Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Seahawk

Members
  • Content Count

    4,956
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,275 Excellent

About Seahawk

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southwest

Recent Profile Visitors

7,630 profile views
  1. Apparently I'm from west London too. Oh the shame of it.
  2. Nice job on an oldie but goodie: think it would still be my preferred starting point for a Spitfire Vb despite the younger pretenders to the throne. Like the canopy too: it actually looks like a thin transparency rather than a thick blob of plastic pretending to be one!
  3. Very nice. A bit of old-style proper modelling involving hacking away at parts, not just kit assembly.
  4. Sound move. You just didn't buy enough. Personally I find that the basic kit plus a set of Eduard seat belts still gives you comfortably the best 1/72 Hurricane I on the market.
  5. At risk of a drift O/T, you've piqued my curiosity. To my simple mind the police are there to uphold the law and any breach of the law is a crime. What is a "non-police law"? How can breaking it not be criminal? And, if the answer were that there is a distinction between criminal and civil (= non-police?) law, surely an offence is either the former (in which case the police should be interested) or the latter (in which case why should they be interested?). Not a subject I've thought about before so apologies if I'm just a bit hard of thinking.
  6. Looking very nice. Good to see a high-quality 1/700 kit of a smaller British warship.
  7. I've seen a beautifully made one on the Magna stand a couple of decades back. And I've got the main airframe components together without undue difficulty. Where it has stalled for me (about a decade ago) is cutting out and masking that canopy (which has probably since yellowed anyway). That really is the stuff of blue-cheese nightmares! Another one of those aircraft one hopes the likes of Special Hobby might bring out one day: it's at least as deserving a subject as the Bermuda.
  8. Let's not start going into the shortcomings of the Italeri 1/72 Spitfire VII nee IX: we'll be here all night. One of those few kits with next to no redeeming features: a usable pressurisation intake might just be one (I don't know, I haven't seen one). Evem the Mk.VII transfer sheet looks a bit dodgy from here: odd code colours and proportions of roundels slightly out.
  9. NB the 2nd of your diags is for SCR 720 known to the RAF as AI Mk X and ARI.5570 and appropriate to Mosquito XIX and 30. In The Aircraft of 100 Group Martin Streetly describes the complete AI Mk VIII (aka ARI.5093: your first diag is relevant) installation, as used in the Mosquito NF.XIII, as comprising a Type 53 modulator, a TR.3151 Transmitter, a Type 50 receiver, a Type 73 indicator unit, a TR.3152 interrogator (for use with IFF and beam approach systems) and a Type 225 power unit: no indication of what goes where. As for photos, that book and its companion on modelling the aircraft of 100 Group are an excellent source of the detailed technical manual type of shots you are after. Unfortunately I cannot see anything directly relevant to you in the former and my copy of the latter is apparently buried several archaeological layers deep in the chaos that is laughably called my model room. But worth a flick through if you have a copy. Footnote: Mosquito NF.XIII used by 100 Group's 256 Sq.
  10. Oh, good: thought it was just me. Enough to induce several months of procrastination. (Sorry for your pain, obviously.)
  11. I have a niggling thought in the back of my mind that at least some Mosquitoes (and I'm not sure about role, let alone Mark) had the radio gear shifted to the rear fuselage immediately behind the wing root. Think I learned that from a thread some time ago which @Troy Smithwill no doubt have at his fingertips. Edit: this contribution from @Dave Swindellmight be it but ISTR a more prolonged discussion. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235044220-dh-mosquito-radio-question/
  12. By the time the HWxxx Hurricanes were being produced, IIb s were in a distinct minority, say 1 in 8, scattered irregularly through the production run (beats me why they were being produced at all). It's striking however that all the early HWxxx-series aircraft listed as issued to 1 IAF, whether new or used, are IIb, despite their being in a minority. The first IIc recorded as going to 1 IAF (that I've spotted) is HW407 (ex 67 Sq, so when is moot). Thereafter 1 IAF aircraft are almost all IIc, mostly further ex-RAF hand-me-downs. The first IIc apparently issued new to 1 IAF is HW620: even then the occasional new IIb creeps in (eg HW806). Not sure how that translates to timelines but to me it suggests an initial preponderance of IIb s.
  13. Think an error has crept into the story of Z4103 (and I don't know where it lies) because the first 3 units A_B mention (and maybe all 4) are UK-based. I looked through the A-B list of Zxxxx-serialled Hurricanes for serials it could have been confused with but found no obvious candidates. However here are a few more Hurricane Is A-B reckon served with Aden Fighter Defence Flight: Z4316 Aden FF/94/26 AACU/RATG Struck off charge (SOC) 5/9/46 Z4760 71 OTU/73 OTU/FF Aden SOC 1/12/43. Z4838 73 OTU/FF Aden SOC 1/2/44. Z4845 73 OTU/FF Aden SOC 28/8/44. NB A-B histories are as complete as the records available to the author at the time of publication so. The history portion may be incomplete and the SOC date does not necessarily coincide with the demise of the aircraft: it may reflect administrative tidying up months or even years after the event. ,
  14. 'Since this thread seems to have risen from the dead, here's a reason to have used red (or orange, since it contains red). From Peter Hodges' Royal Navy Warship Camouflage 1939-1945 p.34 in discussion of camouflage experts' detailed investigation of the alleged camouflage advantages of Mountbatten Pink. Emphases are my own. "Their findings showed that it had no special virtues whatsoever. It could be the worst tone in reddening skies as at sunrise and sunset and it contrasted more sharply than almost any colour against a sea/sky background. It was also shown that the human eye was more receptive to red shades than any other, and that of all colours red fades into grey last of all in fading light. As Peter Scott says in his autobiography, 'I stuck to my original opinion that there was nothing magical about Mountbatten pink except the name.'" What's bad for camouflage is good for conspicuity?
  15. Very nice: love those improvised SP guns but glad I didn't have to go to war in one. Whose H39 kit and whose howitzer kit please?
×
×
  • Create New...