Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by warhawk

  1. The bubble confusion probably stems from the fact that the late Mk.I bubble was bulged only upwards (with sides remaining flat), with all later marks having the full-blown canopy. This was illustrated nicely by Junpei Temma in his Tamiya 1/72 Spitfire Mk.I build:
  2. Most welcome news, which make me wonder.... Will SH back-engineer this back-engineered mold.... uhm, forward (?)... to the Kanonenvogel? My favourite version, except the part that 90% of the 'Kanonen-ing' was done by Rudel... which most of the markings on the built kits suggest. Great potential to offer something new in this regard.
  3. Here's a link to this image, where it can be zoomed-in a bit more: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205207356
  4. Thanks for taking the time to gather this info. Most useful. Does each tactical letter (between the hyphens) correspond to large recognition code letters often seen below the windscreen? img source: HistoryNet Also, the aircraft pictured in my first post seems to have an 'L' below the windscreen, (and possibly a 'K' immediately behind it, but over-painted)?
  5. Found another photo at link below, which shows US roundels: https://www.historynet.com/july-4-1942-the-mighty-eighths-first-bombing-raid.htm Does not prove what roundels were used on the first mission, though. Now if we could just determine the individual numbers and serials of at least these four aircraft...
  6. I believe speed was of the utmost importance for the bomber/recce variants, hence the V-shaped windscreen was kept. This apparently had a higher priority than absolutely standardizing all aircraft to a single windscreen type (i.e. two types in production is not that inefficient).
  7. Thanks for the link. Neither am I sure, as the upper camouflage of the A-20 pictured looks as overall Olive Drab - pretty unlikely if they are ex-and-soon-to-be-again RAF Bostons. Also, the upper-to-lower cammo demarcation is straight - different from the photo from my previous post...
  8. First Raids For the Mighty Eighth is certainly an interesting topic to depict in a model. My question is - were USAAF roundels ever used by the 15th Bombardment Squadron on any operational missions? The crews were American, but on the other hand, they were flying under No. 226 Squadron RAF... img source: Warfare History Network Thanks in advance!
  9. I agree that there's no point in re-tooling the moulds. Makes more sense to just leave the logo moulded on and skip the 'paint-it-white' part to save time and resources.
  10. Did some more digging, and found a nice, large photo, clearly showing the white 'Dunlop' inscription both on the outer and the inner tire side: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205230004 https://waralbum.ru/398869/ Cheers!
  11. Thanks for the input, I really appreciate it! Don't worry, it's an immediate pre-war bird (Not a Spit, but same-size Dunlop tires), and photos certainly show the white inscription on the side opposite to gear leg. Found the book and the photos You mentioned. Unfortunately no conclusive decision can be made from these two, as on No.56 the other wheel is missing, and on No.60 the other wheel is in in shadow and obscured by cover. My question was specifically aimed at Dunlop logo, visible in photos as painted white (which I doubt for small technical info inscriptions). If the logo was moulded on both sides, I consider it reasonable to be also painted white on both sides for the pre-war use. Regards, Aleksandar
  12. Hello, Could anyone please help me with a dilemma regarding Dunlop aircraft tires: Should the 'Dunlop' white inscription typically be present on both sides of the tire, or just one? img source: ADS Advance Regards, Aleksandar
  13. Unfortunately, there's no sure remedy for this problem (speaking from my own experience of working with vac canopies, and even making some on my own). Once the vacuform plastic becomes dented, every attempt to force it the other way only produces more microscopic cracks, which manifest as white lines or blotches on Your canopy. Also, every attempt to correct it locally with heat will result in warping the entire part (the part is often just too small to have just a part of it heated and not affect everything else). regards, Aleksandar.
  14. Imagine the time-frame during which You have to assess that the pilot is incapacitated, let go of the gun, turn around, and pull the plane out of the dive... which has already started and is mid-way down by now Kinda up there with the time for a Me 163 pilot to get the target within range of his guns, aim, fire, and steer away from it to avoid collision.
  15. Maybe it was done to help with more difficult dive pull-outs? Or so the pilot could take a rest during longer flights...
  16. Although all those companies technically 'under one roof', Special Hobby often revises and upgrades older MPM or Azur 1/72 molds, and reissues them under SH label. (E.g. Me163A, Barracuda, Sea Otter, Bv155, etc)
  17. Thanks for another input. Is the picture I cited the only one existing of this machine?
  18. Very interesting info, @Dana Bell, thanks for sharing! Looking at the photo provided at Roys Rants blog, a demarcation line in line with canopy can clearly be seen However, it does not seem to continue forward of the windscreen? Also, if the wing upper surfaces are supposed to be painted Semi-gloss Sea Blue, then what is this darker color at the leading edges. The contrast seems a bit high to be just a fresh layer of the same paint (to the faded upper surfaces behind). Could it just be a case of Sea Blue added to the spine and leading edges of (otherwise) early-two-tone Corsair, similar to Ken Walsh's 'Viva!' ? Regards, Aleksandar
  19. I agree, I was wrong about 90 degrees specifically, because that case only applies to 45 degrees angle of incidence. What I meant was that there's no way or angle You can rotate the prop blade to make it turn in opposite direction (black arrow below). As You said, either the leading edge and/or the bulbous side of the prop would be in the wrong place to generate thrust forward. You need a completely new prop blade, shaped to the opposite direction of turning. In conclusion, even if the Mk.XII shared the exact same diameter and shape of its long-nose Merlin counterparts, You couldn't take, let's say Mk.IX prop blades and fit them to a Mk.XII simply by changing the angle. But hey, if Your kit is a short-run - the plastic is probably thick and wide enough to reshape it the other way (I did that with my Azur IK-3, for example)
  20. Agreed, To anyone versed in CAD, they need to be completely mirrored. If the prop blade is just turned by 90 degrees to spin in the opposite direction, the trailing edge would 'cut' the air instead of the leading edge (resulting in inefficiency or maybe even stalling, because the blade profile is inverted).
  21. Looks fantastic, good job on a favorite exotic of mine. I plan to use this model as a reference for my future Desert Welly.
  22. Right, let's try the same approach with an FM-2. I still see a difference: Certainly seems so. FM-2 cowling looks deeper and a bit more rounded when You look at the gif. So. I guess they did have to move the single-row engine forward to compensate the CG, but not all the way up so that the new cowling front datum line reaches F4F cowling front datum line.
  23. My mistake, I thought FM-2 also had a single-row radial.
  24. This welcome announcement from Arma brings me back to a conundrum of mine: What is the accurate length for an F4F-4?
  • Create New...