gingerbob

Yes, but raised rivets tended to be about the scale of the bolts in Frankenstein's neck. Not "far more accurate" than golf-ball pocks, in my opinion.

Oh dear, that's what I get for popping over to Group Builds to catch up with current events. I've had P-51s (aka "F-6A") - the ones with cannons and (usually) cameras- on the brain for a couple of weeks. They were the first Mustangs in combat with the AAF, starting in April-ish '43. Hmm...

I'd love to see the full class list, if convenient. I think that they changed a time or two, but frankly I haven't considered that "essential information". Foolish of me, I know! (What difference does it make?... until it makes a difference when trying to figure something out!)

And likewise more info- having found "The Spitfire V Manual" on the second attempt- in the bookshelf that I thought it was in to begin with! Section 10 (Electrical) paragraph 2: ... "A 3-pin socket is mounted on the port side of the fuselage aft to frame 11, under the fillet, for testing the electrical services or radio installation. A door cut in the fillet gives access to the socket." Further in the chapter it mentions that the "A.R.I. 5000" (IFF, cheese-cutter style) is used with the TR9D in addition to subsequent radios. Incidentally, in relation to the question that's come up a few times [not in this thread] about where the voltage regulator was, the original Mk I manual said that the generator had "full charge", "half charge", and... umm, must have been something like "off" settings, and that the pilot should switch to half charge when voltage reached [some particular voltage]. A later revision added the information about the voltage regulator. I was trying to be lazy, but now I feel like I need to look that up again, to see if the original mention said anything about where the regulator was mounted. I'll be back eventually- watch this space!

Thanks Ray, and "Crimea". Just to be clear, I wasn't "arguing", it's just that I'd seen such a comment quite recently, and put it on the mental list of things to check out. Note that the mod says "to provide for", which doesn't necessarily mean that it is ready to "plug and play". The mod is "Class 2", by the way, if that means anything to anyone. The plug-in on the cowl is, as far as I can gather, strictly for engine starting (if it powered the electrical system, they wouldn't need another socket, would they?) and I don't think that the wing-root socket could be used to start the engine (remember that not all versions used electric start, the Mk II being the most relevant example). bob

Are you sure about the wing root one? It isn't to start the engine, but to provide power to other systems, for maintenance etc. I have NOT checked whether it was not yet there on Mk Is- I just assumed that it was always there on Spits. EDIT: Hmm, I wonder if this is it: Mod 154 "To provide for ground connection to general electrical system to facilitate ground testing of TR.1133". The ledger says Mk I & II, first discussed 10 Nov 39, leaflet action (can't read the details) Jul-Sep '40, "Cleared" [whatever that means] 11 Nov 40.

Oh boo, apparently it has now been shut off.

Oh goody, it appears that I can watch it... umm... no longer live?

Hmm, I'm suddenly tempted to do a 4-engine bomber with four different engines on it!

Not the same image, but clearly taken at the same time. (Look at the tie-down of the port wing, for example.) So yes, one has to have been "photoshopped". A completely tangential (well nearly) comment: I'm glad that in days such as early 1945, someone still thought it worthwhile to take a photo of a handsome lineup of Ta 152Hs!

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235034359-dc-2k-raf-colours-new-photo-from-kohat/ Fingers crossed- the system isn't wanting to make this easy for me...

Hey, I think you're on the right trail! http://incidentessgm.blogspot.com/search/label/Bristol Beaufighter

Every photo above of the Tempest decals looks (on my monitor) quite good indeed! I agree that first impression of the code letters isn't as good, but I'm hardly ever happy with those.

Ah, John, you've fallen for the one that usually gets ME: replying to the "last" post, without noticeing that there's another page to the thread

Funny, now that you mention it. "New Jersey" and "Jersey" are indeed used somewhat interchangeably (though only in casual usage- I doubt the Governor would say that they headed the state of Jersey). But I would never say that I'm from the region of "England", nor have I ever heard mention of the states "Hampshire" or "York".