Giorgio N

You're right there, don't know why I assumed these were the ones for the D but looking at them with more care they are the TF30 ones... Agree with you on the separate fairings, would be a much better solution. In any case this looks like a neat package, will get me one of these for sure. The availability of the early beavertail is also a good selling point, will make building an early Tomcat much easier and I have a few decals in the stash for these

Thanks for sharing these pictures Tony, very useful A quick question: are the proper shrouds for the TF30 engines included ? I've read somewhere that GWH mistakenly offered only the D versions.

If you want to try something from that theatre that is sure less common, an interesting subject is the Vultee P-66 in Chinese markings. Sword did a kit a few years ago that can still be found with some searching. It is not a locally produced type like the Fokker D.XXI or the Ik-3 but is a rare little known fighters that nonetheless saw some service, although with little success.

Fortunately for us modellers things are a bit simpler... any paint claming to be matched to FS 34087 will try to match this colour as it was before being renamed 34088... and any paint claiming to be matched to 34088 will try to match the same. Of course not all will succeed in matching the standard, but in the end once you use some kind of US Olive Drab or a dark brown-green you'll be in the ballpark of what the bombs look like... with all the caveats about the name Olive Drab...

I can't remember any canopy variation in late Vampires, to me they all look the same. The FB.9 was the variant generally used in hot climates as had an air conditioning unit for the cockpit. I have somewhere the serial range that saw the use of the short range day fighter camouflage. Regarding the distinction between short and long range day fighters, I'm sure I have this somewhere, I'll post when I find it. At some point this distinction disappeared, IIRC in 1953. Regarding the overall silver finish and the use on day fighters, we have to consider that there was also a distinction based on theatre: that between fighters based in the UK (meaning mainly Fighter Command) and fighters of the tactical air forces (meaning generally based abroad, Germany, MEAF and FEAF), The UK based fighters retained the overall silver scheme until the Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey over Silver scheme was introduced in September 1953 "for all fighters based in the UK". This scheme first use on new aircraft was on the Sabre Mk.4 used by Fighter Command (those with 2 TAF had PRU Blue undersurfaces) and both Meteor and Vampires were also repainted in the scheme. As often happened, it took time to see all the aircraft previously in service receive the new scheme.

The two are more than quite similar, they are the same colour. The history of FS 34087 and other "olive drabs" is long and convoluted and the introduction of 34088 is only the most recent. For some reason during the history of the various changes to FS 595, at some point the colour 34087 was not the same as 14087 and 24087. This caused problems in particular in the US Army as they used both gloss and flat colours for different uses. In 1984, with Change.7 of the then FS595A, all these 3 colours had their codes changed: FS 34087 became 34088 while 24087 and 14087 became 24084 and 14084 respectively. These numbers were carried into Rev.B of FS595. Now things could be even more complicated.. I've seen mentions of the introduction at some point of a new set of colours with codes... 14087, 24087 and 34087 within FS 595B sometime in the '90s... different colours from the previous ones. What I can tell is that fortunately in AMS-STD-595, that replaced FS 595C in 2014, these are not present while there are FS 34088 (with no corresponding 14088 or 24088) and all 3 types of x4084. And they say that having a standard makes the choice of paints easy....

If you're planning to gather together all the various changes in camouflage within the postwar RAF, it would be a very useful work ! I have indeed tried to collect as much information as possible on the various AMOs and similar documents relating to camouflage changes, however I do not have full texts, all I put together are various bits of information found here and there. I will try to add as much as possible here, it may take a while as my notes are not currently immediately available and I'd have to dig into my bookshelves.. anyway, give me some time and I'll try to contribute In any case, I can answer some of your questions and add a few comments right now. In no particular order: Egypt based Spitfire and Tempests: this was indeed a short-lived desert scheme, introduced in 1949 after a couple of clashes with Israeli aircraft. These did not go well for the RAF and among the measures taken was a new scheme. With the retirement of these types around a year later, the scheme was abandoned. Tactical aircraft: these were the aircraft of the "Tactical Air Forces", and yes, these included RAF Germany, or better what we now know as RAF Germany... This started as 2 TAF during WW2, became BAFO in July 1945 and was renamed 2 TAF again in 1951. The name Royal Air Force Germany was introduced in 1959- Meteor recce schemes: FR types generally carried "fighter" schemes. The Meteor FR.9 in particular carried for a while the short lived scheme for Day Fighters, Short Range. When this was abandoned, the FR.9s carried whatever scheme was supposed to be used on the Meteor. The Meteor PR.10 however were not classed as fighters and as such were camouflaged according to the requirements for PR types. Speaking of which, for a while they carried Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey over Medium Sea Grey The picture that drives you mad is "easily" explained: Vampires were initially in overall aluminum but then the Day Fighters, Short Range scheme was introduced, A few units had in service aircraft with both schemes and this is what is shown in that picture. with 2 aircraft in each scheme. Speaking of the Day Fighters, Short Range scheme, the same colours were also used for a short time by jet bombers, between the Medium Sea Grey over Black scheme and the later in overall aluminum. A number of Canberra B.2 was so camouflaged and some served in this scheme over Suez With the introduction of the "intruder" variants of the Canberra, another scheme was introduced with the usual Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey on top and lower surfaces in black. This was applied to a number of B(I).8 in Germany, will get back to you with the relevant dates. Some more on the aluminum schemes.. the name "high speed silver" if I understood the matter correctly refers to the type of paint used, not really the camouflage scheme. The camouflage scheme was simply in "aluminum" or sometimes in "silver", with whatever kind of paint applied according to the relevant DTD. I would also not use the term "aluminum dope" as this more correctly refers to a specific kind of paint EwenS already explained how in-service aircraft were never supposed to be repainted immediately, this explains why a number of types retained their wartime camouflage well into the postwar years. I should add that I have not seen any indication of any change in camouflage in March 1945 and that the overall silver scheme was only approved with the camouflage conference in October 1945. The various official documents seems to have taken til February 1946 to be prepared and circulated, Last but not least, a small suggestion: with the various schemes it would also be useful to add if the scheme was to be to Pattern No 1 (top colours carried low on the fuselage) or to Pattern No 2 (top colours only on the extreme upper surfaces). It can help identifying the scheme in some situations, particularly in B/W pictures.

Not my personal suggestion but information I read on some sources, while not being present in others. It should also be noted that the B.2 was heavier not only because of the engines but because was a longer airframe. Could this had resulted in a lower bombload ? Maybe not, as said before it's not mentioned in most sources. Regarding thrust, in Butler's "British Secret Projects - Jet Bombers" it is mentioned that the later Vickers low level bomber design would have struggled with Conways as this engine had an unfavourable thrust/speed curve: at the projected 650 mph at low level, the 4 Conways would have offered a thrust of 21,000 lbs while the aircraft would have required at least 28,000. I can not comment on the differences between the installation in the Victor and the one in the V.1000, apart from noting that as Graham said it could have been a matter of different ratings for diffeerent uses.. of again of a thrust/speed curve that did not favour the use at the flight regimes more typical of the V.1000. This assuming that the intake design in the V.1000 was optmised for use with the Conway, that I expect was.

Pat, I have progressed a bit but have not done much worth new pictures.. I've completed both wheel wells now and I've painted them in overall yellow chromate. Part of the wells will now have to receive the same colour of the lower surfaces and here's where I have to make a decision: I believe that this aircraft left the factory in US substitute colours for the usual RAF scheme. I already have my ideas about the dark green and dark earth but finding a good option for sky may not be as easy... There are several colour pictures of A-35s, generally taken in the US. From these the sky seems to be quite a lot greyer than the British colour. The best way to address this is probably by mixing sky and light grey and as I'll probably use Vallejo Air acrylics I'm leaning towards a mix of their version of Sky with their version of the light grey used on postwar US Navy types. I've tried a 50/50 mix and still looks a bit too dark and too "green" compared to pictures, I'll have to try other mixes til I get something I'm happy with

No, a 1/72 model is not like watching a real one from 80-100 yards away. A 1/72 model is a reproduction of a real aircraft that is 72 times smaller. The way something looks at a distance is very different from the way something smaller looks like. Not really ! There have already been half decent 1/72 kits of the Spitfire Vc within the years, and some of them have actually been better than half decent. The Sword kit may be a bit lacking in accuracy (wing a tad short) but is overall quite a decent kit. Same goes for the KP kit, currently available. So Airfix will get their deserved credit if they do something that is better than what has already been available. If they don't improve on what is already on the market then they will receive the deserved criticism

A general comment: the great advantage that cancelled types have is that they never had to prove their value in the longer term. As such none of them ever developed structural problems or proved unreliable or too expensive to maintain and so on. The types that entered service on the other hand all had to cope with all sorts of issues during their operational life, from changes in the military doctrines to economic issues to all the kind of troubles that may come when an aircraft has been in real service for a certain number of years. For this reason, an air force is always much more powerful when equipped with what-ifs and modellers and enthusiasts look with rose-tinted glasses at this prospect. The reality however is that it is very likely that all those cancelled types would have had to cope with all the potential problems that affected the ones that entered service, with one more disadvantage: that if they were cancelled, there often were good reasons for this, technical and/or budgetary. Cancelled projects all make for fascinating stories and interesting modelling subjects, but 99% of the times their cancellation was the right thing to do. Both the Valiant B.2 and the TSR.2 fall into that 99%

I'm with here as I don't think the B.2 would have had a particularly distinct career for a number of reasons. The most important is that it is often assumed that the B.2 would have not suffered from cracks in the wing structure that led to the dismissal of the whole Valiant fleet, but we don't really know if this would have actually happened. The B.2 featured a redesigned wing structure supposed to work better in low level flight at high speed but this was designed without any knowledge of the problems that later affected the B.1s. In particular, it was the choice of materials that proved to be the problem and the B.2 would have used the same materials. Would the different structure have avoided these problems ? Hard to tell without some proper structural analysis. There is then the matter of the capability of the type to perform the strategic missions later assigned to the other V bombers. The B.2 was judged by the RAF to be lacking in range and would have required a redesign of the bomb bay to be able to carry the Blue Steel. I have also read in some source that while the bomb bay on the B.2 was longer than on the B.1, the extra weight of the new engines meant a reduction in bomb load, so much that the type would have struggled to carry the early RAF nuclear weapons. This would have not been a problem for a pathfinder, but would have been a serious problem for a bomber. Other sources however do not mention any reduction in bomb load so this matter is still open. Had all the issues been sorted, I still don't think that the type would have served for as long as the Vulcan as at some point the added cost of operating two bombers for similar missions would have meant axing one of them, in the same way as happened to the Victor. At that point it would have likely fell on the older Valiant to be retired or if possible converted to tanker. This brings to the variants that could have been possible. A tanker may have been likely, however it would have depended on the kind of performance of the aircraft at mid level, as in-flight refuelling is not generally conducted at the low levels for which the type was designed. The same applies to any test work with missiles like the Skybolt, that were supposed to be launched at higher levels. If the aircraft had shown good behavious at slower cruise speed, there is a role that could have been interesting: maritime patrol. Who knows, maybe a Valiant based aircraft would have been a better option than the Nimrod... of course there would have been the matter that the Comet offered much more room for all the crew needed for such an aircraft while redesigning a bomber fuselage would have been an expensive job so it's likely that the Nimrod would have been better anyway. Speaking of variants, Vickers also proposed a dedicated low level bomber, based on the B.2 but with modified wing (with higher sweep at the leading edge due a wider chord at the root), longer fuselage to carry more fuel and revised tailplanes. That Vickers themselves redesigned the type to get a proper bomber is another indication that the B.2 as it was would have been lacking in the bomber role. And that's it, in the end the B.2 was a variant designed for a role that did not exist anymore by the mid '50s. That later most bombers had to move to low level missions is something that is mentioned as a good reason for the B.2 to have been put in production but we can not really say if this type would have proved better than Vulcans or Victors. It made sense for the RAF to cancel the type in the early '50s, more so as working on the B.2 would have meant diverting resources that were needed to get the other bombers in service.

There isn't much information on the details of these aircraft, however it's possible to give a good informed guess based on other similar types and others from the same company. The camo colours were those standard for the so-called "continental scheme": upper surfaces were in Verde Oliva Scuro 2 (dark olive green 2) while lower surfaces were in Grigio Azzurro Chiaro 1 (light blue grey 1) Cockpit colours in that era were supposed to be in the same Grigio Azzurro Chiaro 1 of the lower surfaces. The exceptions were the instrument panel, in flat black, and the seat that was often in aluminum. Wheel wells were sometime considered as interior surfaces and sometimes treated as exterior surfaces... in any case this means Grigio Azzurro Chiaro 1... yes, in the end you only really need 2 colours for most of the aircraft. Unless you want to go to town with superdetailing, in that case Italian aircraft of the era had pipes and relative equipment colour coded depending on their nature, with blue, white, green and red used for different parts. Regarding the paints to use, the Humbrol paints considered as closest are 91 for the dark green and 141 for the light grey. Unfortunately the latter is OOP and may not be easy to find.

Steve, the F-5 in the Top Gun range is not the one that came with Iranian roundels. That one was an F-5A, first issued in 1966 and reboxed as recently as 2011 in a set with paints and brush. What Airfix will offer as "MiG-28" is, correctly, their F-5E, a kit that was first issued in 1983 and that for some reason has not been made available too often over the years. The F-5E is a nicer kit in some aspects but is the product of an era when Airfix made kits with very soft details. It hit the market around the same time of the Italeri kit and while both are acceptable, the Italian kit was better moulded and overall superior. The F-5E is a type that would really deserve a new state of the art kit... As you've seen with your Tomcat, it was alredy not well fitting in its original form, I know that more recent issues received some modifications to bring the kit to the more recent configuration with a new boattail, but I guess that fit is now even worse...

If the kid is not bothered by the quality of the plastic, he will sure like these kits. It's not only a matter of accuracy but also of mould quality and fit.. the Tomcat has never been a good fitting kit and considering how old the mould is I wonder how it fares today... The F-5 is a bit better, the A-4 is nice and I can't comment on the fit of the Hornet