jollygreen

Hello all, Compared to all the other 1/72 Hurricane Mk.1 on the market, the Airfix Mk. 1 looks definitely "right" straight from the box. I´m shure the mod with the nose will improve this even more. Haven´t built the Airfix Mk.1 yet, but a friend has, and in a selection of Hurricane models on a model show it stood prone out of the others being the only one that "looked right" like a Hurricane. Think the Hasegawa kit has several errors, too. It looks as if the cockpit opening/glazing is not wide enough. Maybe one of you could add a foto of the nose job. I would do the same on my Airfix Mk.I . Bye, Jolly

Hello all, I´m currently have a 1/72 Whitley kit (of course, the old Frog one) in my line of to-do kits. The cockpit is detailed right now with what I could find in the references that I had at hand, but these where not that much (not the references, the pictures of the cockpit!). Seems the Whitley is not that much photographed. One thing I found out by looking at the pics in this thread is that I have my navigators table wrong orientated, I have to turn it around 90°. One thing that is not mentioned in the thread: The drawings in the Sanger plans (the same as the Warpaint drawings) have an error in the orientation of the windows above the instrument panel. Look at my kit, this is about the right orientation. I made the drawing error before into my kit, but pictures showed that the small windows are incorrectly drawn in the drawings. If I find the picture for it I will post it here. To the wing dihedral: refs say that the first early aircraft had no dihedral, but the were all retrofitted with the dihedral later on. So you´re doing correct if you´re building a model that you have a picture from. Maybe someone has a few additional pictures in his refs that bring light in the Whitley cockpit layout. I always found that the Whitley did not get the place on the modelling table tht it deserves. The problem with the 1/72 Frog kit are mainly the engines which look horrible. Hopefully I will get them to a correct shape sometime and can make resin copies from them that other Whitley enthusiasts can use then. I even thought of using the Wellington II engines as a basis, but I don´t have that kit from MPM . Cheers, jolly

Hello all, Gentlemen, thank you very much for the offered info. I´m currently working on the tail cone which I will do like I did my F.5 that is already finished. I glue the fuselage pieces together with the tail piece (not the well known SAM article) attached to the fuselage. then I cut out a triangular piece like on the photo. Then insert a piece of round material of the correct diameter to the opening. Now you have to clamp the halves which takes very much pressure. A normal peg is not enough so I use a piece of polyurethan tube (for pneumatics) that I push over the tailcone. Can also be some metal tube, or a piece cut from a ballpen. This holds the triangular cut firmly together. As glue is not strong enough to hold the parts together under this stress, I dip the tail for a small while in boiling water which normalizes the plastic in this area and you can glue them together. Without this treatment, you risk a break in this area later on. For the cockpit, I will use the Pavla MB Mk.3H seat (S72039). Instrument board will be from two RoG Hunter boards cut to shape and arranged as in the T.7. Bye, jollygreen

Hello all, a question to my current build, a kitbash of the Hunter T.7 nose from the Matchbox kit with the Hunter FGA.9 kit from RoG. The basic work is complete so far, but there are a few things I have to ask you Hunter professionals in the forum. First of all, the aircraft I decided on is XL620, an aicraft of 66 Sqn. (of course, to use the decal option from the RoG Mk.6 kit). My questions: does the aircraft have the ejection blisters of the FGA.9 for the outboard pylons and also provision to take the longer inboard tanks? This would also affect the flaps then, which would be the ones with the cutout for the tank. Does the aircraft carry trainer yellow stripes on the wing, too? Thank you for tips and info, Jollygreen

Hello all, nice discussion with you guys. I´m totally with you that no green/grey aircraft flew with SEAC forces, this was always what I had in mind, too. Therefore some color side profiles in several publications must be wrong, they are maybe just copies of each other. What bothers me a bit is the SAM "readers write" article vol23 #1 that the writer recalls his fathers memories who was with 79 and 34 sqn. He writes " aircraft in india were brown and green and the one´s in burma grey and green or silver". The writer confirmed this with the memories that an armorer of 34 sqn had, too. Maybe we will never know for shure .... I think I will settle for GQ-B "Elaine II" or maybe a 30 sqn. aircraft with the palm tree motif on the fin, either in green/brown. Nose art desperate dan: Shurely this was applied befor the order came to remove the short lived red/white checkerboard marking. So maybe it was removed to keep it as a squadron mascot or decoration of the mess tent. Thats just a guess. I will make my ZT-D with the nose art! Bye, jollygreen

Hello all, this is my first post here but as I´m building a 1/72 Thunderbolt Mk.I of 258 Sqn at the moment, I thought it is time to ask some questions here. I intended to model the well known ZT-D / FL792. I saw that you´re using the book "RAF Thunderbolts" by G. Thomas as a guide, I have this book too, but it confuses me in several ways. First: page 23 shows the cowling of ZT-D with a cartoon nose art named "Desparate dan" - this is not shown in other illustrations or decal sheets of ZT-D. Has this cartoon always been forgotten or not known? Second: The black and white side profiles of the aircraft in the book cannot be divided in green/brown and green/grey aircraft, because the two greys of the print are nearly identical. Does anyone know since when the aircraft were camouflaged green/grey or which aircraft in the book are green/grey? I wanted to make a Mk.II version after my green/brown Mk.I and this should be a green/grey aircraft. Just for information (but I´m not angry if someone knows better): The green is not the britsh dk. green but olive drab. Also, the lower side is not medium sea grey but light grey ANA602. Bye, jollygreen