Brian J

Gee, I'm going to have to ask for help more often! Thanks for all the positive input from Chris and Ben. Feel free to keep throwing things into the fire.

I feel like Oliver Twist, with bowl in hand, asking, "Please, sir, I want some more." Again, many thanks to Mr.Thomas for taking the time and effort to answer my questions. Well, now that I know everything there is to know about 'Pulverizer IV' ...r-r-r-ight...I'd like to move on to other aspects of that build-up. I plan on doing a simple diorama using a very old New Hope Design figure from AIR4810 'Royal Air Force Fighter Air &Ground Crew,Europe, 1942-1945' based on the figure found on page 32 of the old Aircam/Airwar 10 'RAF Fighter Units Europe 1942-45 published in 1978 (told you it was old). It is the figure of an airman (ground crew) carrying a jerry can dressed in winter garb. A similar figure/setting can be found in the top photo on page 63 of 'Osprey Aircraft of the Aces No 27' by Chris Thomas. My question has to do with the colour of the uniform of this figure. The Aircam/Airwar figure is wearing a standard blue RAF battledress blouse and trousers and a brown leather jerkin. On the two page colour spread, pages 44-45 of the above mentioned Osprey book there are six figures of pilots from various Typhoon units. Four of these pilots are wearing the standard blue RAF uniform while the other two, one from 486 Sqn, RNZAF, the other Hugh Fraser of 439 Sqn (pilot of the 1/72 Airfix Typhoon 5V-X) are wearing brown uniforms. Fraser's uniform reminds me of the army uniforms we wore in cadets in high school back in the late '50's! Since I am doing a Canadian Typhoon (18-P) can/should I do this ground crew figure in brown or blue? Colour photos of ground crew from the 2nd TAF are hard to come by. I was able to find 6 jerry cans in a USAAF Verlinden set but would like to use even more jerry cans. Does anyone make 1/48 after market resin jerry cans? On to the topic of that 1/72 Airfix Typhoon. I always try to work from photos whenever possible. While I have seen several colour profiles of 5V-X (RB281) I have been unable to find a photo. Does one exist? To answer my own question, I checked out Roll Models and they carry a 1/48 Tamiya 'Jerry Can Set' TM32510 for $9.00 (U.S.). The set has 10 or 12 jerry cans in case anyone else is interested. Again, many thanks to Mr. Thomas for his help. Hope he and others can help with my further questions.

You're so right, Dave. I've been focused on this subject for over a week and have hardly even touched plastic! If Mr. Thomas or any other authority on the subject is reading this thread I have several more questions...for today. Like many others, mostly Canadians I assume, I plan on using my long stashed Aero Graphics 1/48 sheet to do 18-P 'Pulverizer IV' using the colour profile and photos found on page 415 of '2nd Tactical Air Force, Vol. 3' as my main reference. Other decal sheets will provide more accurate roundels. In a July 2009 Model Aircraft Monthly article, Mr. Thomas provides detail about the introduction of the Tropical Air Intake on late war ("...end of September 1944") Typhoons. Would 'Pulverizer IV' RB389 have been fitted with this filter, as it was not in, "...the final production standard with RB and SW serial numbers."? If it was, would a modeler leave the 'cuckoo doors' on the radiator front? If so few photos are available, how accurate is the drawing on page 12 of the above mentioned magazine? One final question...for today. The middle photo on page 14 of the Model Aircraft Monthly article, the caption in part reads, "Note the landing light has been faired over." Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does "faired over" mean? Was the whole light removed along with the plastic lens and sheet metal screwed in place or was the whole area painted over? I have read that Typhoons assigned to 143 Wing (along with other squadrons) were wired/set up for bombs only and that the lights were faired over because of issues when rockets were fired. If so, why would the lights be removed on bomb loaded Typhoons? On a model of a Typhoon, should there be no indication of any kind of work done in this area i.e. no scribe lines at all that show panels? Best guess...would 'Pulverizer IV' have both lights faired over? My education continues...

So, that's what they mean when they say, "straight from the horse's mouth." Many thanks Mr. Thomas! I've got six or seven of your books and magazine articles spread all over the table...which I'm enjoying immensely as I try to organize material for a 1/48 Hasegawa and 1/72 Airfix build-up. Hope I can come back if I have any more questions.

What would be the interior colours for the Typhoon radiator intake and tail wheel well? Airfix indicates 'cockpit green' (78) for their 1/72 kit. Why would main gear wells and interior doors be aluminum while these areas are green? Also, I believe I read some where that the area behind the seat, under the canopy is black. Is that correct?

Thanks to the gentlemen who took the time to respond to my query. When everything is said and done I find that I agree with Nick's final sentence, "But the question remains as to what Mr Goulding based the details of his profile on." What the standard operating procedures were, what black and white photos from other units suggest seem irrelevant to some degree in this case. We are asking about a specific airframe for which photographic verification has yet to turn up. At the bottom of page 2 in the Profile 24 (something not very often done in that series), the following statement is made. "Upper surfaces were finished in standard dark green and grey. Lower surfaces were black. Black rudder and wing panel were replacement components from Turbinlite flight Hurricane BD770. Aircraft displayed red doped patches over previous battle damage on port aileron, real fuselage and tail unit." Someone, Mr Goulding or the author Francis K Mason made a specific detailed description of the 5 view in question. They must have had access to this unusually marked aircraft or why would they feel this information had to be added. Is Mr Goulding still with us? What happens to the research material and references of researchers like Mr Goulding and others after they pass on? What became of his research material? In other words, we may have to go back to the ORIGINAL source to find answers to this question. The detailed comments suggest he had access to material unknown to us. I find this exchange of ideas most interesting and hope it continues in a positive way. Thanks again, gentlemen for all your comments!

I realize that the markings of this well known aircraft have been covered in some detail on the 'All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here' thread but I would like to address another aspect of this Hurricane. I first became aware of Karel Kuttelwascher decades ago after reading the article 'Kuttlewascher ---Intruder Ace' in the December 1959 issue of Royal Air Force Flying Review. Like others I was intrigued by the 5-view art work by James Goulding in Profile 24 back in 1965. Since then many kits and after market decals have been issued with these markings. There have been various interpretations as to the style of the letter codes and the placement of the serial numbers on the fuselage. These markings are usually in the mid summer 1942 colours of Ocean Grey/Dark Green with Black (Night) undersurfaces. I recently purchased the Xtradecal sheet 72-113 and decided that it is finally time to add a model of this aircraft to my collection. According to Nick Millman in a comment made on January 6, 2009 in response to a thread started by 'Hardtarget' on this site the all black markings of this Hurricane are based on the 1942 artwork of J H Striebel Jr "depicting the aircraft on 4 May 1942' when Kuttelwascher was credited with destroying three Heinkel He 111s. In an earlier comment on these markings, Nick indicated, "The painting was used as a reference for the profile in Francis K Mason's Profile on the Hurricane. The black rudder and wing panel came from a Turbinlite flight Hurricane DB770 and the Hurricane had red doped repair patches on the port aileron, rear fuselage and tail unit. AS THE PAINTING WAS DRAWN FROM LIFE I GUESS IT IS A PRETTY ACCURATE RECREATION OF THE AIRCRAFT AS IT APPEARED." The last sentence is my emphasis. My apologies for the long winded introduction. My question is...What are these later markings/camouflage scheme based on? Is anyone aware of photographs of this Hurricane in the later (post all black) scheme? The Xtradecal sheet I referred to includes markings for two other 1 Squadron Hurricanes (JX*S and JX*I) in mid-summer 1942, markings that include Ocean Grey/Dark Green upper surfaces and Medium Sea Grey lower surfaces with a Sky spinner. Why would Kuttlewascher's Hurricane have a red spinner, black undersurfaces and red code letters while the other aircraft have a standard colour scheme? When this Hurricane was repainted would the entire aircraft be repainted and the starboard nose art be reapplied as well as the squadron code letters? Was the nose art 'Night Reaper' a decal or was it hand painted? Was it reapplied in the exact style and location? The fact that individual red patches are placed in exact locations indicates that the 5-view artwork of James Goulding must be based on more than the 1942 painting of Mr. Striebel which shows the aircraft in all black markings. It may well be I am missing something that is obvious, something my wife often brings to my attention but if light can be shed on this subject I would be most grateful.

Thanks to all who responded to this post, especially Wez and Troy. That link to the FineScale Modeler piece was most informative. That artwork of LO*G is gorgeous. It appears that photo reference...or informed opinions from fellow members is needed to complete an accurate build-up. Like others, I am anxiously anticipating the new 1/48 Airfix Spitfire Mk I. I'm sure the after market decal folks will add to the subject possibilities. We truly live in the golden age of modeling!

Thanks to the gentlemen who took the time to respond to my questions about the Spitfires flown by George Unwin. It appears most or all of his Spitfires were coded QV*H. The only difference would be the serial number and the type of camouflage pattern. For those who might be interested, I too spent time going through my references and found out the following: 1. The Xtradecal 'RAF Battle of Britain' sheet X72-117 has several errors worth pointing out. a) The squadron codes for QV*I X4474 are too thin when compared to photos (top of page 79, Osprey Aircraft of the Aces No. 12 'Spitfire Mark I/II Aces 1939-41). The squadron codes for LO*H K9899 are also a bit too thin when compared to the photo found on page 27 of 'Spitfire At War 3' by Dr Alfred Price. This photo does answer my question about the placement of squadron codes on the starboard side of Spitfires flown by 602 Squadron. It also indicates that this aircraft had large roundels on the wing undersurfaces, something the Xtradecal sheet fails to indicate. 2. I plan on using an ancient Micro Scale sheet No. 72-46 which has squadron codes in both grey and sky for any Spitfire codes that need correction. Finally, is there a more recently issued decal sheet that provides squadron codes for RAF aircraft? It appears there was no standard style of lettering used for most aircraft, especially during the early war years.

I am looking for opinions on the markings of Spitfire Mk I X4425 flown by Flt Sgt George Unwin. The only photo I have seen of this aircraft is the one on page 74 of 'Osprey Aircraft of the Aces No 12 Spitfire Mark I/II Aces 1939-41' which shows the port fuselage from the rear cockpit to the front edge of the vertical tail. 1. Are there any photos of this or any other Spitfires flown by Flt Sgt Unwin that show the complete aircraft? 2. Would this aircraft have the same under wing roundels as that seen on the often reproduced photo of QV-I as seen on page 70 of the above mentioned book? The various profiles in this book indicate that there was a variety of under wing markings ranging from no roundel to small ones near the wing tip to larger ones. A question on another Spitfire, LO-G 'X4382' of 602 Squadron, a port view photo which can be found on page 33 of the above mentioned book. 1. Would the unit code 'LO' be under the cockpit on the starboard side? 2. The under surfaces in that photo appear very light. Would the under surface colours be standardized by August 1940 (Sky)?

After checking out photos of the two kits in question I was reminded of an observation made by a fellow modeler decades ago. Modeling is all about fooling the eye. By focusing on certain aspects of a model, e.g. detail, paint scheme, markings, etc., you can persuade the viewer to focus on the well done aspects and ignore flaws. What was the first thing you noticed about that Spitfire with the detailed engine compartment...the engine and the gun bays...oooh...well done! The Airfix build-up has a very nice finish...paint job was first class. I didn't really notice the windscreen on that kit 'cause I was focused on what looked good and at some level I was more forgiving about any flaws. Years ago a friend asked if I had any 1/32 Bf 109E's in my stash as he had an order for one. All I had was the forty year old Hasegawa abomination which I willingly donated as I was NEVER going to build that excuse for a 109. He showed it to me when he was finished...holy cow, I didn't recognize it! A beautiful paint job, nicely decaled and weathered...a silk purse from a sows ear! My eyes were drawn to those aspects and I was hard pressed to remember all of the inaccuracies of the kit when it was in the box. Think about all those Hollywood starlets we see on the silver screen and in magazines. Damn, there are some gorgeous lookin' female of the species! Dressed to the nines, flawless make-up, false eye lashes, hair done up to perfection. Where do they find them foxes! Then you find a piece on the internet showing what they look like when they're dressed like the rest of us, caught shopping on a Saturday morning...no makeup, sweatshirt and jeans, hair that they just ran a comb through to make it look like they didn't just get outa bed. You get the idea. I have a build-up of that old Matchbox 1/32 DH Venom that I worked on for several years, making corrections and adding detail. Turns out there are a couple of things I could add...but I'm gettin' long in the tooth and my attic is stuffed with newer kits. But every time I glance at it when I walk out of the room...oooh, man is that neat or what...still one of my favourite girls! Oh yeah, another one of my favourite girls...for you old guys. Julie Christie as Lara in Doctor Zhivago. Hubba, hubba!

Again, thanks to the previous two gentlemen for their input. I may be mistaken but I have seldom heard the term 'wing washout' used when other kits have been reviewed. I mean, do most kits take this into consideration, regardless of scale and aircraft type? If it is that noticeable why aren't other kits taken to task? When comparing the newer Airfix Spitfire with the Tamiya kit last night I noticed a difference in the interpretation of the wing root fillet. It is much shallower on the Tamiya kit. I'm not aware of this being mentioned in kit reviews. Which is more correct? I'm going to take a look in my stash and pull out other Spitfires, from 1/32 to 1/72 and start comparing them. This is beginning to peak my interest i.e. comparing that poor, misallied Tamiya kit and other Spitfires in my collection. As others have commented, no kit is perfect and it's all about which issues can be corrected and which ones can you live with. I don't recall being aware of kit inaccuracies when I was twelve years old. All those seventy-nine cent kits were perfect. Maybe ignorance IS bliss!

Thanks to the gentlemen who took the time to respond to my question. I have two more questions, if I may. Pardon my ignorance, Graham, but could you explain, "It lacks the washout near the tip..."? Phil made the observation that, "The problem is if you put it near an accurate spitfire as it doesn't look like the lean thoroughbred it's meant to." Could you give an example of, "an accurate spitfire" I might compare it to in 1/72? I too believe the propeller should be replaced as well as the exhausts. Thanks again for the input.

I was going to add this to that VERY long thread on Spitfires but figured it would get lost in that jungle so, if I may I'll just start again. I pulled out my Tamiya, Airfix and CMR Mk I Spitfires and am now leaning towards doing the Tamiya kit. I know that over the years numerous modelers have been critical of the Tamiya kit and few, if any, recommend it. I've got the main parts of these kits in front of me and for the life of me can't figure out why the Tamiya kit gets no lovin'. For me, it has a lot more detail with nice scribe lines and I see little or no great discrepancy in the main outline. I would sand off the overly done ribbing on those parts and would try and round off the wheel wells a bit. I'd appreciate if informed members could suggest any other corrections that could be made to bring that kit up to a reasonable standard as it seems to be the most reasonable starting point to do a nice little build-up.

Seeing as I started this topic I thought I'd continue here instead of adding comments to the post started by 'johnnboy' on Jan 4 entitled "Preshading and panel wash in 1/72" For me, there is a perspective that hasn't been considered. It has to do with what the h*** our hobby is all about for each of us. Personal satisfaction? Something to tinker around with on a boring winter weekend? Artistic expression/interpretation? Creating as realistic a representation of the 'real thing' as possible? Why is it that modelers are usually looking for the most 'accurate kit' (what ever that means to a modeler) when they choose a subject? Most of us get excited when we hear that finally, Airfix is coming out with a new Defiant or whatever. Who would choose a 1950's edition of an Airfix Spit I that came with twelve parts, no cockpit detail and battle ship rivets when we have a 21st century edition? We look for opinions on modeling sites that give us insight on the interpretation of accurate/correct shades of paint. We look for decals that are the correct shade and font/style and lay down like they were painted on. Many are willing to pay $15.00 or $20.00 dollars for a sheet covering eight or ten aircraft when we will only use one for that particular subject we've been waiting years to see, yet we feel we can 'interpret' how that model should look. Why bother with all that expense? I always try to work from photos of the subject I want to model. A Marine Corps Corsair from the South Pacific in late 1944 is going to probably look more weathered than a F-100D based in England in the late 1950's. I recall seeing a build up of a F-106 that had been preshaded! That might work on a beat up Corsair on a coral strip but really, not on an ADC bird based state side. So, for me, I start with a Tamiya Corsair (whatever scale), pick out what I think are the most accurate brand of paints (often modifying to my satisfaction when compared to paint chips and colour photos). I'll pay extra for a high quality decal sheet that is accurate. Using photo reference I try and place the decals as accurately as possible. If you are just building to express your artistic interpretation of something why not just pick up a forty year old kit on e-bay for $5.00 and finish up that can of paint you did the bathroom in last year. Heck, you may even have some old MPC decals from the early '60's that included a 'flame job' from a street rod that would look neat on a Hawker Tempest, just like we did when we were kids! But...if you want to do an accurate build up of a BoB Hurricane you're going to be or should be, limited in how you can interpret that aircraft...realistically. As to heavily scribed panel lines I share a perspective from a friend who builds models for a living. Depending on the scale, especially 1/72 and smaller to be truly accurate you would not even see panel lines. What he has done on some models that are painted e.g. WWII camouflaged aircraft is draw the panel lines in with a pencil. You can see the panels and in the scale distance you are viewing the subject that is all you should see. On natural metal birds he uses different metallic shades to show different panels. I apologize for the long winded comment but it feels good to get it off my chest. If you've read this far...thanks! Now where are those old dried up Frog decals of a Vultee Vengeance in the bottom drawer I wanna use on that orange plastic Aurora Zero? Oh, they're the wrong scale. So what...that's the way I imagine it and it's gonna look so-o-o-o cool! In response to earlier comments about sanding off all the fine detail/raised lumps and bumps I make a point of trying to go around them and save that kind of detail. I would never just take a rasp to the whole kit. A lot of extra work but I'm pleased with the results so far. As most of us seem to agree...to each his own.

As others have commented, one of the few negative issues with Airfix kits are heavy scribe lines. Their most recent kits, especially in 1/72 seem to have addressed this problem to some degree. This heavy scribing makes the build ups look too much like a toy instead of a scale model. Filling in these trenches with a dark wash only adds to the exaggerated effect in my opinion. I may be missing something, and I'd enjoy hearing comments on the subject, but I have found that taking a sanding stick to the whole model before I start assembling and getting the surface detail to a more reasonable depth instead of filling them in and re-scribing makes the kit much more realistic. Wing trailing edges can be thinned down at the same time. I bought a Czech Master Resin kit recently (No125 Supermarine Spitfire Mk.I Early Version). While the scribing is quite delicate I was disappointed in the rough surface and the unrealistic and exaggerated fabric detail on the wing and tail surfaces and the poor wing to fuselage fit. A few weeks ago I picked up the Airfix Spitfire MkI/IIa and compared it to the CMR kit. Other then the photo etch and detailed resin interior of the CMR kit I find the Airfix Spitfire a much better product...and MUCH cheaper! The only other criticism I can make of Airfix kits is their canopies are too thick and should be replaced with vac form parts when available. I have become a recent convert to the new line of Airfix kits and like others anticipate future releases.

Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to respond. The last comment by John suggests there is room for improvement...I mean, "They're O.K.," doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. Is there anything in particular that should be attended to? I found having to close up the gear doors was a bit of a hassle and I plan on thinning down the wing trailing edges but all in all it looks okay so far. While I (may) have John's ear, are those vac form Vampire canopies still available as they are a welcome addition? Few, if any reviews ever comment on inaccurate Vampire or Venom canopies.

Over the years there have been numerous comments made on accuracy issues with the Classic Airframes Vampire and Sea Venom kits. I recently took out my Venom FB.4 kit and figured it would be a good idea to check in and find out if there are any issues that have to be dealt with before I start gluing parts together. I noticed the kit canopy could be improved. I have a couple of vac form Aero Club canopies made for the 1/48 Vampire. Photos indicate that the canopy was bulged (blown) while the kit injection formed canopy is flat on the sides. I plan on building this kit in flight, gear up and canopy closed. Comments and observations would be welcomed.

With all the comments on the need for an upgraded, accurate Spit Mk I, I feel moved to comment on a kit bash that I did over 25 years ago (I can't believe I just said that!). I don't know if many members remember the old 1/32 Battle of Britain Spitfire issued by Revell back in 1969 or so, and while it lacked the kind of detail we expect now and some crude detail (cockpit, wheel wells, exhaust stacks), this kit had some of the best scribing and surface detail I have ever seen on any kit. Fine raised rivets aft of the cockpit, just like on the real bird, flush rivet heads that looked like actual rivet heads, on the wings, unlike the poor renditions we find on more recent kit releases. Back when kit bashing was the only way to go if you wanted to improve a kit (never heard of photo etch or resin after market back then), I used parts from the Hasegawa Mk V kit, built up new exhausts from metal tubing and epoxy putty and made up my own decals. I've had a Hasegawa Mk V on the back bench for years now (so many toys, so little time). I have the wings partly scribed, got all the up to date upgrades (cockpit, wheels, cannon barrels, etc, built up my own 14 piece cockpit door). I plan on using that old Revell fuselage, from the fire wall back. If only I built half as fast as I dream. I lack the computer skills to post photos but if a member has access to that 'golden oldie' it would be nice to show what tool makers were capable of back then. I have often wondered why over 40 years ago tool makers had the skill and ability to produce kits which were in some areas so superior to what we see now. I still have that kit on my computer desk and every time I hear about a new Spit Mk I on the market, I just think, no thanks, I got one...a lotta work and a lot of pleasure!

Of course I was just kidding. You have cleared up more issues then most of us could have expected. By all means, take your time with anything you propose in creating. Well...don't take too long. I'm not getting any younger. In a couple of years I may have a hard time remembering what an airplane is! Again, many thanks for your contributions.

A movie that hasn't been mentioned yet, but one that left a lasting impression on me as a twelve year old kid was 'A Guy Named Joe' with Van Johnson and Spencer Tracey. Seeing all those P-38's shooting down the bad guys created a life long love for those Fork Tailed Devils!

A kindred spirit! Just one question, Steve. Do you take pleasure in teasing us with morsels of Sea Venom trivia? Can't you just dump your rain barrel of Sea Venom data on the table and let us grovel through it! This is the first place I've been able to encounter people who have the same keen interest in the subject being discussed i.e. British naval aircraft in general and the Sea Venom in particular. Several years ago when I brought my Matchbox Sea Venom for display at my local hobby shop I received several positive comments on my nice 'Vampire' build-up. At least the Phantom and Mustang lovers were in the ballpark. Your choice of words to describe, "the curvature between the radome and fuselage" was much more accurate then mine. Well, it was only 9:30 a.m. (early for a retiree) and I had only had one coffee! Your reference to the gun bay/cannon fairing area makes me want to ask...again...hey, Steve, do you have any drawings/photos that show this area in detail? As your comments on the underside of the tail area suggest, it is hard to photograph and most photos are taken at ground level and show little detail of this area. Had to smile at your comment that you are sweltering in your man cave while I have to anticipate shoveling snow (again!) to get out to my car this morning. I hope that other members of our modeling community, especially those folks in Great Britain who may have access to Sea Venoms in museums, etc., can jump in and add to this exchange. I too, am enjoying it immensely!

Something to consider. I've used BMF in the past, usually in the wing root area of a camouflaged aircraft. After painting I would lightly sand to create a scuffed/worn effect. After several years the adhesive/glue dried and the foil lifted and kind of curled up at the edges. Had to use thin super glue to tack it back down. At the very least I'd try to ensure that you used fresh/new BMF. I've been told keeping it in a zip-lock bag in the fridge helps to keep the adhesive backing moist. I'd love to hear comments from modelers who applied BMF to an entire model years ago and find out how it worked out.

Many thanks, Steve, for taking time and energy in providing photos and insight that admirers of the Sea Venom can appreciate. Your most recent photos are unique and a welcome addition to our reference file. From the number of views on this topic it appears there are many Sea Venom fans out there! My apologies for dragging this topic on but I'd like to share my perspective on modeling in general and the Sea Venom in particular. If you have more important tasks at hand, like rearranging your sock drawer, please ignore the following. I guess each of us have our pet peeves or aspects in modeling that catch our attention. For me, inaccurate decals, trench like scribe lines and the shape of the aircraft forward of the windscreen come to mind. Just as in a painted portrait, if the artist doesn't capture the eyes and nose of the subject, it doesn't look right. How does the Lone Ranger hide his features? By covering his eyes and nose. If the nose and front end of an aircraft aren't right it catches our eye. For example, Hurricane and Spitfire kits are often criticized for inaccurate spinners or cowlings. My computer skills are wanting (I really have to get in touch with that eight year old kid up the street) and am unable to reproduce the photos I will refer to. If a member has access to and can bring them up I would be most grateful. They include the following: a) Air International , August 1990 'Warbirds' article by Ray Sturtivant. -the heading inflight photo on page 81 is one of the most pleasing images of the Sea Venom I have seen. It illustrates many of the shape issues I will point out. -the photo at the top of page 88 shows a great profile view of the nose and tail. Warpaint Series No.44 'de Havilland Venom and Sea Venom' by W.A. Harrison. -the photo at top of page 32 shows an inflight profile view. I have spent many hours (I really have to get a life!) comparing photos to the three kits in hand, the 1/72 CMR resin kit, the limited injection Classic Airframes kit and the 1/48 vac form Aeroclub kit. The following are my opinions. It has been observed that opinions are like ***holes. Everybody's got one! These are mine: 1. Nose. -Using the Air International photo reference and the drawing provided by Steve. The front view shows that the top of the radome is flattened compared to the more oval bottom. Makes it look like someone pressed own on a circular shape. The CMR kit (and the 1/32 Matchbox kit) appear most accurate. The Aeroclub and CA kits are wrong. All kits lack the 'step' where the lower radome butts the lower fuselage. The Air International reference photo really shows this nicely. Both the CA and Aeroclub radome are too bulbous and need to be reshaped. 2. Upper Wing Fairings/Bulges -All kits are wrong if you are modeling a later version (FAW.21,22,53) of the Sea Venom. In the case of the CA kit, I would file the top of the wing flat, then cut a very thin sheet of styrene in the shape of the raised lip, then cut a sheet of thick styrene, round off the edges and glue it onto the raised lip. 3. Wing Span -it appears to me that CA and Aeroclub kits have the same wingspan. In my opinion a kit can be off by a couple of mm's in length or span and go unnoticed. The shape is what really catches my eye. 4 Wing/Tail Booms -there should be a raised lip where the booms join the upper wings. The CA and CMR kit have this, the Aeroclub kit does not. -it appears to me that the CA and Aeroclub kits have the same length of tailbooms. 5. Rudders -it appears to me that the Aeroclub rudders are too narrow in chord -The CA kit rudders are wider but need to be re-shaped a bit. -both kits lack an accurate 'acorn' fairing below the rudder (too bulbous). 6. The Tip or Rear of the Fuselage (tail hook fairing) -the two photo references indicate to me that all three kits are inaccurate in this area. -the Aeroclub kit is too high and blunt. The CA kit is not pointed enough but is closer in profile shape. -the CMR kit is more pointed but the profile needs slight correcting. 7. Tail Hook/Exhaust Nozzle shroud -as Steve's latest photos indicate, the CMR kit is nicely detailed. -the CA kit is basic and could use some detailing. -the Aeroclub kit would need the most work in this area. 8. Gun Ports -the CMR kit is nicely detailed and just needs to be drilled out to include gun barrels. -the CA kit is nice but needs barrels added plus a bit more detailing/cleaning up. -the Aeroclub kit is very basic and needs a lot of work. 9. Cartridge Case Ejection Chutes -CMR kit is nicely detailed. -CA kit needs a bit of work but is a much better starting point as the Aeroclub kit has little or no detail. As is often pointed out, each of us has different criteria as to what is acceptable and what needs to be improved. No kit is perfect and we tend to focus on what catches our eye. I don't think I'm the only one who has their fingers crossed in the hope that Airfix might consider a 1/48 Sea Venom produced to the same high standard as their Sea Vixen! Thanks to all the folks who have been following this thread.

Uh oh. The villagers are massing at forest edge, torches in hand, pitch forks at the ready! What shall we do Dr. Frankenstein? Go, Igor! Seek out their leader, the contemptuous 'Miggers' and inquire as to their purpose while I momentarily lay down my Xacto knife and saw and await their proposals.