Rolls-Royce

Still waiting for my Spitfire I title...

Although the phrase does contain the popular name "Mustang", the trademark in all likelihood would be for "North American P-51". The design is part of the intellectual property Boeing received when it acquired NAA or its successor. Popular names from DoD and MoD are in the public domain, as they are paid for indirectly by tax monies and as such are not trademarked/copyrighted, leaving other companies to use and trademark them. Hence, you saw Ford Mustangs and Triumph Spitfires in the 60s. I'll bet neither paid a penny in royalties to use those names, although "Spitfire" did come from Vickers Supermarine, not MoD, so Triumph may have had to at least seek permission.

Actually, "Mustang" as the name for the P-51 came from the British, not North American/Boeing. The initial name for the A-36 (the first frontline USAAF version) was "Apache", IIRC. And Ford Motor Co. used the name again - and still uses it - on their ponycar. Doubtful NAA ever tried to trademark it.

With my luck, if I waited like that, they'd go out of print before they got down to a price I wanted, then I'd have to pay even more. These limited-market specialist publications sure don't get cheaper over time unless you find one on clearance...

Got an email from Wing Leader this morning: my copy is on its way. However, given current conditions, it's probably being carried across the "pond" in a one-man rowboat...

OK, thanks!

I couldn't say. I never watched Black Adder. There is a tall moustached blond actor in "Our World War" portraying an English officer serving in the defense of Mons in 1914. The character wears an overcoat, which was what I first noticed...

@stevej60 I do like your avatar, sir! One of the actors from the "Mons" segment of the program "Our World War", if I'm not mistaken. Great program.

Ordered!

To further fan the flames, I recently read something describing the colors on the FW190s in those wartime inflight photos as 81, 82, and 83. Go figure...

Oof! That would have been a nasty sucker to try and bail out from!

Agree 100%. I spent 11 years on the F-4. On that aircraft, any panels (except for starter and electrical power access doors) open mean that it won't be ready to fly for a while. Panels closed, canopies open, normal stuff that droops with hydraulics off open, ordnance loaded, all good.

The wingtip lights are navigation lights, and they are red on the left wing and blue (nowadays green) on the right.

True that, sir. One last point: although this may be minutiae, carrier-based aircraft of the period did enjoy a little better protection from the sun than land-based. Due to the lack of angled flight decks, aircraft not spotted for launch, flying, or having just landed were struck below, while land-based ones remain exposed to the elements in the open with few exceptions. Those would include being hangared for heavy maintenance, or today's hardened aircraft shelters such as those in Europe and Korea. Aircraft scheduled to fly while I was in Korea were generally towed out onto the small pad in front of the shelter beforehand for ease of servicing. Otherwise, they stayed inside when on the ground.

I believe you are describing the land-based A6M1s sent to China. They are the only ones whose photos I've seen show the two-tone gray. And Spain is semi-arid to arid, hence it was used as a stand-in for the American West in the '60s "Spaghetti Westerns". Definitely more and harsher sunlight than one gets in a more maritime environment such as Old Blighty!

Unless, of course, you use a spectrophotometer...

If you are building a Zero that took part in the Pearl Harbor attack, do keep in mind that at that time, none were likely more than 5 to 7 months old, and all of that service was in the Northern Pacific, where the sunlight was nowhere near what it was farther south. I believe that UV-induced fading and discoloration of the paint would therefore have been minimal. Closeup pictures of the crashed Zero at Kamehameha showed that the paint was still glossy.

Likely so. I believe Nick has said the hook itself could be aotake or black.

Too bad we can't ask the German bent over into the cockpit to just scoot over to his right a little...

Pictures of the recovered aircraft that I've seen showed that there wasn't much remaining of the cockpit area, so if it was there originally, it has been lost to history. If it didn't have it while P9374 did, there may be another reason. P9374 was among 6 squadron aircraft selected to escort PM Winston Churchill on a flight to Paris to meet with the French government. For whatever reason, it did not make the flight and returned to its home base. The aircraft that made that trip had had their squadron code removed for security purposes, and this is felt to be the reason P9374 was photographed on the French beach wearing only its individual aircraft letter "J" after being brought down. It also might explain that aircraft having the seat armor earlier than is thought to be the case.

A picture of N3200 in its current state, with the armor plate visible behind the pilot's left arm. It isn't the seat itself, as that can be glimpsed under his left elbow. Whether this means the aircraft had it when it was shot down, I don't know, but I suspect it was there.

Spitfire I P9374, "J", delivered to the RAF on 2 March and shot down on 24 May 1940, is known to have had the behind-the-seat armor (but not the head armor). This was found still in place in the cockpit on its recovery in 1980. The original plate now flies in the rebuilt aircraft.

The "both eyes open" principle works only if the sight's reticle is a distance from you, like that of the Revi. Most red dot sights are also mounted forward on weapons for this reason.

This is similar to, if not the same as, the Bindon Aiming Concept that is the basis for the current use of red dot and holographic sights in today's militaries.

The darker color is far too dark for the Nakajima A6M color, which was slightly more brown/tan than Mitsubishi's. Compare the tone of those dark upper fuselages to the engine cowlings, and they are very close. I concur with Graham.