ColFord

Mentalguru, I think the only way that you will get the information you are looking for is via the station sections and profiles. Again, there is an issue in using these as they don't provide all the information on the shaping of panels between the various station sections - essentially you are getting 2D information at a number of points for what is a 3D subject. A good draftsman with the right background can interpolate these to create what would be drawings that would be close, but that may miss some of the subtleties of the original metal work. Charles Neely has done some very good work on producing scaled drawings of the later Merlin engined Mustangs, which seem to have met with a high degree of approval from those in know and involved in the 1:1 scale items. In developing them he did have a lot of help from those associated with full scale Mustangs in cross checking measurements and shapes. Charles did some work a while back on some of the Allison engined variants, but I am not too sure on how far that has progressed. Charles hangs out over at the P51SIG. The dimension drawings, taken from the M&E manuals were replicated in very large scale at the factory - or more likely the reverse the M&E manual drawings were taken in simplified and scaled down form from the larger scale factory drawings. These were used at check stations along the production line to ensure major assemblies and the final complete built aircraft fell, within a small tolerance of the required dimensions and specifications. I have in my collection a multi view blueprint drawing (dated 1942 and original) of the P-51/Mk.IA that was used at the final station of the NAA assembly line for just that purpose of providing the reference for the final measurements before acceptance if within tolerances, or sending back for rectification if outside tolerances. It also includes a table of key measurements and dimensions, plus the major sub assembly and final assembly details. There are some similarities in the profile of the A-36A radiator assembly to that of the Mk.I and Mk.IA, but there are detail differences. In the case of the A-36A, feedback on the radiator assembly from the Mk.I and Mk.IA was fed back into changes that showed up in the A-36A design. General layout of the immediate area around the radiator core was very similar, but the detail either side is different. And compare how simple the P-51A intake arrangement is to the A-36A intake. Realistically, this type of thread can only scratch the surface of the range of information possible about this subject.

As promised in my posting above, found the Mustang Mk.I wing diagram. Mustang Mk1 AG Wing_zpswcs8tpyk by Colin Ford, on Flickr Also another view of the air intake scoop in the open position. MkIAFactoryIntake by Colin Ford, on Flickr and another MustangMk1radiator by Colin Ford, on Flickr Steve, Sorry, I have not done any real research into the R-R converted Mustang Mk.Is. From memory, someone, might have been Derek Pennington did a kit-bash conversion in 1/48th using either an AM or ICM fuselage and wings, combined with the nose of an Academy Hispano HA-1112 Buchon and a fair bit of "some modelling skills required", along with plasticard and filler. Again from memory, I think he posted some pics of this over at Hyperscale in the Plastic Pics forum. No one that I know has done a aftermarket conversion for this, or the NAA prototypes, which were also quite different. There is a thread running over at the P51SIG on the XP-51B and the variations it went through, has produced some interesting photos. Regards,

All, Firstly, my apologies to all on dial up connections for what now follows. Secondly, thanks to Jim for his kind words. I try and do my bit to improve the state of knowledge about the use of Allison engined Mustangs by the RAF, the Squadrons that used them, and in particular my own speciality, No.268 Squadron. Realistically to cover off all the detail everyone would want to do a really, really, 100% accurate RAF Mustang Mk.I, Mk.IA or MK.II, would take a rather sizable publication in its own rights (think something the size and quality of "Southern Cross Mustangs" by David Muir). Hopefully that publication is on its way, it is just a matter of WHEN as a project of this type and size takes time and requires a publisher! And even then not everything everyone would want would be included as some aspects of these aircraft are not 100% understood, documented or have the information publicly available. There is dedicated research ongoing about this subject, but like all things it takes time to conduct the research, find and review the required information and then analyse it to reach a considered conclusion. Unfortunately some of the key information needed to provide definitive answers to some questions that have been raised over the years, probably lies in a landfill somewhere, mouldering away or long gone, dumped or destroyed in the culling of files and records in the years since the War. Or the person who knew has unfortunately passed some years ago before such matters warranted recording for posterity. In relation to issues with the Accurate Miniatures P-51/Mustang Mk.IA kits,and the others in 1/48th scale depicting Allison engined Mustang variants, the P-51A and A-36, plus the Hobbycraft scale up of these kits to 1/32nd scale, there are a few. There was a series of threads going into detail and sharing information on the P51SIG which covered off the main areas where there were issues with outline or accuracy. I also provided an article to Cybermodeller about some of the issues and giving some specifics on RAF Allison Mustangs. I have provided information to aftermarket manufacturers, including photographs and diagrams of the key aftermarket detail or correction components they could produce to enable modellers to produce better models of RAF Allison Mustangs, especially the Mk.I and Mk.IA. Now we have to wait and see if any items come forth. Similarly, some years back I did provide information to AM and later to someone working with Hobbycraft on their Allison Mustangs, information to provide original and accurate references to improve their products. Results....nada, nothing, zip!! Ignored. Some of the issues with the AM/.Hobbycraft kits is quite simply the compromises many kit manufacturers will make in order to get the maximum number of variants out of one basic set of mouldings. The other issues possibly relate to the sources of information they had available to them and used at the time that they were designing the moulds. To revise and correct moulds now, especially if fundamental changes are required, is probably considered to be prohibitive on cost grounds. Now back to some basics, from the P-51 Structural Repair Manual used by both the RAF and USAAF the following basic dimensions for the various Allison engined Mustangs: Mustang NA83/Mustang Mk.I Span - 37' 5/16" Length (overall) - 32' 2 7/8" Height - 11' 10 9/16" Stabiliser (span) - 13' 2 1/8" Fuselage width (max) - 34" Fuselage height (max) - 60 1/4" Mustang P-51/Mk.IA NA91 Span - 37' 5/16" Length (overall) - 32' 2 7/8" Height - 11' 10 9/16" Stabiliser (span) - 13' 2 1/8" Fuselage width (max) - 35" * (contradicted in an earlier variant of manual as being 34", same as Mk.I) Fuselage height (max) - 62" * (contradicted in an earlier variant of manual as being 60 1/4", same as Mk.I) Prop Diameter - 10' 6" A36 NA97 Span - 37' 5/16" Length (overall) - 32' 2 7/8" Height - 11' 10 9/16" Stabiliser (span) - 13' 2 1/8" Fuselage width (max) - 35" * Fuselage height (max) - 62" * Mustang P-51A/Mk.II NA99 Span - 37' 5/16" Length (overall) - 32' 2 7/8" Height - 11' 10 9/16" Stabiliser (span) - 13' 2 1/8" Fuselage width (max) - 35" * Fuselage height (max) - 62" * * Of note is the wider maximum fuselage width and taller maximum fuselage height of the later Allison engined Mustangs compared to the original NA83/Mustang Mk.I. Dimensions in the individual aircraft plans showing major components are notated as: "All dimensions are given to the next integral inch." Following apply to Mustang I, A-36A, P-51A and P-51 Height of rudder - 75" (from the diagram in the RAF Mustang Mk.IA E&M manual it is given as 73 9/16" Depth of rudder - 31" Width of rudder widest point - 7 " Depth vertical stabiliser - 39" (from forward most part to rudder hinge line) Do the maths for the scale and apply to your subject of choice. Who comes closest now? MustangI3viewPilots by Colin Ford, on Flickr Okay, got your interest................... Then I refer those interested to the following diagrams. In particular, look at how the draftsman has drawn the profile shape of the under fuselage radiator housing. Note the differences in shape between the variants Mustang I, A-36A, P-51A. MustangI3viewdimensions by Colin Ford, on Flickr P-513viewdimensions by Colin Ford, on Flickr P-51AA-363viewdimensions by Colin Ford, on Flickr Illustrations from Mustang Mk.IA E&M Manual, 1943, showing radiator air scoop assembly - closed and open. RadiatorAirScoopsMkIIA by Colin Ford, on Flickr Other bits for others: A-36ARadiatorScoopAssembly by Colin Ford, on Flickr P-51RadiatorScoopAssembly by Colin Ford, on Flickr Note here the caption on this factory diagram is misleading, as the A-36A scoop bears no real similarity to that on the Mustang Mk.I and P-51/Mk.IA. The Mustang Mk.I and Mk.IA both had a moveable front radiator intake ramp. The shape of this intake ramp and the associated fairing around it, was to best describe it, whilst still being rounded, is flatter and squarer than that fitted to the A-36 and P-51A. AM in their effort, utilised the same base rear fuselage moulding for all their Allison Mustangs. They utilised a different front fuselage section from the firewall break line forward to allow the different carburettor air intake shapes above the nose and nose armament options; and provided a different front radiator intake moulding. They then also provided the three basic different variations in wings to cover the main variants. The radiator intake moulding as provided by AM for the P-51/Mk.IA is basically inaccurate. The A-36 and P-51A both had fixed radiator intake ramps which had a more rounded and fatter aspect, and the AM efforts here are closer to the mark. Whereas the intake on the Mustang Mk.I and Mk.IA sat up closer to the bottom of the fuselage, the intake on the A-36 and P-51A both sat lower with a more pronounced lip. This redesign came about due to experience with the earlier intake version and issues with untidy boundary air movement around the radiator intake lip setting up buffeting and inefficient movement of 'clean' air into the intake. From my private collection: MustangMk1Wing by Colin Ford, on Flickr Mk.I Wing MustangCannon by Colin Ford, on Flickr Mk.IA cannon, RAF style Photo4 by Colin Ford, on Flickr Mk.IA underside - spot the key error(s) AM and Hobbycraft have made on the underside? For a starter there are no underwing id lights and secondly the reinforcing plate/deflector in front of the air intake on the kit, it isn't on the real thing. And somewhere if I can find it, will post later, I have the wing layout diagram, top and bottom for the Mustang Mk.I, showing key features, ammo hatch layout, etc. Now if AM or Hobbycraft, wanted to do a reasonably accurate Mustang Mk.I, they would have to do both a new nose section with the narrow carburettor air intake, the 'cheek' guns, the wings with Mk.I armament and armament hatches/shell & link ejection chutes, and revised front radiator intake ramp moulding. Not a minor undertaking. If you search back through the forum here at Britmodeller, over at Hyperscale and over at the P51SIG, you will find a number of instances where I have provided information in the details of aircraft shape, configuration, camouflage and markings for RAF Allison engined Mustangs, covering the Mk.I, Mk.IA, Mk.II, and the occasional foray into the A-36 and US specification aircraft borrowed by or issued to RAF units by the USAAF in the MTO. Are we happy now?

Hacker, Getting down to that level of detail and that type of question, I'd suggest going over to the P-51SIG, joining up there and asking the question there. You will probably find someone there will either have the information you are after or be able to point you in the right direction. For all matters P-51 and Mustang, that is the place to ask. Regards,

Mentalguru's comment in his post back at post #28 to this thread about the Accurate Miniatures 1/48th tail being too tall got me thinking. So I pulled out my various Mustangs from various manufacturers of various marks, but all in 1/48th scale. I measured at the same point on all, along the rudder hinge line, firstly using my trusty calipers and then secondly a really good metal ruler. So I took two measurements of each. The results were: Tamiya P-51B/C, Mustang Mk.III & P-51D - 40mm ICM P-51A/Mustang Mk.II, P-51B/C, P-51D - 40mm Pegasus (Snap kit) P-51B/C - 40.5mm Accurate Miniatures P-51/Mustang Mk.IA, P-51A/Mustang Mk.II - 41.0mm (couldn't get at my AM P-51B/C to measure, but potentially it should be the same as the other two from AM) Now given the rudder remained the same throughout Mustang production from Mk.I to P-51D, that is in all the technical manuals the dimensions given and parts numbers are consistent, there should be no difference in the height of the rudder between these. I have yet to do the conversions translating from 1:1 scale to 1:48 scale to see which comes out closest or most accurate given those measurements. Something to consider, certainly. But if the AM rudder is too tall, it would not take much to sand a little bit off both top and bottom edges, rescribe the rudder hinge line at top and bottom and be within a close scale tolerance of the real thing. And Gingerbob, yes, there is artistic licence in most of what we do, it just depends on what type of licence you have!! Good work by the way over on the P51SIG on the fuselage height difference. I had not gotten to the stage of pulling out all the copies of the T&M Manuals for the various types to check the measurement information. Someone over there usually has the answer to hand. And I do have a couple of kits to one side to do one of No.3 RAAF Sqdns Mustang Mk.IIIs, one of their Mk.IVs, and one of the colourful RNZAF post-War Territorials schemes. Also have my Hobbycraft Mustangs in the stash. Waiting for the aftermarket guys to get cracking on the correction bits.

Hi All, The PRU Blue Mustang is one of the aircraft used by No.541 Squadron in mid to late 1944. Primarily used for hunting V weapon sites in northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. A couple of photos of the PRU Blue Mustangs have turned up and the aircraft serials have been identified from the Squadron records - don't have then to hand at the moment. P2040192 by Colin Ford, on Flickr P2040188 by Colin Ford, on Flickr The PRU Pink 'dicer' Mustang is, "shock horror!!" the result of my threat to do a "what if" Mustang, if No.16 Squadron, who had previously flown Mustang Mk.Is, had kept Mustangs and in stead of having their PRU Pink Spitfire FR.IXs, had PRU Pink Mustang FR.IIIs. It always grabs attention. The aircraft id letter is 'Y' with a Pink Panther mascot with the motto "Y Not?". I built it just after doing a model of a No.16 Sqdn PRU Pink Spitfire FR.IX, the one coded 'X', so doing 'Y' was a simple progression. PinkMustang16 by Colin Ford, on Flickr I've also done another "what if" Mustang FR.III, but armed with the 4 x 20mm cannon armament of the Mk.IA and with oblique and vertical camera fit, in a 2TAF early 1945 c&m scheme. P2050226 by Colin Ford, on Flickr P2050231 by Colin Ford, on Flickr And looking at the ICM P-51D and ICM Mustang II for a kitbash to create an Allison engined 'D' as another 'what if', but that one is low on the priority list to build. Have a few more serious and real projects ahead of it.

"Right click, save" Thanks Jonners.

And just to prove that you can build an RAF Allison Mustang in 1/48th scale using the AM kit, or in one instance the ICM P-51A with a bit of modelling skills, left over bits from other kits and decals from the stash.......... AllisonModels by Colin Ford, on Flickr This was a contribution to a display of Mustangs at the ACT Scale Modellers Association show in May 2009 to co-incide with the launch of "Southern Cross Mustangs" by David Muir (if you are into RAAF or RNZAF Mustangs, this is THE book for you!!). And still building more, I have about eight of the AM P-51/Mustang Mk.IA and P-51A kits still in stock with a build program to produce many more Allison Engined Mustangs in RAF service. Currently working on one in Operation Starkey Markings. AND finally, the 1/72nd scale Mustangs to the right were built by Dick Hourigan (Google "Dick Hourigan Mustang" and you'll see!)

Wez, Okay lets work this through. F.24 camera mounts in RAF Mustangs, online images go to the IWM website, to their photo collections search and the following images will provide some pointers: H 28781 H 28782 CH 17415 CH 20403 CH 13455 C 3984 One of those is a top view of a Mk.IA of 35(Recce) Wing of which No.II(AC) Sqdn and No.268 Sqdn were both the Mk.IA users. Also for a photo of the Tomahawk camera installation CH 17187, similarly doing a search there on Tomahawk will bring up images that include some of ACC Sqdn Tomahawks in the UK. The Mustang Mk.IAs were painted into a very standardised scheme after they were reassembled in the UK. They were received from NAA in the US in the temperate land scheme and national markings using the earlier A and A1 type roundels and fin flashes. So they were stripped and repainted using standard RAF paints in the Day Fighter Scheme with C and C1 type roundels and fin flashes. The following is my own diagram of the camo pattern, overlaid over the AM instructions. This is the diagram I developed based on reference to original photographs of the real aircraft, not off someone else's previously published and inaccurate profiles. MustangMk1ADiagram by Colin Ford, on Flickr When 268 was at Odiham in 1943, when they first received the Mk.IAs, aircraft were in the standard scheme, with one major change. Someone got the yellow wing leading edge painting instructions wrong. They painted them from the wingtip to the wing root. Aircraft had the aircraft single id letter ahead of the fuselage roundel in sky, serial in night under the tail plane. By November 1943 the wing leading edge yellow id strip had been corrected so that it was only from wingtip to just outboard of the outboard cannon fairing. Aircraft at that time were: FD507H, FD492 G, FD486 L, FD551 O, FD555 M, FD482 K, FD495 R, FD445 A, FD539 F FD475 C, FD440 P and FD533 G. Aircraft when back at Odiham after D-Day in July-August 1944 were: FD541 T, FD502 R, FD488 D, FD480 G, FD474 K, FD562 C, FD561 O, FD477 R, FD476 B, FD562 C and not forgetting FD472 M. Aircraft at this stage only had the D-Day distinctive markings under the wings and under the rear fuselage. There was nothing really distinctive from one aircraft to the next. Personal markings were very, very rare as aircraft were basically allocated to pilots on an availability basis, they did not have an aircraft that was normally "theirs", excepting the OC who had his preferred aircraft, but did use others. Aircraft were generally clean and well cared for. They were regularly cleaned, polished and maintained so as to keep a smooth airframe for maximum speed. I refer back to the references I gave in an earlier post. The 2TAF volumes in particular have some good material. Also if you go to Large Scale Planes, Works in Progress, Ironman 1945 is doing a really good build of converting the Hobbycraft Mk.IA to a Mk.I and has done some excellent work on the cockpit, camera and radio fit. Plus lots of other detail stuff. http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=23080 HTH,

Bob, As Wez says, that is the way that particular Squadron is correctly titled. If someone refers to them as No.2 Squadron RAF, it's like referring to them as the 2nd Fighter Squadron of the RAF. In all the official documentation, their squadron history, even on the Squadron Standard, they are No.II(AC) Squadron RAF. I am referring to the Squadron therefore by what is its correct title and what is their historically correct title for that time. Just a bit of pedantry, but also I don't want to upset one of my close friends who was OC of the Squadron and who would proverbially "have my guts for garters" if I referred to "his Squadron" incorrectly. The AM kits in 1/48th do have issues in regards to their accuracy of outline and detail. However, they are the best and only solution out there. A passable facsimile of an Allison engined Mustang can be made with them if you do some corrections and are prepared to accept some compromises on accuracy. To do a Mk.I from the Mk.IA kit does take a fair bit of effort, particularly in relation to the armament and wing modifications. As the inner main gear doors on the Allison Mustangs are normally closed on the ground, it is easier to get away with the issues about the rear 'wall' of the undercarriage bays compared to the other Marks. I've built a number of the AM 1/48th Allison Mustangs, made the more essential modifications, particularly those that differentiate the RAF aircraft from the US variants AM provide in their mouldings, utilised Tamiya or vacform canopies, various Ultracast bits, and been happy with the results. Special Hobby did a Mustang Mk.I in 1/72nd scale, in looking around a few reviews can be found: http://kits.kitreview.com/mustangi72reviewgp_1.htm http://arcmodeler.com/Gal9/8701-8800/gal87...-51-AEX/00.shtm Wez, If you are looking for a subject from one of those Squadrons at Odiham, for a particular timeframe and a particular nationality of pilot, if you can state your preferences I will see what I can either point you towards by way of publicly available sources or what I may have in my own archives/collection. For more on Mustang Mk.IAs, you can also see here: http://www.clubhyper.com/eyesoftheinvasioncf_1.htm The model in that article has been since corrected.

Wez, If you are looking for a Mk.IA or a Mk.II that flew out of Odiham, you are restricted to either No.II(AC) Sqdn or No.268 Sqdn. 268 was there three times with Mk.IAs, May to September 1943 (transitioned from Mk.Is to Mk.IAs whilst at Odiham), back briefly October 8 to 15 1943, then post D-Day 27 June to 10 August 1944. No.II(AC) Sqdn was there post D-Day with mainly Mk.IIs, dates arrived the same but left about a week ahead of 268. In the case of No.II(AC) and 268 Sqdns they passed through Odiham in 1944 as a staging base before going to ALGs in France. Most of the other Mustang units who were at Odiham for longer were equipped with the Mk.Is. HTH.

Mentalguru, I don't know if I fully understood your question, but certainly the underneath radiator intake on the Mustang Mk.I and Mk.IA had a different shape, being a 'squarer' and flatter sided and based shape. In part this was a function of the original moving ramp design for the intake. As you mention, the intake provided by AM and Hobbycraft on their P-51 and Mk.IA is actually that of the P-51A which had a redesigned and fixed radiator intake. With some work with filler, plasticard and files you could reshape this area on these kits to provide a more accurate shape. Or someone could maybe make a complete resin replacement piece of the correct shape? Hint, hint!! (Certain resin people lurk) Fuselage depth variation depends on where you measure it as your base datum point, but certainly the Merlin Mustangs were deeper in the body. But the basic structure of the rear fuselage was pretty much the same from the A to the B/C - Gery Becks new build 1:1 scale P-51 project was a good example of that fact. And a basic fact that supports the difference in fuselage depth is that in the Allison Mustangs the cockpit floor is the top skin of the wing structure, on the Merlin Mustangs it is a plywood floor suspended some inches above the top skin of the wing structure. Dan, Six A-36s surplus to immediate use by the USAAF in the MTO were loaned to/borrowed by, the RAF for use by 1437 Strategic Reconnaissance Flight in July 1943 in Tunisia. Serials were 42-83829, 42-83898, 42-83906, 42-84018, 42-84019 & 42-84117. They were given individual aircraft id code letters A thru F. Known RAF serials are HK944, HK946, HK947, HK955 and HK956. They were used until around mid-October 1943 when combat losses and issues with supply of spares, plus lack of replacement aircraft saw the flight disbanded. There are a couple of photos of these aircraft around. They retained the original USAAF Olive Drab over Neutral Gray scheme, with RAF markings applied in usual locations, red prop spinner, aircraft code letter in white and odd shaped patches described as being similar to a zinc chromate colour on the cowling and aircraft spine, which may have been gas detection paint. This incorrectly captioned photo shows one of these aircraft: http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P03372.003 The aircraft used by 225 Squadron were a different lot of aircraft and were USAAF P-51s, to US spec not RAF spec. So a range of little difference between the two. HTH

To add to the previous posts: Allison engined Mustang in RAF Service Mustang Mk.I - 4 x 0.50 HMG and 4 x 0.30 MG - no US P-XX designation as solely British production aircraft. Mustang Mk.IA - 4 x 20mm Hispano Mk.II* cannon - straight P-51 designation, no suffix letter. Built under Lend Lease for RAF, approx 50 retained by USAAF, balance of approx 90 delivered to RAF. Mustang Mk.II - 4 x 0.50 HMG and two underwing hardpoints - P-51A in US service. 50 delivered to RAF to make up shortfall in deliveries of Mustang Mk.IA. RAF did not use the underwing hardpoint and fit the stores carriers or drop tanks. Not forgetting the sole A-36 tested in the UK by the RAF and the couple of borrowed A-36s in the MTO. 6 x 0.50 HMGs and two underwing hardpoints. There are a whole range of difference between the Allison engined Mustangs and the Merlin engined versions Some like the differences in nose profile, depth of fuselage from wing to to fuselage/canopy top and from wing top to bottom of radiator assembly, and wing profile, especially the forward edge of the wing and the 'kink' for the undercarriage wells are still not particularly well understood or have been well portrayed in outline drawings or scale models. Other difference are much more subtle - such as the variations in the radiator intake shapes and side profiles between the various Allison engined variants, compared to the Merlin versions. Too many profile artists start with a P-51B/C side profile then sort of graft an Allison engined nose on and fiddle around with the under fuselage radiator housing and end up with something that looks odd - too deep and therefore fat. Alongside a P-51B/C, the Allison engined version is much slimmer. When you get into the detail difference all the kits to date show the US radios, not those fitted by the RAF, and a vague approximation of the actual camera mounting arrangements for those fitted with the oblique recce camera. Not being a modeller in 1/72nd scale I can not comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the various offerings from the various manufacturers. I have heard variously that the Academy and Italeri offerings have issues with outline and shape, but are buildable. The old Frog Mustang Mk.II shows its age, but can be built up to a reasonable facsimile with a little effort and stealing of detail bits from other kits. The Accurate Miniatures models in 1/48th are fairly good, although they too suffer from a range of accuracy and outline issues, but nothing a bit of modelling skills can't fix. The Hobbycraft 1/32nd kits just replicate the AM issues bigger and with 'softer' detail in a number of areas. RAF Squadrons that used Allison engined Mustangs were: No.II(AC), No.4, No.16, No.26, No.63, No.116, No.168, No.169, No.170, No.239, No.241, No.260, No.268, No.309 (Polish), No.400 (RCAF), No.414 (RCAF), No.430 (RCAF), No.516 and No.613. Only two RAF Squadrons used all three main marks of Allison Mustang, Mk.I, Mk.IA and Mk.II, being No.II(AC) Sqdn and No.268 Sqdn. Last to use them operationally was No.268 Sqdn who was still using some of their last Mk.IAs and Mk.IIs until August 1945. Only No.II(AC) Sqdn and No.268 Sqdn used the Mk.II. There are a couple of resources out there. Richard J Caruana did profiles of Allison engined Mustangs in the October 2008 issue of Model Airplane International. Only a couple of minor errors snuck through in those, mainly as a result of time pressure for the deadline - he had some specialist advice on those. Then there is the "Mustangs in RAF and Commonwealth Service" by Jon Freeman, reasonably good, but some errors. The old Ducimus RAF Fighter Command Camouflage and Markings by Goulding & Jones is a good primer, but is flawed in a number of areas as they were working with what information was publicly available when written and also worked off a lot of original wartime photo captioning which has proven misleading or incorrect since then. For examples of RCAF Mustang Mk.Is, the new book from Aviaeology by Carl Vincent and illustrated by Terry Higgins on RCAF WW2 Aircraft in Profile, has some very good examples - Terry is doing some very good work on his early Mustang profiles, more to come. The four volumes of 2TAF by Shores and Thomas also had a number of good profiles and original photographs of a number of Allison Mustangs included. The definitive book on the use of Mustangs of all marks by the RAF is still on its way. It is being researched, it is being written, it is just taking time to pull it all together and get it published. Modellers will love it, I am sure. HTH.

My copy of the Aviaeology Sharkmouth Typhoon decals in 1/48th scale arrived here in Australia, all the way from Canada, yesterday. Nicely packaged and protected by a thick piece of corrugated cardboard they arrived safely, unbent and unmarked. Looking at the decals themselves they look to be very well printed with good colour saturation, no obvious pixelation or dot matrix, good solid colour. They are beautifully in register and have absolute minimal carrier film evident around the individual decals. The ink colours used look to my eye to be spot on. The real test will come when it comes time to apply them to the built and painted model, to see how they go on and settle onto the surfaces. I've cheated with the printable, full colour pdf instructions. Juggled the print set up and printed them in size A3 rather than A4 and went for the best print settings I could get. Having the instructions twice the normal size makes it easier for us older modellers with the aging eyes. Will also make it easier come building time to spot things I need to know to make a really good Sharkmouth Typhoon. Ideally the 0964 Typhoon Mk.1B 'No.193 Squadron' or 09379 Typhoon Mk.1B 'No.137 Squadron' boxings of the Typhoon are a good starting point as they come with the four bladed propeller, but they would probably be pretty hard to find these days. Hopefully Hasegawa might get the message and do another production run of their various Typhoons as I can see a resurge in interest in modelling Typhoons happening. Regards,

Chris, Many thanks for the reply. The photos you pointed to are very useful. Having looked through them I think I know what rocket rail bits and pieces from various kits I can combine to make a passable Mk.III rail to go on my model of a Shark Mouth Typhoon. Airwaves do a resin Mk.III rail in 1/48 which is still listed on the Hannants web site, but the picture on their site is not really useful in showing if they got the detail right. P.S. Chris if you have good photos you want to have posted of the differences between the different rocket rails, you have my email address, happy to put them up for you. Regards

Chris, That then begs the question "what's the difference between the Mk.I (steel) and Mk.III (aluminium) rocket rails?" Any good pictures in any volume of 2TAF or your other previous publications that show the differences? (Quote volume and page number please!) Regards,

And to really add the icing on your shark mouth Typhoon, don't forget the Hawker Typhoon Radiator with Dust Filter - Ultracast 48059; and the Hawker Typhoon/Tempest Tailplanes (with nice separate elevators) - Ultracast 48080; and maybe the Hawker Typhoon wheels - Ultracast 48073. Yep, got them in my stash along with the Hasegawa JT-60, four bladed prop, Ultracast pilot's seat and a set of exhausts.

There is a series of files in the UK Archives at Kew, both Air Ministry and War Office files that set out the discussion (polite way of putting it) between the Air Ministry and the War Office about close air support for the Army. It covers the suggestions made by the Army in terms of numbers and types of aircraft, the types of roles they would like to see fulfilled and what they thought the Air Ministry, Ministry of Aircraft Production and RAF should do to meet those Army requirements. Having been on the receiving end of dive bombers in 1940, the Army was best described as infatuated by the type, and repeatedly listed a dive bomber type as one of their requirements. Now these discussions go from 1940 until early 1944, so cover a lot of ground in terms of the structure of the RAF - the existence and disbandment of Army Co-operation Command, changes to the RAF command structure based on operational experience, creation of 2TAF, etc. It also covers a lot of aircraft types from various sources put forward as meeting the proposed requirements. Some of these were inherited types (such as the P-40 Tomahawks) as the result of orders placed by Allied nations passing to UK control, others are orders placed in the early days of the war when various types were ordered without a clear purpose or understanding of their performance in operationally modified state was understood. A rapid buildup in force was required of relatively modern types, so all sorts of aircraft were ordered. The Brewster Bermuda was one of the types ordered as a result of the War Office pressure for a dive bomber for Army Co-operation use, but also a multi-place aircraft of reasonable performance to undertake certain Army Co-operation tasks that were considered could not be undertaken by a single seat fighter. In part they were looking for an aircraft that could carry out some of the tasks previously performed by the Lysander and be more survivable in the type of environment encountered by the ACC Squadrons in France in 1940. So the Bermuda would have been fitted with oblique and vertical cameras, plus a hand held reconnaissance camera for the observor gunner, with the added advantage that it could also perform dive bombing and had a heavier offensive and defensive armament than the Lysander had. It could effectively haul more, faster and further, with a supposed degree of higher survivability compared to the Lysander and thus be more responsive to Army demands on the ground in a fluid, modern battlefield environment. They were also looking for a type that could perform the other tasks, such as laying smoke screens and if required deployment of the chemical/gas weapons of the era from the air that were a part of the Army Co-operation role. So the ability to carry the requisite equipment for those roles and a reasonable payload were also in the equation. The STOL capabilities of the Lysander were not included in this requirement and were to continue to be provided by the Lysander or some newer type to be developed. The place of the single seat fighter types in the close air support and Army Co-operation role was also heavily discussed, and the battle between fighters for purely fighter/air superiority work versus fighters for other purposes eg. Army Co-operation, tactical reconnaissance, was an ongoing one. As it was, the Tac/R pilots who flew them reckoned they got the best deal with the Allison engined Mustangs. Certainly in these discussions there was a lot of inter service politics, some political influence from various parties and requests that were just pure "pie in the sky" in terms of the numbers, types and delivery timeframes proposed. As it was, the RAF held a particular line and based on experience with the development of the close air support model from the Western Desert and from numerous exercises in the UK, we ended up with 2TAF and the aircraft types we are all familiar with. The whole Army close air support system was a continual work in progress right up until the end of the war in Europe, with new ideas and innovations (some good, some bad) being trialled, adopted or dropped all the time. Early trials by the RAF of the Bermuda showed up a number of flaws in its flight behaviour, performance and the considered opinions of those with recent operational experience, of the survivability of the type in the ETO threat environment. As such, it didn't take much for the RAF to happily drop any ideas of the Bermuda being adopted for operational use in the close air support role. There were a number of universal sighs of relief from RAF aircrew in ACC squadrons, and as history has shown, the aircraft types they did use in ACC and later 2TAF were able to more and ably do the job requested of them. So 'if', the 'if' being underlined, the RAF had been coerced, politically out manoeuvred by the Army or similar and the RAF had to adopt the Bermuda as an Army Co-operation, close air support type from say 1942 onwards, what would it have looked like by D-Day? What c&m scheme would it have worn? Lots of interesting ideas in the above threads. A lot depends on how the RAF viewed the Bermuda and the role it was to play. Consistency with other light bomber types in service in 1944, or given how Bermuda units may have been grouped into Army Co-operation Wings or Groups, similar schemes to the other types in use eg. Mustang, Spitfire FR variants? It could have gone either way as the RAF as we know it in 1944, with ADGB and 2TAF, may have been a quite different 'beast' if the politics and aircraft panned out differently. Just my non-decimal 'tuppence worth'.

There is also a thread running over on Hyperscale on wheel well colours on Mustangs. It is under the heading "P-51 D, Tuskegee Airmen colour question" dated 3 January, so still on page one of Plane Talking at this time. There is a response post by Eric Whipple about four posts down which includes three colour photos, two of Allison engined P-51s, the third is of a P-51B/C which may be of help. I'd back David Muir's response. In his acknowledgements in Southern Cross Mustangs, there is more than one person who has researched, flown, restored or maintained Mustangs in a truly hands on way and one of his close collaborators co-owns and was heavily involved in the restoration of a Mustang flying in Australia today. Of course the basic fact that the wheel well in the Tamiya P-51 Mustang kits of various marks and models is wrong in it's depiction of the rear undercarriage well 'wall', nyah, just build it and have fun!!

Not as "shake n bake" as Tamiya, but with a little care and attention can build up okay. There are some aftermarket bits out there that can help it, but a lot of the visible things you can fix with a bit of modelling skill and scratch building. The canopy on mine wasn't too bad, nothing a dip in Future didn't help. I did one a couple of years back and it came up okay. I still have one of the CMK resin conversions to use with the Tamiya base kit to do another, but given the amount of cutting, grinding and preparatory work for that one, I'm saving it for when I have more time. However, the Airfix kit can buildup quite nicely as shown: And with the Airfix kit at the end of the day you end up with a stack of spare bits and pieces left over for the spares box and other projects. HTH. Regards,

I built one of the original Hasegawa Spitfire Mk.IX out of the box, but modified slightly to depict one of the No.16 Sqdn pink Spitfires from 1944. Went together well and looked well finished. I didn't worry about the discrepancy in length when I built it as I was looking for a quick and enjoyable build. However, in my display cabinet, alongside a couple of correct length Spitfires of various marks, and especially alongside a correct length Mk.IX, it does just look, well, "stumpy". Viewed on its own, not a problem, alongside other Spitfires it is noticeably short. Amazing what a difference a few mms make. But by all means, build and enjoy, they go together really well.

Doug, It is a re-pop. In terms of the main mouldings, no differences, so it has all the issues the Hasegawa original did. Having bought and built both the biggest difference I detected between the two was in the plastic used and price. The Hasegawa version had a softer and more "user friendly" plastic and was about 1/3rd more expensive, the Revell version used a harder and more brittle plastic that showed a tendency not to like some plastic glues - I eventually used some Faller plastic glue I had - and was cheaper here in Oz. Hasegawa decals were good, Revell ones we'll see. In between use, on the Revell version they removed all the tags on the sprues where Hasegawa had their name and logo. And Revell don't do the version which included the extra sprue with the underwing beer keg that came with the Hasegawa JE-J version. I'm currently in the process of using the Revell base kit, with the Aeroclub corrected fuselage, plus the Quickboost Spitfire PR.XI conversion sets, Aeroclub vac form canopy and a whole lot of filler, rescribing and "some modelling skills" to turn the Mk.IX into a PR.XI. Aeroclub corrected fuselage works well, the extra length does make it look less stumpy. I have a couple more Revell kits and the Aeroclub Spitfire XII conversion and another Aeroclub Mk.IX correction for future use. And of course now Airfix has announced they are going to be doing an out of the box Spitfire XII in 1/48th in 2010. Ho-hum!! HTH

Yes, combined with the previous three volumes a brilliant resource and source of modelling inspiration. Chris Thomas has let slip in another forum that he has in the works via a decal manufacturer some decals in various scales on his favourite subject, Typhoons. After Volume 4 went to print, photos surfaced of the 'shark mouth' Typhoon giving codes and serials, so there is one of the proposed subjects. I think there is going to be a run on stocks of Hasegawa 1/48th Typhoons somehow. Regards,

I will bow to Glenn's status as Tiffie King. My expertise is purely around those used by No.268 Squadron and I have to give a lot of credit to Chris Thomas and a few other specialist researchers who have shared their research with me. I've built two Hasegawa 1/48 scale Typhoons to represent aircraft used by the Squadron. The first as one of the well worn examples used for conversion training, and then one of the operational FR.1bs. I have the kits and appropriate Airwaves and Ultracast bits to do another two of the Squadron's Typhoon's when I find the time. Regards,

The use of the Hawker Typhoon FR.1b and PR.1b is a little known and not well documented part of the history of the Hawker Typhoon. The conversion came in two types, the FR.1b which was the installation of a single F.24 oblique camera in the port inboard cannon bay, and the PR.1b which was the installation of a single F.24 oblique camera and a pair of F.24 vertical cameras in the port inboard cannon bay. The modification involved the removal of the corresponding starboard inboard cannon so as to keep recoil forces of the cannon balanced. The predominant conversion was the FR.1b version, with only a limited number of PR.1b variants being completed and used. The conversion did not involve the fitment of any cameras in the aircraft fuselage. There was a later modification to the FR.1b which was the installation of a forward facing 35mm cine camera which was performed on a limited number of aircraft – no more than three or four. These were used to film the results of rocket and bombing attacks by 123 & 146 Typhoon Wings. The aircraft would fly along behind the attacking Typhoons and film the results of their attacks by diving towards the target just behind the attacking aircraft. As by the time the photographing aircraft made this pass, any ground flak units were well and truly alerted and somewhat ready to retaliate, this was not a popular role to be allocated to pilots. The primary user of the Typhoon FR.1b was No.268 Squadron RAF. They commenced to receive modified Typhoon FR.1bs from4 July 1944. They had received a number of well worn unmodified versions in June 1944 for conversion training. They did not commence operations on the type until August 8, 1944. The Typhoon was not loved as a low level tactical reconnaissance aircraft. They were never able to fully isolate the camera installation, so it suffered from engine and airframe vibration, which blurred photographs. Compared to the Mustang Mk.1A which was the primary type used by No.268 Squadron, the Typhoon had much shorter range, was heavier on the controls, had a habit of ‘weaving’ at lower airspeeds at low altitude, and the Napier engine was notoriously hard to start, maintain and was prone to failures. In addition, whereas the Mustang Mk.1A retained its full 4 x 20mm Hispano cannon armament with its camera mounts, the Typhoon was reduced to a mere 2 x 20mm cannon, and definite negative when forced to engage in any combat or retaliating against German flak. Their only redeeming feature was their ruggedness. No.268 Squadron used them very much as a ‘second string’ and was glad to see the back of them, relinquishing the last of them to No.4 Squadron in November 1944 when Mustang Mk.II aircraft were started to be received from No.II(AC) Squadron. The reason for their ‘second string’ status in addition to those given in the preceding paragraph was primarily related to range, as at this time of rapid advance from advanced landing round (ALG) to ALG, the Tac/R units were unfortunately given a lower priority for airfields closer to the front and so operational range became a major factor. No.4 Squadron only used a handful of them for a limited time, primarily on post strike reconnaissance for Typhoon wings in 84 Group. Analysis of Squadron records and available pilot’s log books has allowed a correlation of know Typhoon FR.1b aircraft serials and allocated Squadron identification letters. As the Typhoons were essentially operated as a separate flight in the Squadron, there was duplication of aircraft identification letters between Typhoons and Mustangs. The following is a list of recorded Typhoon serial numbers known to have been operated by No.268 Squadron. A number of the listed aircraft were standard Typhoons provided for familiarization training. As indicated, those that have a * in the table below are the most likely converted to FR.1b standard based on various records and information. The below list is of 40 Typhoons, well below the 60 known to have been converted to FR.1b standard, and of that 40, 5 are known to be standard Typhoons. A number of the FR.1bs are known to have not been issued to operational units and some may have been converted back to standard configuration. Most of these aircraft are understood to be bubble top aircraft, with three bladed propellers and the original small tailplanes, all with early Sutton Harness. All were fitted with the ‘cuckoo door’ dust filters when operated in France and Belgium. (Airwaves and Ultracast ? produce a 1/48th scale version of the intake with the ‘cuckoo door’ intake and Ultracast do a nice 1/48th scale Typhoon seat with Sutton Harness. The Airwaves FR.1b and PR.1b resin drop in conversion panel is recommended, but care must be exercised in removing the required underwing section on the kit – the cut out is the same size as a panel on the kit. DN583 EJ905 X EJ925 EJ929 * # EJ949 N * EJ953 EJ955 # EJ962 EJ968 EJ995 EK135 EK180 R * # EK191 EK196 M * EK212 G * EK233 V * EK240 * EK247 F * # EK267 H * EK272 C * EK323 * EK325 R EK327 EK350 EK372 B * # EK380 Y * # EK383 G * # EK426 EK427 S * EK428 N * EK429 * # EK436 L * # EK439 EK440 P * # JP371 A * JP372 D * # JP373 D * # JP389 E JR201 MN265 * indicates known or suspected FR.Ib conversion. # indicates aircraft recorded as passed to No.4 Sqdn by No.268 Sqdn Either EK426 or EK429 was allocated code ‘T’ based on entry on October 7, 1944 in F/O C. Ivan Smith RCAF pilot’s log book For reference material currently published and generally available the Typhoon & Tempest Story by Shores & Thomas and the four volume set of 2TAF by Shores and Thomas both contain information on the type. The latter includes a limited number of photos and one profile illustration by Chris Thomas (Volume 2). The History of No.268 Squadron RAF, “ADJIDAUMO – Tail in Air – The History of No.268 Squadron, Royal Air Force 1940-1946” by Colin Ford, gives the definitive operational history of the Hawker Typhoon FR.1b in service with No.268 Squadron and includes details of all use by the Squadron of the Hawker Typhoon in both modified and un-modified forms. Glenn, I would be interesting in knowing which pilot of No.268 Squadron you have had access to their log book. Could you please share with me which pilot? Colin Ford Canberra Australia No.268 Squadron Royal Air Force 1940-1946 Historian by Appointment (by the surviving Squadron members)