The original Kit Builder

Gluefinger, Shacks were never painted in the hemp/grey scheme, which would look interesting, actually. The last scheme they wore was overall dark sea grey.

Apparently, there was an earlier prototype based on the mk iv, but the one represented here was a developed prototype based on the Panther. Reportedly, there were two of these later machines sent to Italy for service trials, but I have found no documentary evidence to support this.

I've built a half dozen of these and even rigged some for motors. The best approach I've found is to sand the tops of the frames to get rid of the step, then assemble the fuselage, complete with the cover, insert the tub from beneath and set the oxygen cylinder in place with tweezers, through the cockpit aperture, prior to fitting the voltage regulator and spine longeron parts. It is easier than it might sound and the moreso with practice.

Dip your brush in a suitable thinner before picking up the paint, as this will improve the flow and minimise any prominent streaks or brush marks and wait a full day before over coating, so that you aren't simply removing the previous coat with the solvent in the new one. Other than that, given how translucent some light colours can be, try a suitable undercoat to improve the key.

Count me in.

This aircraft is overall etch primer and the picture illustrates very well how zinc chromate primers can vary depending on batch, exact mix ratios, exposure to ultra-violet and heat and an endless list of other factors. The only way to replicate the finish properly, really, is to mix what you need. Amazing how much like wood it appears.

They are pretty much the same Loral pods as fitted to the Nimrod and derive from the same requirement identified during the Falklands conflict. They took slightly longer to appear on the Nimrod, as Hercs took priority due to the airbridge operation and the fact that Maggie needed a flying taxi to visit the islands after the shooting stopped.

Excellent work. Funnily enough, I've just dug mine out from the loft and brushed the dust off. It is a beautiful little kit, isn't it?

Keep an eye on Airfix's next Spitfire releases. That said, the 1/48 scale kits already released have both types of oil cooler and the exhausts, spinners and propeller and if you can cope with the blisters, you can cope with the rest. I've been looking at this myself for some time, as a lower priority.

There were two approaches taken to protecting P-51 gun barrels from dirt and water. The first, as illustrated by JackG's image, is exactly the same as that used by the RAF, which is to apply doped patches over the entire blast tube opening. The dope could be either clear, or the same red substance as used by the RAF. The second, more often used on the P-51d, is a rubber cap. This was normally red and similar to that used to cover the cannon barrels fitted to Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Based on my experience of the Xtracolour and Humbrol products and the real thing, the Xtracolour is a fair representation of a newly applied finish, whilst the Humbrol is a reasonable match for a finish that's weathered for a few months. Ocean Grey loses the blueness very quickly. Or it did before the more modern paint chemistries came along. Now they're very stable by comparison. When I first got onto the Humbrol stuff, I was unsure, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Yeah. Love to see how Bristow is going to manage down there, with their promise of twenty per cent quicker response times.

If you want another tease, next years Airfix calendar has, on it's back page, a Hurricane MkII c.

When I was doing my trade training in the RAF, we were regularly reminded that the primary reason for painting an aircraft was to prevent corrosion and that camouflage was of secondary importance. The Lightning might have been seen differently, as it was intended to be an interim type, which, once it became more permanent was rapidly given a decent coat of paint.

I've actually had all these problems with many other manufacturers including Tamigawa. I'm sure Airfix will get a handle on it and let's face it, in the time they've turned out two or three kits with some early release type snags, they've brought out an awful lot more excellent ones that tend to be overlooked when someone has a problem. Well, that's my measured understanding for the month. Back to ranting and raving.

The thing to remember is that the markings options provided by manufacturers, whether original or aftermarket, is that what they offer represents a snapshot of a particular time, or event, which has been captured in a documentary, but visual way. This means that when they go to production, they will have geared it to whatever information they have used as a reference, which might be one photograph taken on a particular day. By the next day, that image and, therefore the profile offered might be very different. As a modeller, it is often for you to decide from your own references, exactly what you want to represent and finish your model appropriately. As the subject of your model will have been used with a variety of different role fits, no-one can really tell you you are wrong unless such fits were demonstrably never used by a particular squadron, or aircraft. If you can show that it was that way, even if only once, then you are accurate. That said, it is your model and you can build it as you want and nobody should tell you different, even if you are prepared to converse about it.

Aircraft in the Far East didn't have the yellow leading edges because Japanese army and later naval aircraft already carried them. The markings were applied after the changes to camouflage in 1941 made British aircraft much closer in tone to luftwaffe machines as a means of identifying friend from foe as groups closed on each other.

Incidentally, right on top of the engine under the port fwd door sits the fuel metering bypass valve. This is operated by a solenoid, conveniently placed under an area prone to allowing rain water to gain entry. The rain could then drip on to the plug connected to the solenoid, so if the water injection was operated, it was possible for the valve to open, allowing unmetered fuel into the engine and then not close again when water was selected off. The end result was that it didn't then matter what position you moved the throttle to, the engine just stayed at max chat. Discovering this was not something you wanted when, as a Harrier taxi-pilot, you'd just completed a simulated carrier launch for trainee handlers and needed to make the turn at the end of the now rapidly disappearing hardstanding in the pouring rain.

Yes. I forgot the water tank. This sits entirely under the wing and is only accessible with the wing off.

Logical, no I don't have any pictures, unforunately. When it's your everyday job, you tend not to think of taking photographs. The doors are held at the hinges by pip-pins and the hinge beam carries the engine bay fire-wire, which has to be disconnected, before removal. The beam is also held by pip-pins, so you can have the top of the engine completely exposed within 15 minutes. As has been said, the wing is held on by four bolts, which engage with the lugs on the top longerons, fore and aft and a handful of electrical cables, the RCS ducts, one either side, the intake trunks from the leading edge intakes, or mouse ears, depending on the mark and LERX state and the aileron pushrods. After removal, the wing is placed on a large wheeled stand, which is fully adjustable to account for any variance in the exact fit of the mountings. Fitting the stand to the wing is often the longest part of the job. Engine removal is a matter of disconnecting the various cables and leads from their components, removing the nozzles, which are held on by a ring of bolts, the intake clamping band and the torque tubes from the air motor actuator, which drives the nozzles when the lever is moved in the cockpit. With the engine out, you have access to the heatshields and the rest of the fire-wire. Removing the shields gives you access to the centre fuel tank lids and the runs for the controls, aft RCS and ECS ducting. Some small part of this, as well as the fuel pumps and filters are also slightly accessible via small panels in the belly, but you won't get both hands in many of the holes they cover. There may be some images on Google that you can search up and the differences between the early Harriers and the later, plastic winged ones, whilst noticeable aren't actually that great.

For day to day maintenance on the line, the are two large engine doors which hinge on a spine bar. The doors can be removed by withdrawing the hinge pins, which are quickly removable. The spine bar is also quickly removable, giving relatively good access to the engine. Only if the engine is to be removed is the wing removed. The record for removing the wing, replacing the engine and refitting the wing during my time on type was just under three hours. Unfortunately, almost any job in the central area of the fuselage requires an engine lift and if you forget to disconnect the any of the wiring connected to the rear of the wing box, it gives the lekkies a reason to come out of the crew-room. Edited to say that the large doors are split, like the bomb-doors on a mosquito fighter-bomber, so they are actually effectively opened in left and right pairs. The rear sections tend to be opened slightly less frequently than the fwd sections.

Good story that and you've captured the final pages nicely.

Or Sea Spitfires, to give them their full designation.

Wooksta, of course you do. I've actually been quite impressed by the ones I've seen on here. I just didn't realise that's what you intended for the Shack. Now you've got me hanging out to see what you make of it.

Wooksta, I don't recall that the RAAF ever operated Shacks, going from Lincoln GR3's to P-2's. I can just about remember these entering service. The RAF operated Shacks from RAAF Butterworth, in Malasia until the '60's and, although they were pretty frequently seen at RAAF airfields, they never belonged to that Service. There again, I was young enough to be unaware of quite a bit back then, so I may be wrong.