Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

iang

Members
  • Content Count

    820
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

iang last won the day on September 19 2012

iang had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

597 Excellent

2 Followers

About iang

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brighton

Recent Profile Visitors

3,257 profile views
  1. iang

    FAA Corsairs EIF

    The second film shows Illustrious.
  2. I'd like to know the specific source(s) for Cull and Galea serial/code information. I have copies of all the 806 Squadron Combat Reports for 1940. Only two pilots identify the aircraft they were flying by serial number. All the others, including Barnes and Sewell, just provide section colour and position (Red Leader, No.2 Yellow section etc.). So the serial numbers and aircraft identification letters do not come from this source. The ORB survives for 806 Squadron for May/June 1940, while it was based at Worthy Down (and equipped with Skuas and Rocs), but to my knowledge the 806 Squadron Diary does not survive for operations in the Mediterranean. It is certainly not held at TNA or the FAAM and Hogg's diary does not list serials or aircraft codes. Reports from Illustrious do provide some information that can help identify individual aircraft, but usually just the aircraft code letter. It is possible that the FAAM hold Barnes' and Sewell's Flying Log Books, but FLBs typically list either the serial number or the aircraft ID number, rarely both. Otherwise, it is possible that Cull and Galea have taken the serials/codes from unpublished photographs, but it can be a tricky business reading serials from photographs, and given the number of aircraft fully identified, it would be an amazing collection of photos. Looking at the 806 Squadron Combat Reports, the first one listed for Barnes took place at 1450/2/9/1940, 090 degrees, 15 miles from Delimara point, Malta. Seven s.79 were engaged, one was shot down in flames and one was damaged according to Barnes. He states he was flying Fulmar Mk 1 of Yellow Section (no serial or aircraft ID given). Cull and Galea list this as N.1879/6B. However, Lt Nicholls was flying Fulmar Mk.1 N.1879 as Red Leader, and engaged 2 x s.79 at 1600/2/9/1940. I'm missing the Reports from illustrious for Operation HATS, so cannot verify how many Fulmars were launched and at what times, but it seems unlikely that Barnes' Fulmar could return to Illustrious, re-arm and re-fuel and return to the same combat zone with Lt. Nicholls between the stated times in the combat Reports of 1450 and 1600. Especially since Barnes filed another Combat Report for 1915/2/9/1940 for the same combat zone (this time 135 degrees, 25 miles from Delimara point) while still flying Fulmar Mk 1 of Yellow Section (no serial or aircraft ID given).
  3. I would think silver dope most likely in December 1939 for this Walrus, given the aircraft's history. The Admiralty was slow to implement camouflage instructions for some types of FAA aircraft. The application of camouflage to second-line squadrons was particularly patchy in the early part of the war, and there are numerous examples of aircraft still in pre-war finish in late 1939/early 1940 (and in rare cases much later). Even front-line units could remain uncamouflaged long after camouflage was mandated. For example, Warspite's Swordfish at Narvik in April 1940 (and Ark Royal's 800 Squadron Skuas until at least February 1940). HTH, IG (AKA Stuart Lloyd).
  4. The pattern on the starboard side may need some adjustment: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205147389 https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205144338 The flight deck certainly wasn't dark grey. It had a complicated multi-colour pattern at the time. I have an excellent clear photograph from directly above. I assume it is composed of the same colours as the hull, but I have no primary evidence to support this hypothesis, other than comparison of black and white photos.
  5. iang

    Ark Royal colours?

    This IWM image of Ark Royal (A6318) taken in November 1941, just before her sinking, shows the two-tone scheme to good effect (and I believe is the image cited by Alan Raven as evidence for his art work). However, it was taken at least a year after the image that I posted. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185500 Images of Ark Royal's round-down are not that common. I've found three or four, but none show the markings seen in Dick's image.
  6. iang

    Ark Royal colours?

    Dick, That one has me stumped. I don't think I've seen it before. What aircraft are on deck? IG
  7. iang

    Ark Royal colours?

    Crisp, the IWM caption for that photo (A4377) is simply "ON BOARD THE CRUISER HMS SHEFFIELD OPERATING IN THE MEDITERRANEAN WITH AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. 1941." No mention of a date during 1941, so if the port pom-poms are present, the photo doesn't help with the question of exactly when they were fitted. However, the available evidence points to a date after May 1941, so, personally, I think you're fine leaving them off for the Bismarck chase As a side note, I have a print of A4377. The same photo is in the FAAM collection as ARK62 , and is somewhat clearer as it is a crop of just the ship. It is still difficult to be sure whether the pom-poms are present. There seems to be something on the mounts, but what is there looks more like crates than pom-poms, as unlikely as that sounds. HTH, IG
  8. Stuart, Dave Swindell pointed out in another thread that this is because Village Photos security certificate is out of date. You need to add an exception in your browser to view them. Good luck with your 1/700 build. From the available plans/drawings, it would clearly be easier to build a Courageous (1916). Courageous as converted to a carrier is the least well served of any configuration of the three ships. IG
  9. You're welcome. I tried to make the images large enough to be useful as a paint guide, but too low resolution for anyone to rip them off for publication, as I may well want to use them myself in the future As for paint mixes, a local 507A/C mix would be my guess too.
  10. I have Courageous (1916), Furious (1917), Glorious (1935) and Furious (1941) currently building in 1/350 at an early stage of construction. I'm a serial starter and non-completer, so none of them will probably commission, but I do drag them out and work on them from time to time. I found that the Lindberg 1/400 Hood hull makes an excellent starting point for these ships in 1/350, needing only modification at the bow and stern, and adding some additional flare to the hull forward, plus the addition of bulges depending on the subject. The rest of the Lindberg kit is junk, but the kit can be sourced fairly cheaply, and I have another should I want to make all 3 Furious configurations. In addition to the references listed by Dave Swindell, there is a 4 part series of articles in Ships Monthly on Glorious by Jim Dixon, (Jan -Apr 1976), and Model Boats ran a number of articles on Furious and Courageous that include small plans (1/960): Furious (1917) October 1967, Furious (1918) December 1967, Furious (1925) February 1968, Courageous (1916), October 1967 (probably not worth getting as the plans for Courageous in the Baker book are much better). In addition, colour plans for all three are in a Polish monograph on the ships by Tadeusz Klimcyck, which I've had enlarged to 1/350. Finally, I have 1/400th plans for Glorious (1935) and Furious (1941) which are published by Windjammer. I've some doubts about these, but at least they give hull sections. A book in the Seaforth series of Builders Plans would make progress much easier. The lack of such is one my reason for holding these in abeyance, but I did work on Furious (1941) just before Christmas. Here is a photo of all four of the models: (from the rear Furious 1917, Glorious 1935, Courageous 1916 and Furious 1941) The excellent match of the modified Lindberg hull to 1/350 plans of Courageous (1916) is evident in this photo:
  11. iang

    Ark Royal colours?

    And here's the photo:
  12. I meant to do this a while ago. Thanks for the nudge. Here's Scheme 1 (Operation Judgement) - at Alexandria And here is Scheme 2 (Operation Excess) at Malta Note the completely different pattern on the island. The hull looks similar in both schemes, except perhaps for the bow section. On the subject of colours, I assume 507A and 507C for Scheme 2. Scheme 1 is a bit more puzzling. Given that for Operation HATS, Illustrious was in 507A, it would seem likely that for her first repaint at Alexandria, camouflage was applied by using one colour over this scheme. In most photos the camouflage scheme looks to have quite a low contrast. This low contrast scheme also seems to have been applied to Formidable, for her first scheme, albeit to a different pattern.
  13. iang

    Ark Royal colours?

    Though we still don't know exactly when the scheme was worn. Since photographs of Ark Royal in this scheme are rare, and the ship was quite well photographed, it is likely that it was short-lived. There is one Swordfish on deck in the photograph, and potentially the markings carried could help broadly date the scheme, but even with a high resolution scan, it is hard to be absolutely sure about the markings. However, it looks to have the squadron code and individual aircraft letter on a full width, full height, fin flash, which would definitely date the scheme to sometime between about May 1940 and October 1940, which is not what one might expect. Edit And sometimes it is easy to miss the obvious.There is no splinter shield present under the aft island pom-pom at flight deck level. This was added during the Liverpool refit in October 1940, so the photo definitely pre-dates Ark Royal's return to the UK.
  14. I don't know that one. According to my notes, the Combat Report only identifies the aircraft by its serial number.
  15. iang

    FAA Corsair Decals

    What I'd give for a photograph of that snowgoose on 134/X!
×
×
  • Create New...