TonyOD

I regret I'm having to withdraw the proposal, but if anyone else would like to pick it up and run with it that would be great! Cheers all Tony

Hi all, Please see pinned post here: Cheers Tony

Morning all. For reasons that don't need to be aired here, I've decided to leave the Britmodeller forum, and I regret that as consequence I will no longer be involved in the Salty Sea Dog Group Build. It's been a hoot, both on the Bunfight campaign trail and, latterly, during the GB itself. What a wonderful array of builds we have seen, and continue to see. Thank you, everyone who had shown even the slightest interest, and especially to Messrs. @Enzo the Magnificent, @Col. and @Bertie McBoatface for their support. I will no longer be updating the Behemothic Build List, but it's likely that the HMS Salty Sea Dog will be able to chug along to its conclusion at the end of April under its own steam. Again, thank you, and happy modelling. Best wishes, Tony

“Shpon” is my new favourite word 😁

That’s purely a matter of opinion, surely?

Lovely brace of Spits there. 👍🏻

Like I said, not my scale… but I’m definitely going to end up building one 😁

Probably 99 out of 100 modellers would be happy to live with it, for the sake of something to make the look the model look more interesting? I'm not sure I'd have much joy getting some wash to stick in accurately rendered panel lines at 1/144 scale 😁 Or maybe there's a middle ground to be found.

Possibly from a film originally, just a still I found on t'internet. Not at all. Plenty to think about there. This pic captures a fraction of a fraction of a secod, I imagine!

Not my scale but I'm curious to see what Beacon have done with 1/144, and will follow with interest. I did Revell's ancient 1/144 Spit around Christmas (not quite completed but it will be hanging on the three Christmas '23) and there wasn't a lot in the way of detail to speak of! I wonder if there is a place for Beacon as the "Eduard of 1/144"?

All that would seem to make absolute sense, @Zephyr91.

There are two different shapes of Rotol in the Eduard kit, @Troy Smith has already alluded to a difference that I really can't see, maybe I need to look a bit more closely! I overthink everything - it's in my nature! 😁 Thanks for the further info, thorough as ever. Read it on a thread elsewhere in BM I think. I was on a different computer so don't have it to hand in the memory. As I said I specialise in Spitfires, I just fancied a thread where I'd have all my queries in one place at the end of one browser shortcut. I'm aware of the "all the Spitfire questions" thread, I've asked questions there in the past, but also plenty outside the thread, as have many others. Not sure I see any harm.

That’s the same pic I’ve seen as it happens @wmcgill. Mind if I ask how you know it’s a wooden prop? cheers

Thanks, @Kari Lumppio, @Work In Progress, @spitfire It makes perfect sense that a wooden propeller blade would have a metal sheath to the leading edge. I did some further digging and the metal used for a Rotol blade of that period was most likely brass, I guess at least in part for its malleability in shaping round the edge. However as regards my particular airframes: Rotol* props on Mk IIa Spitfires were initially magnesium alloy-bladed, but apparently they were changed to wooden blades at some point during the production of the marque. IIa’s were built at the Castle Bromwich factory between June 1940 and April 1941. My IIa, P7308, was delivered to 24 Maintenance Unit at the end of July 1940, which makes it a pretty early example. I’m therefore going to go with MA and wear accordingly. I think my Seafire IIc, on the other hand, had a wooden propeller. I seem to remember reading somewhere that trials were carried out with wooden and metal propellers, and given the Seafire’s propensity for nosing forward and “pecking” the carrier deck, wood was considered safer for deck crew from the point of view of blades or fragment of blades flying around the deck. I’m thinking brass for the leading edge sheath. In the one good photo of the prop that I have from the front the blade leading edges, or at least the one nearest the camera, look very worn indeed. I like that effect a lot. Maybe a few more pennies finding their way into the Bezos bank account from my direction. * I just learned that Rotol was founded as a joint venture between engine manufacturers Rolls Royce and Bristol. Every day's a school day!

So I’ve just embarked on a long-term project to build a hangarload of Spitfires and Seafires in 1/48. Inevitably questions will arise that referring to my small reference library (Price, Morgan & Shacklady etc.) and Googling on the interweb won’t be able to answer. I’m aware of the “all the Spitfire questions” thread but so I have everything in one place I’m going to indulge myself with a thread for my occasional questions. First up: two of my current builds had (I believe) wooden propeller blades: a Seafire IIc with a four-blade prop and a Spitfire IIa with a three-blade Rotol. Both airframes were in fairly intensive combat situations so a bit of weathering will be appropriate, but obviously prop leading-edge chipping with a metallic paint won’t. Anyone got any suggestions as to what a battle-hardened wooden prop would have looked like? I have pics of both airframes, the Seafire’s prop appears to have a fair amount of wear on the leading edges of the prop blades, but I don’t suppose it can be metallic; the pic of the Spit IIa shows the prop side-on so it’s less clear, but (possibility of a prop change apart) the aircraft was 16 months old at the time I’m depicting it so some wear and tear was likely. Would there have been visible primer? Bare wood? Any thoughts? Thanks Tony