The original Kit Builder

"M" would normally indicate maintenance. It is generally applied these days to airframes used for training maintenance personnel, or to indicate a squadron organisation involved in second/third line maint. I used to serve on 3(M) Sqn at St Athan, working on Harriers.

I stand corrected, thanks. It's over 40 years since I did any research on Horsas.

As I recall, the skid was held in the retracted position by a mechanical linkage, against spring pressure. Operating the linkage simply allowed the spring tp extend the skid. The main undercarriage was designed to be jettisonable and if it was discarded, the Horsa landed on the sprung skid and its nose-wheel. I'm not certain, now, but I think the skid was partly faired in when retracted. Interestingly, there was an abandoned proposal for a bomb carrying version, which was abandoned. Probably for the best. Edited to say that the retractable skid might not have been applicable to both marks.

That's the inlet and vent for the auxilliary oil cooler, I believe.

I think I work with her!

Then why do most airforces, including the USAF only carry them in four positions?

It looks to me as though these images are of the same machine just after D Day, as evidenced by the hastily applied stripes and then later, possibly after a repair or period of maintenance. Note the much neater stripes and the repainted name on the nose. It may even be possible that the Malcolm Hood is being fitted in the second image. There appear to be neither aerial mast or canopy, though the rails are clearly there. I understand it took the manufacturer's teams about to day to fit the hood. In the first image, the stripes would likely be applied per the directive and therefore surround both fuselage and wing. In the later picture, it may well be that the upper stripes have been removed iaw later practice. It looks to me that the nose checks are there in the later image, but not well lit. The yellow tips of the propeller blades are also almost invisible, too.

Recived last evening from T7 Models, who happens to be the proprietor of my favourite LHS, one Airfix 1/48 Hurricane "Ready for Battle" giftset. Given the price, for what's in the box, it feels like I stole it.

Yes, indeedy!

Deleted, due to me being a donkey, then, as the forum won't allow thw alternative word, which only the Americans use to mean bottom.

Wouldn't mind it in 1/48, meself.

I have found Tamiya's RAF Dark Green 2, released when their big Spitfire came out to be almost exactly right. It matches well the real stuff, which I have slung quite a bit of around.

EG-T MM417 was operated by 487 (New Zealand) Sqn in what would now be the strike fighter role. Most of their ops after being transferred to 2 TAF were precision daylight raids, including Operation Jericho and the destruction of Gestapo HQ's in Aachen and Copenhagen. Aircraft were finished in the day fighter scheme of ocean grey and dark green over medium sea grey, with OG spinners, sky codes and no fuselage band. The sqn was disbanded in Sep 1945, having flown 3112 combat sorties over 7892 flying hours. The sqn was awarded one VC and numerous other honours and awards. Their motto was ke te mutunga, which translates as "through to the end".

Do it anyway.

Ivor, Thanks for that. Chris

Thanks, Welkin.

I have an idea to recreate one of the famous photographs of 610 (County of Chester) Sqn, taken in June 1940. I will be using the new 1/48 Airfix MkI kit, in triplicate, with the decals for DW-K taken from the 2007 boxing. I need the markings, or at least codes for DW-O and DW-Q. DW-O is offered with the Tamiya kit. I am unaware of any aftermarket options for Q, but I should be able to resolve this with 2 Tamiya sheets. Are there any of you kind folks out there who have built Tamiya kits and not used the codes for the 610 option and who might be able to spare them, please? Thank you, Chris

You wouldn't credit howw little is being made of this around here, at the Sentinel of the Southwest. I work here and found out from my wife catching some small mention of it on the local news this morning and checking in to find this thread.

There are a few who post in these parts who have seen active service since WW2 ended, some in places many of you will not have heard of. I am one of them. I suspect that all of us will have lost family and friends in wars and their familes deserve empathy and recognition of sacrifices made. In my experience, warfare is never as black and white as some seem to believe. There are no winners and no "good guys and bad guys". There are people caught up in situations for which they can never have been prepared, set in motion by the statesmanship of ineptitude, jingoism, or the desire to seek power over another. The latter is as near as it is possible to get to "bad guys". These individuals usually use rhetoric and weight of personality to exploit the tendency of groups of people to stop thinking for themselves and follow the mob, either through a skewed sense of loyalty to that person, or the percieved common interest, or through fear of marking themselves out. This is exactly how Senator McCarthy was able to stir up such irrational paranoia in the USA in the 1950's and the ripples of his efforts are still being felt today. If one takes the time to look beyond the recieved history of the delivered curriculum, one can arrive at a far more balanced and mature view of the reality of the world and recognise that both sides in a conflict have those who could be considered heroes and those who could be accused of the worst offences. Of course, it is true that certain ideologies and cultures have allowed the worst in human nature to flourish and at times almost every nation has had such. Some merely have different values not properly understood and which outsiders see as wrong, but which those subject to them are perfectly content with. This thread is concerned with the morality of recreating, or not, miniatures connected to these ideologies and cultures and their place in history. If you only model one side of a conflict, that is of course only for you to reconcile, but you cannot tell the full story by doing so. If you build only because you like the lines of a particular prototype, that's fine, too and no-one is to say that you are wrong, though in such a case, your interest lies outside the scope of questions of morality and firmly within the realm of pursuing a hobby for the pleasure it gives and both are equally valid. For everyone concerned with wider implications, there is one who is not, but we, as modellers, should not have to justify an interest in the history of our subjects to anyone else. We offer a connection to events and people, often faceless and unremarked. The moral consequences of that history are for those who made it and those who ignore or deny the lessons it offers and the surest way to fall into that trap is to believe that only one side can be right.

And if this same diorama was diplayed at the Holocaust Museum, it would provke thought and drive home its point in a way made acceptable merely offering it in a different context. The truth is, the event depicted happened, every day, day in, day out, for years and regardless of where the diorama is displayed, the historical facts remain the same. That said, there are times when the expression of certain truths may be inappropriate, like when little Johnny is wandering about the show.

Matthew, as Brokenedge said, that is a great post and it's not the first time I've seen that clip. I truly appreciate the creative effort and dedication that's gone into the series, which is why I hope I gave it a fair crack and viewed it objectively. That said, the only aim of the producers of any film is to please as big an audience as possible. If nothing else, it's how they make money, though I firmly believe that in most cases the creators main aim is to produce something true to their creativity. The fact is that they were never going to please everyone, anyway, particularly the original Thunderbirds audience and they did have an awfully strong act to follow, but in this instance, the spirit of the original is gone. The suspense and build up are missing and, whatever the merits of this new version and it has many, a show about knife-edge rescues needs a suspenseful build to the climax. I really desperately wanted to like this version, but however clever the technology and cinematography, it is too deliberately cartoonish and two dimensional. I think perhaps the cleverness of it has become an end in itself, rather than an augmentation of the story telling. In truth, though, this is aimed at kids, which is why it's on a kids' channel and I'm sure many of them will be rapt by it.

This is also evident on the box art for the new ground crew figures.

It has been said that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. It's difficult to remember the lessons when one is unaware of the history, which is a very good reason for presenting as complete a picture as you can. Understanding the events you portray will help if you are challenged by some history airbrush wielding member of the PC brigade, as you can use your knowledge to challenge their attitudes and preconceptions, rather than allowing them to force you to justify yourself. Personally, I find seeking the context of everything I build as satisfying as the building itself, which adds to my enjoyment of the hobby. In doing so, you will also come to a far more balanced view of history than by relying on what little you might have been taught at school.

I gave this a good go and was inspired to buy the boxed set of the original series, which I find far better. I have really tried to be objective and view this on its own merits, including artistic ones, but have given up on it. The producers really should have watched the CGI Captain Scarlet and used it as a benchmark: At least that was true to the spirit of the original.

The fact that this question has been raised shows the importance of presenting, in context, the story behind any subject. Due to various sensitivities, many of them unwarranted and misplaced, much of the history of conflict and its human aspect has been lost to not only the current generation, but much of the last. Only by provoking thought in the viewer, will we contribute to the memory of events greater than us or the sum of their participants. Modelling both sides and being informed enough to offer an insight into the human experience of those participants is an effective way of highlighting their sacrifice and contribution to our collective future. The essential thing is to be as unbiased as you can be and present both sides. If you feel uncomfortable modelling one side or the other, that is something you must reconcile yourself, but be careful that, in doing so, you don't diminish the contribution of the side you do model. To do so is to offer a disservice to the viewer, yourself, the participants and history.