Jim Kiker

Hi all, Regarding the PR XIX link to HyperScale, that happens to be one of mine. If anyone is interested in modeling that one, or looking for details on the PR XIX, just PM me here and I'll be glad to share what I have. Cheers, Jim

Hi Ian and all, I have a Swordfish in my stash and it has always been destined to become one of the Bismark a/c. Still I had thought, until now, that it would get the "standard" three color TSS scheme. So this information is new to me. If I understand you correctly, it really should be done in the five-color scheme. Correct? I rather like the standard TSS, but if it's not historically correct for these a/c, then it will just have to go on another model. Either way, thanks in advance for assisting with the correct information. Cheers, Jim

Hi Nick, Really lovely work there! Personally, I am glad to hear that one of your builds will have "finished" panel lines. It may run against what some folks like, but I think it will add a sharp bit of realism to the model. For me, that lifts it well past the toy-like feel that some racing modelers prefer. Just my two quatloos... Cheers, Jim

Hi John, First, I must say that like so many of us, I am often amazed at your work! Even my own modeling runs along different paths, I learn a lot looking at your stuff. The problem I run into is that I generally do not have time to wind my way through the huge number of posts and replies that you have going here. If I understand correctly, there are several different projects in this thread; is that correct? If so, would you consider beginning a new thread when a new project gets rolling? I see in your most recent threads that you are getting lots of hits and feedback on other sites, and that is very cool. On the other hand, the shear length of the responses here might tend to dampen attempts to follow your progress. Just a thought, and I know you will keep up the great work! Cheers, Jim

Hi John, I have been lucky enough to see several Spitfires up close. These are all warbirds, of course, so they do not carry as much weight as they did in combat. What I noticed is that the Spitfire often seems to sit low to the ground. Model manufacturers nearly always create models that sit too high compared to the real aircraft. Generally you can see this in the "sit" of the model, and also by comparing the length of the landing gear oleo struts to pictures of the real aircraft; most kits have them at full extension rather than a normal shorter stance. My "take" with the Tamiya Spitfires is that they sit a bit too high. I often replace the struts completely on my Spitfire builds, but short of that, I would take out about 1/32" or so or about 1mm, in the oleo section. I think it improves the sit a lot, but it is not a thing that many modelers really notice. As has been said however, the ICM Spitfires sit much too tall, to the tune of at least 1/16" by my reckoning. So at the end of the day, you will have to decide if the 1/32" (to my eyes, your mileage may vary) is enough to fuss with or not. Happy modeling, Jim

Hi all, A fascinating discussion, and one I am revisiting. I am working on one of Tamiya's 1/48 scale Mk I kits, doing some updates to the outlines and converting it into N3071, one of the first two PR Spitfires. I have attached a somewhat large image of this a/c which is well known in Spitfire PR circles (at the least). This photo has been captioned in several places as having been taken Nov 18, 1939. It looks to me like it carries an armored windscreen. Am I incorrect? She also sports red-white-blue roundels. Granted, Cotton's PR boys were playing it fast and loose, but to my point- armored windscreen, or not? And if not, how can I reproduce it for this kit? Thanks and cheers, Jim

Dave and Joe, Regarding PS852, I also have the two magazine articles that were done on these a/c in Hong Kong. What I see in the B&W picture is some reflected light off of a bit of standing water underneath the wing. Logically, since these two Spits were actively being used for spy flights, the underwing serial numbers should be black to help preserve the camouflage. Alas, being logical seldom works in real life! So for those codes, I think it's a modeler's choice unless there are more pictures that have come to light in the last few years. And if you really want to get wigged out, remember that before they were repainted in MSG/PRU Blue, they had been overall PRU Blue and very tatty. Ed Powles ordered them repainted but there was no PRU Blue paint available; one of them got a mixture of roundel blue and red- yes, purple- for a couple of days before the Commanding Officer saw it and made certain the correct paint was made available and both planes repainted. The other thing you can see in the color picture is the Spit's spinners. At various times they were MSG, all white, and white front/blue rear. I did mine in white, and added the black anti-glare panel over the nose, because Ed told me that's how it was painted when he flew the mission where he nearly went supersonic. Just too cool for school! Cheers, Jim

Hi TD, I am happy to agree with the other posters; great work there. I have the bits to start on one of these in 1/48 scale, and I have a couple of questions I hope you can help with. To date I have been unable to find any references on the RB-51's cockpit. Could you give me a "point" to what you have used? Second, on my computer monitor, your interior looks a lot like British RAF interior grey green; I am not at all sure that is really the case with your cockpit. Could you confirm the base interior color? TIA, Jim

Hi all, Jumping into the discussion, I can pass along some information regarding building a PR XIX in 1/48 scale. The Heitage kit has been mentioned; I have not seen one up close so I cannot comment directly. Years ago I built the PR XIX starting with the Academy Mk XIV kit; you can see the article here: http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/sp...reprxixlk_1.htm . The Academy kit's nose is rather off and the wings are too thick. At the time I was just learning the ins and outs of Spitfires so in hindsight the wing thing did not really get sorted out. But at least the article points out how to do a good amount of detailing on the different PR XIX features. Ken Stanton did one as well; here is the article: http://hsfeatures.com/features04/spitfireprxixks_1.htm . Different approach, very nice results. Were I to do another one, it would be the Aeroclub fuselage plus Hasegawa wings. Either way, there is a fair bit of filling required to eliminate all the gun access panel lines. I also think the Airwaves sets are available again, and if not, Quickboost is now making sets for PR XI's which will take you most of the way for the recce pieces. As for the FR 18, as far as I know it's another conversion to get there. I stalled out on one, but I began with an Airfix F.22 kit, cut back the fin and added a new rudder, and added the wings and horizontal tails from an ICM Mk IX. I think John Adams at Aeroclub does a fuselage and bits, so I am sure it's an easier project now than my original approach! If you want more information on the PR XIX, give me a shout off-board and I'll be glad to help. HTH, Jim

Edgar and Ian, Thank you for the quick responses, and for the information. Just the ticket! Cheers, Jim

Hi all, I am looking for a good drawing showing the Spitfire PR XI upper and lower wings, in particular showing the correct panel lines. I have the MPM monograph on the PR XIX and I think the wings for both were the D type or bowser wing, except for the XIX's deeper radiators and the additional thin fairings outboard of the wheel wells. So I am fairly comfortable in what the panel lines looked like, but would like to verify that if possible. I also have a top view of the outer wing filler caps and the overflow pipes, but I am not sure if the overflow pipes were fitted to all PR XI's, and also if that pipe was open on the back end or perhaps angled down through the wing with an opening in the lower wing surface. Thanks in advance for any light that can be shed on these details! Cheers, Jim

Hi Antoine, I have an interest in PR aircraft and PR Spits as well. I have the Classic Airframes book and I took a look at the picture you mentioned. I believe the protrusion you see under the belly of that FR IX is not part of the camera fit but is instead a beam approach warning fairing. This fairing is a small ovoid shape with a thin, short, stiff antenna wire pointing out the back, parallel to the line of the lower fuselage (and it's hard to spot on most war-time pictures in my experience). I do not think that there were any standard-fit Spitfire cameras/lense extensions that hung down into the slipstream, which this picture represents. Rather, you normally see a slightly raised panel or a raised lip with the camera ports recessed into the fuselage a bit. This was done to keep the well-known Merlin oil stream off the lenses. As far as I know, the FR IX's were fitted with the side oblique camera only and they were used for relatively low altitude work, so there would be little use for vertical cameras in this mode of operations. I did MK416 out of the Hasegawa Mk IX, lengthened the fuselage, and did the PRU Pink fairly pale and it looks a treat, plus it's even easier to do with your kit. How about some pics as you go? Cheers, Jim

Hi all, Thanks for the great responses; glad you liked it! Cheers, Jim

Hi Smiffy, Nice work you have going there. As an FYI a friend of mine did his Y-wing with the two seat cockpit as well, and installed standard pilots. In his case, the pilots interfered with the clear canopy part that fits into the outer canopy shell (some builders perfer the no-glass look- not I, but some). His remedy was to dremel out openings for the pilot's heads in the top of the clear piece; it worked like a charm and you cannot see that little mod when the model is complete. Hope this helps, Jim

Hi Julien, Colin, et al, Not trying to hijack the thread, but I have information at home about an interesting FP-80A. One of the the west coast squadrons supplied one as a chase plane for Yeager's X-1 missions. Then-Lt. Bob Hoover flew it and chased Yeager on his Mach 1 record run. I have a/c details at home, having built one in 1/48 scale some time back. Overall Pearl gray and standard markings- but with a cool story. Mike Machat later did a painting of Yeager's landing approach from this flight with Hoover chasing on his wing in the FP-80. If anyone is interested, I'll take a few model pictures and provide markings details. Cheers all, Jim

Hi Bill, Thanks loads for the additional pictures of your PR 10's wings! I agree with you that the natural joining point is along that strengthening strip, but would not have guessed the problem with the chord being different. Just a quick thought, would it be easier to mate up the trailing edges and work the leading ones, or the other way 'round? And I'm still thinking about how to set the dihedral of those outer wing sections. Thanks again for allowing us to "go to school" on your work. I look forward to seeing her done! Cheers, Jim

Hi Bill, I'm with Phreak on your PR 10; I have one on the back burner and would like to know more about how you attacked/are attacking it. In fact, I think we may have had an interrupted discussion started a while back. I think I had a request for a Jaguar borading ladder as well, although I imagine they're all gone now. In any case, which one of those do you feel most strongly about having finished and up for the rest of us to ogle? That's where I'd start! Cheers, Jim

Hi all, Some detail questions now, referring to the first batch of Mosquito PR I's, including W4060. I have conflicting information regarding the camera fit. I know there were two cameras at the front end of the bomb bay, a vertical camera aft in the strike camera position, plus the left side oblique. Different sources say that in addition to these, there was either one or two cameras immediately aft of the bomb bay, while a third says no additional cameras at all from those described. These refs include the SAMI modeling book on the Mossie, the Aero Detail book, and the Warpaint book. What is correct? Id lights- the Tamiya B Mk IV kit has one ID light just behind and on the left from the bomb bay, with two more farther back on the fuselage and offset. I am thinking that only the rear two are correct, but I would like some backup. What is the proper configuration for these ID lights on early Mossies? Thanks as always, Jim

Hi all, Thanks again for your inputs. I have started making the slender scoops that were in the same position as the exhausts on later Mossies and I have the Paragon bits to do the shortened engine nacelles. One additional question about the changes compared to the B Mk. IV airframe- I have conflicting information on the horizontal tail planes and elevators. One source says "same as the regular B Mk IV's," while another says these early PR I's used the shorter horizontal tails/elevators as those used on the prototype. Which would be correct? Bearing in mind that I am building W4060, not W4051 which was the second prototype Mossie... Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi Colin, Indeed, Sky all over the place! Sky; Sky Blue; Sky Grey; plus the ever-popular Deep Sky, and all different. Roger all that! I am also aware of the earlier paint job you mentioned for W4051, given in several sources as you said as Medium Sea Grey/Olive Grey/Sky Blue, with the latter changing to PRU Blue at some point. Do we then have strong evidence that other PR I's were painted differently, i.e., Sky Grey/Dark Slate Grey/PRU Blue? And as for the use of Sky for code letters, may I ask about your sources? I think I have seen it somewhere before, but I am not sure where. Still, thanks for the information. All logged for the greater good. I would really like to touch bottom here; I seem to run into these conundrums all too often, and when I make a "modeler's choice," I am usually wrong. Cheers, Jim

Gentlemen, Thank you both for your responses and for the information. It certainly tracks with the information I had seen, yet I still feel a bit confused. While I do not have any pictures to share from this address (work, not home, alas), I have seen several pictures of W4060, W4051 and W4054. My assumption- a big one perhaps- is that this first handful of PR I's were painted pretty much the same colors, and I also think they all carried the "LY" unit codes and in some cases individual aircraft letters while they flew with I PRU. I PRU often used a fairly light grey (Sky Grey?) for their code letters. In several pictures of these PR I's, those codes appear to me to be lighter than the light grey of the aircraft's upper camo colors. If the upper color is Sky Grey, how can a Sky Grey/light grey code letter appear to be lighter still in B&W pictures? Is it possible that the upper surface grey could have been Medium Sea Grey, with Sky Grey or something similar, being used for the code letters? Does anyone know what paint the PRU used for their code letterss? I think I may be missing a piece of the puzzle here... And in a similar vein, are the Mossie PR I spinners done in Dull Blue, or Night? Thanks, Jim

Hi all, This is another recce question, this time on Mossie PR Mk I's. I am interested in W4060, one of the first PR Mossies which had additional fuel tanks fitted in the bomb bays. On Mar 3-4 1942, she was flown on the first bomb damage assessment mission near Paris, France. I have the story of the mission, but there seems to be conflicting information on her markings at that time. I am pretty sure PRU Blue was used underneath, but I am NOT sure of the upper colors. Some sources indicate Sky Grey/Olive Grey, but I have my doubts. Is there anything more likely/definitive that is known? Thanks, Jim

Thank you both, gentlemen! You have put the idea I had to rest and I appreciate the assistance. Cheers, Jim

Hi all, I am a relative newcomer here and work primarily in props, so this will be a series of questions born of ignorance in the subject matter. I have the Airfix 1/48 scale Jaguar kit in the To Do pile, along with a Neomega cockpit, Mr. Burkhill's superb Paragon bits including the flaps, slats, and afterburners. I recently ran across his wonderful build up of a T2 with all the extra detailing, and saved it all for future use. Just today I have seen Mr. Takamota's Mitsusbishi F-1 build in the "Ready for Inspection" forum; also really nice work! I couldn't help noticing how crisp the Hasegawa kit's landing gear bits looked, although I don't know if they are out of the box or have been worked on. I do understand that the F-1 is not quite a Jaguar, but has been changed. The question is, how extensively, in modeling terms? So my first thought was, wonder if the landing gear is same, or nearly so, for the F-1 as for the Jaguar? Quickly followed by more quesitons; how close are the wings? They look pretty similar... and so on. My guess is that the two aircraft are not really all that close in reality, in terms of their shapes; a few inches here and there can add up to a plane that only looks quite a bit like the original if you are not looking closely. But in modeling terms, it's a tantalizing thought, and I would bet that someone has already thought about this and likely dismissed it outright. So can you gentlemen confirm the differences and put me out of my misery? Still, if the landing gear is pretty close... Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi Neil, I would like one of those ladders as well, if there are any left. Just let me know how you wish to proceed! Thanks, Jim