Wez

Thanks JB! That's a great help, the only problem now is deciding on a colour scheme.... Regards Wez

I've managed to get hold of a Trumpy EE Lightning F1A/2 at a reasonable cost however, as always Trumpy's piddle-poor research has let it down. Apart fom the Avon exhaust area issue which I know about (got the Aeroclub correction for that - the F6/2A will have to wait), are there any other gotcha's I need to look out for? I'm particularly thinking about the various intakes and exhausts about the airframe. Trumpy missed the cooling scoop for the genny on the spine but are there any others? I'm looking at the heat exchanger exhuast beneath the port airbrake - Trumpy show this with a deflector (raised lip) to the rear of the vent - I don't think this is correct for an early Frightning. Anybody care to comment? Can't decide between 56, 92, 111 Sqn markings or one of the TFF's (Wattisham - watta shame's maybe). Choices, choices... ...any help will be greatly appreciated. Wez

I remember watching the A-10's whilst waiting to change a Wokka combining transmissison at Donna Nook circa 1991-92, the A-10's came swooping in, fired the gun and seemed to stop in mid-air - in a word awesome! During the time we were there we also saw F111's, Jag's and Tonka's come in and drop practice bombs followed by the Tonka's and Jag's doing strafing runs with their guns. The Tonka's and the Jag's impressed us with their low-level, high speediness but the A-10 scared the living sh - brown stuff out of us! Wez

Well, that looks like a Wokka to me - good work Chuck! Keep up the good work, hope to see plenty more. Wez

Ted, Yeah, you did a good job on those blades, I liked the kit too - pity you never included the OCU as a decal option - you can't win 'em all, ho hum! Chuck, I'm really liking what I'm seeing there - your Wokka is coming together nicely. If you want to put a bit of weathering on the blade leading edges you can - the paint does wear off of those after a while. It kind of feathers - you get more wear nearer the tip. Keep up the good work! Wez

What Tony said on the camo and the colours The D shaped aerial (the one Tony calls a towel-rail) between the third a fourth window should be up on the aft pylon forward of the work platform (where the Penguin is), its forward leg mount was actually in the fin flash. It was silver with black rubber insulation on the curve of the D - it was one of my pet-hates to see people using it as a hand hold to get up on the aft work platform (there was a proper hand hold nearby). The blades are black - with black tips, never any other colour so don't feel tempted to paint them red or yellow. The composite blades are VERY flexible but don't overdo the droop! Good looking model of the beastie - at this rate you'll have it finished soon. Keep up the good work. Wez

Ted, I like that quote "the bubble windows were removeable and could be fitted in any position quite easily" - you were obviously told that by somebody who never had do it!!!! It's not the sort of thing you'd do voluntarily All of the cabin windows are removeable for emergency egress. In reality, we hated removing any of the removeable transparencies/escape hatches unless there was something wrong with them - they're such a PITA!!! The trouble is these windows could just pop into place or you could spend hours and hours trying to get one in - ask me how I know The rear bubble windows were, I believe, originally fitted in the rear-most positions (TonyT would be able to confirm this). By the time I started working on them they had moved one position further forwards. A bit later on they moved "Back to where they started off" according to the old hands who'd been around since the beginning. This was still in the Mk.1 days. On th port side, the forward window was always a bubble window - this in itself is mounted in a removeable hatch. These hatches are even worse than the windows to fit. On the starboard side there is no forward bubble window. The forward window is mounted in a door which moves up then in on rails, it doesn't fold in. When fully up the outside of the door lies flush with the inside of the cabin roof. If you fit a bubble window in this door you wouldn't be able to open the door - unless you tried really hard but then you'd find yourself surrounded by shards of perspex. Regards Wez

It was definitely TonyT - not me! Thanks Tony Wez

Chuck, Pay no heed to the Italeri colour call outs, dark gull grey (DGG) would match the grey parts of the cabin interior. The correct colour for the Chinook Mk.1 exterior at this time was dark sea grey (DSG), dark green and black. IIRC Gunship Grey FS36118 is a close match for DSG although the grey you've used looks good and close enough. TonyT was spot on about the ramp tongue - sorry I missed that earlier. ZA707 certainly had the RWR fitted in 1985 - it was a prerequisite fit for the Falklands. It was a fixed fitting - once its on it stays. The covers were at this time a blue/grey colour. At the time 707 wore the markings in the kit the chaff/flare fit was removeable and it doesn't resemble the fittings provided in the kit - it was a much simpler affair. The Nite Sun was black and hung from a bracket under the nose. The hoist fit was standard for the Falklands, the pod was usually DSG, the struts that held it could be YZC or DGG or any combination of both (although the latter was unusual). No RAF Chinook has ever had that V-shaped aerial under the nose - there is a V-shaped aerial fitted further back under the belly but it was never fitted to 707 in those markings as it came much later in the Mk.1's career. The aerial that did this job on 707 was a d-shaped loop either side of the aft pylon near the fin flash - TonyT's photo's show this (metal bladed cabs had the loops between the third and fourth cabin windows). In fairness the aerial fit on RAF Wokka's is a bloody minefield - you have to be really careful to match the airframe to the time frame. The top of the ramp (e.g. the bit that is effectively the extension of the cabin floor), is black non-slip - except for at the outboard edges. On Mk.1's we always fitted two flipper ramps to the ramp. The cabin floor itself was DGG with wide black anti-slip strips. The centre hook bay is YZC as is the hook beam, the hook body was grey. The inside of the hook access door (the bit that you can see from the outside looking in), was DGG. Forward and aft hook bodies are black with silver hook portions. The lower centre hook hatch lies flush with the underside of the fuselage. If you're doing ZA707 in the 1310Flt Falklands markings a thing to watch is the surface finish. When these cabs went to the Falklands they were sprayed with PX-24 which is basically WD-40. PX-24 was used as an anti-corrosion measure, the trouble is the fine peat dust of the FI readily attached itself to the PX-24 and gave the cabs a subtle brownish hue - how you'd replicate this I dunno. I like the old Mk.1 colour scheme - far more interesting than the plain green of the current fleet. Keep up the good work Wez

Hi Chuck, Looks like you've made a good start with the beastie. A couple of things to watch- The cockpit area of a Chinook is Black as are the instrument panels, seats and consoles, in fact the area forward of the cabin (e.g. from the companion way leading into the cockpit from the cabin) is black. If you're doing an RAF one the seat belts are black too. Mostly the seat cushions are black too (although there have been grey and latterly green ones but most of the time black). Basically any colour you like as long as its black! Although if you've got the glazing I'm probably a bit late with this gen - soz! The HF Aerial array shown on the box top is pure fiction! The array shown looks like a cross between two different installations. If you're making ZA707 in the kit markings omit the three lower masts beneath the windows. Italeri show those mast positions (the lower ones) in incorrect locations anyway. The blades in the Italeri kit are wrong - they're the chord of a metal blade but their profile (plan) is a mix of metal and composite. The Matchbox kit got this right. There's no quick fix for this - get some Matchbox blades if you can! ZA707 was delivered with composite blades. Bubble windows! Almost forgot these, in those markings at that time frame the second rearmost cabin window on each side would have been bubble windows. A bit later on they were moved back to where they are now - the rearmost window. On the PORT side, the forward window is also a bubble window. There is no forward bubble window on the starboard side. On their instruction sheet Italeri state that ZA707 was wearing those markings in 1987 - wrong, 1984 maybe but by 1985 it was FH of 240 OCU and by 1987 it was EV of 7Sqn. It has never returned to the Falklands since 1984. As you can tell, I like Chinooks me so I'm looking forwards to seeing how this one turns out. Keep up the good work Wez

I know this is going to be a contraversial view but here goes. The F3's currently don't have a war-fighting role unless you count the Falklands as a war role. Compared to the pain that other parts of the RAF are suffering (and I'm talking particularly Support Helicopter here), their effort could best be spent elsewhere. Having been a twenty year SH man I might be biased but, early retirement of the Tonka F3 whilst not popular on this forum might actually free up some money, assets and manpower where its really needed - out in the 'Stan. Just my 2 penneth worth. Wez

I've got a Revell 1/48th Fw190G8/F8 - I think its a repop of the Dragon kit! I'll never get around to making it - somebody else can have a go! Wez

OK Peri, Maybe I'm being hasty, seeing efforts like yours are at the same time both inspiring and humbling. I guess I must try harder!! Regards Wez

Peri, Honestly, jaw droppingly brilliant and what's more, it's great to see a model in an authentic maintenance setting - no bullets, bombs, missiles or aircrew! Simply fantastic! One more thing - can I give up now? Regards Wez

I had a conversation a few years ago with an ex wartime RAF Painter and Doper - he confirmed the use of the rubber mats when he worked at a UK maintenance unit. I then asked him about what they did when they didn't have the rubber mats, his reply was that the Flight Sergeant would come out to the shop floor with the relevant AP as a guide and draw chalk lines on the aicraft which they would have to paint to. He said that they would use masking tape and newspaper to mask off the large areas - sound familiar. He also said that whilst the AP allowed feathering of the demarcation of up to 1" no "Chieffy" he worked for would let a demarcation of greater than 1/2" pass. He also said that wherever they sprayed freehand without masking, they would always strive for a 1/2" demarcation. The point about the Flight Sergeant transposing the camouflage pattern from the AP to the aircraft would explain why subtle variations in camouflage patterns exist. In spite of the evidence put forwards by the neysayers I have to go along with what the old boy told me - after all he had been there and done it! Regards Wez

As to whether the 888Sqn aircraft is a Mk.II or not, take a look at the wheels and undercarriage - they appear to GSB or a similar dark colour to me which would indicate that it is a Mk.II we're looking at in the photo, had it been a Mk.I painted in the TSS I would expect the undercarriage and wheel to be painted sky. As to the original question which started this thread, the surface of aircraft paint finishes do change their lustre differentially. For instance, an aircraft I worked on extensively was matt finished however, the area where the groundcrew clambered up and down the side of the aircraft to access the upper areas took on a slight sheen due to the polishing effect of their clothing, similarly areas under the engines took on a slightly glossy finish due to oil leaks (the constant wiping of which spread the sheen further), while other areas which are subject to abrasion take on quite a dead matt finish. For this reason I find it difficult to say whether an aircraft subject to weathering will achieve an overall lustre. Regards Wez

Shaun, CH47D's can have either the standard nose or the radar nose depending upon the customers options - the same applied to CH47C's too (the Argentinian's operated standard and radar nosed C-Model Chinooks in the Falklands War). It's more correct to say that HC.2's/2A's have the standard nose, I'm not sure that Italeri's CH47D has the radar nose. Regards Wez

Danny's photo shows a HISL - High Intensity Strobe Light, these replaced the old Anti-Coll Beacons on RAF Wokkas around the time of Op Granby and immediately after - certainly all of the cabs had been modified by the time they went into Mid Life Update 1992-94. The RAF made the change on the rest of its fleets of aircraft over a prolonged time - it was common to see a mix of strobes and HISLs on the line for quite a while during the 90's The HISL's are clear with what looks like a silver filament and can flash white or red - the latter should be used when on the ground to save dazzling personnel. The ones we used were like a rounded triangle when viewed from the side with a very long base at the bottom. In plan view they were an elongated oval. To represent them I would file/polish a piece of clear sprue to shape, drill a small hole in the bottom and add a drop of silver paint to represent the strobe element. Prior to that we used circular "high-domed" anti-coll lights. I've seen oval (in plan view) and tear drop shaped anti-coll's on other aircraft so check your references. These anti-coll's used two filaments on a rotating base contained within the coloured cover - obviously as the bulbs rotated the occulted and produce the "flashing" effect. These were a PITA as the filaments were constantly breaking - they didn't cope with vibration, it was quite common to replace a filament as part of night flying checks only to have it or its partner in crime go on the next aircraft start! To make these I've superglued pieces of coloured plastic (usually ex-toothbrush handle) to a piece of rod the correct diameter or aeroclub strut material of the right size and again sanded/polished to shape accordingly. Not only does this help you achieve the correct shape but also gives you something convenient to hold on to. I've then carefully sliced it off the rod/strut and glued it in place on the model. For oval shaped anti-colls I've sanded a pice of sprue to the correct profile before gluing the coloured plastic to it. You can use the same method for clear covered nav lights. What I do here is file a flat on the bottom of a piece of clear sprue and then drill a small hole in it. Into the small hole I drop a blob of Tmaiya clear red or green paint and wipe off the excess. Once its dry I glue it to my sprue/rod/strut, sand and polish, slice off and glue in place. Simples! A thing to watch is some aircraft have coloured covers with clear filaments whilst others have clear covers with coloured filaments - it varies from type to type. Check your references. In many cases the coloured covers are not clear enough for you to see the filament beneath unless you are very close to it. Also some but not all green covers have a slight blueish tinge to them - a mix of Tamiya clear green and blue can achieve the desired colour. Hope this helps Regards Wez

Danny, I used to know a couple of guys who ran a business restoring DeHavilland aircraft like Tiger Moths etc, they would tell you its an expensive business but it doesn't pay much. For instance if you could afford to buy a Tiggie that needed restoration, they'd first survey it and then carry out whatever restoration was needed - quite often this required a lot of replacement items be it wood, metal whatever and was all done by time served craftsmen. Invariably the engine and prop would go away for restoration - all of this has to be done to an approved standard, by an approved organisation. Above all, it all costs money. I've now lost contact with guys since, but I do recall them saying that the costs were high but the profits low. As TonyT says you could do your licences but be prepared for a lot of hard work - you'll be expected to know things in far greater depth than your training has given you, but it may allow you to tout your wares around the bazzars. In the meantime find out if there's anybody near to you who are doing this sort of work and offer your services - they may say no or they may bite your hand off, you don't know unless you try. Regards Wez

Bazza, Just found another profile of an aircraft with a yellow outlined star - it's of a La-5FN and is in the MBI monograph of the La-5 (page 81). I couldn't find this book when I answered your enquiry earlier - it wasn't filed where it should be . Anyway, the caption to the profile states that "The La-5FN belonging to lt. P Rakov - summer 1944. The machine is of interest by its non-standard yellow number and yellow border to the national insignia". I don't normally trust profiles but as this one comes with a caveat it is possibly correct. The non-standard comment would concur with Veltro and Spitfire's posts. Regards Wez

Bazza, The Authentic Decals sheet for the Il-2 covers a range of options from 1942 through to 1945 - none of these have yellow outlines to the stars! You get plain red stars, stars with a bold white outline, those with a thin red outline to the bold white outline and stars that are a light and dark shade of red with a bold white outline but no yellow. As the Stormovik was used on all fronts throuhout the war and the number of these aircraft produced I would have thought that had yellow been in use at least one of the 19 options on that decal sheet would have had it. For that matter, I have no recollection of Yak's, La5/7's etc with yellow outlines - in fact, the only profile I can find with a yellow outlined red star is for is in the book "Polikarpov 1-16 - the History of a Revolutionary Aircraft" and is for an aircraft from a training unit based near Leningrad in 1944 - the Eduard kit of the I-16 Type 10 features the same aircraft although interestingly, one side view shows a yellow otline whilst the other shows a white! I would say that if it did happen it was quite rare but I'm no expert and I'm willing to be proved wrong! HTH Wez

Bex, I think that's part of the problem - IIRC (and I'm willing to be corrected here), originally the RAF used VHF but went over to UHF for their comm's I think in the 1960's. There's a possibility they either used a combined U/VHF set or seperate sets that used the same antenna (the antenna itself would have a seperate UHF and VHF element). I recall being told one colour was for one system and the other colour was for the other - I didn't pay that much attention at the time because our instructor said that both aerials were obsolete! All I knew was the aerials on my aircraft were black so it made no odds to me. It's funny how things come back to haunt you - I should've paid more attention at school... Wez

Rick, I don't want to confuse matters but I probably will, the aerial I think you're talking about is either a UHF or VHF blade antenna. I remember being shown some of these of 1960's vintage when I went through trade training - some were a dull aluminium colour and some were buff, I've also seen black and white coloured aerials - I don't recall seeing any LAG items but it doesn't mean to say they didn't exist. All I'm saying is that if you're interpreting a B&W photo or a fuzzy colour one, you may wish to consider these alternatives. Regards Wez

HC1 is based on a C model airframe, HC2 a D model. Look at plenty of photos you'll see the differences. Don't get caught out by thinking aircraft x must be the same as aircraft y, it won't be. Find the time-frame your interested in and preferably a photo of the aircraft you want to model and then model that.

Bazza, PM inbound. Regards Wez