Brian J

I knew there had to be photo evidence...I just didn't have any! Thanks, Steven for those photos. Had never seen them before. Interesting, that accorrding to the markings, those P-47's are (my guess) from mid-1943 or a bit later. I guess what I'm getting at is, might there not have been a directive from on high about the position of the flaps at a later date i.e. did something happen during early operations that established a regulation about flap position when parking? As to the invitation for photo evidence, I'll take you up on it! I've always loved natural metal, checkered unit markings. Two birds that interest me in particular are: 1. P-47D LH-L 'Maggie' 42-26455 of the 353 FG. I won't bore everybody with the details (I have an often reproduced photo taken from the starboard side), but I am interested in any photo evidence taken from the PORT side. Also, during the time that outfit flew with natural metal finish on their P-47's, would the yellow on the cowling extend back to the rear lower edge of the cowling...under the cowl flaps? 2. Having served in the Air Force at Elmendorf AFB, AK when the 317th FIS flew F-102's, I have always taken a keen interest in the 325th FIG, the 'Checkertail Clan.' I have a colour image of the only known P-47 (#30) in natural metal that was used by that unit. I only have images taken from the port side showing a large black and white playing card (an ace of tophats?) on the cowling. Would the same image be on the starboard side of the cowling? I ask this because there was often different artwork on the noses of 325th B and D Mustangs. Thanks to all who took the time to respond to my initial question. Hope the comments continue! Brian

I've always thought that parked aircraft look better when loaded for bear, canopies open, control surfaces askew, gear doors open. Mustangs and Corsairs especially look 'busy' when the flaps are dropped. When looking over photos of Thunderbolts I noticed that I have never seen an 8th Air Force P-47 with the flaps dropped. Not one! Thunderbolts in the 9th, 12th and 15th Air Forces are often are seen with dropped flaps, but never 8th Air Force birds. Was there a directive from on high against it, much like Spitfires had their flaps raised after landing upon pain of a small fine at the squadron level? I'm looking forward to working on several Tamiya P-47s in 8th Air Force markings but it looks like they'll have to been done with the flaps up. Can someone prove me wrong?

Thanks for the quick, informative response. I couldn't find a detailed close up of the parking area and was afraid it was wood planking. I sure wish there was more available resin ground equipment in 72nd scale. By the way, may I ask where you're from in Canada and where you may have purchased (if you did) that Verlinden resin set?

Would anybody out there know any details about the 1/72 Verlinden resin base VPI1466 'USAAF WWII Service Area?' Are the details, e.g. boxes, barrels, wing tanks, etc. separate pieces and is the area on which the aircraft would sit represented by wooden planks, like their Luffwaffe resin base, or is it Marsden matting? Details before potential purchase would be welcomed.

I built this kit many years ago and it still sits near the front on my shelf of WW II U.S. Navy aircraft. It is mounted in flight on a stand I designed many years ago. With a little work in certain areas it can be built up into a nice show piece. The struts on the outer wing needed to be thinned down and I replaced the engines with two from an old Airfix 1/144 Boeing Clipper (in that scale total accuracy isn't that noticeable in my opinion). I added thin metal tubing gun barrels and also added those control surfaces (or whatever they were called) on the upper and lower tail surfaces. I built up the radome behind the cockpit with putty. Using the Squadron 'In Action' for reference I finished the model in Navy tri-colour markings. The kit is scribed...I think it stands up well to many of the more recent releases of various aircraft. Good luck with your build-up.

I recently purchased the BarracudaCals P-51D Mustangs Part 1 sheet as I have always found the markings of the 353rd FG very attractive. I try and use photographic references when I choose a subject to insure accuracy but I have run into a wall concerning SX*B (bar), 'Alabama Rammer Jammer.' I have photo references but they are of the nose and cockpit areas. First off, is anyone aware of photographic evidence of the ENTIRE aircraft? Artwork for this aircraft can be found on the cover of 'P-51 Mustang vs Fw 190: Europe 1943-45' in the Osprey Duel Series #1. The same markings can be found in the 3-view artwork on page 45 of Osprey aircraft of the Aces #1 'Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force'. I believe these would be the markings used after late September 1944 when the 353rd got their first P-51D's i.e. underside fuselage black and white invasion stripes, with 3 rows of yellow/black checkers on the nose. Unit codes were black with NO yellow outline as the aforementioned artwork illustrates. "Between November and January a squadron marking appeared in the form of a rudder color..." In December, a new nose marking appeared on 351st Mustangs. This added five more rows of black and yellow squares to the three already applied. In January , the P-51s of the 350th and the 352nd also took this new marking." Taken from pages 54-55 of "The Slybird Group." My questions are: 1. Would 'Alabama Rammer Jammer' have invasion stripes at this late date i.e. a black rudder and yellow outlined squadron codes? I could be wrong but the decal artwork seems a mix of old and new markings. 2. Why would 'Double Trouble two' have the later eight row nose checks and no coloured rudder while 'Alabama Rammer Jammer' does in the earlier 3 row nose markings? 3. The BarracudaCals sheets show the squadron codes in a standard style of lettering while all photos of 352nd squadron codes (before and after the yellow outline was added) are of a different style i.e. a bit thinner with squared off corners on the letter 'S.' In other words the decal sheet does not have accurate letter 'S's'. I think using the artwork from the two Osprey books would produce accurate markings for an early 'Alabama Rammer Jammer' except that the squadron codes would not be outlined in yellow. The decal sheet only provides yellow outlined squadron codes that seem to be inaccurate in style. Opinions and insight on the subject would be appreciated...as well as any photographic verification!

Thanks for the info John. Just place an order and that decal sheet is on its way... along with a couple of books. Curses...I couldn't very well just order a decal sheet!

Yes, I have checked out their web site but the decal sheet I was interested in is out of print and stock. I was hoping that a model shop or web store might still have it in stock but no luck so far. I too am impressed with their line to date and hope to purchase more items in the near future. Hopefully they will reissue that F11C-2 sheet. Thanks to those who took the time to respond to my question (keeping my fingers crossed that someone out there can help). Brian

Does anyone out there know where I might get a hold of Starfighter Decals sheet 72-107 for the F11C-2/BFC-2 Goshawks. I've been inspired to get at those old Monogram kits of the F11C-2 and F4B-4 and have purchased a couple of Starfighter sheets for the F4B but have not been able to find a site/store that sells sheet 72-107.

I too have been working on CF-101s...for over ten years! Keep putting them on the back burner while I try and come to grips with several issues. I have both the Revell 1/72 and Monogram 1/48 kit in the works. Maybe someone can offer advice in solving my issues. I plan on doing both scales in-flight, so the landing gear and brakes are closed up. The 1/48 version has major fit issues (the 1/72 version as well, but not quite so bad). Took a rasp to the ill-fitting surfaces and filled in the spaces with epoxy putty. Scribed the entire aircraft and spent hours priming, filling, sanding and finally re-scribing those under surface areas...which still aren't quite finished. My questions are: 1. Has anyone found a way to accuratize (?) that starboard rectangular vent? I've filled mine in with epoxy resin and may re-scribe that area. Going to try and find a photo-etch piece that can fit. 2. What was the colour of the intakes? Were they left natural metal on metal finished early birds? What was the intake colour on later painted versions? Over the years I have seen numerous build-ups of this kit, many finished to an inspiring level. I feel that Monogram did an outstanding job on getting the shape and look of the '101 right. Just wish someone would do the entire 'Century Series' using the latest technology. Several weeks ago I posted questions on the Trumpeter and Monogram 1/48th F-100. I'm still in the process of taking a rasp and filling in the gun bay doors and wheel well doors to the Monogram fuselage. Re-scribing and closing up the gear doors and weapon bay doors on those Monogram kits takes the wind out of my sails!

Dannielle, May I ask what might be some of, "the other errors with the kit" that you may be aware of? While on the subject of DH twin boom aircraft, does anyone know if the Aeroclub 1/48 vac form canopies for the Vampire/Venom are still available. The Classic Airframe kit canopies for those aircraft lack the accurate bulged shape. Brian

Hi again, Ben I was hoping you might have new evidence of what I wanted to hear. The truth...I can't handle the truth! Almost all of the photos of F-100Ds from after 1960-61 seem to have a more uniform, semi-gloss (at best) finish which, at least to me, suggests an aluminum lacquer finish. I find that less attractive than the natural metal finish but it is what it is. My computer skills are wanting, so I can't share, but there is a two page large colour photo from the April 2005 Flight Journal of FW-051 in vanilla TAC markings with the aluminum lacquer finish. What is interesting is that even though it is overall aluminum paint you can still distinguish different shades of aluminum on various panels, especially the port ammo bay door and the panel in front of the windscreen. That British magazine you referred to is, I believe, the January 1884 issue of Scale Models International in which there are at least six colour photos of 'Triple Zilch.' Interestingly enough, for anyone who cares, when comparing these photos and several b&w photos in the old Profile Publications No. 30, it appears that 'Triple Zilch' with minor changes carried at least four paint schemes. It makes me wonder how often some aircraft went in for such things. Thanks for your input. I feel I can proceed with much more confidence then when I started. I've probabley done as much talking to myself as I have with you! Brian

Hi Ben Thanks for the invitation. I will take you up on that! The other night I taped the Monogram fuselage and the Trumpeter fuselage together and spent a couple of hours looking at photos from all angles comparing them to the two kits. As I mentioned earlier, I find the flying/control surfaces quite close between the two, in fact the Trumpeter kit is more detailed in many respects. I plan on sanding them down, then rubbing down those scribed surfaces...kinda think they'll look pretty nice but a little heavy for a natural metal finish. I can understand if some are offended by the rivets. Several years ago I took a 1/48 Trumpeter A-5 Vigilante and filled in ALL of the rivets (one at a time) with Mr. Surfacer, sanded them down, primed the surfaces, then painted them with Tamiya lacquer. They came out great! At certain angles you could still see the very slight dimples, just like on the real thing. I highly recommend trying that on things like the white wings of Hasagawa's F-104s and other kits with heavy riveting. Back to those fuselage comparisons. Ben, you are quite correct. In regards to the fuselage they are incompatable. I think Dave Menard's criticism has to do mostly with the fuselage. From intake to the exhaust it curves too much...not slab-sided enough, especially towards to afterburner area. I don't think the Monogram kit is perfect either, but much better than the Trumpeter version. So it's the Monogram fuselage, canopy and cockpit and the Trumpeter kit for other parts. Yesterday I spent several hours with saw and files. The AMS resin intake fits the Monogram fuselage (needs a little sanding around the edges) as does the Aires exhaust. The Trumpeter vertical tail should fit with a little work with the rear bottom. I will have to glue all of the various doors, fill them in, then rescribe the entire Monogram fuselage. I do have one question for Ben or anyone else in the know. I plan on doing F-100D FW-879 'Schatze II' from the 21st TFW as found on Aeromaster sheet 48-790. I am aware of only one photo of this aircraft as found at the top of page 6 in 'Fighting Colors, F-100 Super Sabre in Color' by Squadron Signal Pub. My question is would this aircraft be in natural metal or an aluminum lacquer finish. I believe the F-100 fleet began being painted in lacquer finish in the early '60's, about the same time that photo would have been taken. Any opinions? For that matter would most of the F-100s in the 18th TFW (PACAF) and the 21st TFW (PACAF) be in a lacquer finish at that time? I too consider myself to be a F-100 reference pack rat...but there's still so much I don't know! Brian

I want to thank the above two gentlemen for their informative responses. I read them with keen interest and took out the two kits again for another look. With respect for their comments I would like to add more from my perspective. I have had the pleasure of speaking with Dave Menard several times over the years and hold his opinions on Super Sabres in the highest regard. He is 'Mr. Super Sabre.' First off I want to say that as I indicated in my initial posting I plan on building my build-up in flight on a stand, so anything to do with the detail of the cockpit (which if I kit bash the Monogram foreward fuselage and cockpit to the Trumpeter rear fuselage makes the Trumpeter cockpit irrelevant), the gear wells/landing gear and air brake well are also irrelevant to my build-up. I have fitted the 1/48 resin AMS intake to the Monogram kit and it does fit with a little sanding/filing to its outer edges. I failed to mention that I also have the Aires exhaust for the Trumpeter kit. I made a comparison of the wings, vertical and horizontal tail, and fuselage and except that the Trumpeter 1/48 F-100D wing may be thinner than the Monogram kit they appear to favourably compare in size, shape and detail to the Monogram kit. I am left with the impression that Ben was using the 1/32 Trumpeter kit as a starting point and not the 1/48 version. I totally agree that the Trumpeter kit is wanting in the foreward fuselage/intake area. I guess what my question is, from anyones experience is it possible/reasonable to kitbash the foreward Monogram fuselage to the Trumpeter version. The reason I find it hard to let this go is that I built the Monogram kit over 30 years ago and it recieved many favourable comments over the years. I don't know if I have it in me to put that much work (total scribing, many hours of polishing and highly scatch built detailing) into another one and so am looking for an easier way to complete a model of one of my favourite airplanes from the '50's. Please understand I accept the above responses with gratitude.

Over the past few months I've been reading about the kit comparisons between the old Monogram kit and the newer Trumpeter version. The consensus seems to be that the Monogram version is the more accurate. I have both in hand and thought I'd do some comparisons of my own. For me, the biggest problem is the the nose/intake/canopy area. I plan on doing my build-up in flight so gear wells, air brakes and cockpit detail are not major issues. After comparing kit parts relative the the aforementioned areas I feel that the Trumpeter kit just doesn't get it right in the upper nose and windscreen area. Too narrow. Interestingly enough when you compare the clear parts for the canopy and windscreen, the Monogram pieces are narrower! In fact the Monogram canopy is too narrow for the Trumpeter kit and the Monogram kit (when closed) as well! In my opinion Trumpeter got it right at very top of the flat part of the windscreen i.e. a narrower, more pointed interpretation, but it fails to get wide enough at the front base. I tried interchanging clear parts but they don't seem to match up. I'm seriously thinking of cutting off the Monogram front, just behind the rear canopy. The panel line at the rear edge of the nose gear door would be the cutt off point and then I'd rescribe the Monogram nose. One other observation. I have a AMS Resin intake produced by Harold Offield in the U.S. Originally I thought I'd use it to improve the misshaped Trumpeter kit but I'm afraid I can't live with the Trumpeter nose. I filed down the inner lip of the resin intake (where it fits into the kit fuselage) and with some light filing and sanding it looks like it will fit onto the Monogram nose. By the way, the AMS Resin intake is by far the most accurate interpretation of a F-100 intake. Monogram's intake is not as accurate as we have been led to believe especially when you compare it to photos and the AMS Resin version. My only concern is that the resin intake is a couple of millimetres longer than the Monogram part. Does anyone have an opinion as to the accurate length of these pieces? That AMS resin sure looks right. Has anyone else tried kitbashing these two kits? I'd hate to start cutting plastic only to find out I got in over my head! Brian

Admiral Puff (say...are you related to a 'Magic Dragon'?) I was unable to contact that web address you enclosed. Is there any other way to get into it? I'd be interested to hear what they have to say. Brian

As I indicated on the 'aussiemodeller' site, I am bouncing back and forth from both sites to keep up to date on this subject. Peter Malone's latest comments on the subject continues to shed more light on the subject being discussed. David Harvey earlier made an interesting comment in that, "...colours and markings of RAAF aircraft can be just as confusing as the C&M of the Luftwaffe at times." Just as the early works of Donald W. Thorpe on Japanese camouflage and markings have since been found to need updating, it appears that some of the early works by Geoffrey Pentland need to be reevaluated as well. Both gentlemen deserve much credit for getting the ball rolling on their respective areas of expertise. Decades ago I too purchased most of the works of Mr. Pentland and considered them to be the final authority on the subject of Australian C&M. It appears my education on the subject needs some updating! I have loads of questions on that subject (I went into my stash yesterday and pulled out five or six Aussie subjects that had been put on the backburner) and hopefully will find some up to date answers on my questions. Thanks again to all who have added comments. It looks like I'll never be an expert on anything (tongue in cheek)! Brian

In response to Steve's comments about Peter Malone. That helps explain the authoritative and thorough response given by Mr. Malone on 'aussiemodeller.' After reading both responses I took another look at my references and if I may, will quote from an August 2001 article in 'Scale Aviation Modeller International' by Ian K. Baker entitled 'C.A.C. Boomerang: Colours and Markings...The Full Story': "Also little known even now is the fact that upon their introduction in 1943, Sky Blue was specified for these codes. However, the May 1944 overhaul of colours and markings called for Medium Sea Grey to be used for codes against Foliage Green and Night (and Black against other colours). Although it is entirely likely that White may sometimes have been used for the painting of codes, as is often stated, it should be remembered that Sky Blue rapidly faded to an off-white, often creating the impression of being white in old photos when, in fact, this was not the case." I defer to those authorities south of the equator who are in a much better position to add clarity to the subject. The subject gets more and more interesting...at least for me. Brian

Just to bring this topic up to date...I want to thank all of you who responded to my initial inquiry. I took Troy's advice and posed my question on 'aussiemodeller.com' and recieved the references I needed. I have the impression that the 4 photos that Nick was referring to were supplyed by one of the gentlemen on that sight. Peter Malone suggested that the codes for No. 4 Squadron (QE) were in Sky Blue, something I had never heard of before. Hopefully he can elaborate on that. I strongly suggest anyone with questions concerning Australian aircraft to give them a look. Thanks again for everyones input. If anyone else as anything to add to the subject, please do. Brian

I recently purchased the new 1/48 Special Hobby CA-13 Boomerang. It appears to be a very nice kit and is very detailed. My post has to do with the kit box art and markings. Since my last name is James I thought it would be interesting subject. I have the old AeroMaster 'RAAF Bomerang Collection' sheet (48-153) as well as the LTD kit sheet. What caught my eye was that each sheet has the squadron codes in a different shade of grey, the Special Hobby sheet being by far the darkest. They are nothing like the light grey illustrated on the kit box art. I always try and use photo reference when building a kit and was only able to find one photo of the box art subject 'Home James' QE*Y on page 24 of the ancient 'Wirraway and Boomerang Markings' by Geoffrey Pentland. This photo shows the subject with a dark spinner while the box art has a white spinner. The photo is taken from a 3/4 port front angle and only the top third of the white tail can be seen. The nose art is barely visible and the colour demarkation of the camouflage is hard to make out. Is anyone aware of any other photos of this aircraft i.e. what are the kit markings based on? If the squadron codes are the wrong shade what else might be inaccurate? Could someone guide me to a web-site that might confirm the markings of this subject? Any assistrance would be appreciated.

Many thanks to all who took the time to respond to my initial questions. I was moved to take a second look at my photo references and have reached similar conclusions expressed by several others. It appears that the A and E model versions lacked that raised panel that is represented on the 1/48 Hasagawa kit (MiG Alley: Sabres vs. MiGs Over Korea, Specialty Press, pg. 41 and F-86 Sabres of the 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing, Osprey Frontline Colour 6, pg. 11). My interpretation is that since the Canadair Sabres Mk 2 and 4 were based on the E model, they too lacked this raised panel. The Canadair Sabre Mk 5 and 6 had a different engine then the F model and so went in a different direction and also lacked this panel. It appears that the raised panel in question was introduced on the F model (Wings of Fame, Vol. 10, pg. 36-37 has a large colour photo clearly showing this area, and Walk Around:F-86 Sabre, No. 21, Squadron Signal, pg. 54). The F model Sabre used by the Japanese also appear to have this raised panel. It never dawned on me several years ago to go with Jennings idea of just replacing the leading edge slates from the Revell/Monogram Sabre-Dog (remember "KISS'---keep it simple, stupid!). Instead I cut the wings off at the wing root, cut a pie shaped sliver from the Sabre-Dog wing and attached it to the Hasagawa fuselage. It was then I noticed the discrepency between the main gear bays of the two kits. I will be building my model in flight with retracted gear and so will have to rescribe the gear doors. I have yet to use the Cutting Edge conversions, but I may be trying Jennings idea first. Do you have any photos of your build-up, Jennings? Thanks again for the input---any more observations/comments are welcome.

The F-86 Sabre has to be just about my favourite aircraft of all time with ten or twelve others in close second place! I remember flying around the school yard at recess in grade 2 in 1952 pretending to be Sabres fighting MiGs...the good guys always won! I have collected just about every book or magazine article worth having for decades and would enjoy sharing perspectives on the variious kits and aftermarket items that are available.

I have a couple questions concerning F-86 Sabres that I am not aware have been asked before. The 1/48 Hasagawa Sabre kits have a raised panel on the top of the fuselage in front of the vertical stabilizer. I have checked eight or nine photos of Sabres, one from the Korean War and several early and late versions of Canadian Sabres. None of them show this panel. Was this panel used on only certain Sabres or did Hasagawa mess up? My other question has to do with F-86A through E model Sabres and F-86 Sabre-Dog landing gear/landing gear doors. It has been suggested by others that an early version Sabre (A thru E versions as well as Canadian Sabres Mk 2 thru 4, all of which have slated leading edges but not the 6-3 wings) can be built by using the Revell/Monogram F-86D wing on the Hasagawa F-86F fuselage. Did the main gear and main gear doors change on those versions. I know the bottom of the fuselage was different on a Sabre-Dog. Opinions/insight would be apprecited.

I recently purchased the Xtradecal sheet X72-128. It is well done with a nice selection of subjects. I particularly like the way they do their colour instruction sheet. The Spitfire F.22, 'F', PK570 of 603 Squadron finished in High Speed Silver caught my eye and I looked up the photo of this aircraft on page 236 in 'The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price. Without going into details, the squadron markings of light blue and red checks between black bands/stripes are accurately represented on the decal sheet. My question has to do with the above mentioned photo reference which indicates a difference in colour or shade between the top and bottom "black' stripes. If both stripes were the same colour, black, wouldn't they both be the same shade in the photo? Could this be caused by the type of film used or were non-standard markings used on this particular aircraft? In the photo the Roundel Blue appears much lighter than the red on the fin flash and the roundel. Opinions and insight would be appreciated.

My apologies for beating a dead horse (I posted several questions about this aircraft back in December of '09 and recieved authoritive clarification from Dave Wadman) but I have one more question (honest...my last one...ahh, I think!) concerning the markings of 'yellow 12' as seen on page 170 of Jagdwaffe: Luftwaffe Colours, Volume Two, Section 2. The colour profile at the bottom of the page shows the yellow on the nose extending back to the edge of the engine cowling including the front part, the intake grill, of the supercharger intake. In the two photos included at the top of the page the yellow seems (to me) to extend back one more panel to include the rear portion of the supercharger. The photos suggest a distinct difference between this panel with the two holes on top and the panel immediately in front of the windscreen, which seems darker. A correction in the Canadian IPMS 'Random Thoughts' Vol. 13 No.4 includes this revised interpretation. On pages 58-59 of 'Duel 5: Spitfire vs Bf 109 (Osprey Pub) a colour image of this aircraft by Mark Postlethwaite is illustrated with the yellow extending back to include the panel with the supercharger. The artist, for some reason, also shows this aircraft, an E-l, with wing cannons and a later style canopy. I am unaware of anyone else commenting on these two colour interpretations. Anyone have any insight or opinions? Dave, can you hear me?