kitbasher2009

Seafire FR47 and a Canberra B2. The voices in my head have told me.

WK198's fuselage rotted away in a scrapyard in Failsworth Manchester (see http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1148827/) for many, many years before being rescued by North East Air Museum (http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/swift/survivor.php?id=605). Remember playing in and around the scrapyard as a kid - and beng chased out by the foamin guard dog - on more than one occasion! Life was so simpler when everything was in black and white!

The Sunderland escaped at Telford - but only seen on the Wonderland Models stand. Not a new tool and only one decal option.

The Mk XVI - being a derivative of the Mk IX - had a fixed tailwheel.

I was at the recording and, yes, he had trouble with the autocue (he's 81 you know) but at the end of the show a number of links were re-recorded and he was word perfect each time - and no, I don't believe he'd had a sherry or to beforehand. Seemed to be more at ease when not working to the autocue or his notes cards, and bantered rather well. Seemed to enjoy himself and joined in the fun. I thought the broadcast was very funny (my third time there, including a Brucie edition - sorry GordonD, he wasn't as good as Shatner and decidedly bemused when on the receiving end of jokes), but then I knew what was coming next and what had been cut out. 'Iflfracoooombe....laced with prostitutes' - a classic!

Looks like its from the old FROG Wyvern mould to me (the decal sheet certainly does), with a resin torpedo added. The FROG original was a nice kit - typical late FROG - but wholly superseded (in injection terms, at least) by the Trumpeter kit.

1/72 bomber and PR Mosquitos, with/without two-stage Merlins and bulged bomb bays. OK the fighter kit is now very old but to me is standing the test of time such that a replacement - to me - could wait until the others are sorted. :D

I once had a maximum of 3 Merlin kits - a Meteor F8 which I'm in the throes of building, and two Vampires. Why two? When the first arrived it had early T11 fins and an early T11 canopy, making it more like an NF10. So I complained and I got another free of charge, with the later canopy and fins. Both are/were total pants. One has been dismembered - bits will be used in a whif. No idea whether I'll build the other.

31 General Reconnaissance School and 32 Air Navigation School operated Avro Ansons at this airfield (now Charlottetown Airport) during WW2. Does anyone know of any sources of information regarding these (especially pictures) - or have any of their own? An uncle of mine served there as a radio instructor during WW2 and I'd like to build an 'Aggie' fom that time and place. Many thanks.

More fascinating material. Are the leading edges of the front engine/spat struts a different material to the trailing parts as they appear to be a different shade than the rest. Definitely NOT suggesting adifferent colour, rather the same shade but perhaps discoloured due to differing base materials? Also, note the roundel tones are pretty much the same as K7226 higher up the page - significant or not (in terms of type of film)? And yes, it does look as though the upper surfaces are darker than fuselage sides and undersides, but it's hard to tell if there's a disruptive pattern on top. Regards, KB09

I think JohnAero's photo puts paid to my clearly misplaced notion of ortho film being used for the 'Aeroplane' photos. Time for a letter to the Editor of Aeroplane Monthly for more Hampden/Heyford pictures in his magazine?

So my assumptions about the Hampden/Heyford photo look as though they're wrong, but what a fascinating discussion subsequently. Thanks guys - I've learnt a lot, especially as I have a Heyford in the stash! A second look at the Hampden/Heyford photo just now and underwing serials and roundels suddenly much more apparrent, and I will concede that the fuselage roundels don't look as though they have a yellow ring. Also despite the quality of the scan is there really a hint of a high DG/DE demarkation line along the fuselage, or am I decieving myself? Would seriously love to see the Isle of Man photo!

What a teasing photo! As far as the Heyford's colour scheme is - who knows?? However don't forget that colours appear lighter with distance, and the contrast with the foreground Hampden Hampden is pretty stark, so I wouldn't rule out Dk Earth/Dk Green uppers with trainer Yellow undersides as suggested in an earlier post. It would be fascinating to see more of Dick Ward's research into the Matchbox Heyford schemes (carried over in their entirety with the Revell repop). A close look at the Heyford suggests the picture was taken with orthochromatic film (I think that's the name) as what should be a yellow outer to the fuselage roundel appears black.

Looks to me like overall NIVO on the RAF Museum photo. I seem to recall reading that disruptive camouflage trials in the mid/late 30s involved Dk Earth over NIVO on the top, with either NIVO or Night undersides for the purposes of comparative trials to see which colour/finish was the best in terms of reflectivity in searchlight beams. Whether (and how many) Heyfords were involved I don't recall. I think the Matchbox/Revell instructions may represent an obscure finish for a Heyford, but I don't think it is misleading.

My late Uncle Bill flew one mission as tail gunner on the real Phantom (EE139) against Aachen on 24 May 1944. Same day as his younger brother's (ie, my dad's) 23rd birthday. He was bronzing himself somewhere in Italy at the time!

I agree Libor, very nice looking, and an unusual subject - well done. Before I posted to say that 'surely it was a modified Vb', I checked Shacklady and Morgan and there you go, BS124 was one of five VIs that were shipped out to the Middle East in 1942. According to Shacklady and Morgan the Middle East VIs were subsequently converted to FR.VIs - the PR.VI was originally designated PR.F and was not derived from the fighter Mk VI.

Good thread, only just come across it. My preferences are Humbrol 90 as a base coat and Xtracolor X7 for the top coat (I hand brush, by the way). I always use Xtracolor RLM76 for Sky Blue, including my model of the Spitfire prototype.

I rushed out and bought a Fujimi 19 when they first came out and thought 'wow!' Then I looked at it again and discovered everything Wooksta points out. And more. There isn't even a proper retractable tailwheel option! So the Fujimi 19 remains in the stash for now - might turn it into a 1st prototype Spiteful but frankly given the rubish interior, slightly dodgy canopy, etc, I may just stay with an Academy 14 and tidy up where necessary. No, go for the Airfix 19 every time. A beauty - maybe not perfect but very close to it and you can't knock the value it represents. Ventura yes, but lots of work needed and the plastic is rather brittle. MPM I think doesn't have a decent gull-wing effect (if I recall there may not be any, but I've only ever had quick looks in boxes and then that was some time ago so may be wrong.

Point taken about constructive criticism, a fair call. As per a preevious entry, photo and colour repro quality is excellent. At he risk of being stoned as a heretic I think Alan Hall had got into a rut with SAM because it didn't evolve sufficiently, especially with regards to colour (anyone remember the first couple of attempts at colour profiles? I do, basically hand coloured B+W jobs, and not very well done). Not of the talc and balsa brigade myself, my pont of reference is the improvements Neil Robinson made to SAM. Paul Eden was I think of an evolutionary mind but perhaps not at the right pace. I endorse Dave Fleming's point that SAM was a magazine for aircraft modellers, and is now an aircraft modelling magazine. Has the basis of th ehobby changed, therefore? Model makers of a certain age got into the hobby because they were aviation enthusiasts, but now they are model enthusiasts whose favourite subjects are aircraft? In which case the thrust of most model mags is probably right. The nature of those coming into the hobby has changed, therefore periodicals supporting it have changed accordingly. Sadly, that means that those who grew with the hobby as the hobby grew are perhaps becoming a minority within it, and maybe are becoming marginalised as a result. An unfortunate fact of life; perhaps it i us who needs to adjust - to keep pace with certain aspects of the hobby's evolution - in order to keep those aspects of the hobby alive?

I've been following this thread with interest, and in my capacity as a recently (and officially) 'grumpified' old man I tend to agree with pretty much all that's gone before. SAM is sadly a pale shadow of itself and it's been a while since I last bought a copy. MAM in the Neil Robinson era was excellent, and became my first choice of modelling magazine. Since dropping the modelling aspect it has become a rather nebulous chimera that is easily missed amongst the aviation magazines. Sad really because there are some good articles to be had in MAM. SAMI has always been a bit of a lightweight 'homage' to 'Golden Era' SAM, moreso recently given the SAMI/MAM split discussed above. As a potential - sometimes actual - customer, I can't help but feel that both titles could be best sustained by merging them - 'Son of SAM(I)' anyone? Not an original idea I know, but it would represent an optimum mix of reviews, previews, builds and references. It would hopefully be broad in scope, detailed and authoritative - and given the number of subjects out there could run for quite some time yet. Most importantly it would not be percieved as a bit of a rip off, as the SAMI/MAM combo may appear to some as being. SAMI + MAM = £7.90 per month; I'd be prepared to pay £5 for a single, combined SAMI/MAM if it meant there'd be a distinctive, good quality (and good value) 200-page modelling monthly on the shelves. And I've checked - SAMI is just about 200 pages per issue. Also the magazine malaise isn't just limited to modelling magazines. I've taken 'Air International' for about 30 years, but have become so dismayed by the magazine's decline in appeal I've given it up. Yes, it is well-printed, contains some fantastic glossy pics, but compared to the past the articles are somewhat superficial, seem to be too heavily based upon press releases and interviews, and there's no longer the mix between news, current types, history, etc, that characterised the magazine until recent years. At one time I thought it stood head and shoulders above all other aviation publications in terms of content, quality, quantity and value for money. Finally, like another contributor to this thread, I think only Aeroplane Monthly has continued to maintain its character and standards in recent years. perhaps that confirms my official 'grumpy' status! Rant over.

A replacement Defiant would be very nice, but keeping with Wooksta's display-related release theme (all 1/72 and in no particular order): A replacement Gladiator (or somebody re-release the Heller Gladiator!) A replacement Blenheim A replacement Lysander A replacement Tiger Moth A replacement Beaufighter A new Spitfire 16e to replace the old Heller Mk 16. A new Mossie would be welcome, but the old II/VI/XVIII is still very nice IMHO so I'd prefer to see a bomber/PR version. Yes, a replacement Spit V would be good in due course, but a 22/24 and and a Seafire 46/47 would be better. And then totally off-theme: A new P-61 anyone?

Here's some shots of my take on the Storrar Yak-9: I started by assembling the wing halves and attached these and the tailplanes to the fuselage halves. A few basic concessions to modernity were made: a fairing behind the seat, a small section of plastic tube inside the malformed carburettor intake, a small strip of plastic card as radiator front, a control column and an instrument panel were added from plastic sheet and rod. I then painted the cockpit interior, wheel wells and undercarriage door insides Humbrol 27, and the wheel hubs and undercarriage legs Humbrol 56 – all as per instructions. Revell acrylic 36106 Tar Black was used for the wheels themselves. Once dry, the fuselage/wing/tailplane assemblies were attached to one another and the wheels painted. What I assumed might be a major moulding error was then ‘corrected’. The Airfix Yak-9 is missing a 12.7mm machine gun! It might be a moulding fault (reasonable to assume given the age of the moulds) or it might be a design fault; either way, it was duly fixed. And, having thoroughly researched this feature on the internet, I realise I’ve boobed – further research reveals that the Yak-9D DID only have one 12.7mm gun. So the ‘correction’ is uncorrected, the short type history in the instructions read again, the reference to one MG noted and Mr Airfix owed many humble apologies (but the box art and painting instructions are still wrong – ha!). Subsequently – and to paraphrase an American beer company – ‘It’s Filler time!’ Once the filler was dry and sanded down, the model was washed in luke-warm soapy water. Having attached the undercarriage, undercoating (with Humbrol 64) commenced. When dry, blemishes were tidied up and the aerial mast, pitot tube and canopy were attached. This is where the research into Storrar’s Yak seems to have paid off. The box would have you believe that both options would be finished in a brown/green/light blue finish (as per earlier renditions of the kit were to be finished), but the instructions say both should be in the early Great Patriotic War finish of black/green/light blue. Well, yes for Yak-1s, -3s and -7s, but as far as I can make out probably not -9s (not in 1945, anyway). These could have been finished as per the depictions on the box or – as is more likely - in the late-War medium grey/blue grey/light blue scheme (although there do appear to have been Theatre variations to suit local conditions). So it was either go with the box or what the various sources were indicating – and I decided on the latter (including the attached illustration from "Yakovlev's Piston-Engined Fighters" Red Star Vol.5 by Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Khazanov found on http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f). And then when undercoating…..I had a change of heart. As much as I would love to do Storrar’s Yak full justice, I just knew I had enough modelling projects on the go, in the plan or rattling around my head to prevent ever buying a better Yak-9, so I looked again at the Hobbyvista profiles and bit the bullet: Storrar’s Yak it would be. Humbrol 65 was used to undercoat the undersides, with an Xtracolor X202 (RLM65 Hellblau) top coat. Upper surfaces were initially done in Humbrol 64 and 106, with top coats of Xtracolor X133 (FS16270 Neutral Gray) and X206 (RLM74 Graugun) respectively. These were in lieu of the correct Soviet AMT-7, AMT-11 and AMT-12; as I’m not a builder of Soviet subjects, close approximations would have to do! Using the Hobbyvista profiles as a guide and reckoning that Ocean Grey may have been used to paint out the original Bulgarian markings, Xtracolor X006 (Ocean Grey) patches were also applied to the upper surfaces and undersides where appropriate. The propeller spinner was painted Humbrol 60, the props in Humbrol 33. Finishing touches to the exhaust stubs and guns saw the use of mixes of various Humbrol metallic colours. Decals came from stock: the fuselage roundels are a little oversize (but 36” roundels were the closest I had) and I think I’m right in not applying upper wing roundels. I’ve not yet made the triangular serial number marking, but I’ll eventually get to it. There’s speculation as to whether the aircraft carried James Storrar’s distinctive ‘JAS’ fuselage lettering, and the Hobbyvista article provides what I think is not very convincing evidence ‘for’ – that said, the author commendably questions the evidence. In the same article is conclusive evidence, I strongly argue, it’s just been overlooked. Expand the photo at http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Yakovle...ar/yakbrit2.jpg and you’ll just see the letters poking out in front of the roundel, and behind the wing leading edge. I’m convinced the lettering would have appeared on both sides – why shouldn’t it? Modeldecal lettering was used for these. An overall top coat of Airfix Matt 49 and a little bit of weathering using MIG powders brought the proceedings to a close. Overall impressions of the Airfix Yak-9? Seductive box art, ancient kit. However, it proves the need to avoid assuming that while an old and crude (by today’s standards) kit is not going to be without fault, don’t assume it is totally at fault.

Looks like this is the same kit as Kopro's, as my Kopro Su-9 looked exactly the same - same parts breakdown and markings, same coloured plastic, etc. A nice enough kit that can be made into a nice model, which is what you've done.

I first heard about the 'Storrar Yak' about a year ago (don't recall how, may have been trawling Britmodeller). Recently bought one of the re-released Airfix Yak-9s with a view to finishing it as an OOB project - a better Yak-9 would do for the 'Storror Yak' at a later date. Some good links in this thread, and of course the Hobbyvista article is excellent. It was only when I'd looked into 1/72 Yak-9 kits and Soviet fighter colours (as a result of conflicting Airfix box art and painting instructions) that I came to the conclusion that actually I'd probably never get round to building another Yak-9, so would finish the Airfix oldie as Storrar's Yak. So, some good stuff out there but I wasn't convinced by the means by which Erik Pilawskii came to the conclusion that 'JAS' did appear on the fuselage sides (well, one side at least) - although to be fair to him he did rightly caveat his conclusions. I'd downloaded the various pics in this thread and the Hobbyvista article and looked at them very closely to see if 'JAS' really did appear. Sometimes it helps to paste pictures into a Word document and then run your mouse over them to get a 'negative image' effect. And there it was in the photo at http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Yakovle...ar/yakbrit2.jpg - you can just see the magic letters in front of the fuselage roundel! And knowing that they are there, when returning to the original picture... ...the letters are very clear. So I'd say there is indeed conclusive proof - is it a safe bet to assume they were on both sides of the fuselage? I'm going to stick my kneck out and say yes. Why shouldn't they be? Also going back to the photos I noticed something that I'd picked up before - the propellor blades appear to have been repainted, and standard British 4 inch yellow tips applied. Thanks to all who'd researched this topic for providing me with such good references!

Hi there. Can anyone confirm the type and diameter of prop used on the Wellington Ic, please? I think they're dH Hydromatics but clearly don't know for sure. Need to buy replacement Aeroclub items to fit to a manky NOVO kit. Many thanks.