Brian J

Referring to several colour inflight photos indicate that all four engines had a white cowling back to the cowl flaps. All engine nacelles appear to have in inside HALF painted in a dark colour (O.D.?). The top quarter of the outer starboard engine cowling seems to be painted in this same colour. The rest is white. A build up of the 1/48 Monogram kit in these markings was in the September (?) Warbird Modeling in 2003 published by Fine Scale Modeler. www.rafmuseumphotos.com/pictures have at least 2 colour photos of this aircraft.

Hello, Dave Thanks for your added comments. I forgot to add in my last post that I also had a Classic Airframes Sea Venom. With the aid of a helpful Britmodeller member I was able to locate a Model Alliance decal sheet that included the markings (yellow and black checkered tip tanks) for a Sea Venom from 890 Squadron from 1956. Been wanting to do those markings for over 25 years! On that note, I did a build-up of the old 1/32 Matchbox Sea Venom several years ago...spent months detailing it as much as possible. I have it up on one of my self designed stands inflight...red and black checkered tanks. Never get tired looking at it! I grew up in Canada in the '50's and always looked forward to pedaling my bike downtown to pick up the latest issue of Royal Air Force Flying Review (35 cents a copy!), so I was weaned on British aircraft. I've always been keen on Fleet Air Arm jets and I'd love to see somebody produce a 1/48 Scimitar to the high standard of the Airfix Sea Vixen. My problem is that I'm like a 6 year old kid...so many kits and such a short attention span. I must have at least 16 or 17 kits at various stages of incompletion! If I ever master the computer I may try and send photos.

Thank you gentlemen for the quick responses! A couple of comments if I may. While looking for a distraction, I took my two Classic Airframe DH Vampire Mk 5 kits out of the stash last night and naturally dragged out my photo references, etc. That's when those questions I posted came up. I had the good fortune to purchase the Aeroclub corrected resin intakes as well their corrected resin fuselages several years ago when the Classic Airframe kits were first issued. While going over photos last night I noticed that the Classic Airframes kit canopy is not quite correct. It should be a bit bulged or blown...if that's the proper word. I have 2 correct (it appears to me) Aeroclub vac form canopies from their vac form Vampire that was issued a little bit after the Hobby Craft version. I also have the two 1/48 Xtradecal Vampire sheets, so I think I'm ready to go now that my questions have been answered. Thanks again for your help! I think I'm going to pick up an extra Aeroclub vac form canopy for the Venom that is in the stash as the kit version appears to be same as the Vampire from Classic Airframes. P.S. I've always taken a shine to twin boomed aircraft e.g. the P-38, the P-61 and the entire DH line twin boomed fighters. I've gotten a bee in my bonnet to try and build up that whole line of DH aircraft in 1/48 as I have a Classic Airframes Venom and the recently issued Airfix Sea Vixen (to my eye the only better looking jets than a Sea Vixen MIGHT be an F-86 and a Hawker Hunter).

If I can't find answers here...where can I turn? I am researching to build two DH Vampires and would like clarification on the following points: 1. The only external difference between a Mk 3 and a Mk 5 is that the former had the early curved wing tips while the latter had the shorter, squared off tips. 2. The only external difference between a Mk 5 and a Mk 9 is that the latter had provision for a Godfrey air conditioning unit, "installed in the starboard wing boom root...an eight inch extension above the wing." I can find no photos that explain what that modification looks like. Can anyone help? 3. What was the colour of the cockpit interior? One source indicates green (is that the common WWII British interior green) while another suggests black. Is it possible that the cockpit colour changed during the production of the various versions? Opinions and clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks to the gentleman who contacted me off line. The above decal sheet has been ordered (among other things!).

Would anyone out there know where I can obtain the Model Alliance 1/48 decal sheet 'MA-121 HMS Ark Royal Air Wing Selection?' I believe that it is sold out and no longer available. I am particularily interested in the markings of the DH Sea Venom WW150-'353/O.

The reason I included those other kits, the Monogram and Hasagawa, was that I wanted to compare them in the event any definitive conclusions were reached (fat chance on that) and I would do some kit bashing...like in the ol' days. I know some of you fellas are as old as me. Remember the days before resin, photo etch, after market decals, even sheet styrene? We'd take the canopy from a Revell kit, the gear doors from a Frog kit and the wings and fuselage from an Airfix kit and using a rasp try and reshape the mess into the 'definitive' whatever. My first conversion was in writing to Monogram in 1965 and asking if they could send me a 3 blade Hellcat prop so I could convert their F4U-4 into a F4U-1. Worked perfectly, an accurate conversion...god, it was nice to know everything back then! I fitted the Hasagawa and Monogram canopy to the Tamiya version. They fits quite well, but as I indicated earlier, the framing isn't as accurate as the Tamiya version. Same goes for the windscreen. There is no way you could use the Hasagawa cowling on the Tamiya kit...too small. I totally agree with the above comments on the Tamiya P-47 being the way to go. My initial post concerned other aspects of the kit that I haven't seen commented on. Are there more points of contention? Brian

After viewing seven screens of comments on the P-47 from Tamiya I hope I'm not out of place by starting over again. It seemed to me that we all lost focus on the initial purpose of the thread. After reading all those points of view I was moved to pull out a sample of the 1/48 Monogram, Hasagawa and Tamiya P-47 kits and do a comparison between them and some relevant photographs. I focused on the cowings and canopies. What struck me was the difference in all three of my samples. Personally, I don't feel the discussion about cowling taper is worth making a big deal of (please don hit me massa...I won say dat no mo). I love checkered cowlings (black and white/black and yellow), which would probably hide any flaw (if there is one). What caught my eye was the difference in the cowl opening, something that few others seems to have focused on. I don't have the computer skills to post photo comparisons, (but if someone else feels it is worthwhile...) but in my opinion the Monogram is the least accurate in that respect, while the Tamiya and Hasagawa interpretations are more accurate repersentations, although there is a noticable difference between them as well. If I had to choose one it would be the Tamiya version. The second point of interest was the shape of the caonopy as pointed out the the initial thread started a couple of days ago. Again, all three demonstrate a slightly different interpretation. I don't think any ot them got the canopy frame (espcially the bottom) right, but again, I would say Tamiya's is the most accurate. The frame is heavier/thicker and better shaped. As far as the curvature of the glass (?), boy, seen from different angles it is really hard to say for sure. From certain angles the Tamiya version seems a little high. Is it worth wringing your hands over...? I'll close on an observation I've made as the years go by. I don't know about you fellas, but there are times when I REALLY get involved in a build-up. I become so miopic and focused that I lose all sense of proportion. What did a real P-51D Mustang wheel well look like...I mean were the hydrolic lines red or silver and were there three or four of them! I can't find REALLY accurate Sky coloured decals to match the FS number that everybody now agrees is accurate! Oh, what's the sense of living...I'd be better off ending it all now! I'll never be happy again! Two months later you walk by the shelf with all those Mustangs (or whatever) and say to yourself, "Damn, those planes look neat, finally got that bird with my favourite markings finished!" You've forgotten all the heartache and hair pulling...gotta watch the Sunday night football game in 30 minutes! I'd enjoy any commentes, positive or otherwise on those above mentioned kits. As some one suggested the other day...IT'S ONLY S HOBBY!...sigh. Ain't life great, Brian

While surfing the internet I came across an aviation art website that included a painting of Arnold's Bf109E-1. This interpretation included a late version canopy/windscreen and wing cannons. This contradicts the artist profile on page 170 of the Classic Colours 'Luftwaffe Colours, Volume Two Section 2.' The photos in that book verify that this aircraft had the early style windscreen. The photo at the top of page 170 suggests the early style wing armament, but I assume the guns had been removed. Were E-1's every modified to carry wing cannons? It would be interesting to hear the opinions of the artist. Brian

While surfing the internet I came across an aviation art website that included a painting of Arnold's Bf109E-1. This interpretation included a late version canopy/windscreen and wing cannons. This contradicts the artist profile on page 170 of the Classic Colours 'Luftwaffe Colours, Volume Two Section 2.' The photos in that book verify that this aircraft had the early style windscreen. The photo at the top of page 170 suggests the early style wing armament, but I assume the guns had been removed. Were E-1's every modified to carry wing cannons? It would be interesting to hear the opinions of the artist. Brian

Mornin' Arnold It wasn't until I got home and digested the conversation that I realized that maybe "T" was "180." As I indicated earlier I plan on a second visit with Dr. R. next week and hope that we can be a little more disciplined and organized. I will present your latest questions to him. I left several of my books with him and hopefully that will jar his memory even more. His wife asked if I can make transcripts of my notes for their children and grandchildren. I bought a voice recorder and hopefully get some detailed stories on a disk. I'll let you know about copies of his log and would be more than happy to share with you whatever I find. Ain't this fun! Brian

Hello Arnold, My apologies for my tardy response but I just got my computer back from the computer hospital (it had a bad virus or two) and I spent an hour or so trying to organize my notes from my visit yesterday with Dr. Roemmele. I was able to spend two hours with the good doctor and I can only wish you could have been with me at his kitchen table as we went over his log book! He is enjoying good health and I was overwhelmed by his enthusiasm to share his experiences and his near photographic memory. Our exchange was often disjointed as we bounced around from his flight training to the end of the war...so many stories, so little time. We are planning to meet again next week and I have gone out and bought a voice recorder and hope to get something more permanent and better organized. I read Stein Meum's posting with great interest and will now add some information that may be of help (or not!). First off, according to Dr. R. 122 Squadron was divided into A flight and B flight. A flight was assigned lower letters of the alphabet while B flight had higher letters. Letters had nothing to do with rank and pilots often flew different aircraft. Dr. R.'s log book often records the aircraft flown both by unit letter OR serial number, sometimes both...no consistency! I found it interesting that in the Osprey book on Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces of the RAF that the artist has shown the two aircraft from 122 Squadron with different coloured spinners...red for MT*K and yellow for MT*A (I don't have the books with me as I lent them to Dr. R.). Could it be that the different colours indicated different flights? When I reminded Dr. R. that I had painted the model I built for him in 1994 with a red spinner he said that was wrong. He only had a 5-view drawing of 'his' aircraft (FB226) for reference which showed the spinner as black. Upon further discussion he felt that I may have been correct...he couldn't remember exactly. I recall a meeting with Gabby Gabreski years ago when he pointed out that, "you modelers know more about our aircraft then we do." I guess they were fighting a war and had more important things on their mind! Getting back to some of your original questions. Dr. Roemmele does not remember a pilot called J. N. Thorne and has nothing in his log book referring to that name. It would be interesting to hear your comments on that as you say you have some kind of biographical material on Thorne. You are correct that Dr. R. often flew FB110. According to (and contrary to the listing provided by Stein Meum) FB110 was "K" in Dr. R.'s log book. Apparently he was flying it on the 26th of July. His log records that, "Sendall shot up on July 26 in FB110 "K". Apparently this pilot was hit by flak but returned to base. A new aircraft appears in Dr. R.'s log for the date July 28 which states, "air test new kite FB226" which of course became (apparently) the new "K." Dr. R. also often flew in "T" but does not have a serial noted. I am going to ask Dr. R. if I can photo copy 6 or 7 pages of his log book so I can go over in detail and maybe correct any errors in interpretation. In closing I want to add a comment that I found amusing. After his first flight in a Mustang III (only recorded as FZ175) on Feb 1st his only log comment was, "It has a heater." He commented on how impressed he was with the creature comforts of a Mustang compared to the Spitfire he had been flying. It had a floor board, a heater, a windscreen defroster...even an ashtray! He later saw American pilots taxi in smoking cigars! Hope to hear from you again...and thanks for inspiring me to get off my duff and get back in touch with Dr. Roemmele... this is turning out to be an interesting ride! Brian

Arnold, I am in the process of trying to contact Dr. E.A. Roemmele and will let you know what I find out. In the meantime I will make you aware of several observations I have made in the last day or so. On page 95 of 'Second Tactical Air Force, Vol. One by C. Shores & C. Thomas there is a photo of four members of 122 Squadron, including E. A. Roemmele under the nose of a squadron Mustang taken on or near the date of their 23 April encounter with He 111's. It shows a white (?) ID band behind the spinner which is a dark colour. On pages 108 and 109 of the same volume is a b&w photo and colour profile of Mustangs from 65 Squadron (19, 65 and 122 Squadrons formed 122 Wing out of Funtington on June 6, 1944). These two photos suggest the same markings as the previously mentioned 122 Squadron markings. The artist profile interprets the nose colours as a white band with a red spinner. Both units appear to carry squadron badges under the exhausts. At the top of page 255 of 'Fighter Squadrons of the R.A.F. and Their Aircraft' by John Rawlings is a b&w photo of W/O Castleton's Mustang III from 122 Squadron in August of 1944. There is no white ID nose band and the spinner is a dark colour. It seems lighter (?) than the black invasion stripes under the wing and there is no unit badge under the exhaust. There seems to be a great deal of uncertainty, as expressed by the highly regarded authors C. Shores and C. Thomas as to the spinner colours/nose markings of the Mustangs of 122 Wing. I quote from Vol. 4, page 663 of their highly regarded tome: "...in 122 Wing the White seems to have been replace by dark colours as early as April. 65 Squadron's aircraft are thought to have had red spinners but no information on the other units (19 and 122 Squadrons) has come to light. However by the time the Wing was based in France, the few photographs that are available, indicate that all three units has Night spinners." On that note there is a colour profile of MT*A FZ114 under a well known b&w photo of the same aircraft on page 663 showing full invasion stripes and a YELLOW spinner! It appears that the nose markings for 122 Squadron changed considerably during the time frame in question (April/Auguest 1944). Was it more fun to build models when you were a kid and used the box art for reference and the house paint in the garage...my warm and fuzzy memories of earlier years suggests those were some of my best build ups! Keep in touch. Brian

Hello Arnold I don't know if I can be of any help...but to add my two cents worth. During a doctors appointment back in 1994 I found out that my doctor flew Mustangs during the big one. He told me to check my books and I would find his aircraft. I did only to find out that he flew MT*K FB226! His name is Ed Roemmele and he lives in Windsor, Ontario (although he is retired I believe he is still in good health). I built a 1/48 Mustang for him after he gave me three unpublished photo copies of this aircraft. Contrary to the 5-view drawing on page 45 of the Camouflage and Markings: RAF Fighter Command, 1936-1945 book these photos verify there were no under wing D-Day stripes at the time that often reproduced photo and the spinner is too light for black and too dark for yellow. I chose red for the spinner as did the artist profile on page 55 of the recently published Osprey Aircraft of the Aces 93 'Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces.' Apparently those photos were taken in November of 1944. It continues to amaze me how more and more photos are made available to the public and the years go by. Good luck in your search. Brian

By referring to superb, inspiring models like this we become better ourselves. Well done! Brian J.

N-I-C-E! Good to see somebody else who likes them shiney metal airplanes! What did John G. McGee say about dancing the sky on "laughter slivered wings?" I'm convinced...gotta get me them Aires resin sets and give it a go. I've always liked the markings of 92 Squadron with that blue tail and red and yellow checker nose markings. Thanks for everyones input.

Thanks for all the input so far. I have all of the main Echelon parts cut out and taped to-gether and have had thoughts of kit bashing it with the Trumpeter kit but by sounds of it there are too many errors in the latter kit to make it worth while both in time and money. I have only considered a natural metal finish and wonder if anyone else has had to deal with rescribing and such on the Echelon kit in preparation for a natural metal finish.

I am not aware if this question has been posed before, but is anyone aware if the various 1/32 Aires resin sets (cockpit, wheel wells and exhaust nozzles) made for the Trumpeter BAC Lightning kits can be adapted or used on the Echelon vac form kit. The Aires cockpit in particular looks very 'busy' and interesting. Brian J.

A little clarification (I think) on my earlier observation. Upon closer examination...I really need to get a life...on the two photos from the 'Mustangs & Unicorns' book mentioned in the previous post it appears that the often published photos of 'Heat Wave' (as seen on page 165 of 'Aces and Wingmen ii, Volume I) and 'Louisiana Heat Wave' are the same aircraft. The name "Heat Wave' appears in exactly the same style covering the various panels on the nose in the exact same spacing and location. The photo showing 'Heat Wave' seems to have D-Day stripes while the photo showing 'Louisiana Heat Wave' seems to just show a black inboard wing stripe. S-o-o-o, was 44-13606 both 'Heat Wave' and 'Louisiana Heat Wave' but photographed at different dates?

Thanks, Chris. I have both books you referred to and that photo helps with nose art clarification. There are also two good close-up views of the nose art of both aircraft in question in 'Mustangs & Unicorns: A History of the 359th FG' by Jack H. Smith (Pictorial Histories Publishing Company) on page 93. I guess my main question concerns photo reference that shows the entire 'Louisiana Heat Wave' i.e. what are the colour profiles in the Osprey publications based on? I learned many years ago that artist renderings are always suspect. Brian

Thanks for the input, Edgar. According to sources Crenshaw was assigned three Mustangs. 'Louisiana Heat Wave' was 44-13606, while another Mustang, named 'Heat Wave' was serialed 44-15016 in which he claimed his last four kills on 21 November, 1944. The photo on page 165 of 'Aces and Wingmen II, Volulme 1' appears to lack the name 'Louisiana' above the exhaust stacks, but has (at least) the lower wing surface invasion stripes. I am led to believe that 44-15016 was assigned in November of 1944. The above mentioned photo seems to lack a coloured rudder, the name 'Louisiana' but has invasion stripes. This a/c appears to be in mid-summer 1944 markings. Things become more unclear the more I look into the subject. Anybody out there...

I am looking for opinions and clarification on the markings of Claude Crenshaw's P-51D "Louisiana Heat Wave," 44-13606. While I have several photos of the nose art of this a/c I am unable to find photo verification as to the accuracy of the markings of the entire a/c. Osprey Publications have produced two colour profiles of this aircraft, one on page 51 of 'Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force, and one on page 86 in their Elite Unit Series, '359 Fighter Group.' What are these profiles based on? The word 'Louisiana' on the profile on page 51 seems more accurate of the two while the D-Day invasion stripes are lacking. What are the invasion stripes on the page 86 profile based on? Comments on the above would be welcomed. Brian J.

This is getting very interesting! Before I add my observations on 'White 13' I think the whole topic can be looked at from two perspectives. One is that of trying to complete a relatively accurate scale replica of the subject and the other as an historian trying to interpret all known data. As a modeler I don't know if I'll ever know what the exact RLM scale colour is or what the EXACT mix of colours used were...at this point in time we will probably never know. Looking at my RLM colour chip card under incandescent lighting I find it difficult to match many of them up exactly with various brands of model paint. When one takes into consideration scale colour (1/72 to 1/24), lighting (outdoor, various types of indoor lighting), condition of the subject at the time of reference, so much will be left to personal interpretaion. What the historian is wrestling with, I feel, is some what different and more exacting. The colour grey seems to be very elusive and difficult to pin down. When it is next to a dark green, a lighter grey, or a brownish grey it seems to take on different characteristics. What about those same colours on a cloudy day, a sunny day, morning light, late afternoon? Is it any wonder we get so many vague interpretations in these crash reports? I find it interesting when I recall looking at trees that children colour---the trunks are always brown. Where I come from most tree bark is shades of grey! Back to Zimmerman's 'White 13, and the thought provoking observations made in the two previous postings. One of the first comments by Dave that jumped out at me (it only bit once, I think I'll be O.K.) was that he felt this airframe was likely finished in 70/71/02, later 'adapted' to conform with the 02/71/65 scheme and adapted again later with the increasing appearance of greys. Does this mean that there were possibly 3 coats of paint, plus a primer coat on this aircraft? Could one of the colours be four months old and the other a fresh coat? Would they repaint the entire airframe? Was that a usual practice at this time? I have always understood that paint adds substantial weight to an airframe. How thick was the coat of paint i.e. would the top coat take on a different shade if thin, or over two different colours, or weathered? Dave's comment, "...02/71 top surface colours 'revised' with light over-sprays of two different grey shades..." opens up numerous possibilites. I asked the question on another post concerning 'White 4' flown by Horst Perez about which colours would go over which colour? Any comments? There are two colour drawings on page 87 in 'Jagdwaffe-Battle of Britain, Phase One' showing the upper surfaces of 'White 13.' I compared them with the two line drawings on page 77 of 'Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings 1933-1945, Volume One' by K.A. Merrick. Both books show the splinter patterns used on Bf 109E's during the time period in question. There is a close similarity between one of the interpretations in each book. I compared all of the interpretations with the well known photo of 'White 13' taken from the starboard tail which shows part of the upper wing surface. This can be found on page 273 of 'Jagdwaffe-Battle of Britain, Phase Three.' The portion of the port wing outside of the Balkenkreuz appears lighter than the inboard surface. The starboard wing inboard of the Balkenkreuz seems to be one colour. Is this 'triangle of dirty blue' on the port wing? Is it reasonable to refer to these sources when comparing 'field' repainting? Looking forward to further comments. Brian

Steve, By all means, jump in! I have often had questions about the aircraft you mention. The main one being the colour and splinter pattern on the wings of this aircraft...for that matter the colour and splinter pattern on almost all of the well known and often illustrated BoB Bf 109's. They seldom describe the upper wing colour schemes. Brian