Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


Gold Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ben_m last won the day on August 8 2013

ben_m had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

268 Excellent

About ben_m

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    British photo reconnaissance at the beginning of WW2.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Really nice! I'd like to build a recon one; I think they operated England in autumn 1944? What are the I retesting things under the wings? Look like parachutes on the front? Some sort of aerial mine?
  2. Definitely agree wifs can get mojo back- you can't obsess over getting the details right, as it didn't exist at all, so things move forward faster. Same for doing sci-fi or fantasy modelling.
  3. Interesting that the gunsight has a reflector panel- I thought most just used the inner surface of the windscreen.
  4. As I noted earlier, I don't think the ceiling altitude of the X was greater than the XI, as this is dictated by the engine. High altitude was certainly not a new operating environment to strategic PR missions at this point; the 36" lens having been established as the tool of the trade. Their altitude was there main defence against interception. The introduction of the higher altitude XIX was sped up due to interceptions of XI by Me 163, which could climb faster than anything seen before. As the unpressurised XIX was contemporary with the X, and the Griffon did allow for a higher ceiling, it could be argued that the XIX was the better candidate for a new high altitude scheme. But there could be the argument that as the only pressurized aircraft at this point, they dedicated the X to high altitude missions, as the XIX's higher performance might be useful in medium altitude missions too. AIRCRAFT OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE, 1939-1945: SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE.. © IWM (ATP 12822C) IWM Non Commercial License But if that were the case, why would they have oblique cameras fitted to Xs?
  5. To expand on my dirt theory- the panel above the chin, under the exhausts, looks like it has recently been cleaned- the exhaust staining on the panel over the top of the nose (above exhausts) is strong, but stops in a hard edge along the panel line, suggesting the panel was cleaned off the aircraft. And the intake under the chin still looks the same colour as the upper to me.
  6. Sorry for the confusion Graham, my post above was referring to Peter's comment at the top of this post- I should have quoted it for clarity. Any association of the X with pink scheme was always nonsensical. I was meaning that the X wouldn't have been seen as a (especially) high altitude PR type, so I don't see them thinking it needs a special colour scheme.
  7. Just thinking of the 'high altitude' comments: I don't think the X was designed/used at greater altitude than the XI; the engine dictated the ceiling. Pressurisation was to increase comfort and physiological performance of the pilot.
  8. I'm not sure I agree with the ms grey over pru blue scheme interpretation. Pilots' recollections are not flawless. The carb intake looks same colour as top surface to me. The chin panel does look darker, but could easily be due to dirt. The MSG over PRU blue scheme might be a mis-recollection of the mk.XIX postwar scheme (which has a high demarcation on the fuselage).
  9. I think it depends on scale- at 1/32 and 1/24, I would expect it as optional, but it should be engineered so that it doesn't make extra challenges to building a closed up version (no tricky gaps, etc). Would be to have two versions of kits- one with extra sprue for internals and photo etch, one cheaper without. I'm think of kits like 1/32 tamiya spitfire- would be great to have a cheaper version without engine.
  10. Sorry Andy, I mistook you saying "two images taken so close together" to refer to the two camera positions, instead of in time. I don't know what a typical interval was (it is calculated by altitude, field of view camera- dependent on the focal length and the film size- and ground speed), but the type 35 camera controller (I'm looking at the one I have on my desk here at work) goes from 2 second to 51 second intervals. I guess it couldn't go shorter than 2 seconds due to the film transport and shutter recocking time I wonder whether this minimum interval ever became a limitation at lower altitude for stereo verticals (that would need very short invervals)? One way around that would be a camera configuration with two cameras covering the same area below the aircraft and alternating exposures between the two. I don't think Spitfires ever had this configuaration, but maybe Mosquitos (which I think have more than the one camera controller the Spitfire carried) might have had this type of arrangement?
  11. Andy: You cannot get a stereo pair from aerial cameras with exposures taken at the same time- the cameras have to be much further apart. As the aircraft is moving, this is achieved by time. This page has a nice diagram. https://www.stereoscopy.com/faq/aerial.html Graham: Yes, all tracks for stereo were taken with interval timings. They set the timer to achieve a 60% overlap with the previous frame, so that any area of any given frame could be viewed in stereo when combined with either the next frame or the previous one.
  12. The split verticals were to give greater coverage (width of track covered), not to create a stereo effect. Two lenses inches apart don't create a stereo pair when you are 5 miles from the subject.
  13. Good to see that there are good acrylic matches for these colours. I used the white ensign enamels recommend earlier, and they took days to dry. Note all but the last two posts in this thread are from 2010.
  14. I found the Airfix one harder to build than the Brengun; the engineering on the Airfix seemed good on the sprue (e.g. the cockpit floor/wheel weels already mentioned), but I found it impossible to get the radiator in without spreading the fuselage under the chin. One one build I also messed up the wing alignment, and had to sort out a gap at the upper wing-fuselage join. The Bregun just seems more crisp too (e.g. panel lines on the Airfix that are on surfaces curving up to the top and bottom of the aircraft are indistinct, line panel lines on the sides are deeper have squarer edges). This thread has some good close-up photos of surface detail differences in the two kits:
  15. Can you point us towards any of these photos? I can't recall seeing any wartime XIs with the armoured glass framing.
  • Create New...