by the terminology for these pre-war FAA types and it crops up in the latest tome on the subject. 'Silver' is inappropriate and it must have been aluminium paint/lacquer (not 'dope' as is repeatedly and erroneously stated). But, what happened to Cerrux Grey as well? This was the metal-surface finish on FAA types previously - why not still with Skua - almost Sky Grey in hue/tone? Oh well. My 1/72 SH Skua is done apart from the last hassle that I should have been prepared for - the propeller is grossly undersized (diameter) and I'm improvising with something from the spares box - it should be a Hamilton Standard (can't recall size immediately without reference to hand) - the same problem occurs with the SH 1/48 Skua and Roc and is seen in the drawings given in the Matthew Willis book. Aeroclub certainly did the 1/48 version and probably the 1/72 as well but I'm not sure that they are still in production/available. Good luck with the canopy - I chickened out in the end. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, IMHO, going from 1/48 to 1/32 to 1/24 for relatively sleek aircraft such as Spitfire, Hurricane etc is a wasted opportunity for adding/seeing more detail. If anything, I'd like to see a 1/24 Bulldog or Siskin as an injection-moulded kit, perhaps Swordfish, but we are getting a bit large here. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Tony, my copy has finally arrived here in Kiwiland. A brilliant piece of research and very enlightening. More power to your elbow for volume 2! Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Bill, well, I'm well into building the 1/72 Special Hobby Skua and I think it's very decent. The fit is pretty good - even the wing to fuselage was near perfect (quite a pleasant shock after doing several of these relatively short-run kits). The only mismatch in the parts is really the tail-plane to fuselage fillets - the tail-plane is too deep in chord but this can be sorted by judicious sanding and re-scribing of some panel lines. Basically, careful clean-up and test fitting results in a good result. Clearly there is room for improvement (i.e. detailing) but this is fine if one has access to any of the several Skua references. The only 'annoyance' is the relatively thick, one-piece canopy. I would have preferred a couple of vac-form pieces (as some manufacturers offer) since Skuas are mostly seen with the rear canopy folded back inside and the pilot canopy slid back. Committing to sawing it up is too much risk and the exposed edges will be too thick.Toying with the idea of getting the Falcon vac versions but not guaranteed a good fit (and expensive). I expect the SH Roc will be similar - I'll probably do one at some stage in the future. I'm at the painting stage now and might post some photos if I can sort out a camera. Cheers, GrahamB

Thanks guys, I'll go with the colour of the basic material as default, unless there is clear evidence (as per Skuas) of anything different. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, I may have missed trick with this one but can't seem to find a source for colours of British aircraft 1939-41 vintage relating to the interior of flaps, undercarriage doors, wheel-wells, etc - i.e. those surfaces that are alternately visible or not visible. I'm starting a series of models of early WW2 FAA types such as Skua, Roc, Fulmar, Albacore etc and it's a bit hit and miss. Clearly some Skuas had their wheel wells painted the adjacent undersurface colour (including black or white when this recognition feature was required). Were there any rules, or was it manufacturer-linked? Any help gratefully received. Cheers, GrahamB SH 1/72 Skua on the bench, to be finished using one of the Xtradecal FAA sets.

Hi, many thanks to Tony for the very useful information and 'Iang' for for photo shown above. I recall seeing it before (perhaps in an Italian publication) but it isn't in my current collection of books and magazines. Well, I can say now for certain that that the rudder is not strongly coloured (yellow, black or red) but in these much clearer orthochrome photos shows the same tone as the lighter of the two upper surface colours and just darker than the ident blue of the fin stripe and fuselage roundel. Clearly, this remains anomalous for sea-going Skuas and suggests that either the rudder was camouflaged or a darkish 'sky blue' underside colour (darker than Sky Grey, as shown by some Ark Royal Skuas) was carried up onto this structure. Too ambiguous to commit to a model but there is still plenty to go at with this aircraft - and then there are the 'sand & spinach' Fulmars, Malta Swordfish, dark Rocs etc etc. Great to be back with British subjects and Airfix - 50 years full circle to where I started. Cheers, GrahamB P.S. I realised that I have 'Skua!' by Peter Smith on my shelf - I had forgotten about this and thought I had sold it. Interestingly, on the same page as the rather poor photo of L2987 (but better than the print I was looking at previously) there is a 803 Squadron Skua landing on Eagle, 'spring of 1941' that also has a dark rudder. Some weird lighting effects though.

Hi, Graham, I think that the fin/rudder is in a normal attitude and same illumination as the port side fuselage - where the Sky Grey (?) is pale.As for 'visibility' - of course the Hurricanes knew it was a Skua - but a brightly coloured tail end might have made it easier to pick up by following aircraft.I don't think any Skuas at this period had camouflaged tails. Yellow is a distinct possibility (as per Hurricanes in Pedestal) as it was the 'high-visibility' colour of its day - tugs, trainers, prototypes etc - now the RAF prefers black. This may simply be an unanswerable query and I'll move on. Cheers, GrahamB

HI, well, the Tropical Sea Scheme trials Swordfish is completed - it scrubbed up beautifully - what a great kit Airfix! I'm now looking for my next FAA project, using the SH 1/72 Skua. I am interested if anyone has any suggestions about an anomalous feature of the camouflage-markings of Skua L2987 that forced landed at Syracuse, Sicily after running out of fuel during the disastrous 'Operation White' to send Hurricanes to Malta, 17 November 1940. The only (?) photo that I have seen is poor - high contrast and taken on orthochrome film. Still, the fin/rudder is unquestionably dark when it 'should' be pale (Sky Grey). I have seen this portion of the aircraft illustrated in S1E/TSS colours EDSG/DSlateG but, as the two Skuas on the two flights were intended to be navigational guides-leaders, perhaps the fins/rudders (and tailplanes?) were coloured for visibility - yellow, red or black would seem the candidates. I think that some aircraft on the Takoradi-Egypt run had a similar marking? L2987 was possibly with, or from, 801 Squadron based on its serif serial number. Does anyone have a knowledge of this special marking - if it is not just a figment of my imagination? I'd be very grateful for help - but there are other nice possibilities for Skua subjects though. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Black Knight, if you want to use Tamiya's Sky Grey you need to 'dilute' it about 2:1 with Tamiya white (not very dense) just to get to full scale colour (using the FS. match), in my opinion/experience. It is good for hue, but too dark by far for a 1/72 or 1/48 model. Sky Grey has been recorded on at least one BOB Hurricane according to Paul Lucas and Neil Robinson (I think - reference not to hand). Cheers, Graham

Hi, just catching up with this thread especially as I fancy doing a Fulmar after the Swordfish presently being prettified with paint. Only speculation but the blue-grey-purple combination is perfect for both a cloudscape background and the colour recession effect on distant landscape/hills, where soft grey-blues/purples dominate - "the blue remembered hills... " etc. Purples and mauves were very common camouflage colours on German WW1 aircraft from 1917 onwards, possibly as response to smoke-affected backdrops. Easy to knock up from available stocks of grey (Medium Sea Grey, Sky Grey), insignia red and blue, and white. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Vedran, I did find some Tamiya XF-19 Sky Grey in my stash after I went into Wellington and bought another bottle! I notice that it is very good for hue but a little dark when compared to FS.36463 (and FS.36373) - more in the FS.36"300" area (as Nick has pointed out - the last three digits indicate the tonality or reflectance, where 000 = 'black', '999' = white. Probably needs about 5-10% white adding if used even without 'scale' in mind. I'll have a play. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, one last (and major) puzzle re the Swordfish tropical camouflage scheme, now that I am almost ready to commit to painting: the distribition of colours on the two Swordfish follows the pattern shown for the S.1.C and S.1.E Sharks but it is not actually clear in which order. It could be assumed that the S.1.C.T and S.1.D.T scheme merely substituted the sea greys with the Mediterranean blues. However, looking at the table, the Mediterranean blues replace the greens - reversing the blue/grey versus green order. Similarly, the order for the S.1.E scheme appears to replace the sea greens with the sea greys (and the sea greys with slate grey = green) yet the actual image shows the same green-grey relationship as S.1.C! Looking at the photo of the two Swordfish the darker tone on the wings' upper surfaces conforms exactly to the pattern on the Sharks (and the tonal relationship shown on the S.1.C example). I had been assuming the darker tones were Mediterranean Blue - this would work only if the blues substituted the greens. I have looked for clues on the film type - orthochromatic or panchromatic - and can see two standard roundels on the last two aircraft on the left side (behind the two trials examples) - the blue looks dark so the film is probably panchromatic. So, which is it? If the Swordfish followed the two published patterns then the darker colours are actually the two sea greens and the forward fuselage image shows these - therefore the two blues are even paler! If the tropical scheme did transpose the greys (blues) with the greens then the darker colours are the blues and the forward fuselage then has the blues - with the greens paler still. Phew! It's only a model, it's only a model, it's only a model...... Cheers, GrahamB P.S. Thanks to Nick for suggesting Tamiya X19 may be OK for Sky Grey - I was working with the FS. match.

Hi Vedran, greys are a real pain to match as the human eye seems incredibly sensitive to the slightest difference in hue. I've had a look through my paint swatches and compared them to FS.26373 and saw that the now defunct acrylic Aeromaster Mitsubishi Navy Grey was a pretty good match, although a touch too blue. I don't know if this survives under another manufacturer's range (Polyscale-Testors?). Of more practical use, Vallejo's own Sky Grey no.989 (Modelcolor range) is very close albeit a touch too 'warm' - I intend using this on my Swordfish, but with a tiny bit of a 'colder' colour such as Vallejo US Blue-Grey no.985. Be aware that Vallejo colours can look fine when matching high density brush outs (or 'dips' - I use those white plastic identification tags used for horticulture-gardening) but then appear much paler when airbrushed - damned annoying but this can be ameliorated by heavier coats or with a black or dark grey primer. Might give you 'scale colour' without mixing though! Just my opinion. I hope others will turn up with their views - I don't have many Tamiya paints, for example. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, just for those with access to the Methuen system, here's a summary of values from Ian Huntley's tables in 'Scale Colour' - a special produced by 'Scale Models' magazine, quite a while ago: Extra Dark Sea Green 27F4 Dark Sea Green 27(E-F)4 i.e. slightly less grey - lighter. Sea Green 27E(2-3) i.e. slightly lighter and less saturated, barely green. This is a relative 'Light Sea Green', clearly. Aircraft Grey Green 27D3 i.e interior green, clearly in the same colour group and a potential 'Light Sea Green' as well. It falls into a series with the EDSG and DSG better than the Sea Green I think - a less dramatic fall in saturation. Dark Mediterranean Blue 21(E-F)6 i.e the darkest of the colours here and most saturated (value 6). It has the same Methuen notation in the tables as RLM 24 which backs up my observation that my still-viable Compucolour RLM24 was a good match for DMB. Light Mediterranean Blue 21(D-E)5 i.e lighter and less saturated (greyer) than DMB. Overall, I can work with these better than the FS. matches as the system is there in front of you. So, DMB would work with either EDSG or DGS (or SG or AGG), LMB would work with DSG (just), SG, or the AGG (I'd perhaps go for the last). Enough. Starting cutting up the Swordfish today. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Nick, nice presentation and I might look at this program for doing colour matches/comparisons - a couple of years ago I ran a series of Methuen-Resene matches (via RGB presentation, as above) with someone on the 'Aerodrome' WW1 site but my collaborator produced the colour charts. It was only an exercise in giving modellers a very good idea of what the many Methuen values quoted in the WW1 aircraft literature (mostly from Ian Huntley, Ray Rimell, and Dan-San Abbott) looked like - probably not scientifically accurate but good enough for kit-bashers and SIM designers. The lowest pair of colours looks fine. It is annoying that the reflectance values seem at odds with one's perception at first - FS.34583 looks OK on its own but paired with LMB does look stark. The problem is largely influenced by seeing b/w photos where these pale colours, such as Sky and Sky Blue, appear almost white. Weird that the FS.34226 'LSG' is now looking to be a good candidate for a pairing with LMB - based on its ca. 23% reflectance! Of course, applying the same thinking about the 'Light Sea Green', the trials' 'Light Mediterranean Blue' may also not be the same as what later appeared (1938 AM card)! I've no idea how the ultimate names were arrived at but they were certainly relative anyway as the final 'Light' Sea Green is only a little paler than 'Dark' Sea Green. Time to stop all the conjecture and going around in circles and do real modelling. Cheers, GrahamB