Jim Kiker

Hi all, The Tamiya 1/48 scale Mosquitoes have a vertical fin/rudder that is slightly too tall. Here is the method I use to shorten it a bit with the least mucking around. I start by taking just over 1/16" off the top of one half of kit's fin. I line up the other half of the fuselage so that its fin is even with the cut and the trailing edge of the rudder meets at the back edge, then draw a line on the inside of the cut piece, like this: I recontour the shortened piece to match the outline, then hold the fuselage halves together as normal and mark the new outline onto the other side. Trim and sand that side to shape, then hold the parts together again and sand the edges lightly to ensure a good match, and I'm almost done. I sand the inner edges of two fins so the trailing edges will be a bit thinner. Of course, I have to fill in the engraved horizontal line of the rudder near the top and move it down 1/16", and also move the mount for the pitot tube down by the same amount, but with a little tape and some care you can do all this without messing up the ribbing effect on the rudder. Actually, I reduce that effect a bit with a rub down using very fine sandpaper to top it all off. It is important to note that the side oblique camera window in the left side of the fuselage moved around as production continued on the different PR versions. The PR I's had it behind the trailing edge of the left wing, starting about 1' back with the bottom of the port about 3" above the trailing edge. I do not have factory drawings or measurements, just the existing photographs of W4051 and her sisters. Aerial cameras in use at the time had a lens body of 5-6" in diameter; I have found that a 1/8" tube replicates a 6" diameter pretty well, and for the port itself I make a scale 9" hole. For this model I opened the hole for the port, then used a sanding drum to make a larger indention on the inside of the fuselage. This allowed me to use a spare camera port from the bomb bay cameras. In the picture below you can see the finished opening in the fuselage. Also note the light gray cockpit bits added to the sidewall areas; these are some of the MDC interior bits. I decided to use the kit instrument panel; later on I used Barracuda Studios' insturment panel placard decals. I also added wiring on the back of the instruments and the landing gear/flaps/bomb bay control levers on the right side of the instrument panel. I replaced the seats with resin ones with Sutton harnesses, added photoetch levers for the throttles, and some scratchbuilt details as well. I like to do this stuff, but I must say that using the kit canopy (while it is fairly clear, but it is thick enough to distort viewing) wound up making some of the details hard to see. Next up was to make up a faux side oblique camera and a mount; I used a large piece of plastic that was fit to be wedged vertially in the fuselage with a camera lense made from the 1/8" tube I mentioned earlier. The assembly was fitted so that the camera lense had adownward look angle of between 20 and 30 degrees from vertical, when viewed from the front or back. This was an educated guess on my part; it reflects my own first hand knowledge of recce camera installations from the '70's and 80's and it comes close to similar WWII installations I am aware of. Your mileage may vary! With all of the cockpit additions done, it was time for some paint. I painted the cockpit bits a dark gray first, then used extra thin Interior Green Grey (IGG) and painted everything from an upward angle. This gave me some shading of the pieces and reduced the amount of washes I needed to give some depth. I also prefer subtle effects, so I tend to go easy with the washes and highlighting. I did do some highlights using RAF Sky, with a bit of silver on the metal parts for wear and tear. Here is a second shot showing the main cockpit pieces all ready to install. I did some light scribing around the pads and seat belts before painting; since I used a dark green for the pads, I did not need much of a wash to "pop" the seat belt detail. More to come...

Ben, good to see you here and good eyes. I thinned the front edge of the tube on the inside before gluing them in place; a small thing but it works well. Colin, it is always a treat to hear from you! Continuing the build, next on the list was to modify the trailing edge of the wings. I trimmed off the engine nacelle extension, filled in the incorrect panel lines and connected the main line of the inner and outer flaps to form one continuous line. I also preshaded the top of the wheel well with dark gray and added Interior Green Grey (IGG). Be sure to mask the edges of this area before painting them so the nacelle pieces will still bond well when they are glued on. While working on the wings, I also detailed the radiators a bit. I fitted some fine screen to the radiator faces and added some fine plastic strips, using some reference pictures. These areas were later painted IGG, the rads themselves were painted black and then the screen and strips were dry brushed in a medium steel color. I do not have pictures to this, but in looking a references the reinforcing strip on the lower right fuselage side was removed since it was not present on these early Mosquitos. Likewise, pictures made when the aicraft was engaged in trials work (beofre continuing on the 1 PRU in the fall of 1941) also show that there were on ID lights on the bottom of the fuselage. I used CA glue to fill these etched lines of the lights in a bit and sanded them smooth. More to follow...

Hi all, I recently completed a Mosquito PR I conversion from the Tamiya 1/48 scale B Mk IV kit. Since it is finished, I am calling this a build diary. I used parts from the Paragon Mosquito Prototype set, cockpit parts mostly from the MDC set plus some photoetch and some stratchbuilt bits. Enjoy! The inspiration comes from a particular recce mission completed in Mosquito PR I W4051 on 4 Mar 1942. This was the first ever Mosquito post-strike reconnaissance mission, flown after a night bombing mission just outside Paris. The cloud cover was solid and down to 400-600 feet; the crew navigated up the Seine River at very low level under the clouds and brought the pictures home. A great story! I want to thank Edgar, Ben M, Graham Boak, Andy, Nick Millman, and my buddy Wally for their help in making this project as well-researched as I have been able to do. My Mossie isn't perfect, but I've done my best. I will start the pictures at the beginning of the construction and work forward in time. I started by tackling the engine nacelles first. W4051 had small scoops in the locations where the exhaust stacks would later be seen. The prototype parts do not have these bits, so I made them from brass tubing fitted in place with miliput used to fill in the area. W4051 had the early short engine nacelles, so the kit pieces were cut along a panel line at the rear edge of the wheel wells to allow the short nacelle pieces from the conversion set to be fitted. Here is an early test fit; the nacelle halves were glued up by now but the resin pieces were added later, after the nacelle was glued onto the lower wings. To be continued... Cheers, Jim

Well said, that man! Yoda

Hi all, Thank you for the inputs, they are most helpful to say the least. Odd, how you can have a model in the stash for a while and think you know which one to do and how it looked, then later you find you were completely out in left field! Thanks again, Jim

Hi all, For quite some time I've had one of the Tamiya 1/48 scale Swordfish in my stash. I've never planned to build more than one of them, and that one for me needs to be one of the aircraft that got a hit during the Bismarck chase. I have studied the related threads here on BM and read through a number of accounts, expecially the one written by Mark Horan. I still have a degree of confusion as to exactly how the aircraft was marked, so I need some help to nail things down. I have chosen 5C/L9726, flown by Moffatt and crew; they got the hit that wrecked the steering gear and sealed Bismarck's fate. I think this aircraft was from 820 Sqn, although some accounts say it was from 818 Sqn. I think she would have been marked as follows. She would have the upper fuselage, wings, vertical fin, and the upper tails EDSG/DSG; upper surfaces of the lower wings shadow shaded in DSG/SG; and the undersufaces and fuselage sides in Sky Grey. I am not sure if the lower color demarcation was a straight wave pattern from front to back, or if the underside color was swept down fore and aft of the lower wing. I think she carried the A1 type fuselage roundel and the "early" type fin flash (three equal width bars, but in a rectangle as opposed to the entire height of the vertical fin), and the aircraft codes were on the fuselage in black. Is all that correct? And would she have had the underwing codes as well? And if that is so, can anyone tell me what their size would be? Any light you may shed on these details would be much appreciated! Thanks and cheers

Hi Daniel, Thank you for your reply. I may try to contact the author as you wrote, but in the meantime I think the hunt is at a stopping place. If it turns out that no pictures of T4800 exist (beyond those two inflight shots you pointed me to), then if nothing else we have a modeler's choice on the specifics of the fuselage roundels and fin flash. I think I can live with that, and I still like the early color scheme a great deal. It's not often seen on Beaufighter models, and we still have a great story attached to the airplane. Reason enough to continue for me! Cheers, Jim

Hi Daniel, Thank you for the additional information and the links. I went to one of the links you provided (I am working from long distance, after all) and downloaded the Summary Reports from 236 Sqn for Jun 1942. I found the mission alright, but the only aircraft ID listed was the individual a/c letter and the squadron- C/236, with no serial number. Would you have any idea if the RAF Form 441 A Sortie Reports that you mentioned are also digitized and maybe available for purchase/download? I have not been successful in finding any links/further information on them so far. Again, thanks for the additional input! Cheers, Jim

Jennings and Ed, Thank you both for the additional input. Based on this I'd say there are no photos of T4800 from that time frame that show the fuselage roundels, as far as we know. I think I have read references that say the change to the fuselage C1 roundels was instituted on the fighter assembly lines in mid-May 1942. If that's correct, I would say that field units likely got the order before that, so that the C1 roundels may well have been in use by mid-Jun 1942. Can anyone confirm? And I'd still like to see direct evidence that T4800 was the aircraft flown on this mission. Anyone? Thanks and cheers, Jim

Hi Daniel and all, That is really useful information for which I thank you! A buddy of mine sent me a copy of Life Magazine with a two page spread on this raid, and it turns out it includes the two pictures you alluded to from the raid. Still, I find I am more confused than ever. The IWM and a number of other writers have said that the picture you posted above is T4800, which as you pointed out is in error. But given that nearly everyone thought that it was T4800, it makes me wonder if this mission was actualy flown by T4800; is there some specific information such as an air order of battle which can confirm this mission was indeed flown by T4800? And how do we know that T4800 hundred carried the codes ND-C? As always, any light you can shed will be much appreciated! Thanks, Jim

Hi Goose, Nice handle! Regarding your FR IX, you likely already know this but PRU Pink was known for fading/chalking quite a bit in service, which is why the aircrft in that color picture seem to be almost white. But also take note that one should be careful with color pictures and assuming they are really close to reality- some are and some aren't and I find it is often hard to tell that difference! I found that lightening up the base PRU Pink I started with made the paint look like cotton candy, so when I had lightened it up a fair bit, I added a touch of light gray to the mix toned down the cotton candy effect. Oddly enough, it made the pale pink a bit like a flesh color, but I liked the end result very much. Some modelers start with white and add a dash of red until the bottle/tin turns the least bit pinkish, but to my eyes that makes it look like cotton candy to my eyes. Your mileage may vary! For weathering, I added the exhaust stains on my FR IX as well as the oil staining on the belly that was common to Spitfires. I also added a little dust on the tires, on the flaps behind the tires (landing on grass/dirt fields tends to throw up a lot of dirt and dust), and a bit behind the tailwheel. Some scuffing of the paint on the inner wing tops where pilots and groundcrew walked would also be normal, just like any camouflaged aircraft. It is not strictly weathering, but I also used pin washes based on Payne's Gray artist's oils around the control surfaces and removeable panels like the engine cowlings, but I lightened it up quite a bit to the point of making it a light gray for most of the "normal" panel lines. That way, the ordinary panel lines show when you are up close, but much less so from a couple of feet away; but then, I like subtle finishing. Questions? Feel free to shoot me a note via the private message board here; I would be glad to help further if you wish. As for the PR X, I do not trust the B&W photos enough to call it pink; just my tuppence worth. HTH, Jim

Hi Jennings, Many thanks; just what I needed! Cheers, Jim

Hi all, I have begun some preliminary work on my 1/48 scale Tamiya Beaufighter; I am modifying her to be a Mk. Ic from 236 Sqn, as of 12 Jun 1942. Her codes are ND-C, serial T4800, and she's well known for being flown on the raid which dropped the French flag over Paris and strafing the Headquarters of the Kriegsmarine on that day. The question is this: most profiles show her with an A1 roundel on the fuselage and the early fin flash on the tail. Various on-line articles report that while the order to change over to the type C1 roundel and later style fin flash went on starting in mid-May 1942, but aircraft in 236 Sqn were not repainted until sometime in July. The kicker is a picture from the Imperial War Museum of this aircraft showing the C1 and later fin flash. So which version is correct for the mid-Jun 1942 timeframe? A1 or C1 roundel with the applicable fin flash? Thanks, Jim

Hi Daniel, Well I have saved off everything you posted; there is a lot of food for thought there. Thank you very much for the pics! Cheers, Jim

Hi gents, Thanks for the replies and information. I appreciate the information on the exhaust collectors, and will keep looking for more data on the size and shape of the early exhausts past the collector ring area. Beyond that, the information I have run across regarding the wing guns, for example, has been conflicting which is why I posted my questions. Different on-line articles conflict on guns or not, short or long intakes over the engines, the small bumps on the engine cowlings, and whether or not the direction finder loop and dome should be in place behind the cockpit on the fuselage spine. Graham, I tend to trust your information- no wing guns- but is there good documentation available? Does anyone know if the wing gun panels themselves remained in place, or were they changed? Thanks too for the pictures, 2W; very useful! More, please? Thanks, Jim

Hi all, I pulled down my Tamiya Beaufighter Mk X kit to look over the parts and extra bits I've collected, and I am making up a list of things to be fixed. The incorrect repair patches are gone, the small cowling bumps will follow, and I will be converting the kit to Coastal Command Mk. IC standard. I am going to do ND-C from 236 Sqn, Jun 1942. I have an old KMC detail set with the horizontal tail planes and open cowl flaps (and other parts as well), and I also picked up the Aires wheel well set a while back. I have spent several hours on the internet looking at pictures (mostly models) for some details but I cannot seem to find consistent data for a couple of items. First, did the IC's retain the six guns in the wings, or were they eliminated? If the guns are retained, I know the panel lines on the top of the wings need to be updated, and also that the rear line of openings on the bottom of the wing need to be filled. I have drawings from the old "Quarter Scale Modeler" for that. Next, I know the exhausts with the hedgehog configuration were not used. Finding good enough pictures of wartime Beaus with these early exhausts, or drawings of them, has proved fruitless so far. And speaking of the exhausts, do I remember correctly that the collector rings and exhaust pipes generally should not appear to be copper/brownish, as so many models depict? What color or method of finishing is correct for these early Beaus once they were in service? These are my immediate questions but I welcome all input to other items that apply to the Mk. IC's, or building the kit in general, would be most helpful. Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi, It looks like you are off to a great start! While this Tamiya kit is wonderful to assemble, there are some areas where the the shapes are off a bit. Would you be interested in knowing about/updating the kit's parts? Feel free to reply here or send me a note off-line if you would like to know more. Cheers, Jim

Hi Guillaume, I am sorry I cannot help you with detailed information, although I am sure someone will be along with details. That said, does your Phantom kit come with the older style of centerline drop tank? If so, I would think that in modeling terms, that pylon could be used with the new tank, and photos would show the newer tank's positioning relative to the underside of the aircraft. This is just a suggestion in case better information does not turn up. HTH, Jim

Hi all, I would like to add a couple of points, given that we have seem to have a shared interest in rather small details. First, check your references very carefully when thinking about the color of your particular aircraft's canopy sealing putty. In the RF-4C Phantom, with which I am very familiar, the sealant was a common "putty" color, that is, a light grayish-tan, what in the USAF used to be called Khaki. It got a little lighter over time, but not all that much. But it does look a lot different in color depending upon the lighting conditions. Think of the "putty" colored computer boxes and monitors from 7-10 years ago for a color reference. And unless you have a relative close-up of the canopy in good color, it can be very difficult to really see the color accurately. Second, it would be helpful to know if the sealant was added on the inside or outside of the canopy. Again in the RF-4C, the putty was applied inside the clear canopy sections. This implies that a flat putty strip on the outside of the Phantom's canopies would be incorrect. When I get to my own Phantom, I will be looking to paint the inner canopy frames and the sealing strips on the inside, and the external colors on the outside; a large amount of extra work, but worth it in the end. Your mileage may vary! HTH, Jim

Hi Tim, As they say, my references are not close to hand at the moment, but memory informs me that by and large, Hurricanes listed at PR aircraft would have no armament. I would think that thin metal plates would have gone over the gun ports, and I do not recall seeing the ports covered in red doped fabric patches in any pictures I have seen. As for the gun access panels, I do not know for sure but I doubt they would have been cleaned up, filled, etc. With the airframe not being particularly slick to begin with, I doubt such action would have resulted in much improvement in performance (unlike the Spitfire PR aircraft); but remember this is just a theory on my part. I am more familiar with Spitfire PR's than the Hurricane, so take this for what it's worth. HTH, Jim

Hi all, Graham, thanks for suggesting a separate thread for the Spitfire; much appreciated. I love the Spitfire too, but both of the pictures posted do not seem to be directly relevant to the Duxford p-47's except for a potential "that looks like a similar color" sort of comparison. For Brian J, I can certainly understand your position based on the photo you describe, at least for that particular aircraft. Might you be able to post it? I would enjoy having a look-see myself. Thanks and cheers, Jim

Hi Brian and all, First, thanks to all for the input; it has been helpful. To BrianJ, I obviously have little to add to your point about the picture you mentioned. I do not have access to the photo although I would certainly like to see it. Like Nick, I have seen other color pictures a couple of times in which a Sky undersurface appears rather bluish. I doubt that phenomenon is what you are looking at, so your picture remains an anomaly to me. Anyone have anything further to add to the evidence pile? Thanks and cheers, Jim

Hi all, A recent thread on another internet board had a little discussion on the camouflage colors used by the 78th FG on their P-47's while based at Duxford. A theory was put forward that at least some of these aircraft were painted with light blue or light blue-gray undersurafaces, based on several eyewitness accounts. I assume that these were painted with RAF Dark Green on top, but mostly I have seen Sky paired with DG on a number of models. I have long wanted to do a bubble top in one of these schemes, so I spent some time searching here at BM for further information. I have yet to find a thread discussing the paints used, although I seem to remember seeing one here somewhere! So the core question is, what evidence is there available to guide the modeler in painting one of these 78th Thunderbolts? I like the RAF DG/Sky combination, but if that is incorrect or not supported by good evidence, then I would be more than happy to change my plan. Can you point me to an article on this topic that I have missed, or is there good evidence to be had? I believe the truth is out there, but I haven't found it yet. Any assistance would be most helpful. Thanks, Jim

Hi Piotr, Very nice work you are doing and I look forward to more. And do not worry; I think your English is more than up to the task! One thing I have heard often about the ICM Spitfires is that the instrument panel bulkhead and the engine firewal piece are both too wide; if they are installed as is, the fuselage is pushed out and the wing dihedral is thrown off. Did you encounter this issue in your build? Thanks, Jim

Thanks all! Lucky for me that I posted this question before making changes to my otherwise quite nice resin pieces. Fabric they shall remain, and I can get back to work on the wings. Thanks and cheers, Jim