Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,165 Excellent

About gingerbob

  • Rank
    I always wanted to be a boffin when I grew up
  • Birthday 03/20/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bucksport Maine USA

Recent Profile Visitors

4,958 profile views
  1. I can give you a bogus serial number! Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week, folks...
  2. Just to show that you're not THAT forgetful: (I'm not familiar with the kit- I try very hard to avoid getting sucked into 1/72 Spits, just because I've got quite enough to keep up with in 48th and 32nd!)
  3. You don't NEED to change it- rather if you're concerned with accuracy it is a difference you might wish to know about.
  4. Eureka! Looks like it was 'D': http://www.naval8-208-association.com/Spit-Hurr1949-51Gallery.html
  5. If you're talking about "N" and "T", they are respectively TP391 and TZ233. Note that the former (according to the individual record) did not join the squadron until late March 1950, so there's a bit of time between the events of interest and that photograph- I point that out just in case some markings might have changed in between. I noticed that 208 Squadron used "RG" for their codes until 1949, while GZ may have belonged to 32 Squadron. Whether they'd have been worn by the aircraft at the time of the combats I can't say.
  6. OK, I've tried to resist, but now that someone has mentioned it, any Gen on the Spit VIII would be much appreciated. Perhaps we shouldn't clutter up this thread, but I don't there's going to be much volume anyway! bob
  7. I'm beginning to suspect that the dates in the individual aircraft records are often the date that the clerk recorded the change of allotment. It is not at all unusual for these dates to be 2-3 days behind what's recorded in the ORBs.
  8. Odd, I guess the 1/48 is only in the "Snapshot Cockpit Upgrade" - sounds like a good excuse to me!
  9. OK, @stevej60, this one's for you! Don't worry, I had it in mind long before I saw your comment in chat, so no guilt necessary- in fact I took these photos about the time the Group Build started, and then got distracted. This morning I printed side and top views from @Tailspin Turtle just to see if this pathetic kit actually does "look like a Skyhawk" (film at eleven...) My desire is to represent the prototype, though that may be subject to revision. I'm envisioning this as "low impact" modeling- relatively little AMS and worry about p
  10. I see Tommy's already been here (no surprise), but I just happened across his index of Skyhawk things here: (convenient one-stop shopping!) https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/03/a4d-4-skyhawk-collector.html
  11. In that case, you may as well get the Barracuda seat, too.
  12. I would interpret that to mean a total of 9- but I would then look for corroboration. This is not arguing with your conclusions (or work), just an observation. I fully appreciate your wariness- I've had the same reaction! bob
  13. I've seen it! It pertains specifically to "a meeting held by 5th Sea Lord on 4/1/40 to discuss the future policy for FAA fighters" [that's 4 Jan, in case of confusion]. bob
  14. I've been meaning to do this to one of my Venturas, and now I'm either completely convinced I must, or I'm going to steal your pictures and tell people I built it! (just kidding on that last bit) Nicely done, indeed. bob
  • Create New...