Jim Kiker

MG, With respect, my remarks were not meant as a slam against you personally nor an apology for AM. I am quite happy to bash kits myself when I know the details or if there are folks I know to be knowledgeable on a given a/c who have weighed in. The original or new AM should take their lumps like any other company, and they do across a number of internet modeling boards. Bruce, for example, is very knowledgeable about the various Spitfire kits and the plane itself, and when he discusses dimensions/shapes he brings facts and figures to the table. That strikes me as the most useful approach. On the other hand some of your statements, while perhaps factual, are new ones to me. When asked about this, you seem to be going defensive versus sharing data. I am not dismissing your or others' statements, but without some documentation I have no reason to accept them blindly and go about updating a model either. Your mileage may vary, naturally. Happy Modeling, Jim

Hi all, A special shout-out to Bruce and Colin Ford; great guys and Colin is THE expert of 268 Sq a/c. I am more into 1/48 scale, so the portions of this thread relating to the original Accurate Miniatures kits are of higher importance to me. I have several of the AM early Mustangs, along with a selection of aftermarket bits. I am a bit surprised, however, to read about some of the P-51 Mk IA kit's inaccuracies. Canopy "not good" means what? I know the molding of the canopy isn't as state of the art as one might like, but is there some basic inaccuracy to it's shape/outline? Tail too tall? based upon what, if I may ask? Wing panels incorrect? Does anyone have trustworthy drawings that would show where this kit is incorrect? I haven't been paying attention lately but this is the first I've heard about that. And finally, it seems that the radiator inlet/exit is incorrect. So, how about some pics/drawings of this area, so I can make a corrections to my kit? Or at least a "point" to the documentation would be helpful. I will be happy to make further improvements to my kit beyond the aftermarket bits that are available, if I have access to the information, pictures, and their sources. Please understand, I am not attempting to bash anyone here; but I do want to see the data/drawings/pictures that will show these shortcomings so I can build a better model with confidence. Thanks, Jim

Hi Paolo, I built one of these a couple of years ago, and your model looks very good indeed. Based on your pictures, your PRU Pink seems slightly too pink to me. Most references I have seen indicate that this color fades very badly and fairly quickly. If I may suggest, maybe an extremely thin overcoating of the entire model using a very light gray could lighten up the color. I think a light gray would be better than white (wich might make the pink lighter, but more pink), and it would also slightly lighten and blend the roundels and other markings. The armor modelers would call this a "filter," which we are now seeing in aircraft models to some extent. The idea is to apply such a thin coat so that it only alters the tone of the paint, not adding another layer of paint. I would practice such a technique on scrap, using your PRU Pink as a base, before trying it on the model. My two quatloos, Jim

Hi Chris, Very nice work there! I noted that you have some battle damage to the aircraft and it looks very authentic. How did you do that? And I really like the figures- where did they come from? Altogether, you really tell a story there and that is not easy to bring off so well. Thanks and cheers, Jim

Hi Nick, I may be doing a Spit at the moment, but that was great fun to read; thanks for passing it along. Again and again, I find that we not only have the standards, and local mixes to contend with, but also our individual perceptions anywhere the discussion of paint colors comes up. I always thought of Ocean Grey as in the grey-slightly bluish range, but never heard or saw it as having a greenish tint. If it's actually in the bluish range, then low, ruddy light could easily give it a purple tone, would it not? Not to mention surface effects due to the waxing... In any event, since I have a Typhoon at some point in my future, this will go into the project files! Thanks, Jim

Thanks, everyone! Just what I needed to know, plus a lot of additional information that will prove useful down the road. As usual, here at BM! Cheers, Jim

Hi all, Like many of you I am currently working on a Spitfire project. I am building the Tamiya 1/48 scale Mk I kit into a PR IA. Actually, I have read many references and spoke before about this project, and there seems to be several different stories as to the PR IA designation, versus PR I. In any event, I am doing N3071 which flew the first photographic sorites conducted by camera equipped Spitfires. Thanks again to Colin S-K, Nic, Graham, Wally, and a host of other boffins for their assistance! Given the photographic evidence, N3071 appears to me to have been built to the Mk IA standard. I note especially the three-bladed De Havilland prop and spinner, and the data as given in the Spitfire bible. Remember too that this a/c and her sister were sent to Cotton's unit in mid-October, 1939, and the initial PR mods completed within a few weeks. So the question I still have is, would this a/c be equipped with the very early metal seat, or a Tuffinol (spelling?) one? My theory is that N3071 would have had the Tuffinol seat, and that perhaps it was one of the things that went with the Mk IA series of Spitfires. Right or wrong? Can anyone shed some light on this? Many thanks in advance, and I hope all of you have a healthy and happy New Year! Cheers, Jim

Hi all, I don't have my references in front of me, but I think this is the same scheme I want to finish some day. I made a start on the Academy kit several years ago. In addition to the updates that have been mentioned, when I reviewed the photos and drawings I concluded that the sawtooth on the outer wings extends inboard too far. As a pure memory guess, maybe 3/16"? Looking at that paint scheme, the demarcation of the outer wing red paint defines the inner edge of the sawtooth (well, actually the other way around in the 1:1). I also found that the real sawtooth has a slight downward sit compared to the wing; this is also not something you see in the kit pieces On my kit, I shortened the sawtooth on the inside edges, cut the chordwise ends of the 'tooth back into the wing to the spanwise panel line, and drooped the sawtooth about five degrees. Enough to be visible if you know what you're looking at, which most viewers won't. I think I had to fill and rescribe the panel line on the upper wings at the rear of the sawtooth, since scoring it deeper and bending it downward opened it much too wide to look like a panel line. Much work on a simple item, and up to the builder to pursue it or not. But I do recommend shortening the sawtooth's inboard end. Once you're seen it (and especially for this scheme) it becomes fairly visible. If anyone is interested, I can haul my kit out and take a picure or two of this; it's easier to see it than to describe how to do it. HTH, Jim

Hi Nick, That is very helpful indeed! For my PR I, I actually want to represent "Camotint" as registered by Sidney Cotton, so I think erring on the pale side will work fine. Your point about the local mixing makes full sense for me now, and points to the evidence that the color "Sky" appeared somewhat lighter early on, and a bit darker/stronger/more standardized later on. It also suggests to me to adjust the "blue" content for a later, more standardized version of Sky when I get to my Sea Fury. I have read some writers who think that the 1950's version of Sky was supposed to be different, lighter and more creamy than the war-time shade, but I now believe that is more bushwah than anything. So I am getting a two-fer out of this! Now if I could be a bit more sure of what color(s) to do the PR I's wheel wells to go with the black/white gear struts and inner gear doors... ! Much appreciated, Jim

Hi Nick and all, Nick, several posts up you showed the Munsell and FS comparisons, revolving around Humbrol's old formula for Beige Green. I want to make sure I understand what you said in regard to the "correct" color for Sky. If I understood your information correctly, that old Humbrol 90 formula is much too light, too green, and too beige-y (tawny, if you will) to be a good match for Sky. Correct? Next, I noted that FS 34424 is apparently a fairly colse match to the Munsell value for Sky; also correct? This part confuses me because it does not appear to be a pale color at all to me. I understand the problems with reproduction and especially computer monitors, but every way I look at FS 34424, including my copy of the chips, it does not appear to be very pale, but more of a not-very-light bluish-green. I can also see that using more of a browner type of Yellow Ochre would add a bit of tawny to the shade. I feel I must be missing something here. I use solvent-based paints, and over the weekend I took a tin of old Humbrol 90 Beige Green and added 6-7 big drops (from a drinking straw) of light blue, plus three drops of white, plus one drop of royal blue. This resulted in a less tawny, more bluish shade, still more green than blue, and nearly as pale as the original. If what I wrote above is all correct, this would still mean this paint is too green and much too pale (light) to be a good match, even allowing for scale (something I do with most of my mixes for 1/48 scale aircraft). This suggests that I need to darken my current mix a bit, and blue it up some more. Would you concur? Many thanks, Jim

Destination? SPACE, the final frontier... and back! And from Fred Hoyle: "Space is not remote at all. It's only an hour's drive away if your car could go straight upwards." Wish I had a car like that! Up, up, and away, Jim

Hi all, I am really enjoying the back and forth on this thread, and I thank all of you for the various inputs. While I'm not trying to hijack the thread out of the "Sky' discussion, I do have a related question regarding the wheel wells of Spitfires early in the war. Spitfire I's had silver painted undersides before the start of the war, including the wheel wells. At one period the undersides were repainted in white and black (informal terms, there), split down the centerline. Am I correct to assume that the when the repaint was done, the wheel wells on each side were also repainted? Or did they remain in silver? This question pertains to a PR I project I'm working on. The first two PR I's received Camotint overall (I'm satisfied on that score, not trying to open yet another can of worms...). I have pictures that indicate the insides of the landing gear struts and the wheels were left in white/black, but I am not sure of the interior of the wheel wells themselves. Thanks in advance for any assistance! Cheers, Jim

Hi all, I have an on-off project, working up a PR I in 1/48 scale using the Tamiya Mosquito kit plus part of the Paragon Mosquito prototype set and other details. The engine nacelles are almost done. I added brass tubing in the kit exhaust slots for the additional air intakes that were added for the PR I exhaust pipes and faired that into the nacelle shape. Here is my question. On the Tamiya kit's nacelles, there is a parallelogram-shaped panel indented into each side of the nacelles, behind and below the kit exhaust slots. These panels also have rivet detail surrounding them. I have worked hard to get the intakes done without messing up any surface detail, but now I am wondering if these panels were present on the very early aircraft with the single exhaust pipe on each side. These panels come right where the later exhaust shrouds end, so perhaps they were just extra plating to manage the exhaust heat better. If that is so, then I doubt these panels would be present on these early airframes. Does anyone have a picture of the prototype, or even better one of the PR I's, that clearly shows the side of the engine nacelle, and whether or not this panel was there? Thanks in advance for any assistance! Cheers, Jim

Got them! Hi all, In case anyone else is looking for these code letters and numbers in white, Fantasy Printshop makes a wide selection of sheets including exactly what I was looking for. It will take a couple of sheets for me to do my Sea Fury, but they are now on the way. Cheers, Jim

Hi Ben, Thank you very much for this list of issues with this kit. I have saved it off with the pictures and Jennings' vertical tail fixes. It will be used extensively when I build my kit! Cheers, Jim

Miggers, Thanks for the tip of your hat, and right back at'cha, mate! Nice work indeed. Cheers, Jim

Hi all, I am on the lookout for some British 24" code letters and serials; these are for my planned Sea fury project. The kicker is that I need these codes and letters to be in white, in the "square" format (as opposed to the fully rounded variety). I will be using the Trumpeter 1/48 scale kit, so the actual size needs to be 1/2". I already have some black letters and numbers in this size/style, so I am set for main aircraft numbers and carrier code letter on the fuselage; unusually, this aircraft carried white underwing codes. I have seen the Model Alliance decals, #MAS-489022 for the 1/48 scale Canberra. This sheet has the needed letters and numbers in white and in the square style, but I cannot find the actual/scale size of the larger letters/numbers. I shot a note off to Model Alliance but have not as yet heard back from them. If anyone has this decal sheet, I want to know the actual size of the larger set of letters/numbers. If I get a match to 1/2" (24" in scale) I will happily buy a sheet. Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi Jennings and all, I thought I posted a note several days ago here but it apparently didn't make it into the boards. The short version- has anyone measured this new kit or compared it to some good plans? The earlier 1/48 scale Tamiya kits were too short and had some shape problems. All of them can be fixed with some work, but I hope this kit has not inherited those issues. Has anyone actually checked out the dimensions/shapes? Thanks and cheers, Jim

Hi Vic, Based on what I have learned, for a PR ID/PR IV, you would want 40" red/blue roundels on the upper wings, 30" red/blue roundels on the fuselage, and no roundels under the wings. That would at least be the standard, plus the fin flash. I would recommend using the Xtra Decal sheet of red/blue roundels. If you have a specific picture to work from showing something different, go with that. If you want more information, drop me a note off-line; I have a fair bit of Spitfire PR information. And if you are interested, I also have some useful information on making the Tamiya Spits a bit better shape-wise. Send me a PM if I can be of help. Cheers, Jim

Hi Nick, I hope the walk does indeed blow away the cobwebs! As an amateur in this field, at best, I find your responses to be clear and thorough treatments of the questions to hand. As such I really enjoy them and I get a lot of great information from them. I have come to recognize how iffy it really is to try to pin down a specific color and actually get it on a model; on the other hand, I enjoy making the effort to get as close as I can. Regarding this present thread on PRU paints, I bought one of the Xtracolor tins of PRU Pink several years ago to complete a Spitfire FR IX project. To my utter amazement, it looked much more like Pepto Bismol than any of the renditions of active war-time pink Spits I have ever seen pictures of! So taking all the available information I had, I took some paint out of the tin and added a lot of white to it, which of course lightened it a great deal, and also made it into the prettiest pale cotton-candy pink you can imagine. What to do? I added a smidge of grey to tone it down. That worked well, although in the end I may have lightened it too much. A very unscientific approach to be sure, but it yielded a model that has the right look to it to my eyes. I guess my point is that as a modeler, and I've been at this quite a long time, I do exercise my best judgment from time to time when I have some degree of knowledge of a particular subject. I use my own eyes and my brain, but I also start with and often rely upon the information and conclusions drawn by people in the hobby whom I have come to trust based on my own experience, and the experience of other modelers who also have a solid track record of high quality, reasonably accurate models. And when it comes to the science of color and paint, you really know your stuff. So fear not sir; stating the truth of things will often give you heartache from those who do not want to hear it, but there are plenty of others out here in the ether who get a great deal out of your work. Pray continue to post! Cheers, Jim

Hi Jennings, Thanks for posting these images; they will be very helpful when I build this kit. If you have any more information/comparisons that crop up, I would appreciate learning what you find. I really want to build the -C, but the few Trumpeter kits I have bought all have these sorts of issues. The problem for me is that I am not very knowledgeable on the jet side, so any good information I find, like your vertical fin comparison, is a big help! Thanks and cheers, Jim

Hi David, Well, I am in no hurry here, especially since I don't have the bombs (let along the racks for them). If you happen to get to it later, that would be great but no worries. As for the codes, as least our logic runs in the same pathways! I hope I'll be able to source the codes in white when the time comes. Who is going to know better? Thanks and cheers, Jim

Hi David, Yup, that's the book and the plane! I like that strike camera, plus the bomb/tank configuration, plus the light under-wing codes- in white, do you think? And if memory serves, no Korean theater ID stripes either, at least not on the bottom of the wings. Quite an unusual combination. Do you have a copy of the book? If so, and if you have a scanner, I am looking for a copy of that picture. If not, thanks all the same. Now if I could just dig up the bombs and racks I would be in business! Thanks, Jim

Hi Tony, This information is a great help and much appreciated! I don't have a Wyvern in the stash, but at least it gives me another potential place to obtain the parts. Thanks, Jim

Hi all, I was thumbing through a Sea Fury book on the stands at Telford and ran across a picture of Sea Fury WJ236; it was one of those "That's the one!" moments. I wasn't able to buy the book, but I have been looking for a copy of that picture or others of this a/c on the internet without luck. Beyond that, this a/c picture showed a combination of the standard external fuel tanks plus a single bomb and pylon (Bomb carrier? Rack?) located on each of the lower outer wings. I have two kits in 1/48 scale and a selection of detail parts to be used, but no bombs or pylons. I think the Flightpath detail set may have had both, but I do not need the complete detail set. So I have been searching on the internet for a pair of FAA bombs- not sure if they were 500 or 1000 lb (1000 lb most likely, I think) and the correct pylons. If anyone has these parts from the Flightpath set to spare, I would be glad to purchase them and pay for shipping to the U.S. Otherwise, if these bombs and pylons are available elsewhere, a "point" in the proper direction would also be helpful. For that matter, some good drawings showing these pylons with dimensions would allow me to make some up. Or perhaps the racks from a Typhoom kit would be close? And of course, pictures of WJ236 herself would be fantastic! Thanks in advance, Jim