Patrick Martin

If only someone would do these in da English! PM

BB327 VR*Q (Struck by flak while on a mission to Stuttgart on 11 March 1943. The aircraft was repaired. Shot down and crashed near Bochum while on a mission to Duisberg on 9 April 1943), Pat Martin

Do you mean 63-7407? Plus was not the first production F-4C/F-110 not 62-12199?

As always - impressive. I would love to try your non-airbrush method of painting - is there a link to where you explain this? Pat Martin

The radome and original rounded fincap were a combination of ‘glass cloth laminate, laminated glass or plastic, fibreglass roving and volanglass cloth’ materials.

There was some controversy over the Extra Dark Sea Grey BS381C 640, as applied to the Phantom on entering service. When parked adjacent to Buccaneer aircraft finished in the same colour, as applied in the UK, the Phantom appeared too light. As delivered, the aircraft had been painted by McDonnell in a US equivalent colour. This was noted on the finish data plate as ‘Epoxy Enamel UK338/1527 Dark Sea Gray’ and also noted ‘17875 Insignia White’ (FS.595). The grey colour was, according to the Royal Navy, Extra Dark Sea Grey 640. Also, the Royal Navy was not a user of ‘Dark Sea Gray’ (or any ‘GrAy’) during the period in question. The difference in initial appearances is attributed to the use of an unknown US equivalent shade of gray and fading of the Extra Dark Sea Grey, on all types. Darker colours, when applied as epoxy paints during the period in question, had a ‘marked propensity to fade considerably after exposure to salty elements’. The epoxy paints were also more likely to ‘leach out’ than the cellulose and polyurethane counterparts. When repainted in the UK, in Extra Dark Sea Grey 640, the Phantom would appear more like the Buccaneer.

But you can get a PDF copy through the BARG people .....

I would not read much into the colours seen on this photo. It look like its paler than it should be all over - including the Leander in the background (see full Wiki shot). I have looked at hundreds of FG.1 photos of the period and it just does not look right. It is a bit fuzzy and IMHO the colouring has been played with a bit. When really blown up big there is a scratch mark cross the deck into the pilots visor. This tells me it's a scan from a print. Which means you are looking at an interpretation of a interpretation, (camera to negative, to print, to scan etc.) When you go to Wikipedia caption of this photo - it states "aboard aircraft carrier USS "Ark Royal" - big groan there.

brilliant

One other item I have not seen mentioned yet is the arrestor rope cutter forward of the front canopy - on later FAA Phantoms - not there on deliveries. PM

Is this the kit with the door on the wrong side? PM

My Airfix Me 262 ran out of plastic on the fin to. PM

I would not believe everything you see on this site. A couple of us Air Force Associate historians have conferred on this topic and found too many assumptions have been made. Find material by Jim Bates for the most accurate on the Hurricane. Patrick Martin

The Sea Fury did have changes through production .... look at antenna positions... PM