Brian J

Ouch! My arms are getting sore from beating this dead horse...but what the heck, I think I saw his eyelids flutter. I agree with Nick in many of his observations, with his background he is in a much better position to offer an authoritative opinion than me, but there are still aspects of the discussion I find hard to reconcile. I would enjoy hearing what Roger Freeman based his early findings (1970's and '80's) on and why, in one of his later publications (2002) did he change that opinion and in that caption on page 64 of 'American Eagles' state, "...the standard group in-the-field camouflage scheme of dark green upper-and blue-grey undersurfaces." What was that statement based on? Why was there a change in opinion? I have the impression that Garry L. Fry interviewed members of the 78FG when he authored 'Eagles of Duxford.' Does anyone know his sources? The photo caption on page 62, under the photo of natural metal finish WZ*E, we read, "Later it will be painted dark green/sky blue..." Low and behold, on page 120 there is a colour photo of WZ*E with what appears to be a light blue undersurface. Again, on page 83 the photo caption under WZ*S 'Eileen', "...in new dark green upper and sky blue lower paint job." Many earlier comments observe, "Roger Freeman said..." or he states this or that, which means...which means what? He seems to have changed his mind! I would enjoy hearing opinions on what they think those above sky blue/light blue observations are based on. What did those two authors base their opinions on? I believe there is information or photos or whatever out there that will put this topic to bed...I sure hope it turns up before I get around to doing MX*E. Maybe if I do that model with sky blue undersurfaces definitive information will turn up two weeks later and prove me wrong. That's the way many modeling questions are solved. Thanks for reading (please God, help me let go).

Of all the comments made on Hyperscale and Britmodeller no one has explained the light blue undersurface on the ONLY colour photo (top of page 120 of 'Eagles of Duxford' by Garry L. Fry) that I am aware of from the 78FG. I agree that the light undersurface on the previous photo submitted by Nick gives one pause, but somebody please explain the colour in that COLOUR photo! I know what, I'll build one of their Mustangs and that'll be the end of it!

Some recent comments have go me to thinking. It would be very interesting to learn how and where supplies/equipment, in this case paint was procured by American units during the war. I think of the numerous colours that the 56th FG used after D-Day to paint their Jugs. There often didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it even at the squadron level. A quick look through 'American Eagles: P-47 Thunderbolt Units of the Eighth Air Force' by Roger Freeman, especially the colour photos suggests either hand mixed colours or their supply personel fishing all over SE England for something unique. Some of those schemes seem to include variations on a 'Sky Blue.' I don't recall any use of Sky by the 56th FG...could be wrong though.

As the fellow who started that "recent thread on another internet board" (Hyperscale) I can't help but want to jump in on the topic. My first question is, what are the origins of the idea that the undersurfaces of 78th FG P-47's were Sky? Just because that opinion has been around for fifty years doesn't make it true! I'm reminded of an observation by (I believe, Voltaire)..."If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Roger Freeman, whose opinions I hold in the highest regard, is often used as the final authority on the subject of the 8th AF. In earler sources he stated that Sky was the probable colour used on the undersurfaces. However, in a later publication, "American Eagles: P-47 Thunderbolt Units of the Eighth Air Force" (2002) in the profile caption on page 64 he states, "...this machine was duly given the standard group in-the-field camouflage scheme of dark green upper-and blue-grey undersurfaces." For some reason, the two colour profiles provided on page 64 and 65 are done with Sky undersurfaces! I'd love to know the editorial history behind that miscue! As I stated in my opinion on the subject on Hyperscale, the colour photo at the top of page 120 of 'Eagles of Duxford' by Garry L. Fry, shows WZ*E with an undersurface of a light, bluish grey...not even close to Sky. Another gentleman provided a photo of a Spitfire V piloted by Keith Park in a desert scheme with an undersurface colour very close (my opinion) to that found on WZ*E. Also, the photo caption under the b&w photo of 'Eileen' on page 83 indicates, "..."EILEEN" in new dark green upper and sky blue lower paint job." I express the above opinions based to an experience I had in past years with incorrect interpretations concerning decal artwork (if I'm starting to bore anyone, please go back to rearranging your sock drawer...I'll be done here in a moment). One of my favourite U. S. Navy squadrons is VF-31, whose squadron emblem is Felix the Cat, a cartoon character from the 1920's and '30's. Very few decal manufacturers every get the art work right. They use the ARTWORK found on page 370 of William Larkins 'U.S. Navy Aircraft 1921-1941' as a reference (I think, first started by Micro Scale back in the mid'70's). Like many others, I have little faith in artwork unless it can be backed up by photographic verification. I have never found a PHOTO of Felix the Cat emblem as found on the various numbered squadrons called "The Tomcatters" that look like that artwork, yet I've never read or heard anyone comment on this misrepresentation. If it's in William Larkins book, it MUST be correct. Did Mr. Larkins have anything to do with that artwork? Fortunately, some recent decal artwork shows more dedicated research. I guess what I'm suggesting, and as I'm sure we'd all agree, many of the hallowed beliefs we hold often don't stand up under closer scrutiny. Isn't that one of the things that make our hobby so interesting! I hope the dialogue on the subject continues.

I bought a copy of this soft cover book in January. By the title on the cover I think this might be the first volume in a series of ADC Interceptors. The book has only about three or four pages of colour photos (two per page), the rest of the illustrations are very nicely done colour profiles of every American unit, covered in a half to three quarter page unit history of all the squadrons that flew the Sabre Dog. Korean, Japanese, Thai and other foreign units are also included. The K version is not covered. A colour unit badge is included next to many of the unit histories. I try to pick up any Sabre book I think worth the price. This is not a detailed history of the aircraft and as mentioned there are few (but nice) photos. I think it covers an area of the aircraft seldom considered and so helps fill a void. If you love Sabres like I do you might want to give it serious consideration...it is a bit pricey, but what isn't these days!

Rather than start a new thread I thought I'd continue on with Sea Venom observations. I fought my way through my stash (poorly stacked kits collapsing all around me...kinda like a beautiful dream, or is it a nightmare) and found my 1/48 Aero Club vacform kit and couldn't help but compare it to the beautiful CMR kit and the the Classic Airframes version. Shape wise, the first thing that sticks out is the difference in radome shape. The CMR kit seems to have gotten it about right, while the other two kits seem a bit off. The upper curve of the radome seems off i.e. it doesn't curve or slope enough. It seems like Classic Airframes copied the shape from the Aero Club version. Has anyone else out there done a comparison and have an opinion?

Thanks for the invite Dannielle. Most photos of the Sea Venom (most aircraft for that matter) seldom show the underside in any detail. Any detail photos of the area you mentioned i.e. "the jet pipe" and "deck hook" that would help correcting the Classic Airframes kit would be a big help...and any other underside area often missed in photos or kit interpretations. I forgot that I had one of the Aero Club Sea Venoms in my stash. Will have to dig it out and use it for comparison purposes...at the very least. Vac form kits, due to their very nature often lack crisp detail that I am so fond of. Wouldn't our day be made if someone did a 1/48 version with the detail found in the CMR kit! I'm thinking of taking a rasp to the CA and CMR kits to remove those poorly shaped 'wing bulges' and using sheet plastic build up two new sets in two lalyers and glue them in place. It worked on the 1/32 Matchbox kit I did years ago. Previous responses much appreciated.

Is anyone aware of a photo of the area Danni indicated that might make more clear how to correct the CA kit. Pardon my ignorance, but what does, "Best kit in 48th is Mr. Adams work of art" mean?

A few comments and observations about the CMR Sea Venom. Like many other members I have long been attracted to this aircraft...man I love them ones with the checkered tanks! Received my CMR kit to-day and like everyone else am very impressed with the detail. I built the 1/32 Matchbox version years ago (spent years detailing as best I could) as well as the Frog kit (back in the '70's). The Classic Airframes kit waits on the 'to do' list. I guess if we live long enough all our dreams will come true...well, most of them! My question has to do with the shape of the upper wing bulge just outboard of the tail booms. All of the above kits had this bulge in a shallow egg shape, some with a narrow rim (?) around the edge. Photos that can be found on various web sites, including this one, of the upper wing surfaces suggest that this shape of the bulge should be flatter on the inside i.e. all of the above kits are wrong. Was this 'D' shape a later modification towards the end of the service life of this aircraft? What is that egg shape based on, inaccurate drawings that have been posted here earlier? I used A&B Apoxy Resin Putty to reshape the 1/32 version, using the photo found on page 80-81 of the Ian Allan 'Postwar Military Aircraft:5' by Philip Birtles I did years ago but I don't know if doing that in 1/72 is practical or realistic. One last question, concerning the accuracy of the Classic Airframes kit. It may have been answered before. I plan on doing that one gear up in flight, so cockpit accuracy is not an issue. Are there any external errors that need to be corrected? Opinions and insight on the above would be appreciated.

I posted a similar question last week concerning standing Sea Vixen aircrew and got only one response that suggested PJ Productions pilots (which of course are seated). I am working on two Sea Vixens, one on a stand in flight and one (an FAW 1) with gear down. I agree that the kit pilots leave much to be desired. I am considering using a pilot from a Hasagawa F-4J Phantom. For me the only major issue is the helmet. When you consider that you will only see the pilot from lthe chest up I don't think what his gear looks like is not that important. By judicious painting (green flight suit instead of grey) and an appropriated coloured life vest dealing with the helmet is the only real issue (at least for me). I think the main difference between the two helmets is the dark grey (smoke colour)visor was external to the helmet for the FAA. The U.S. Navy had that dark visor slide up under a white protective piece. I plan on sanding that portion off and have the Sea Vixen pilot with his darkened visor down. Whenever I have my models in flight, which is 90% of the time, I cut off the head and turn it to one side, then add a oxygen mask hose. Really looks cool with the pilot looking at you from his cockpit! I don't know if that would work for standing air crew i.e. using old Monogram U.S.A.F. crew with FAA coloured flight suits. Sure would enjoy hearing other ideas on the subject. Don't be shy boys and girls...jump in!

Nice job with the photos. Gee, I wish I knew how to do that! I really like those rocket pods on the model...a bit dark in colour compared to photos, though. I have not seen many detailed photos of actual rocket pods, but it seems to me that the exhaust area in the provided resin photos are more representative and accurate of the real thing in that there are holes instead of raised circles in that area as found on the Odds and Ordnance interpretation. I have not been able to find any detailed photos of the rear area of those pods. Can anyone help?

Dang! I was afraid someone was going to ask for photos. I'm afraid my computer skills are limited and I won't be able to provide photos, but I cleaned up and glued one together this afternoon and hope that a verbal description will help. 1. The Odds and Ordnance resin pods are slightly larger in diameter than the kit pods. 2. The resin pods are about 3 or 4mm longer than the kit pods. 3. Sanding down the two resin tubes that make up the tube/body of the pod take some work to make them line up correctly. 4. The rear piece/exhaust is too large in diameter and has to be sanded down to fit. This will eliminate the outside raised rocket exhausts. I think the real pods would have recessed rocket exhausts, not raised ones. 5. The major improvement over the kit pods is the very accurate nose portion that correctly captures the pointed nose cone and recessed openings. In my opinion a thinned putty or primer will have to be used on all the joined parts once they are glued together. I think these resin pods are a great improvement over those provided in the kit but are turning out to be a bit more work then I anticipated...but they just look right!

As the fellow who started this thread I thought I provide an update. I received my 1/48 resin 2" Royal Ordnance Mk.1 Rocket Pods from Odds and Ordnance today. Each one comes in 4 pieces and man, they look nice! A tail piece is included, something the Sea Vixen kit pods lack. I do have one question though. I have not been able to find a large detailed photo of the pod (except for the nose area). The main hollow resin tube has a raised rim (much like a cartridge shell). Should that be filed off i.e. is the entire surface smooth? Thanks again to all the guys who helped out so much!

I have no idea where to start looking, so I thought I'd start here. I'm working on a 1/48 Airfix Sea Vixen and I'd like to add a couple of standing aircrew or deck crew. I dug into my stash and fished out an old Elan Miniatures set (ELAN002) but it turns out the figures are for the 1950's e.g. Seahawks, Sea Venoms, etc. The helmets/head gear differed from the '60's/70's, I also have a Men at Arms series 'Aircrew Lieuteant, FAA, 1970' but he appears way to large (54 mm ?) to place next to the model. Does anyone know if there is anything in 1/48th in the way of FAA flight or deck crew available? I'll post this question on the 'Aircraft Modelling' form to see if anyone there can help as well.

I have several photos of this P-47, #30 the only known natural metal Thunderbolt flown by The Checkertail Clan. All of these images are taken from the port side and show a large white, outlined in black playing card on the cowling. Does anyone know what the markings might have been, if any, on the starboard side of the cowling? I ask this question because it appears that the nose art/names oftened differed on both sides of the P-47's and P-51's used by that outfit. I have the Kagero 'Fighters Over Italy' booket that included a decal sheet for the three major scales. The artwork and decal sheet include similar nose art (that playing card) on both sides of the cowling. I have noticed several errors in colour interpretation on other aircraft in this book and am a little skeptical about this aircraft not having photographic verification.

A heads-up if anyone is interested. I was finally able to contact Mr. Patterson at Oddsandordnance and was infomed that those 1/48 corrected rocket pods are available at four English pounds for a set of two. Ordered a couple of sets myself. I'd like to thank Jens and 'Lothian man' for taking the time to help me out. Thank you, gentlemen! Brian

Don't mean to be beating a dead horse, but... I was just over at Hyperscale, checking out 'Jet Age' when I ran across an exchange under "Sea Vixen Wing fold colour conundrum." It included two colour photos of Sea Vixen wing folds. One, a FAW1 had the wing fold area in a 'zinc chromate yellow.' The other, a FAW2 had that area painted white. I guess my point is, is that it appears that over time different colours were used in detail areas such as wheel wells, intakes, etc. I just can't get my head around the idea that intakes were left in natural metal on carrier aircraft. Or were intakes that appear very dark metal just aluminum paint darkened by salt air? I noticed Selwyn made a couple of comments in that thread. I'd enjoy hearing opinions as I'm getting bored talking to myself...I keep getting the same answers, 'I dunno.'

I tried to contact Mr. Patterson by e-mail at Odds and Ordnance concerning resin rocket pods but have yet to get a response. Has anyone else out there had any luck. Sure would solve one of my problems if they are available. Of course, he may have a life and is out enjoying the weekend!

Hi Duncan and 'Canberra Kid,' Your exchange about that Sea Venom prompted me to dig into my references as that photo looked very familiar. I have long had a love affair with FAA aircraft, especially in the post-WWII era. I found a publication by Roger Lindsay that goes back to the mid-70's that included that photo with the caption, "Blue Jay Sea Venom XG607 on 'Victorious.'" On the same page is a short description that includes the following: "1958 saw several changes in deployment and equipment of the main squadrons, the most important of which concerned 893 Squadron which left "Ark Royal" on July 5th and after a rest at Yeovilton embarked in "Victorious" during September with three specially modified "Blue Jay" Venoms in addition to her complement of twelve standard FAW.21s. The special Venoms were equipped to carry a Firestreak (then code named "Blue Jay") infra red homing missile mounted on a pylon beneath each wing , with the missile guidance equipment displacing the normal belly gun pack. The camera gun was repositioned in a blister under the port forward fuselage and an additional pitot head was fitted to the starboard fin. "Victorious" headed for the Mediterranean where the "Blue Jay" Venoms made mock attacks with aquisitrion rounds against standard Squadron aircraft, and later live rounds were fired at Firefly U.9 drones operated by 728B Flight, Hal Far. In all, five Sea Venom 21s were modified to carry Firestreaks, and some served with 700 Squadron as well as 893." Hope I didn't bore you with with more information than you needed.

I too just checked out the provided web-site and did not see any info on those rocket pods. I knew it...he's out of stock, the molds were destroyed and they will never be produced again. Curses!

Thanks for your response, gentlemen. From the photo of the Sea Venom it appears that the Firestreak has a clear (glass or plastic) nose and when photos show it as red or black that is the plastic/rubber protective tip? Does anyone know where Odds and Ordnance resin parts can be ordered from? Sounds like thats the way to go.

Thanks for the quick response, Selwyn. After reading I was moved to check the Internet and found an earlier Britmodeller exchange with you and several other modellers between June 10 and July 2, 2011. Nice to know that I'm not the only one with issues with the Sea Vixen rocket pods. I checked both of my Airfix kits and the rocket pods are all the same. If I may, I'd like to continue with my initial question on the rocket pod question...hoping for your patience. The kit pods show the rocket tips/noses protruding from their openings. I have never seen a PHOTO of a loaded rocket pod with the tips sticking out. Is that one of the problems that modellers have with the kit pods...they don't look like the photos because the pods are empty i.e. should you see the rocket tips when the pod is loaded? From the photos of the Sea Vixen pods the pod appears to come to a clean, sharpe point, unlike the kit pods which have a rounded tip. Would a modeller be advised to file/sand the tip to a sharper tip? One last question for any informed reader. Are there any 1/48 kits that include this type pod besides the Airfix Sea Vixen? Or for that matter is that type pod available in resin from an after market company?

A couple of questions about Sea Vixen weapons. The first one concerns Firestreak air to air missiles used on the FAW1. I plan on using the Firestreaks found in the 1/48 Airfix BAC Lightning. While I have numerous colour photos of Lightnings armed with Firestreaks I don't have a colour photo of a Sea Vixen armed with them. The RAF used Firestreaks with dark (black ?), red, white and clear coloured missile heads. The main body of the missitles were natural metal, red or white. My question is, was there a standard colour for Firestreaks used on Sea Vixens or will any combination be acceptable? My second question concerns the rocket pods often seen in Sea Vixen photos. Apparently the ones found in the 1/48 Airfix Sea Vixen kit are incorrect as the rocket heads protrude and they should not. I scouted around in my stash and found some nice ones from a 1/48 Eduard Miragbe IIICJ kit. Apparently they are Matra 155 pods with 18 68 mm rockets (also used on Harriers and Lightnings). Has anyone ever seen this type rocket pod used on Sea Vixens? It has two rows of rockets instead of the three rows found on the Airfix Sea Vixen kit. I'm asking ahead of time, before I glue them in place and am informed that, no, that type was never used on Sea Vixens!

Thanks for the heads up, Julien. That series of photos you referred me to verify my questioning the colour of certain areas. The interior of the intakes appear to be a very dark metallic colour if not an off black. As I mentioned earlier I have photos that show an almost aluminum finish, while some sources advise white. Again, I wonder if there was any change in painting during the life of an airframe. I also couldn't help but notice in that series of outdoor images that the aircraft had an early style (flat) observer hatch cover but a late style canopy (along with the over wing boom tanks). It appears as if a modeler (as is often the case) has to refer to photos of the subject we are modeling to ensure accuraccy.

Before I begin applying paint to plastic I would be grateful for clarification on the colour of detailed areas of this aircraft. There seems to be some contradicting information in several of my references. 1. What is the colour of the intake interior? Some say white while others suggest silver. 2. What would be the colour of the interior of the gear doors and gear wells? 3. What would be the colour of the gear struts? 4. Was there a standard colour for the ejection seat cushions and seat belts? Has any company issued any after market accessories for this kit? I believe True Detail has issued after market resin ejection seats. I have the very nice Alley Cat conversion kit and plan on doing both FAW 1 and FAW 2 versions. Did any of the above mentioned areas change colours between versions i.e. we're talking about an aircraft that was in service for at least a decade? The resin booms on the Alley Cat conversion set are warped near the thin rudder area. Having had bad luck in the past in attempting to straighten out warped resin I am thinking of cutting off the vertical fin/rudder area from the kit FAW 2 booms and gluing them onto the resin FAW 1 booms. Has anyone dealt with this problem? Opinions and insight on the above would be appreciated.