Jump to content

iang

Members
  • Posts

    998
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

iang last won the day on September 19 2012

iang had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brighton

Recent Profile Visitors

3,882 profile views

iang's Achievements

Obsessed Member

Obsessed Member (4/9)

1.1k

Reputation

  1. You are doing a great job with this. I bought the PCM kit when it first came out, but it's reputation for poor fit has put me off building it. I don't know how it would be possible to build it with upper wings attached to the fuselage and avoid alignment issues with the lower wing, so I suspect the route you have taken may be better in the end - but those were enormous gaps at the wing to fuselage join! But it now looks very tidy.
  2. Channel 4 news is the least parochial and provides the most in-depth analysis IMO. I rarely watch any other news, other than Newsnight occasionally.
  3. Nice find. Where did you find that one?
  4. I don't think I've ever seen a clear photo of either of Lt Don Sheppard's Corsairs . I have this crop of 8H from a deck line-up (second in line): There are decal sheets featuring both, but I suspect they are based on artwork extrapolated from photos of other 1836 Squadron Corsairs. Photographic coverage of Victorious' Corsairs in 1945 is not that great.
  5. Thanks. I wouldn't respray it either
  6. Roger, two photos are reproduced in my book on FAA Camouflage and Markings 1937-41 (written using the pseudonym Stuart Lloyd). One of these is the IWM photo GB linked to, the other is one of three photos I have taken onboard Eagle, following a landing accident (one from the rear, two from the front). The aircraft is also the subject of a colour illustration in the book. It's a while since the book was published (2008) and I'm thinking about the possibility of a new venture (hence the phrase in my post about 'another time'), but in brief: 1. It is certain from the Eagle photos that this aircraft was not painted with black and white IFF markings. The entire under-surface was one colour (probably Sky). 2. The under-surface colour is the base for the 'spaghetti' markings on the cowl. 3. The 'spaghetti' markings do not extend very far chord-wise on the upper wings 4. Less clear-cut from these (and other 'spaghetti' Fulmar) photos is the base colour for these markings on the wings. In the book it is illustrated as the under-surface colour. This would involve wrapping the under-surface colour over the upper-wing and then masking the lower wing at a similar position on the chord, before spraying the 'spaghetti' markings. A task possible at sea (probably in Alexandria harbour). Since the publication of the book, Paul Lucas uncovered a statement in the Operational Record Book of the Repair and Maintenance Branch, HQ RAF ME, Cairo. "7.10.40 Appropriate units given procedure for camouflaging frontal portions of Hurricane aircraft (with V.84 followed by a light and irregular application of very pale blue and green)., in order to effect confusion and miscalculation of range by enemy gunners." V.84 is Aluminium, in pre-war nomenclature. So it is clear that on (most) 'spaghetti' Hurricanes the base colour was Aluminium. Fulmars were not governed by the same (RAF command) painting instructions, but I've not found any Admiralty instructions relating to this scheme. It is possible that Fulmars were painted the same as Hurricanes. What is clear is that the base colour would need to be carried in naval stores, as 806, 803 and 805 RNAS all painted their Fulmars in this scheme at some point (all based on RN carriers at Alexandria, though 805 was shore based for some time), with considerable variation between different aircraft. In my view this rules out light sand suggested by Special Hobby, but Aluminium paint would be carried in naval stores. However, a study of the available 'spaghetti' Fulmar photos does not appear to support the idea of an Aluminium base coat. To me, the base coat looks like the under-surface colour. The book includes this nice close-up that appears to support this view: Notice how on this aircraft the 'spaghetti' mottle extends to the undercarriage doors. On some others, the mottle extends all the way down the fuselage sides, to a position aft of the wings. 806:G is a good example: This photo provides further support the idea that the mottle was usually applied over the under-surface colour on Fulmars, though spinners and an area immediately behind the spinner appear on some aircraft to be Aluminium (as in 806:G above). In the case of N2015:7C, the spinners appears to be black in the IWM photo. By the time 7C was photographed on Eagle, the spinner is a light colour with a mottle. It is possible, of course, that these are two different 7C aircraft, as the serial is not readable on the Eagle photos, though all other details appear the same in both. 5. The colours of the 'spaghetti' mottle. This is also an unknown for Fulmars, but again the colours would need to be available in naval stores. The simplest method would be to use upper-surface colours, but in the absence of evidence of written instructions, any combination of colours from naval stores is possible, including mixes of roundel colours. HTH IG
  7. That's a nice looking Fulmar and you've made a great job of fitting the resin. However, I don't think that the Special Hobby painting scheme bears much relation to the way the actual aircraft was painted, but that's for another time.
  8. Rob, I'm astonished by what is shown in this photo. A man of your immense talents with such a modest display area. Are you serious that you will "bump" the RN warships you've been building recently as you complete more? Cheers, Ian
  9. Everything about that model and base is a joy to behold.
  10. Definitely white: As to the two blues idea, I'm not sure. Skua national markings appear to have been in pre-war glossy colours originally. I wonder if the difference in grey tone is due to differences in the reflectance value of gloss/dull blue?
  11. I think the photo is taken in Scapa Flow between 3rd and 10th September 1939, or between 23rd and 30th September. The photo is not of the best quality, but the battleship in the background is obviously an R-Class. I think the absence of funnel cap limits the ship to Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign or Ramillies at this time. The latter was not at Scapa at the beginning of the War. It looks to have a catapult on X turret (covered with a tarpulin, making it appear dark) and a tripod mainmast, so that would positively identify the ship as Royal Oak. Ark Royal and Royal Oak were only at Scapa Flow at the same time during the first week of the War, (though the battleship was absent 4-7th September) and again in the last week of September when Ark Royal returned from operations based at Loch Ewe and before Ark Royal sailed for the South Atlantic on October 1st.
  12. No question that they were two colours! Black and white seems very likely.
  13. Scanner is U/S, so here's a phone photo : I think the location is Suda Bay, December 1940 - but I'm not certain of that. Others may know more.
  14. I have a photo of Valiant in the scheme illustrated in your first post. I'll need to scan it.
  15. I don't think there is any doubt about the date (and in any case the ship is clearly pre-Bremerton 1941/2 refit). I've also got a crystal clear photo of the port side in the 1942 scheme, which I'll dig out.
×
×
  • Create New...