Seahawk

Glad you did: potentially important info. Thanks.

Oh, dear: an easy-to-use product that did exactly what it said on the tin-I knew it was too good to last. I can confirm I have been using One-Shot primers from bottles with yellow tops. I shall avoid the black-capped version until reassured that they are as good. Do I take it you don’t think they are?

I think you may be in for a pleasant surprise. Nowadays I am an AFV modeller. I brush-paint exclusively. I have never seen Stylnrez in the UK (not that I’ve looked) but I am told that the Mig-Ammo primers are the same thing (probably at a hefty mark-up). I use their Yellow/Flesh and Green primers extensively and find them a dream to use: sold in convenient dropper bottles, they are thin, give reasonable colour coverage on a single coat and dry quickly to a flat matt finish. In my case they generally then get overpainted a day or so later with Tamiya, Vallejo or Mig acrylics: have never seen any sign of a reaction to them. It’s nice to use products that perform reliably each time: I wouldn’t be without them. So, IF (as reported) the Mig products are the same as Stylnrez, you can brush paint them without fear.

Not a ship modeller (any more) but I wonder if cigarette papers might work. Maybe worth an experiment? And no great outlay if they don’t work.

@71chally Thanks very much for these I think they (plus some others in the sequence) take me most of the way to where I want to go. I'm not sure a visit to Flambards would yield much more. Again, thank you for your invaluable help.

It is stil there according to a message I received from them this week. "You are able to see into it, but you will be unable to get into the fuselage." I might pay a visit once the swarms of emmets have dispersed.

Wanting to be sure of my ground, I did a little poking around and was about to cite exactly the same words from the same reference (p.268). Given the sad track record of RN "for but not with" fitouts (ie the "with" bit never happens) and also that the Batch 3s were still in build when the Marriott book came out, I'd agree with you that increased magazine capacity was probably an RN pipedream that didn't survive contact with the Treasury. Doubt if the RN ever had 4x40 missiles to put in the magazines anyway. Wonder what the space got used for.

Leo Marriott: Type 42 (Ian Allen Modern Combat Ships No.3, 1985), p.112.

As well as nearly doubling the Sea Dart capacity (24>40). Probably not so: see exchange with @Our Ned on next page.

Hopeful bump. PS a view of the T.4 nose interior would do just as well.

Five quality purchases there, classy additions to anyone’s collections. Wish I’d been able to pick up the books at those prices!

I've finally laid hands on the Alley Cat Shackleton MR.1 conversion set for the Airfix kit. For the interior of the nose, the conversion includes an implausibly large throne-type seat worthy of King Arthur or Donald Trump, plus a few boxes. The instructions include a not-especially-clear photograph looking out through the nose of a preserved MR.1 (VP293) but no further hints on what goes where. Can anyone provide me with any info on what might be seen looking in through the nose transparency (which the conversion provides as a beautifully clear and scarily large vac-formed part). Thanks in advance. PS The BM walkround section covers only Mk.2 and Mk.3 Shackletons.

The point of the EIF (and SEAC) markings was to eradicate red from British markings on aircraft operating east of Suez after some unfortunate aircraft recognition failures, of which the clincher was probably a US General (Stilwell?) nearly getting shot down by USAAC aircraft when flying in a British Dakota. On a standard Type C "European" fin flash the white strip was to be 2 inches wide regardless of the size of the flash or the carrying aircraft. On the EIF fin flash the white was broadened to 6" as seen on MB340 and Dave's Avenger.

I think @stevehnz is spot on. I see nothing in the fuselage markings of this Seafire which is not compliant with the instructions on markings for aircraft on the East Indies station approved by the Admiralty on 25 June 1943 and to be implemented from 1 August 1943. For small aircraft this means a 16" diameter Blue fuselage roundel with a 6" WHITE centre and a 24" high fin flash divided 6"/12" WHITE/Blue (White leading). (Note the White component of an EIF fin flash is wider than that in a standard European Type C fin flash - which is what we see here.) One might expect that, in a rear area like Port Reitz, there would be ample time for scrupulous compliance with official orders. Note that there were never instructions (that I am aware of) for the FAA to use pale blue (AKA India white) roundel centres as used on RAF aircraft in SEAC. My challenge in a previous thread long ago for anyone to point me towards unambiguous photographic evidence (as opposed to copious artwork and transfer sheets by underinformed artists) of FAA aircraft wearing dark/light blue markings has gone unanswered. As regards the other national markings on this airframe, the Admiralty instructions would lead me to expect a 56" roundel on the upper wing with a 9" WHITE centre and a 16"/6" underwing roundel (ie as for fuselage). Those of you old or lucky enough to have the old Tally Ho! (Canada) sheet 7121 will find the markings for Seafire PR171 D5J give you exactly what you need. I don't really have a horse in the race as to the overall colour of the aircraft but, given that it is darker than the Blue of the roundel, I certainly incline towards black @brewerjerry Afraid that profile is utterly worthless and a classic example of the Internet's ability to spread mis- and even disinformation at the speed of light. "There are lies, damned lies and artists' profiles." For me a lot of the interest of the East Indies and to a lesser extent the British Pacific Fleets lies in the anomalous markings often seen. There certainly were aircraft, notably Hellcats, with a mixture of European and Indian Fleet markings and these anomalies not uncommonly include retention of 3-colour European fin flashes. But this aircraft is not one of them. It is one of batch of aircraft issued new to 882 Squadron in July 1945. AFAIK all profiles of Wildcat VI JV884 are derived, probably 15th hand by now, from a sequence of photos of the aircraft crashing on HMS Searcher on 11 August 1945 when flown by Lt JA Pullin (see especially WILDCAT95 and WILDCAT97, plus possibly a few others, in the FAA photo library). Errors in that profile include code shape (they were in an angular style with US-style 45-degree corners), size (too small: they should be about 18") and stroke width (too thin), the fin flash (it looks from the photos more as if the white area has been extended to cover the area one might normally expect to be in red), missing code "C" on cowling nose ring, no indication of "last 3" of serial on bottom of nose ring, wrong style spinner (should be rounded dome not stepped type), missing mirror on windscreen, ..... That prop looks well dodgy for a Wildcat's paddle-blade, too. In the interests of balance, things the profile does get right: the aircraft was in Glossy Sea Blue and the EIF roundels were nonstandard (larger than prescribed and with unusually large white centres). And, to end on a positive note, AFAIR, the Arma 1/72 Wildcat VI kit gets all the marking details of this aircraft absolutely right.

Can't help with your request. However you might want to consider adding to your impressive list a Tiger Moth of the RAF Coastal Patrol Flights, used in the early days of the war to deter German submarines. The 2nd half of this thread has some details and a photo of N6839 MW-Z (or -4) https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235002335-de-havilland-hornet-moth-in-raf-service-update/ A little memorial to little-known operations at a desperate time. HTH

For many, many years I completely ignored Tamiya acrylics because popular wisdom, backed up by my experience, said they couldn't be brushed because a. they didn't cover in a single coat and b. any attempt at a second coat lifted the first. But Tony O'Toole, late of this parish, suggested I add some Vallejo 70.524 Thinner Medium. (I start with a 3:1 mix.). Applied over a primer (I use MIG-Ammo), the first coat now gives me a smooth, uniform, matt finish. But your advice of small batches and working fast is still key: the paint tries to skin in my palette but I just keep adding Thinner Medium to keep it workable. I expect other thinners as listed by @Ngantek would work equally well but I've been so happy with the Vallejo solution I haven't bothered experimenting (even with Tamiya's X20A!). I try to avoid overpainting Tamiya with Tamiya wherever possible because evidence suggests the old lifting problem is still there. At the very least I leave it a week or two to harden before trying to.

Welcome to the band. Your weathering is excellent and the graffiti fabulous.

I suspect that what is being referred to is a 2-part article on superdetailing the Airfix SM S.79 serie II by Steve di Nucci in Scale Aircraft Modelling International issues 24/1 and 24/2 (Jan & Feb 2018) (pp. 82-6 and pp.82-7 respectively). I seem to recall that he robbed several parts from the Italeri kit.

I think you've put your finger on the root cause of a lot of the most exasperating errors in recent kits: CAD designers don't have the knowledge/time/motivation to interpret correctly the data they have. You can have the best drawings in the world but if the designer doesn't have the interest or motivation to understand what he/she is seeing, there will almost inevitably be misinterpretations. A case in point from the current debate. Most currently available sets of drawings show a bulge over the wheelbays on the early Spitfire wings. This is a barely discernable kidney-shaped bulge, as the pattern-makers back in ancient times understood when they made the Airfix Spifire Vb and 1978 Mk I kits. I suspect (but obviously cannot prove) that some of the variations we see in shape, location and prominence of these bulges are because pattern-makers have been influenced by photos of the post-war wheel bulges of the Spitfire LF.16 and the like, not understanding that this is a completely different bulge reintroduced at a much later point in the Spitfire's evolution. I also suspect that the penalties for getting it wrong are getting smaller. The number of people who have direct knowledge of the real thing are getting fewer and there are whole swathes of the world's modelling population who won't know or care about accuracy as long as it bears a passing resemblance to the subject named on the box.

And for old fools. Welcome and have fun.

So he did. My apologies to him. I didn't actually read his link because I assumed it related to the 2 bits of artwork.

A bit late to the party but here's what looks like a pretty thorough discussion of these aircraft (yes, he reckons there were two) and the evolution of our knowledge about them. It has at least 1 photo which I don't think has appeared or been linked to in this thread: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/luftwaffe/aircraft/Ju-87/T6+DP.html

This is really sad news. Like many others I never met the man but feel a very personal sense of loss. I lived in awe of his creations. With an artist’s eye for detail and colour, he went beyond merely making a realistic diorama into something that captured the essence of the scene. I think in particular of his diorama of the cottage at Penberth Cove (called “The Return” or similar): he got every detail so right that I’m sure it would have smelt of the sea, fish guts and old ropes. His model of the Mount’s Bay fishing boat was another memorable creation. A sad farewell to not just a very skilled modeller but a creative artist. A very sad loss to our community.

I’m as big a fan of Boulton Paul finest as the next man, but I’m saddened at how often I see “defiantly” where “definitely” was meant. Spell-checker, I suppose. And I’m irritated by those who think “infamous” means, in the modern idiom, “superfamous”.

Note to self: read the exam question carefully first.