Jim Kiker

Hi all, I need help with yet another question along the road for my Mosquito PR I project. This is regarding the elevators. The prototype conversion kit I am using included the short span horizontal tails and elevators which I believe remained in use for the first set of PR I's. I have added the horizontal stabs and drilled holes in the edges of them and the elevators so I can pose them down. Here is the problem- the resin elevators have surface detail that mostly resembles fabric covering. I know the longer production ones that come in the Tamiya kits represent metal covered units and show riveting and a couple of panel lines; I have a feeling that these short-span pieces should also show detail for metal covering. So, which is correct for W4051, metal or fabric covering on the elevators? Thanks, Jim

Hi gents, Thanks for you input and especially for these drawings- they are just what I needed to know! Cheers, Jim

Hi all, Work continues on my PR I conversion project. I think W5051 was built with the shorter span elevators, and I'm using the paragon resin bits including the horizontal tails and elevators. I have added holes in the parts for pins to help secure the elevators in a dropped position, but I am not sure how much they need to be dropped. I've made pins for approximately 20 degrees down, but I think that may be too much. Does anyone know what the elevator limits of travel are for the Mossie's elevators? And, did this vary any/much from one Mossie type to another? Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi all, As the title implies, I am looking for information on the camera locations used on the Hurricane FRIIC's that flew in the Far East. I believe these aircraft were equipped with a single vertical camera and one oblique camera aimed to the left behind the wingroot. I have done a review of the articles here on Britmodeller and I have the book "Eyes of the Phoenix" which has a few pictures, but I'd like to find a picture (not likely) or a drawing that shows the camera locations more precisely. I am also trying to get clear in my mind how these cameras were installed in order to help me place the openings correctly. Regrets to Colin S-K in advance; I have discussed this with him earlier on, but I am not sure we got to the details. Thanks, Jim

Hi Neil, No worries at all from me; I used information that was reasonably good at the time but I did not have the more exact data that you have to work with. This is an interesting thread, and I may well come out of it with a different approach to doing a Mk VB when the time comes. Good planning and good modeling to all! Cheers, Jim

Hi Neil and all, In general I would agree with the posters who have pointed out that where you start kit-wise may depend to a degree on which sub-type of Spitfire Mk V one is interested in. That said, allow me to point to an article I did fairly recently over on HyperScale. Here is the link: http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/features/sp...repri48jk_1.htm ; you may need to copy the link and paste it into your browser's address bar. While the article is about creating a Spitfire PRI, I have much the same method ready for a future VB project. Basically, I have a method to fix most of the Tamiya kit's shape issues that works for me. Have a look and perhaps it will provide some additional food for thought. Hope this helps, Jim

Hi Steven, Well, I've gone off and done some additional digging thanks to your post; it appears that there are now several restored P-40B's out there flying, as well as a few in museums. I found some decent pictures taken from the side, and comparing them to your model pictures I can see some additional depth in the curve of the lower fuselage that should not be there. Thanks for the information. I was seriously toying with the idea put forward by HB Bates, to cross kit the Trumpeter with most of a Hasegawa P-40E, but on further reflection I think that is more trouble than it's worth. So I am going to stick with the Trumpeter (because I have one); I will erase the raised panels and add approprite scribed lines. CMK offers a resin set of control surfaces for the Hasegawa kits and I think they can be adapted to the Trumpeter kit as well; that will take care of the incorrect elevators and rudder. New cockpit- check, already have a properly deep one that others say will fit pretty well. I'm going to add some .015" sheet inside the lower nose intake to make me feel better, then see if I can take out about .030" worth of the external curve of the lower nose. If I can take that much material off, I think it will improve the outline enough to suit me. A vac windscreen and canopy will top off the list and correct the most worrisome kit errors. Add some Mr. Surfacer to the rivets for good measure, and I'm most of the way home. Yes, a lot of extra work, but all pretty doable. What have I missed? Of course, I'm currently hip-deep in a Mosquito PR I project so it will be awhile, but- Watch the skies! Thanks again, Jim

Hi Mark, I am not a TSR2 boffin, but I want to offer a couple of thoughts regarding the list you have. I find it very helpful to break a long list like this up a bit before I wade into the build. I like to make one break between the things I want to tackle to bring the airframe into better shape, such a flattening overly-big bulges, adding or taking out dimensions, or making the canopies fit better. Most everything else seems to fall into the "more/ more accurate detail" category. Since most of that extra detail is on the inside, I like to start with the outside in most cases. Another thing I would suggest is to make whatever kind of high-level breakdown that makes sense to you and prioritize each resulting list. My own preference is to tackle the more difficult items first while my enthusiasm is high. This sort of work can take a long time to complete and I am a slow builder to boot, and it can get difficult to keep plugging along just to get through the list of To Do items. The result of all this for me is that I can do the major work with shapes, dimensions, and fit; then if my interest really drops off, I can choose to leave off some of the extra detailing and still come out with a model that I like much better than what the kit provides. One other thing I will note is that beyond cockpits and wheel wells, I tend not to go about opening panels for the maintenance guys. I like seeing other people do that well enough, but in the main I prefer a vehicle that is ready for the next sortie. I mention that because while I like doing detail, I do not see the need to do it if it cannot be seen when I'm done. For example, are the flaps normally left open or drooped open when the aircraft is parked? If not, I generally will not open them up and add all the internal detail, and I certainly would not add that structural detail and then put the flaps up. Some folks do things like that, mostly I think because "they know it's in there." Your model and your choices, but since I take 3-4 months to work through an extensive project, there is a point of diminishing returns. Only you can decide where the balance point should be. All of this has more to do with a philosophy of detailing rather than the specifics you asked about for the TSR2, but it pays off handsomely if you plan ahead, prioritize the work, and are willing to revisit your decisions during a project. I look forward to seeing pictures of your work as it progresses! Hope this helps, Jim

Hi Steven, I understand that you don't care for riveting from the Chinese manufacturers (in the main neither do I), nor the Trumpeter P-40B kit. Are the cockpit/canopy issues what leads you the description of "big fat pig," or are there other shape/size issues that you see? I would like to know more specifics about your observations if you would be interested in sharing. Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi Jonners, One other article you might check out is a build/review done by Tom Cleaver on Modeling Madness. Tom's observations were that the Trumpeter P-40B horizontal tails are incorrect because they match the P-36 units and that the standard P-40 ones are somewhat larger. He also said that the Trumpeter rudder is too broad in chord but could be cut off, shortened from the front end, and reattached. I don't have a P-36 kit to check that against, but I think I have heard similar observations elsewhere. I think this dovetails with HB Bates' data, hence Mr. Bates outline for bashing the Trumpeter B's upper/forward fuselage with a Hasegawa P-40E. Those observations are worth looking into further at the least. If I can find a Hasegawa kit for a good price, I have a mind to try that! Hope this helps, Jim

Hi all, I am working on a Mosquito PR I, specifically W4051 from the first batch of production aircraft. Pictures I have found of the prototype Mosquito W4050 and of W4051 made very early in her career reveal that there was no visible landing light under the wings. The lack of landing lights early on makes some sense, given that W4051 did some trials work before being dispatched to 1PRU. I will be building her from later in her operational career from the spring of 1942. It seems logical to me that landing lights would be installed for operations, but I have been bit more than once trying to use logic when there is none. I have been searching through the internet, looking for proof either for or against W4051's landing light configuration while with the 1PRU, or for that matter, what the configuration was for the other aircraft in that first lot of PR I machines. I have Stuart Howe's illustrated history of the Mosquito vol 1, the Aero Detail and Modeler's Datafile books on the Mosquito, and a fair number of images gleaned from fellow PR I fans. Can anyone help me in my quest? A picture of any of these early Mosquitos from below when they were painted in PRU Blue underneath, with or without the landing lights, or copies of any written documentation pointing to these landing lights, would be most excellent. It is the nagging doubt that keeps me wondering. If there is no further information to be had I will eliminate the lights on my build. Thanks in advance for any light you may be able to shed. Cheers, Jim

Hi Juanita, Alas I have no data whatsoever to offer, but I wanted to respond anyway. I became acquainted with your work through Colin Ford, who as you know is the well-spring for all things relating to 268 Sqn. I just wanted to say Hello, tell you how much I enjoy your work, and if anyone else here doesn't already know it, to say to one and all- if you run across her handiwork, be assured that it's among the best in the business! I'm really glad you got into this end of illustration work, and I readily admit to being a big fan. Hand- SALUTE! Best regards, Yoda

Quite right Edgar, I was not clear in my meaning. I was referring to the red/green/amber (or red/green) lights that were normally on the belly of the aircraft, not the wing tip lights. I do not see the lights on the belly of the aircraft, while the wing tip lights are obviously there. Sorry for the confusion am I! Cheers, Yoda

Hi all, Ben, turn about is fair play. I found the following picture on-line in some preview pages for a book named “De Havilland Mosquito: An Illustrated History,” by Ian Thirsk. He reports this as a picture of W4051. I see the rear camera port, which I think is in the same location as the strike camera on the Tamiya 1/48 scale kit. It also looks like the aircraft did not have any ID lights; do you and the other Boffins agree? I also think this shows the shorter horizontal tails, correct? Also, Ben referred to one of his pictures as showing some kind of extra intake on the outside of the right engine; is it possible that this is an artifact or scratch in the original negative/print? I've not seen anything about this anywhere else. For Edgar- It has occurred to me that the chap who painted his own model from actual paint stocks during the war, may have based his painting on one of the second batch of PR I's, that is one of the converted M Mk IV's. Is that possible? Nick- many thanks for your assistance with the colours; much appreciated sir! And the beat goes on... Cheers all, Jim

Hi Chuck, Edgar, Ben and all, A friend of mine is a very sharp observer of materials, whether it is actual photos, on-line e-photos, books, and so on. Whenever I ask him about a picture, he asks me the same question- "What do you see?" And I'll get it repeated until I cannot think of anything new to report, at which point he points out at least a couple more things I've missed. I applied the same principle to these pictures. And yes, I have a dog in this hunt because I'm working on Tamiya's 1/48 Mossie, doing W4051 from later in her career; the post-strike mission of Mar 3-4 1942 is too good a story to pass up. Special thanks to Ben; there are several pictures here I've never seen before. First things first, I see that early in her career, W4051 did not have a side oblique camera mounted, so that came later, sometime between being rolled out/flown for these pictures and (I suspect) the spring of 1942. That is, unless someone here has more data! I also note that the early exhausts are a bit longer and the front end a bit more pointy than the resin bits I have or have seen; those pieces seem to be more cylindrical around the nose to me. For the first time, I can see exhaust stains on at least one of the pictures and they start well behind the exhaust itself. That is almost invisible in pictures I have seen of any of these PR I's when they carried the PRU Blue lower colors. That one shot of W5051 in flight, taken from above and to the left, is the best evidence I have as to the demarcations for the upper colours; it comes closest but still not quite like the later fighter-bomber patterns. I think this became the genesis of the later schemes we are used to seeing. The problem with this picture is that it looks over-exposed, or washed out, but note that I am not technically well trained enough to know if it's just over-exposed or filtered in some way. I look at the other pictures and together, they look to me to be MSG and something on the upper surfaces. I well know about Edgar's expertise and the evidence he presents and I respect it greatly, but I am not sure this evidence supports Sky Gray as one of the upper colors. Questions I have as well; I have an e-copy of the RAF paint WWII colour chart. In my copy, Sky Blue looks to be a pale blue, while the colour call-outs noted here make it to be a pale blue green; what is the correct shade? Also, DSG often seems to look like an Olive Drab that stays green while if fades in use, at least next to the Extra Dark Sea Grey on the FAA's TSS scheme. And definitely not as dark as the FS call-outs that have been given here, at least to me. So a little light could be shed on this colour as well. So based upon all the good information presented here and otherwise generally available and on my own observations, here are my conclusions. I do not think Mr. Lucas has this one quite right, and while I have studied his arguments I do not yet find enough evidence for his conclusions. Next, as I mentioned above I think the lighter upper surface colour is MSG. I also think the most likely suspect for the other upper colour is Dark Slate Grey (DSG). This would be a standard colour, although if someone had evidence pointing to Light Slate Grey (which by the way, the X-tra enamel paint named LSG looks exactly like "olive grey" ought to look), I would consider that. Undersurfaces- not Sky, not PRU Blue, Azure perhaps but unlikely I should think, and so perhaps Sky Blue (the exact shade I am still not sure of, however). This last is a bit moot for me, since I am doing W4051 later in time with PRU Blue below. Boffins, what say you? Looking for more hard data am I! Cheers, Yoda P.S. I have read that W4051 was completed with the early short-span elevators and standard wing tips. Am I correct to say that in these pictures, the slightly-shorter wingtips are fitted? And if so, were the longer wing tips fitted later?

Hi SA, You may know this already but just in case, the 1/48 scale ICM Spitfire kits are about .040" too narrow at the back of the occkpit area (at the rear fixed section of the canopy), tapering to about normal at the base of the vertical fin. That rear fixed clear piece and the sliding section are equally too narrow, and as a result tend to throw off the proportions. This may be part of the difference you are seeing in the "blown-ness" of the model kit parts. HTH, Jim

Hi Rob, I like to use a couple of colors/shades when doing my washes. On my pink Spit FR IX, I used Payne's gray (a dark bluish-gray) for the main panel lines like the flight controls, the engine cowlings, access hatches, and so forth; these sorts of "major" panel lines usually have a strong shadow. For the "minor" panel lines between ordinary panels in the skin, I lightened up the Payne's gray a lot, so that it was only a little bit darker that the pinkish-off white main color. A touch of brown would not hurt this secondary color either, but I'd go for just a smidge of it, and keep the wash really light overall. I start off on the light side for the secondary washes, and if it's too light I can darken this secondary shade a bit and re-apply. For what it's worth, I use solvent-based paint, acrylic clear gloss for the decals (before and after), artist's oil paints plus Naptha (lighter fluid) for the washes, and a final clear alcrylic flat or semi-flat final coat. That said, any variation on this will work; the key is to remember that the solvent and acrylic bases of the coatings act as a barrier for each other so long as you keep a light touch with the washes and weathering techniques. I hope we'll see pics when you are done! HTH, Yoda

Hi M'dad and all, Interesting photo. What are those raised pipes on the wings, set off the surface and running just behind the main spar? That's even weirder than the wingtips! Thanks, Jim

Hi all, I am back onto my Mosquito PR I project, using the Tamiya 1/48 scale Bomber Mk IV/PR IV kit plus parts of the Paragon Mosquito prototype set. So far I have completed work on the rear end of the engine nacelles and the change to the flap line on the upper wing. I'm starting to work up the interior as well. Looking over the fuselage pieces, I see that I filled in the three ID lights on the lower rear fuselage. I am not at all sure why I did that some months back, so I could use some assistance or perhaps a whack on the head to kick-start my memory. I am modeling W4060 as she was flown in March 1942. She was one of those first ten PR I aircraft. Does anyone have specific information about the ID lights? Perhaps not fitted to those early PR I's, or not the same number/locations as shown in the Tamiya kit? Pictures would be fabulous, trusted drawing/plans also very good. I have the Aero Detail book on the Mossie, the Modeler's Datafile, and Richard Caruna's books on color schemes (although Edgar has helped me tremendously already on the scheme). All of which tends to yield conflicting data and some of which I to not trust. Do you have the goods on if/where these ID lights were on this early series of Mossie PR I's? Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi Giora, For what it's worth, the picture already posted is actually an F-5A, and features the trapizoid-shaped left side nose camera port and the earlier streamlined lower engine nacelles. Working from memory, I do think the picture shows an overall PRU Blue, with shadows and some topside fading giving the "light and dark" effect. For the F-5B's, the great likelihood is that they were painted PRU Blue because the Haze schemes were very difficult to maintain. My tuppence worth, Jim

Hi Neil, First let me tip my hat to TheModeller for referencing my (now old) article on building these Academy kits. At the time it was the first of several different marks of reconnaissance Spitfires that i planned and have now built. You have received a number of possible paths to producing the MkXIV, any of which should work, and I also agree that Airfix is likely to bring one out before too long. On the other hand, you do have a number of the Academy kits, so if you choose to use them here are a couple more thoughts to go with all that has been said. Although I only partly addressed the nose profile on my PR XIX, the Boffins correctly pointed out that there is another shape issue in this kit besides the fuselage height, and that is the thickness of the wings. They are on the order of being 15% too thick. If you compare them to good drawings, or the Hasegawa or ICM Mk IX wings, the difference becomes apparent. If I were going to tackle the Academy kit now, I would start with a replacement spinner and prop. The Daco set is, I believe, again available, or another set with spinner and prop could be a good place to start. The replacement spinner would show that the Academy nose is too big; you could take a wedge-shaped, tapered amount off the kit nose halves to make it thinner when viewed from above, to fit the spnner in that dimension. Then I would take about 1mm, or 1/32" (total) off of the leading edges of the wings; the wheel wells would also need adjusting. This would thin down the wings but leave the fit of the trailing edge of the wings and the wing root fit intact. I would then dry fit the wings and fuselage together. Here is the big fix- I would take a slice out of the sides of the nose pieces, matching both the reduced size of the nose at the spinner and the now-higher surface of the lower wing. Essentially, you have thinned the wings and sectioned the nose vertically and horizontally to streamline the shape of the nose. I will emphasize that this approach is not a perfect way to achieve a completely accurate version of the shapes, but it does make use of your existing kits and gets them much closer to the correct shapes. Beyond that, I would suggest some interior bits, replacement exhausts and wheels, and aftermarket decals along with the spinner and prop, and you will wind up with a nice model. Feel free to contact me off-board if you choose to tackle these kits in this fashion, and I will be glad to help. Either way you choose, I look forward to seeing Mk XIV's coming off of your bench! Happy modeling, Jim

Hi, While I have nothing specific to add to this debate in terms of specifications or color matches, I have seen several color photographs of Vought Corsairs taken here in the U.S. prior to being ferried across the seas. Given that color photos can be iffy to make use of and bring their own issues, these pictures look pretty good to me. There are Navy pilots walking by, wearing khacki flight suits with yellow Mae Wests and good flesh tones, and the planes have good renditions of dull red and the yellow outer rings on the fuselage roundels, not to mention the specified Sea Gray and OD upper colors. I would assume that there are folks on this board who have seen them as well. All that said, the upper greys look like a slightly-lighter EDSG, as Sea Grey should, and the green certainly looks like fresh U.S. OD. As for the bottoms- Not Sky; not in the highlights, midtones, or shadows. Also Not Gray. The bottoms appear to be a light bluish-green, and in modeling terms "Duck Egg Blue" from the Model Master paint range looks like a good place to start, perhaps a bit too light. What color is that supposed to be? I am not sure, but I can see what it is not. So I submit that the usual shade of Sky was not used, nor Dupont Sky type S grey (Nick's light gray-green shade, which is what most likely should have been used), nor straight gray of any shade, at least not on the aircraft in those few pictures. Your mileage may vary. Cheers, Jim

Hi all, I am sure Edgar will be stopping by soon. In the meantime, I recommend "Eyes of the Phoenix" which has lots of information, pictures, and profiles of aerial reconnaissance types in the Far East, including a number of straight PR Hurricanes as some FR's. There is enough information scattered in that book to do one you are after, and for the most part I think the FR versions were indeed armed with two cannon instead of four. Many of the FR's were painted in Dark Earth/Dark Green/Medium Sea Gray. If you do one from spring of 1945 onwards, they had the white theater bands added as has already been mentioned, but the FR units had their upper bands overpainted within a few weeks; they were too conspicuous given their mostly-low level mission profiles. Well that's a start, anyway! Cheers, Jim

Hi Jason, As others have said that's a very nice build overall. I never did master brush painting so thumbs up for that! I believe you did some subtle washes in the panel lines, correct? If so, I offer a 1+ for not making them look like a black checkerboard; it appears to be be just enough of a wash to see the panel lines from realitvely close distances; very nicely done. Now for the nitpicking. In your second picture of the nose area, I can see a bit of an uneven gap around the front windscreen and the center section that does not open. There is a tiny bit of glue splooge just at the rear of that windscreen as well. Turning to the seats, the basic painting is fine, but a bit of dark gray wash in the details and along the seat belts would make the details "pop" and look more three dimensional. If you have any spare ejections seats, you might try a wash on one before doing it on your next model and see how you like it. Assuming you used acrylic paint on the seats, once the paint is cured (not just dry), you could use artist's oil paint heavily thinned with Naptha (lighter fluid) for a wash. I find that washes are best done in a different medium that the paint; for example, I paint with solvent paints (enamel, lacquer), then shoot clear gloss acrylic to form a barrier, then wash with artist's oils (those tube paints), and seal with clear acrylic. The alternating mediums form a barrier between the layers. If you paint acrylic over acrylic or solvent over solvent, it will often eat into the lower coats of paint- a big mess. Oh, and other folks get good results doing washes with watercolors and other mediums; this is just one technique among many for doing washes. In that same picture, I think I see a bit of a seam on the upper bulkhead behind the rear seat. From a competition perspective, a seam there is just the same as a seam running back on the fuselage spine- highly undesireable. Finally, I noticed that the brake lines are painted in white as are the landing gear. I do not know the A-10 well, but in general brake lines are painted in off black or maybe natural metal. Some brake lines are metal in the straight sections and some form of rubber for flexibility when they bow out and connect to the brake on the wheel. Well I did say these are nitpicking... :-) HTH, Jim

Coulda, woulda, shoulda... Hi all, Terry, thanks for the background information on this aircraft; more information is always a good thing in my modeling book. As the chap who looked at this photo and said, "it looks like the roundel and fin flash colors are reversed," I must say that a 'trick of the light' does not hold water for me without some additional explanation of what the trick might be. Edgar made a good point about the painted-over fusealge band, and I've also now noticed a very light patch of color on the vertical tail/rudder of the first aircraft. I also agree that the leading color of the fin flash seems to match the color in the center of the roundel. Still, even if the markings on the first aircraft are red-white-blue instead of orange-white-blue, that does not explain how the fin flash and the roundels can look reversed compared to the second aircraft, in the same photo, in the same light conditions, with the second airplane approximately fifty feet away. I hope there is more information or explanation that will be forthcoming! Cheers, Jim