Brian J

I knew it, I knew it...there was an interesting story! Thanks for sharing, Steve. Got any perspectives or stories about A-4's...love them too! You'd have to start a new thread. Those drawings of the radome are a big help, especially the one on the left showing the front view. Gotta get out my rasp and get to work. I think the reason aircraft like the Sea Venom seemed to be uninteresting is that so few people who knew it, worked on it and flew it seldom if ever wrote or talked about it. There have to be a million stories about dozens of various aircraft that would make for insightful reading. When you work around or on something everyday you take it for granted and just because it never bombed Germany or shot down MiGs it can't be worth knowing about. I served in a MATS (later MAC) transport squadron out of Elmendorf AFB in Alaska, a low life enlisted type...yawn... Folks take transport aviation for granted, but without it modern wars couldn't be fought. How many C-124 or C-130 aircrew or ground crew have told their story? I'll bet there's some good ones. Many of those 'Fighters of the Fifties' are worth closer scrutiny but the folks that flew them or worked on them are getting long in the tooth. I remember talking to Dave Menard, a great guy and a F-100 authority, at the Air Force Museum years ago when he told me stories of families who just threw out stacks of old photos that a father or grandfather had taken during WWII or the Korean War. They weren't interested in that stuff...who cares? They're gone forever! Is there is a place on this site or somewhere on the internet where old guys can tell 'their story' or share humorous incidents? Betcha all of us would learn a lot. Jeez, I forgot to ask another question...again! Steve, do you have any information/photos/drawings, etc., of the area above the exhaust, where the tail hook would be housed? Kits seldom provide detail in that area. Hope you can help.

Gonna start calling ya Steve...'Danielle's Dad' sounds so formal. So, you folks export your "cat urine" while you keep all the good stuff for domestic consumption? What might you recommend? Onto a less serious topic. I spent several hours last night, imbibing nothing stronger then a diet soft drink, trying to figure out the best way to attack my 1/48 Sea Venom options. In reality I'm never going to build my Aeroclub vac form Sea Venom as to me it lacks the detail that the Classic Airframes kit provides. As I indicated on an earlier posting, I plan on doing mine 'in-flight', wheels up and cockpit closed, so those areas are not important considerations. My plans are to take the vac form rear top fuselage of the Aeroclub kit and work it onto the Classic Airframes kit. It will be interesting to see if that fits the lower rear fuselage of the CA kit. As Steve indicated earlier, it is much more accurate. I will also file off the raised portions of the wing root area of the CA kit. Some white metal detail parts from the vac form kit may come in handy as well. Just my opinion, but it always seemed to me that almost every Sea Venom kit fails to capture an accurate interpretation of the nose radome. Kinda reminds me of the problem kit manufacturers have in capturing the elusive shape of the Spitfire. I have taken both CA and Aeroclub front ends (other kits as well) and compared them to numerous photos from every angle. I can't put my finger on it, but to me they just aren't right! This may not be the appropriate format to pose this question, and I apologize if I am speaking out of place. As a model builder and lover of all things with wings going back over 55 years, I am often dismayed by the fact we know so little about some of our favourites. Yes, we know the dimensions, basic performance, the units that it served in, etc., but they're just numbers and data. I am a Canadian who served four years in the USAF in Alaska during the mid-60's and have often thought how little many modelers know about how the military airplane world really works. On the topic of Sea Venoms, someone like Steve is in a position to tell us dozens of 'warstories' about the aviation world he experienced. What were the strengths/good points and weaknesses of this aircraft? What was it like to fly and maintain? How effective was its radar? You get the idea. It's just that by the next generation or so, when most of us are gone, people will see, in this case, a Sea Venom in a museum and in fact know little about what it and the men who flew and maintained it were like. It'll just be a well maintained 'machine.' To me folks who were there have a sort of obligation, if that's the appropriate word, to share their insight and experience with those who would love to hear about it. It would be fascinating to sit down with a bunch of 'old timers' and listen to their stories about the good ol' days over a couple of pints of...whatever!

Well...that explains it! Do your research when you're, "well lubricated." I take it the Fosters went down well and the hours passed unnoticed! Many thanks, 'Navy870', Danielle's Dad! I think I'm a little more confident now when I do my Sea Venoms with that later fairing/bump.

It doesn't appear that many photos were taken during the operational life of the Sea Venom that clearly show the shape of this fairing/wing bulge. Continuing my search through my references I found a b&w photo on page 14 in Roger Lindsay's 'de Havilland Venom'. The airframe in question is FAW.21 WW212 '445/J of 892 Squadron. While it is a FAW.21 it distinctly shows the later style/shape fairing/wing bulge i.e. flat inner side that was supposedly a FAW.22/FAW53 mod. I am getting the impression that this fairing was a later modification to many/most airframes especially the later (after the FAW.20) versions. I'm holding off on starting any more build-ups of Sea Venoms until, hopefully a clearer explanation shows up...however, after checking my birth certificate it looks like I may not have forever!

While researching the Classic Airframes kit markings for 28 Squadron I came across this thread and thought I'd add my two cents. I cut up my magazines and file the articles so I don't have the date on a history of 28 Squadron from an old issue of Scale Aircraft Modelling by Andrew Thomas. This article helps to clarify dates and colour schemes. The following is taken directly from that article. "The first replacement Venom FB.1's arrived in February 1956 and it was with these that the Squadron returned to Kai Tak in June 1957 when Sek Kong was handed over to the Army. The Venom FB.1's such as WR299 "A' and WK495 'B' were finished as the Vampires had been, with the Venoms' tip tanks being coloured yellow with a blue lightning flash upon them. Venom FB.4's replaced the FB.1's in November 1959 and once again No.28 was the last squadron to operate the type---a rather unfortunate hat trick! The Venom FB.4's, such as WR537 'A', (the Classic Airframes kit markings-my comment) WR564 'D' and WR417 'B', had silver undersides but otherwise the scheme was the same as the FB.1's, although they later had white fuselage serials and blue rudders with yellow aircraft letters thereon. The letter was repeated on the nose wheel door in blue. The squadron flew its last Venom sortie on 27 June 1962 after work-up on the replacement aircraft, the Hunter FGA.9." If you scroll back to the photo reference given by JasonC on 29 February 2012 you can see that the aircraft serial on the tail boom is in white! Can we conclude that the kit markings could have either black or white serials? I realize this is an old topic but I hope others can jump in and continue (if necessary) this discourse.

Thanks, Danielle's Dad, for taking the time to respond! You commented that, "The Classic Airframes kit has serious inaccuracies in the cockpit and more than a few pooches in the airframe." Would you care to elaborate? I plan on doing my build-up with closed canopy, inflight, on a stand so cockpit and gear well detail aren't that important. The CMR kit has the tear drop shaped fairing/wing bump without the raised lip. Does that mean that area would have to be corrected/modified if one were to build a FAW.22 or FAW.53 from this kit?

Thanks for the updated comments, Wez. It would be nice if Hannants or whoever makes those decals would take a page from Modeldecal and produce a corrected sheet. Anyone have an idea when that Special Hobby Vampire is due out...got a boatload of decals waiting in the stash?

Thank you, gentlemen for taking the time to respond. I took Bill's advice and checked out those earlier comments. To tell you the truth I was unable to grasp what conclusions were reached! Rizzo's last comments appears to make the most sense which would suggest that photo in Philip Birtles book is of a FAW.22 i.e. the upper wing bump has a raised lip and flat interior edge. It appears from the limited number of photos that regardless of the shape of the wing bump/bulge there should be a raised lip around the edges, which only the Classic Airframes kit has. My problem now is to figure out where my model subject fits into this puzzle.

I built the old Frog 1/72 Sea Venom decades ago. I built the 1/32 Matchbox Sea Venom years ago (after years of study and procrastination). I have one 1/72 Czech Master Resin Sea Venom kit, one 1/48 Classic Airframes Sea Venom and a 1/48 Aeroclub vac form Sea Venom waiting in the wings. One thing (there are probably others) they all seem to have in common are different interpretations of the upper wing bulge over the main gear wells. The photos I have access to suggest that this bulge has a raised lip around it and it is teardrop shaped with the inner side being flat. None of the above kits have this shape. The Classic airframes kit has the raised lip, but lacks the flat inner side. The Aeroclub vac form kit has the teardrop shaped bulge without the raised lip or the flat inner side. The Czech Master Resin kit (wow, is it nice!) has the teardrop shape bulge without the raised lip or flat inner side. The same goes for the other two above mentioned kits. I spent a lot of time years ago using the photo on pages 80-81 of 'De Havilland Vampire, Venom and Sea Vixen' by Philip Birtles (Ian Allan) as a reference to correct this issue on my Matchbox build-up. I know there are numerous modelers out there who love the Sea Venom as much as I do. Does anyone know if the version of this bulge I am referring to was a later modification or was it on all marks of the Sea Venom? I have never seen photos of it without the raised lip and flattened inner side. On the topic of Sea Venoms. The Czech Master Resin 1/72 Sea Venom kit provides markings for a well known Sea Venom that made a wheels up landing on HMS Eagle on 2 November 1956, WW281/095 of 893 Squadron. The kit decals show it with a yellow winged blue lightning bolt behind the numbers. Several years ago there was a two page article by Andrew Thomas entitled 'Courage over Suez' which included a colour two view of this aircraft. The lightning bolt is yellow and there are no wings. Has anyone found references that clarify this difference in interpretation? Opinions and insight on the above topics would be appreciated.

Some added information on the markings of the 112 Squadron Vampire. There was an interesting article in Volume 1, Issue 2 of Quarter Scale Modeller (QSM) on Vampires. On the cover and on page 19 there is a series of small b&w photos of 112 Squadron in 1952. Three of these photos are of A*T WA331. There is only a large green flash on both sides of the nose...no shark mouth. The 'A' and 'T' appear to be the same colour as the green flash i.e. green. Three of these photos (thirteen in all) show a shark mouth, but none on WA331. The interior of the mouth in two of these photos appear to be too light to be black, but hey, I could be wrong! The photos and captions are credited to John Mead, which includes the following statement. "Admittedly it was a long time ago, but my recollection of WA331/A was that the period during which both the all green fins and rudders with Sqn badge and the sharksmouth were applied, was very short indeed. I'm talking days not weeks! One more observation concerning this series of photos. It appears some of 112 Squadron Vampires had the starboard intake fairing of an FB9, including WA331/A. Does anyone know of photos that show WA331/A with the shark mouth markings? Just did more checking and found a b&w photo at the top of the inside cover of AirCam Aviation Series 'De Havilland Vampire F1-T55.' This appears to be WA331/A. Hard to tell from this photo if the interior of the mouth is black or red. The nose gear door is silver with a green letter 'A'. On my Modeldecal Set No 14 the shark mouth has a red interior with a black outline.

Hi Dave. You seemed to have 'got the job done.' A suggestion on the air brush cleaning. I have used lacquer thinner as a cleaning agent for over thirty years and have found it to be the best and cheapest product to use for this. I buy it by the gallon at a local hardware store.

Trying to keep it simple, I thought I'd start a new thread/question on the CA Vampire. To cut to the chase...I have the Aeroclub corrected intakes, fuselage and vac form canopy. Are there any other areas that are major issues or problems with that kit that may not have been addressed?

I pulled out my CA Venom kit from the stash...again, and thought I'd check in here to see if there are any accuracy issues I should be aware of. Years ago, when their Vampire kit first came out there were numerous threads and chatter on that kits problems but I don't recall many on the Venom. Were the intake and nose problems corrected by CA by the time they issued the Venom? On the same topic, I'd like to add that I have a couple of sets of vac form canopies from Aeroclub when I purchased their correction sets for the Vampire. The kit canopies for both CA kits (Vampire and Venom) are incorrect in that the canopies are blown (bulged) as on the Aeroclub vac form interpretations. This canopy issue is seldom if ever mentioned when comments are made on those kits.

Thanks to the gentlemen who have responded so far. My main concern with the Airfix kits, again, my focus right now is the Mk I and Mk VB, is the heavy scribing. I build 90% of my 1/72 kits in flight with the wheels up and cockpit closed so detail in those areas aren't a major concern. Would folks consider the overall shape and fine scribing of the AZmodels Mk I and Mk VB comparable to their Mk IX as found in their Joy Pack boxing? If so, I'd be happy as a clam.

I'm sure this topic has been discussed in detail. I'll be darned if I can find them, so I'll ask again. I am interested in completing my collection of 1/72 Spitfires. The only major versions I want to add at this time are the Mk I (Battle of Britain) and Mk VB. I have the Tamiya kits (among others), but was always put off by the negative comments on them as well as the many others on the market. I know, I know, there's nothing wrong with those kits that a little filing and fine tuning won't fix, but then... I recently purchased the AZmodels 'Joy Pack' for the Mk IX version after reading positive comments on various modeling sites. I too was impressed with them. I see where AZmodels has produced a Mk IB, kit No. AZ7307 and a Mk VB, kit No. AZ7309. I would appreciate reading opinions on those two kits as well as any other AZmodels Spitfire kits. Are they the best on the market in that scale? How do they compare to their Mk IX's? Looking forward to hearing from modelers who know their Spitfires.

A couple of comments about the colour used on Gnats seem to contradict each other. One post indicated that the airframe was silver (not natural metal) while another post (and the build-up) suggest grey as the airframe colour. I realize the Gnat was in service for quite a few years. Did the paint scheme change over the years? I always thought this aircraft was, what do the Brits call it, 'high speed silver'? I plan on using the kit markings/decals. Is silver okay?

I am thinking about getting around to filling in some of the voids in my 1/72 Spitfire collection. I am embarrassed to say I have never built a Spit V because of all the criticism I have heard about inaccurate kits of that version. I have two Tamiya kits but put in on the back shelf due to many negative comments. Having read positive comments on the recently released Sword Mk XVIe, I picked one up and was impressed. I see where they have also released a Mk Vc and a Vc Trop version. How does their Mk V's compare with their Mk XVI's? Heck, if ya can't get sound input on Spitfires on Britmodeller, where can ya go? Has anyone built the Tamiya and Sword Mk V's and could they comment on them? For that matter, any input on the above kits would be welcomed.

I looked at a completed model of the Fujimi Mk 14 to compare the spinners of the three kits. The Fujimi spinner seems a bit 'fuller' (if that's an appropriate term) while the Airfix and Xtrakit interpretations appear similar and more bullet shaped. From six or eight feet away it is difficult to tell the difference (tongue firmiy in cheek!). On anothre note, I just looked at both kits using my optivisor (using my unaided eyes a Spit looks much like a Mustang even close up) and in my opinion the Xtrakit has finer detail e.g. finer scribe lines and added small panels/detail. At this point I plan on using the Xtrakit for the aluminum finished Mk 22 (fine detail pops out) and the Airfix kit for a camouflaged Mk 24 (the paint scheme will distract from the lack of detail). Maybe collecting doll house furniture would cause less hassle!

Thanks for the comments, gentlemen, one of which raises another quesion on my part. From what I understand, there was no external difference between a Mk 22 and a Mk 24, the main differences having to do with added fuselage fuel tanks and a change in the gun firing system. So, is it possible to build either version from the same kit? Also, am I to conclude that the spinners on both kits are inaccurate? If that's the case I wonder if a replacement from a Fujimi Mk 14 would solve the problem? (Thinkiing to myself...where is that very old Hawk abomination...)

I am not aware if this comparison has been made before...so I'll ask. I recently purchased the newer Airfix kit and had to compare it to the Xtrakit that I've had in my stash for a while. I believe the Airfix kit is considered to be a more accurate representation but when comparing the two kits side by side I don't feel there is THAT much of a difference. It looks to me that the wing tips of the Xtrakit could use a little reshaping but not much else jumps out at me as as serious flaw. I'd appreciate hearing (seeing) informed opinions on the subjects. Is the Xtrakit that bad that I'd be better off buying a second Airfix kit (I hope to do a Mk 22 and a Mk 24). I plan on probably building both versions in flight with wheels up and canopy closed but would enjoy hearing view points on the entire airframe.

I was able to contact The Aviation Bookshop and find they had a copy of Runways to Victory. Mr. Simon Watson informs me that it should be posted before the end of the week. Thank goodness they speak or at least understand Canadian in the U.K. I want to thank the gentlemen who took the time to help me in my quest to track down a copy of the book. Many thanks. I'm looking forward to some informative reading.

Thanks for the heads-up, Nige. May I ask where (on line bookseller, local bookshop, model contest) you were able to find your copy. I'd keep looking, if I just knew where? I've asked at the meat counter at the local supermarket, the local gas station...no one seems to know what I'm talking about.

Thank you gentlemen for the heads up on 'Runways to Victory'. One of the sites has a coupleof copies...for about 250 dollars! Gulp! Another is a French site and my French is about a good as my Mandarin, s-o-o-o. I'll hide in the bushes and hope that something else comes up. Thanks again.

Hi Jim I'm afraid my computer skills are limited and I'm unable to oblige you your request. If anyone else has a copy of 'Duxford Eagles' I'd be grateful if they'd be able to post that colour photo I keep referring to. I agree that the tread has gotten a little off topic...although it sure is interesing stuff. Ah, the things I don't know.

Can anyone help me locate a distributor/bookseller that might carry 'Runways to Victory' by Peter Celis? I believe the book was published in Belgium in 2003.