The original Kit Builder

Never done the vinegar thing, which seems a sound idea, but I always prime photoetch. I always use Humbrol's primer, which has never let me down and provides an excellent key for the subsequent finish.

The colour used to pigment the etch primer in question was frequently known as yellow primer in my day. The nearest Humbrol match to the base colour is #81 'Matt Pale Yellow'. I say it's the nearest base match, because this primer can vary hugely in hue with the passage of time, exposure to oils, high temperatures, fuel and a number of other things. I have seen it fade to pale buff and darken to the colour of French mustard. In answer to Kirk's question, alochrome is a semi-permanent surface conversion process, using chromic acid. The aim is to carry out a controlled oxidisation of an aluminium based surface to improve its corrosion resistance. It is only used when a non-etch primer is to be applied, though this would still be chromate in nature, as an etch primer would eat through it. I do recall some years ago, there was some use made of a primer which was much darker and a lot browner than that shown in the photo's above and perhaps it is this that Kirk means. I don't think this darker material is used now-at least I haven't seen any of it in over 10 years.

Actually, RAF Battle Dress and KD uniform, dependant on the theatre and time of year. In the tropics, it is most likely that aircrew would have flown in KD, often wearing shorts, with the 1940's pattern leather flying helmet and goggles. Officially, they would have been required to wear cotton flying overalls, with boots and gloves. These overalls were a Khaki or buff colour when new, but I don't think I've ever seen a pair outside the RAF museum. Edited to say: Sorry. I've just re-read the opening post and spotted the AAC bit, in which case Dave Fleming is right about Army Battle Dress. I'm too used to thinking of Austers in Army Co-operation Flights.

I don't recall ever having worked on an RAF aircraft with anything but gloss white undercarriage bays and though I've never worked on Red Arrows' machines, I see no reason why they would be different internally to all the others. Done some checking of various photo's and it's white bays, with grey legs, jacks and wheels as far as I can see, which pretty much matches all the Hawks I have worked on.

Turned out nice, lad. Looks even better in the flesh, though having the decals in place makes a vast difference.

I well remember that very aircraft flying from RAAF Laverton in the 70's.

I'd like to point out, just to remove any confusion, that this version of the Tamiya P-51 doesn't have the alternative propeller and spinner, which is only included in the Korean War version. In any case, the alternative prop in this version is not the Aeroproducts hollow cast equipment as frequently assumed, but is the Hamilton Standard cast, cuffless propeller. This was only developed after the war, so is strictly speaking wrong for any WW2 machine. However, it is close enough to the Aeroproducts one to be useful, even though the diameter is slightly smaller. The cuffless Hamilton Standard had a different constant speed unit, with a shorter gear casing and this is why the shorter spinner was devised, though it was not widely used, usually being replaced with the longer type. The spinner backplate was common to both. In specific terms, the marking options included in this kit are; P51D-10-NA 414151, Petie 2nd, P51D-5-NT 413410, Lou IV and P51K-5-NT 411622, Nooky Booky IV. I'm afraid I can't recall off the top of my head the detail for the 4th option, but can find out if you wish. The NA designated aircraft had the normal hood, whilst the NT, (Dallas built) aircraft had the Dallas hood. As a point of note, if you decide to build Lou IV, you will have to remove the fin fillet, as the P51D-5's weren't fitted with it for the most part, though some were retrofitted later.

F*** my old boots!!!

Nice idea!

The MkV had the IFF aerials, as did the earliest Mk9's, after which the aerial became a rod under the starboard wing. There's some really good stuff about aerials, lumps and bumps on www.spitfiresite.com, with plenty of photo's and text.

Umm, you're asking about Spitfire MkV, coded RF-D, but the tail number EN398 belongs to Wg Cdr Johnny Johnson's aircraft, which was a Mk9. Perhaps you need to have a closer look at something?

I see what you mean. In this case, it was possibly flying with the Merlin out of the MkIX, with the second stage 'charger removed and blanked. I reckon the Aeroclub option suggested by Graham is your best bet.

The subjects of this multi-kit are the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Aircraft, friend and therefore are marked for those particular aircraft at the time the kit was researched. The BBMF repaints its aircraft from time to time to honour the different squadrons and nationalities that flew during the battle, which means that later marks of aircraft are often seen carrying the colours and codes of much earlier ones. The Hurricane, for example is a Mk11, but is usually seen in earth/green/sky or earth/stone/azure, with type A/A1 roundels. This aircraft wasn't built until the C/C1 roundel was introduced, along with the ocean grey/dark green/medium sea grey scheme. Remember, you are building latter day representations of specific aircraft that no longer exist. It's also worth noting that few of the Spitfires in particular, fly with the mark of Merlin they were originally provided with, which is why the MkV has quite so many exhaust stubs.

I know Tamiya's kit has been updated and I assume the changes bring it up to production standard, but I confess to not having had a look. It is in the current catalogue and in good LHS.

Of course, if as indicated, this colour was locally produced and applied, it might well have been a case of "close enough for government work" in terms of the exact shade. I take your point about Hu23, Peebeep, especially having looked at the chips under daylight, rather than energy saving electric light.

In that case, it may have been Sky Blue BS 381c No 1, which was a late pre-war colour. I think White Ensign Models carry it in their range. Hold on a sec....... Yes, it's WEM #ACRN29. Isn't it funny how even well documented and researched subjects can still cause a lot of head scratching?

I do recall some discussion that the shade used may have been known as "duck egg blue". It seems to be the case that a small number of Hurricanes and an even smaller number of Spitfires carried this pale blue. It is always difficult to judge from a description rather than a chip, but Humbrol 23 Matt Duck Egg Blue not only bears the same name, but appears to be something like the supposed shade.

Lovely. I have a gifted commission water colour original of this aircraft flying over a misty, snowy landscape. It was done from a photo, in which Father Christmas was at the controls. You've done a grand job.

It's definitely not an 'A', John. It is parallel to the 'H' next to it. I'd say it's far more likely to be an 'H', or 'M', if it isn't an 'I'.

If I recall, the Landrover from the Airfix Bloodhound is a series 1a, or 2, which has the close together headlights, rather than the wing mounted ones and the cutout wheel arches. These were too early to be painted green for RAF use. Also too early for the personnel to be wearing green denims, as these were introduced in the first half of the 90's. It would be perfectly proper to see this early Landrover with the white finished Bloodhound, but not with the green finish. You would not see this early vehicle with green denims or missiles.

Andy, you are correct. I can only put it down to a brainfart brought on by illness. I'd intended to type, "B". Sorry to mislead. When I said that the black non-slip was unlikely to be universal, I meant to allude to the possibility that some were sand mixed with Interior Green, rather than black and there might even have been some in Deep Bronze Green toward the end of the war. I really must stop posting anything requiring thought when I'm ill-it doesn't work very well.

I too modelled SA Bulldog XX625, having flown many miles in it and the other UWAS aircraft. It was my first tour after completion of training as a rigger. I joined the squadron in Jan '80 and left in '85-ish, just as the then CO got permission to officially train the ground staff to PPL, which would pretty much have been rubber stamping by then. Dean, your Tiggie is stunning, leading me to think that the first pic was of the real thing. Much better than the ones I built when this kit first appeared. Very well done.

Tamiya don't produce an Allison Mustang. In fact the upper surface of the wing carry through acted as the floor in all Mustang variants until the D model, which introduced the wooden floor, made necessary by a slightly higher cockpit than the earlier models. One thing common to the Merlin Mustangs, regardless of variant, however was that the wing rivet lines and skin panel joins were sealed and smoothed and the wing painted with an aluminium laquer in order to improve its aerodynamic qualities and maximise the benefit of the laminar flow wing. This treatment included the centre section carry through as built. In order to reduce the risk of slipping on such a slick surface many, if not most, aircraft had a aforementioned non-slip black finish applied by units, but this was not likely to be universal. The flat floor of the D model is, as Edgar said, wooden. The construction is, if I recall correctly, spruce and pine ply, pressure treated with rot resistant chemicals and varnished.

As far as I am aware, all Meteor 3's were delivered with the 105 gallon tank mentioned by Edgar, pre-fitted. It would seem from photo's that the tank was sometimes removed, but I have not seem a Mk3 pictured with a centreline droptank fitted.

Thanks, folks, for the insights. Everything else being equal, I think I'll stick with the Tamiya offering, if only for the separate flaps. At least this one holds no surprises for me and with the aftemarket bits and pieces available, there's plenty of variation. I had a look at the fit of the canopy on mine this morning, in passing, Gary and it seems to drop into the proper place OK when open. Thanks for the tip, though and I'll watch for it on the basis that it might be moulding and handling causing changes to the fit tolerance.