RAL

With two 1:32 Matchbox/Revell DH Sea Venoms in the collection to convert to RAN FAW.53 versions, does anyone produce any after-market assessories for this kit? I'm especially interested in new Mk4 lightweight ejection seats, main and nose wheels and perhaps even a wing-fold. One kit is destined to be a TT variant for which I'll need to scratch-build the Delmar winch, target frame and target. Any and all help appreciated with after-market assessory advice. Cheers Roger

Somewhere in the dim distant past, I read that someone (an individual) was mastering a 1:32 Vampire while a modelling company was tooling up a 1:32 Gloster Meteor. Does anyone have any up-to-date information? These would be welcome additions to my meagre 1:32 RAAF jet collection (2 x Kinetic F.86 Sabres with Hamilton Hobbies CAC Avon Sabre conversion) and 2 x 1:32 Revell Mirage IIIOs. Cheers Roger

Dannielle Be very wary of that Aussie option "The Reluctant Dragon" from Xtradecals. The font for the name is not correct and the drawing of the dragon itself is not right. Have a look at the decals again and then compare them to the AWM images of "The Reluctant Dragon": http://media.hannants.co.uk/pics/X48097_2.jpg http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P00590.006 Note that while the bomb mission log is there, completely missing from the decal set are the accompanying barge and ship 'kills'. HTH. Roger

An extract from "Korea Remembered": "The "Police action" (started on 25th June 1950) soon involved 77 Squadron operating from Japan, aircraft departing Iwakuni, armed and loaded for ground attack sorties, then landing at Taegu (K2) in Korea, where they were met by fitters and armourers that had been placed there by the first aircraft of Commonwealth Flight (Com Flt) 77 Squadron A65-121, captained by Flight Lieutenant (Flt Lt) . Dave Hitchins and the crew and co-pilot Flt.Lt. "Dad" Taplin, Flt.Lt Ivan Pretty, Navigator and Flt.Lt. Joe McDonald, Wireless Operator. The Mustangs were serviced, refueled, rearmed and then proceeding on another strike, then returning to Iwakuni. This role of Com. Flt. 77 Squadron continued until two more Dakotas (Douglas DC3, "Goony Bird") arrived from Australia, A65-109, with Flt.Lt. Noel Elliott Captain, P111 Brian Dorrington Co-Pilot, Nav 111 "Hank" Hurley Navigator and a Wireless Operator W/O Bob Burns; A65-96 Captained by Ron Daniel, with Co-Pilot Leon Murtagh (myself), Flt.Lt. Frank Barkla Navigator and a Wireless Operator, W/O "Blue" Lang, in the first week of October 1950. Around about this time, the Fighter Squadron moved to Pohang Dong (K3) on the East Coast of Korea and early flights were in support of them, but quickly expanded providing support to 3 RAR and other British Commonwealth Occupation Forces (BCOF) now operating in Korea and expanded to Pusan (K9), Kimpo (K14) near the South Korean capital Seoul, to Pyongyang (K23), the North Korean capital, Yongdongpo (K16) and following the Fighter Squadron's move to Hamhung (K27), high up on the north eastern coast of Korea and supplying the Fighter Squadron until 3rd December, when we were called very early one morning at Iwakuni, to fly direct to Hamhung to Pusan, on the southern coast of Korea. This was caused by the advance of the Chinese in support of their North Korean allies advancing across the frozen Chosen Reservoir. On arrival at Hamhung, aircraft would taxi to a dispersal point, be filled up, doors closed and take-off with a 'split-bottom' turn as soon as the wheels cleared the ground in order to avoid the front line around the perimeter of the airfield, making sure you didn't dip a wing into the ground during the turn. The normal operating weight of an RAAF Dakota in Australia was then 28,500 lb. We had been cleared for a 1,000 lb overload, that is a take-off weight of 29,500 lb. What weights we departed Hamhung were not calculated very accurately. However, 2 good engines (Pratt-Whitney's) didn't let us down and performed well, helped by the very cold below zero temperatures and the Fighter Squadron was successfully evacuated to Pusan." Note that the quote "Commonwealth Flight (Com Flt) 77 Squadron" is in error and should read "Communications Flight (Com Flt) 77 Squadron". Cheers Roger

Hi Tony Thanks for that. A very interesting story that ties in with what I've read to date on these early Commonwealth operations in Korea and the support of 77 Sqn's Mustangs. A colleague in Australia has given me a lead to a Pathe film which apparently shows A65-121: www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=57272 I've not yet viewed the footage but David Clarke assues me it is my illusive Dakota. I'd be interested in any and all observations by fellow Britmodeller members. Cheers Roger

Would anyone have images of C-47B A65-121 as flown by 77 Squadron, RAAF in Korea in support of 77 Squadron's Mustangs? The C-47 was unusual in that it was actually on strength with 77 Squadron and carried the titles "77 Squadron R.A.A.F." above the windows. Any and all help appreciated. Cheers Roger

My apologies, all. I just noticed that the heading of my four part post on the RAAF Seagulls reads "Seagull Iii" where it should of course read "Seagull III". Regards Roger

Hi Chris Thank you for your kind words regarding our research. And yes, I agree with you regarding the RAN's use of RN colours. While the references we have cite Battleship Grey as the colour of the refurbished Seagull III, and we have several RAAF (remembering that these Seagulls were RAAF and not RAN machines) and Munitions Supply Branch paint references that include Battleship Grey, we have yet to find a colour chip of the actual enamel used to refinish the hulls. We're still following up various leads and I'll ensure that we post the findings for the benefit of modellers world-wide. Cheers Roger

PART 4 Model Kits Our research of contemporary literature revealed no mention whatsoever of colours of any Supermarine seaplanes. One fact kept emerging though that it was Supermarine practice 'to plank with a single layer of mahogany and cover with linen and finished with a pigmented dope' . This precluded any possibility of a polished wooden finish. Photos supported this information and in fact, it is doubtful that any Supermarine seaplane prior to the Southampton had a varnished wood finish. The attention to the marking details and accuracy on the model compared with photographs lifted this one above just any old model. And the colour scheme chosen was that in service at the time the model was made so why wouldn't the actual paints be used? The new 1/48 Silverwings Seagull II/III kit has a number of inaccuracies, which will be spelled out, along with some additional information on colours in the next issue of “ModelArt Australia”. The main problem, and difficult to correct, is the shape of the observer's fairing. That said, the Silverwings kit is a gem - not without its problems but nevertheless a worthwhile addition to one's RAAF Series 1 aircraft collection. However, the C&M callouts for the kit are simply wrong, without putting too finer point on it. The commander's/observer's cockpit coaming is the most glaring of the errors with the kit but rectification shouldn't present too many difficulties to the experienced modeller used to working with resin. The kit deserves to have the square coaming anomaly corrected. It's disapointing that Silverwings has chosen to go down the mask route for the national markings. A kit of this calibre is crying out for after-market decals. Interestingly, the 1/72 Karaya Seagull has the same faults as the bigger scale kit. For interested readers, a full kit review of the 1/48 Silverwings Seagull II/III will appear in the next issue of “ModelArt Australia” together with an addendum to the original December 2009 article. Back copies and current copies of “ModelArt Australia” may be obtained through Frank Morgan, ModelArt's Editor: bassman@modelartaus.com.au

PART 3 Further Reading - Links to “Flight” references: Supermarine “Seal” Mark II (3 November 1921) http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00713.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00714.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00715.html Structurally, the " Seal " follows usual Supermarine practice, having a hull of approximately circular section, boat-built of planking over a light skeleton of timbers and stringers, and covered with fabric on the outside. As in previous Supermarine boats, the steps are separate units, built on to the main hull. They form a double bottom, and are subdivided into numerous watertight compartments, so that in case of the hull striking some object floating in the sea there is no fear of sinking. Also, in case of damage, a step can be repaired or renewed without interfering with the main hull. Supermarine Single-Seater Fighting Scout “Sea King” Mark II (20 April 1922) http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00226.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00227.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00228.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00229.html The general arrangement of the " Sea King " is well shown in the accompanying scale drawings and photographs, while some of the constructional details form the subject of our sketches. The boat hull is of the typical Supermarine type, boat-built and through fastened with copper or brass fixings throughout. The mahogany single-skin planking is riveted to the rock elm timbers and frames, and covered externally with fabric suitably treated with pigmented dope. The two steps are formed by entirely separate units, attached to the main hull, and can, therefore, be renewed in case of extensive damage. Should the hull itself, which is of approximately circular cross-section, be damaged, it is quite possible to repair it by scarphing in new planks where required. The Flying Boat Lecture Notes On Flying Boat Hulls by Major Linton Hope, M.I.N. A., F.R.Ae.S., Consulting Naval Architect to H.M. the King of the Beigians and to the Air Ministry: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00546.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00547.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00548.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00569.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00570.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00571.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00572.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00573.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00590.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00591.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00592.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00593.html

PART 2 And More Colour However, the story of the Seagull III colours does not end there. While examining the collection of photographs, one stood out from the rest, that of A9-6 captioned as alighting near Cockatoo Island (Sydney Harbour) in 1929. Obviously the date is incorrect as the rudder stripes indicate that the photograph was taken post January 1931 when the order for the revised rudder markings was promulgated (the RAAF followed the RAF practice of having the blue stripe against the rudder post until this was changed to red adjacent the rudder post). Another more significant feature was that the tone of the hull indicated that it could not have possibly been green. Also, the hull colour now extended down to the flare of the planning surface in a similar fashion to the ex-RAF machines previously mentioned. This was a departure from the earlier practice and photographs of A9-6 where the top of the flare was painted White and the forward section of the planning surface was Brown. This prompted an even closer examination of the photographs that identified no less than five Seagulls, A9-1, A9-2, A9-3, A9-5 and A9-8, with these revised features. By 1930, the world depression was deepening and the RAAF had no funds to replace the ageing Seagulls of which the structural integrity of the airframes was causing the Air Board some concern. It was decided to carry out a comprehensive refurbishment and weight reduction program on the surviving eight airframes, A9-4 having crashed at Norfolk Bay, Tasmania in 1930 and was written off. The program was carried out over a two year period commencing in January 1931 at Cockatoo Island Dockyard (Codock) and was supervised by one WNGCDR Lawrence Wackett. Seven aircraft were refurbished. The photograph referred to earlier was that of the test flight of the first Seagull refurbished and flown by SQNLDR Hewitt in May 1931. The Codock aircraft were painted “Flat Battleship Grey engine paint, cut and polished”. The exact colour of battleship Grey has yet to be conclusively determined by the authors although Light Battleship Grey and Dark Battleship Grey appear in the BS318c, 1931 colour chart, British Standard Colours for Ready Mixed Paints. Tests have indicated that Battleship Grey lies somewhere between Medium Sea Grey and Dark Sea Grey. Other possibilities are Dark Admiralty Grey, BS381c 632 and Neutral Grey. All have appropriate maritime connotations. The eighth Seagull, A9-8, was allocated to the Munitions Supply Branch (MSB) at Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Victoria in 1934 for refurbishment. It appears that this airframe may have been deemed uneconomical to overhaul and was used by the MSB as an instructional airframe. A photograph originating from MSB and captioned “WOODEN FUSELAGE OF SEAGULL 1934, WOODSHOP” shows a skeletal Seagull hull. Refurbishment was completed in early 1935. It is possible that this aircraft was attached to the Seaplane Training Unit at Point Cook at the time, whereas those refurbished at Codock were based at Richmond, New South Wales when disembarked from sea duties. The identity of those aircraft overhauled at Codock are A9-1, A9-2, A9-6, A9-7 and A9-9. Four seagulls were converted to components in 1934, A9-1, A9-2, A9-7 and A9-9. By 1936, only two Seagulls were in RAAF service, A9-3 and A9-5. A9-6 had been written off when wrecked in a gale while embarked on HMAS Australia in August 1934 and A9-8 in similar circumstances in 1938 while embarked on HMAS Canberra. The engine of A9-8 was transferred to A9-5 and the remains donated to the East Sydney Technical School in October 1935. When A9-5 disembarked from HMAS Canberra on 3 March 1936, the service career of the Seagull III in the RAAF drew to a close. A9-3 was considered uneconomical to maintain and disappears from the records. A9-5 was donated to the Melbourne Technical College, now the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, for use as an instructional airframe. Summarising: A9-1 to A9-6. The hulls were painted Green (Mid Brunswick Green) at the factory. The underside of the hull was finished in an anti-fouling White from just aft of the bow to the rear step and the top of the flare, the leading edge of which, and the fore section of the planning surface, Brown. All flying surfaces were doped Aluminium. The hull interior was White. All flying surface struts (wings and empennage) Aluminium. Note the tailplane struts were originally streamlined struts but were later replaced with plain steel tubes painted black on some aircraft. The unfaired undercarriage and float struts and control surface horns were black anti-corrosive paint. The fabric covers of the wheel spokes were either Aluminium or White but were quickly removed in service. On delivery, the upper wing roundels were positioned with their inboard edges in line with the inner edge of the aileron. The lower wing roundels were further inboard with the outer edge of the White roughly in line with the inner edge of the aileron. Later, some seagulls had the upper wing roundels further inboard. The aircraft serial was applied in White. A9-1. A9-2, A9-3 and A9-4 had a period (full stop) at the end of the serial for a time. The three ex-RAF Seagull IIIs (A9-7, A9-8 and A9-9) had a slightly different pattern of paint on the hull but are still believed to have been Mid Brunswick Green. http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f186/fre...llJH1copy-2.jpg From May 1931, the Seagulls emerged from Codock with hulls painted Battleship Grey, the colour extending down the onto the upper surfaces of the flare. The White anti-fouling paint extended on the underside of the planning surface from the bow to the second step as seen on the earlier scheme. The floats were Battleship Grey overall. Other details remained the same as the earlier scheme. A9-5 however did not have the White surround to the fuselage roundel. A9-1 has streamlined tailplane struts on delivery but these were later changed with plain struts of tubular cross-section. The rudders of the nine RAAF Seagulls were red, White and Blue equidistant vertical stripes. Blue leading (these colours are described as being bright – the Blue was apparently close to a French Blue BS381c 166) and the Red close to BS381c 564 Bold Red. RAAF Instructions, following the RAF lead, for the reversal of the colour sequence which placed the Red stripe adjacent to the rudder hinge line were issued in October 1930, to be effective from the start of 1931. There is no evidence from the photographs that this change took place on any Seagull prior to the first undergoing refurbishment at Codock. The roundels were the same ‘bright’ colours, White outline, Red, White and Blue except as noted for A9-5 above. Conclusion Contemporary references show that the Supermarine Aviation Works Ltd finished the wooden hulls of their seaplanes with fabric, coated with a pigmented dope. Proof positive that the seagulls had fabric covered hulls is found in “Wings Across the Sea” by Ross Gillett ... "I had intended pushing on the next day but it was found that some of the fabric covering the fuselage (sic) had broken adrift and required securing” (CMDR F.G. Crowther, RAN Rtd, FAA pilot Seagull III). Further evidence to the fabric covering of the Seagull III hull can be found in the National Archives of Australia documents. The question arises – did any Supermarine seaplane prior to the Southampton Mk 1 ever have a varnished timber finish?? Photographs of examples such as the Sea Lion (1919), Channel (1919), sea King (1920), Seal (1921) and sea Eagle (1923) indicate that the finish of the their hulls was fairly consistent, not only in terms of a smooth, uniform finish, but also suggesting the possibility of Green as the standard ‘house colour’ of the Supermarine Aviation Works Ltd. Consequently, was the Schneider Trophy competing Sea Lion or civil amphibian Sea Eagle finished in Green rather than Blue as claimed and often illustrated? On the contrary, it has been suggested that Blue might have been the ‘house colour’ for Supermarine civil aircraft because Blue was the colour applied to their Schneider Trophy competing aircraft S-4 (1925), S-5 (1927), S-6 (1929) and S-6B (1931). However, until further contemporary documentary evidence is produced to support Blue or any other colour, the hull colours remain contentious. One thing is certain though, since the evidence that the hulls were fabric covered is irrefutable, it is therefore impossible for it to have been a timber varnished finish. So, for nearly 80 years, we have been led to believe that the hull of the Seagull was Brown varnished timber until a small scale model gathering dust in a museum dispelled the myth. This throws open the question as to what the correct colours should be for the several Supermarine kits currently available, nearly all of which call for a Brown hull. At least for modellers of RAAF Seagull III aircraft, there is no question as to the correct colour. No doubt there will be ‘experts’ who will dispute the findings of the authors; however, it is now up to them to produce primary documentation to support their case. References: 1. “Seagulls, Cruisers and Catapults, Australian Naval Aviation, 1913-1944”; Ray Jones, Pelorus Publications, Hobart, 1989. ISBN 0 731654196. 2. “Australian Built Aircraft and Industry, Vol 1, 1881-1939”; Keith Meggs, OAM, DFM, AM(US), Four Finger Publishing, Victoria, June 2009. ISBN 978-1-920892-77-7. 3. Notes on Flying Boat Hulls, Major Linton-Hope. MINA, FRAeS; Journal Aeronautical Society, Vol 14, 1920. Also “Flight” 20 May 1920. 4. Some Notes on the Design, Construction and Operation of Flying Boats; Major J.D. Rennie, J.R.AeS, Vol 17, 1 January 1923. Also Summary of Discussion “Flight” Vol 17 25 January 1923. 5. British Standards, BS318c, 1931. British standard Colours for Ready Mixed Paints. http://www.clubhyper.com/references/ (The exact shade of RAAF K3/69 Battleship Grey is unknown at this stage, however the chart indicates the hue of battleship Grey.) 6. The Supermarine “Seal” Amphibian. “Flight” No 671 (No 44, Vol 13), pp 713-716. 7. Supermarine Single Seat Fighting Scout “Sea King Mk II”. “Flight” No 695 (no 16 Vol 14) 22 April 1922, pp 226-229. 8. http://www.seawings.co.uk/photogallery for photographs of various Supermarine flying boats/seaplanes. Also Seawings Forum for more photographs. 9. “Wings Across the Sea”, Ross Gillett, 1988, Aerospace PublicationsISBN 0 958797803. 10. National Archives Australia, Accession Number A2408, 176/2 and 13/5, Subject Registration Book, Dept of Air Correspondence Files, Subject, Reconditioning and Spares. The most reliable references are those from primary sources such as archival documents, followed by detailed descriptions in contemporary publications such as “Flight”. The next level is second-hand material quoting and backed up with primary source references. These have been the sources used in this investigation.

PART 1 For the benefit of Britmodeller contributers/readers and with the permission of my co-authors (Fred Harris and Peter Malone), the following is the text of the article (with some additions) which we wrote for Modelart Australia on the C&M of the RAAF's Seagull III aircraft. For initial reading on the Seagull C&M debate, go to Aussie Modeller International (AMI): http://www.aussiemodeller.com/pages/discus...roup/forum.html Using the Search function, search on “Supermarine Seagull”. Brief Historical Background At a Combined Services (RAAF and RAN) meeting held in Sydney, New South Wales in January 1924, it was decided that the RAAF would assist in the hydrographic survey of the Great Barrier Reef the following year. The area selected was south of Cairns (Queensland). The survey vessel, HMAS Geranium, was modified to carry a Fairey IIID on a platform constructed at the stern. The purpose of the embarkation was to provide aerial reconnaissance for HMAS Geranium by locating reefs and gauging the depth of the water. As well, it was to provide material to allow hydrographers to assess the use of aerial photographs. Although the embarkation was successful, the Fairey IIID had limitations reduced its effectiveness. 101 (Fleet Cooperation) Flight was formed on 1 July 1925 to provide, as the name implies, cooperation with the RAN cruisers HMAS Australia and HMAS Canberra for reconnaissance, shot fall and further duties for hydrographic survey. Since there were insufficient Fairey IIID aircraft available to equip the new 101 Flight, which was to be located in Sydney, seaplanes of a more suitable type were required, preferably amphibians. As a result, Australia ordered six Supermarine Seagull III amphibians, this being the minimum number required for the survey of the Great Barrier Reef and for training. The Seagulls, allocated serial numbers A9-1 to A9-6, arrived at Point Cook (Victoria) in June and July 1926 and three aircraft departed Point Cook for the Great Barrier Reef on 23 August where they joined HMAS Moresby to conduct a photographic survey of the reef. The deployment extended into 1927 and, with the addition of three ex-RAF Seagull II amphibians, continued on up North for a survey of Papua New Guinea. Interestingly, the three RAF Seagulls, engineless, were acquired at the scrap price of 100 pounds each and were intended to be used as a spares pool. However, they were found to be in such excellent condition that they were re-erected and quickly put into service. The only difference between the Seagull II and Seagull III was the larger radiator in the latter. With the survey work complete, the Seagulls were assigned to the newly constructed Seaplane tender HMAS Albatross, for reconnaissance, spotting and shadowing during naval exercises. When HMAS Albatross was placed in reserve in April 1935, the Seagulls were transferred to the RAN cruisers until superseded by the Supermarine Seagull V in 1935. The Seeds of Doubt Over the intervening years, historians and modellers have accepted without question it seems, that the hull of the Seagull IIIs and probably the RAF Seagull IIs was clear varnished mahogany planking giving it a reddish brown appearance. No doubt this perception has been reinforced by the finish of the Supermarine Southampton 1 such as the restored hull at the RAF Museum, Hendon. The first seeds of doubt as to whether this claim was correct were sown some thirty years ago by a model on display at the RAAF Museum, Point Cook, then very much in its infancy and located in the old Sergeants’ Mess building on the base. The Model The model in question, approximately 1/48 scale, all metal, was made by members of 101 Flight and presented to the wife of the outgoing Commanding Officer, SQNLDR J.E. Hewitt. A plaque attached to the base of the model reads “Mrs J.E. Hewitt from members of 101 Flight, 17-5-33”. Although the model does not compare with the modern plastic kits of today, the hull is an exquisite example of the sheet metal worker’s craft. What is surprising about the model is that the hull it is painted Green, not the expected Brown. Comparison with black and white photographs of the period showed an exact match of the colour pattern except for one small difference; the floats were painted Silver rather than the hull colour. http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f186/fre...hter027copy.jpg http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f186/fre...3_011BWcopy.jpg The model went into storage at the Museum and no further thought was given to the matter until it was raised during a discussion between the authors a few months ago. Thanks to the good offices of Mr Brad Owen, an Assistant Curator at the Museum, the model was made available for a detailed examination and photographing. The colour was assessed as Mid Brunswick Green, BS381c No 226. The large number on the nose (a repeat of the machine’s individual serial) dated the colour scheme as circa 1928/29. The question immediately arose – when were the Seagulls repainted? Examination of some sixty plus photographs, albeit black and white which is always a contentious issue, representing all nine RAAF aircraft but particularly the first six airframes, showed that the only sign of change to the markings over a four year period was the addition of the large number on the nose. In fact, the evidence points to the fact that the colour scheme was present when the Seagulls were handed over to the RAAF at the Supermarine Aviation Works, Southampton, on 5 February 1926. A most revealing photograph, taken at the handover ceremony, shows a close-up of the hull adjacent to the rear cockpits. There is absolutely no sign of the planking that is so clearly evident on the planked and wooden hulls of the later Supermarine Southampton 1. http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f186/fre...hamptoncopy.jpg Supermarine Design and Construction Practice An extensive literature survey of contemporary publications provided a number of references to the Supermarine seaplane … such as “Structurally, the Seal follows the usual Supermarine practice, having a hull approximately circular section, boat-built of planking over a light skeleton of timbers and stringers, and covered in fabric on the outside.” (Supermarine Seal MkII, ‘Flight’, 3 November 1921). And, “The boat hull is of typical Supermarine type, boat-built, the mahogany single-skin planking riveted to the rock elm timbers and frames, and covered externally with fabric suitably treated with pigmented dope.” (Supermarine Sea King, ‘Flight’, 20 April 1922). The Sea King evolved into the Sea Lion, the winner of the 1922 Schneider Trophy, and is recorded as being painted Blue. These aircraft were the predecessors of the Seagull II and III. One significant omission from contemporary literature was any mention of varnished hulls. The practice of covering the hulls with fabric was common to other manufacturers as indicated in other references. The interior structure of the Seagull III hull was a delicate lacework of stringers and frames which was planked with strips of thin (thickness) mahogany in accordance with the “Linton-Hope” design philosophy. Doped on fabric added considerable strength and watertightness to the structure. So, given the provenance of the model, it is hard to dispute the accuracy of the depiction of the colours which were probably drawn from RAAF paint stores. Not only is the Green significant, but also the Red and Blue of the roundels. The model is an artefact that has examples of the 1920s RAAF colours still in pristine condition. Seagulls A9-7, A9-8 and A9-9 (the ex-RAF aircraft) were similarly finished to the first six Seagulls except that the hull colour extended down onto the top of the planning surface and the White anti-fouling was restricted to the planning surface only; that is, from the bow to the first step. Part 2 of 4 follows.

I'm enquiring about RAF Grumman Goose HK822 operated (very briefly) by the RAAF's No 1 Air Ambulance Unit in the Middle East and in particular, I'm seeking a photograh and/or C&M. The aircraft was 'acquired' from the RAF and operated from 1 December 1942 and crashed in the Mediterranean on 9 December 1942 with all crew being eventually rescued. The pilots were F/LT Bartle and P/O McWilliam. There were also five (5) passengers. The Goose apparently crashed during landing trials. This information is sourced from Lever's Air Ambulance publication and A Short History of No 1 AAU "Succour From the Sky". Lever notes the aircarft as a Grumman Goose where the second reference refers to the aircarft as a Grumman Amphibian. A further refernce has the aircarft listed as a Goose Mk. I in RAF service. HK822 was one of a batch of sixteen (16) JRF-5/1 Model G-21A transfers to the RAF and Royal Navy. The aircraft assigned to the RAF were given the Serial Numbers FP470 to FP474, FP738 to FP747, HK822 and MV993. Eight (8) Model G-21A were retained by the US Navy. The British Civil Register however provides the following information on HK822: Registration: G-AFKJ. Type: Grumman G-21a Goose. Construction Number: 1049. History: G-AFKJ/HK822. Owners: Rt.Hon WM Aitken (Lord Beaverbrook) /Croydon. Date: 30 September 1938. Certificate of Registration: 8771. Fate/Comments: Impressed February 1941, damaged beyond repair (dbr) Benghazi 9 December 1942. Besides a photograph and it's RAF colours & markings, I'm also seeking a more detailed history of the aircraft. For example, was the Goose impressed in the UK or was it impressed in the Middle East? The latter is important as a Fairchild 91 that was impressed into the RAF in the Middle East (HK832) was painted in desert colours. All assistance would be appreciated. Cheers

For interested Britmodeller forum members, a group of Australian researchers has now established that the hulls of the Supermarine Seagull II and III, and in fact most Supermarine seaplanes/amphibians up to but not including the wooden hull Southampton, were fabric covered and therefore could not be varnished timber finish as commonly claimed. The fabric was treated with pigmented dope. An article on their findings is to be published locally next month (December) in the Australian modelling magazine "ModelArt Australia": http://apma.org.au/modelart.html The research is based on contemporary material from overseas, records with the National Archives of Australia, records with the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, information from the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, Victoria as well as reference material from several private collections. The article should be of interest to modellers building the 1/72 Karaya Seagull II or III, or the soon to be released 1/48 Silver Wings Seagull.