The original Kit Builder

Ah, the old "Flick Knife Airliner". I was in the mob a good while before the Tornado and first heard it called Tonka before it entered squadron service, though I've never heard it called the Fin.

I'd sooner an accurate Vampire, or Meteor 5, or almost any Hunter.

The newly released Humbrol M42 looks the business to me.

Having been a rigger in the RAF, I can tell you unequivocally that, regardless of the weather, or the light,or the prospect of getting covered in crap, the oil would have been wiped away. There are many reasons for doing so, with pride in one's aircraft being near the top of the list. It also makes it much easier to identify abnormal leaks of the type that may prevent your aircraft and its pilot getting home. On Scottish Aviation Bulldogs, the Avco-Lycoming IO-360 leaked oil at a much lower rate than that of the Merlin and the Bulldog was wiped down weekly and prior to any visit by a senior officer and we'd never have waited for the Flight Sergeant to mention it, either. This was done with neat aircraft cleaning compound, even though such use was unauthorised, as it was supposed to be mixed one part to ten of water for hand application, or with white spirit, or most commonly, PX-24, (a type of temporary protective compound similar to WD-40). I still get skin trouble to this day. On a Merlin powered aircraft, I would think it likely that even the insides of the cowlings would be wiped down every time they were removed, which is something still done today even on clean machines with blow-torch backsides. This is basic engineering practice and became ingrained habit, kind of like closing your fly, or eating.

I've been finding that many Humbrol tins are too thick in the tin, lately and that includes some of the new UK made stuff. Getting it into the mixing pot is more by runny slice than by dropper. I can't say I've had any slow drying examples though. Chris

I read that book years ago. It's pretty good and something of a departure for Forsythe. According to the story, the aircraft is a Vampire, but I don't recall any mention of variant, though after nearly 40 years, I'm not surprised. If you intend modelling the tale, you'll also need a Mosquito. Chris

The IFF aerials were fitted to all Mk1 to V and early IX's. Underwing roundels were removed early 1940, IIRC, when the underside colour changed to Sky. They returned in 1941 with the change to the OG/DG/MSG scheme

Messerschmitt Me 163 climbing under rocker power to intercept US bombers got into a dogfight with a Mosquito FB VI, which it shot down. Can't remember the details, though. Douglas Dauntless engaged two Mitsubishi A6M5's shooting down one and driving the other off. WW1 Sopwith Pup brought down a Zeppelin by dropping bombs onto it after expending all its ammunition. Also in WW1, the leading Bristol Fighter ace crew accounted for 25 and a half enemy machines, including Albatros DV's, Fokker DR1's and I believe, a least one DVII.

Pigeon guided bomb. The idea was that the pigeon was trained to identify certain targets with food and guided the bomb by pecking a screen through which it could view the outside as the bomb fell. It turns out that pigeons aren't very reliable.

Counter intuitively, having the tank over hanging the base as it is serves to add a certain dynamism to it. I really like it.

Can you imagine the difficulty in taxi-ing those rear cockpit configured machines?

The Humbrol conversion chart gives Barley Grey as approximate equivalent, though given how far out some of their "matches" can be, I wouldn't read too much into that.

All of the half dozen or so that I used to taxi-pilot were to port.

You could try casting one in resin. If it comes to, you could also get what you need via the importer, but you'll have to buy the entire sprue.

Most of what they've already released, but in 1/48.

I painted mine, as it was easier than getting the kit decals to conform, as well as avoiding any gap between the decals. If you do decide to use them, though, the kit decals are pretty opaque and the doesn't seem to be any problem with underlying colours showing through.

On the other hand, if one of the prominent features of the real machine is the refection of the fin flash on the tailplane, say, then you need to be glossy enough to replicate that. Even high gloss finishes show weathering and some subtle streaks and smears can seriously reduce the toy-like appearance, whilst maintaining a decent shine. Surface and pin washes aren't just for work-horses. Of course, another way to have your cake and eat it, is to finish the model so that an all-over sameness of finish is avoided. This gives you a variation in the shine from point to point and breaks the bright lines, though it does take practice

Lou is higher in relation to the camera than 413926, in the midground. This coupled to the flare in the cross-section that begins at the approximate tailplane datum, meand that the reflected light is refocussed differently on the two aircraft, with the light leaving Lou being relected almost directly at the lens. The light from 413926 is being reflected at a point between 6 and 8 feet below the camera lens, assuming that both aircraft have near identical angles in respect of their lateral axes, ie, neither has one wing appreciably higher or lower than the other. Angles of reflected light as well as shadow are something photo-interpreters can derive quite a bit of information from especially given some knowledge of the subject's dimensions and angles. Notice that the only greater relection from Lou is at the canopy frame, which is slightly higher still and slightly more flared, presenting an even flatter angle to the illumination source. The area under the tailplane is natural metal, in my opinion. I would swear to it.

Dan, No reason for it to be the bottom on show. The Nimrod used to do a pretty spectacular wing over off the top of a near vertical climb as part of the display routine. Plenty of topside marking visible then. Nice Seaking, too. The only small thing is that the yellow blade should only be yellow on top. Underside is as the others.

※May cause damage to painted surface in some cases, particularly surfaces painted with acrylic paints. This warning is attached to the Mark Fit (Strong). Given that Tamiya are known in part for their acrylic paints, one has to wonder not only why, but what decals they intended this stuff for. I am interested in the claim that these products are of use when applying decals to matte finishes, though. What about it, "is it windy?"? Have you ever tried it on flat finishes?

Very pretty. Nice work.

I'll say this: I've never had a problem getting Tamiya's decals off the paper, though with cool water, it can take a little longer. I've never tried Gunze setting agents, simply because they're not as readily available as some others, but I'll give 'em a crack in line with Gary C's recommendation. Futhermore, I've just started decalling Tamiya's 1/48 F84G with the kit decals. I thought I'd have a go, as they seem quite thin and glossy and I've found them to be up with the best I've ever used. If only they were all like these...

Fair point NPL, but I didn't realise how bad they were until I started using them. After a three year modelling block and having just broken through it, I didn't want to wait for replacements to arrive. Besides, although I was building a 100 quid kit, it doesn't follow that I could afford aftermarket decals at the time.

Trumpy do, (or did?) a 1/48 scale C47 already. There were issues with the cowlings and engine IIRC, but it seemed OK other than that from what I remember.

I've just finished their 1/32 scale Mk XI Spitfire and the decals were some of the worst I've ever used, poor even by Tamiya's standards. One thing that won't touch Tamiya's decals is Decalfix, as it's too mild. Repeated applications of Micro-sol and set will help eventually, but ideally you'll need something pretty hot, such as the afore-mentioned Solvaset.