Jump to content

gingerbob

Members
  • Posts

    7,609
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About gingerbob

  • Birthday 20/03/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bucksport Maine USA

Recent Profile Visitors

7,872 profile views

gingerbob's Achievements

Completely Obsessed Member

Completely Obsessed Member (6/9)

4.6k

Reputation

  1. Can't answer the question, but I was literally JUST typing in 230 Sqn's 1930s "events" (such as receiving Sunderlands) when I thought I'd check Britmodeller on the other computer. And what do I see for a thread title? bob
  2. I think I understand now- I was thrown by the odd "inner" shadow, but if you look at the IWM "original" image: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205207873 and zoom in, I believe they've kept the "cylindrical" cannon fairing and capped it, rather than the more common removing it where it meets the leading edge port and capping it there. So yes, Vc.
  3. Smoke/ CO alarms. Sexy, innit? There's an inspector coming to see the damaged roof shingles from the windstorm (the December one, not the several before or since) - first time I'm even exploring making a home insurance claim- and after three months waiting, he's coming Monday, and "Oh, the insurance company is going to want to see pictures of detectors and fire extinguishers in all common areas." So now I'm scrambling to get caught up with what I should have done already anyway...
  4. Actually, as far as I remember from my time in the P-38* they're just "manually actuated"- that is, you grab and push/pull. *OK, my time in the P-38 was once, at Oshkosh, closing it up for the imminent thunder-storm, but how often do we get the chance to say things like that?
  5. Hobby Boss is J or L, right? Like this- top hinges back, sides slide down "inside".
  6. The "classic" Mustangs (up to D/K) I think all had the same basic gear leg geometry. The sit can be different depending on load or friction/lack thereof of the oleo, and same for the tailwheel.
  7. I have also read that, but what I keep asking myself is, "If the larger tailplane was needed, why do all the surviving examples and such appear to consistently show the shorter tailplane?" (I have not done any sort of diligent study.) Note: When I was (again) looking into this question not that long ago, I realized that a "quick and dirty reference", especially from close to straight behind or in front, is the proportion of fin/rudder height to tailplane half-span. As big as the alleged difference is between the two kit "alternate realities", I would think that it would stand out when comparing this ratio.
  8. Hmm, I don't remember metal-covered elevators being associated with the XIV family- XVI and 21, yes. I might have to do some digging later, but don't hold me to it. The rudder is not quite that simple- 18s were already in production before the big rudder was mandated (which does imply that they didn't enter squadron service without) and it was permissible to fit the big rudder on XIVs, too. But as a quick generalization, near enough. There's also the matter of camera ports- almost all low-back XIVs were FR, with only an oblique camera, so even if used by a fighter squadron the (covered over?) port and hatch arrangement is there. FR.18s had two belly ports for vertical cameras, in addition to provision for the oblique. They also had an aft fuselage (behind the cockpit) fuel tank, so the filler point would be there under the hood. F.18s did not have cameras, and added a second tank, but I don't know that there's any "visible" difference because of the latter. Then there's the different wing-skin arrangement and deletion of the .303 stations, but whether that is considered a "readily visible difference" I'll leave for you to decide. It depends partly on your style of panel line treatment, I suppose, especially in 72nd.
  9. Welcome aboard to Britmodeller! You can (at least this is normal these days for Group Builds) post finished photos in the "Inspiration" gallery, though... bob
  10. As it happens I finally roped the "new" Revell 1/32 P-51D last week- but that's not likely to be what I choose for this. At this moment I'm leaning toward dusting off the Accurate Miniatures conversion to Mustang I that I slightly began in one of the previous Mustang GBs. But on the other hand... bob
  11. Someone open the gate! (source: https://www.kimballstock.com/preview.asp?db=a&image=HOR+01+KH0043+01
  12. What I mean is that the wing panels supplied were for Mk.IX, not "c wings so could be modified to suit".
  13. You're all wrong. And you're all right. Or something like that. Only the first group of airframes supplied by Supermarine for Rolls Royce completion (not really "conversion") included the Mark V style cowling panels. I think this total is 150. While I don't KNOW about Castle Bromwich airframes, these would have been later and probably would not have again required modification of Mk V cowling panels. (Rolls Royce turned some CB F.IXs into LF.IXs- is it possible that this got confused with the other work?) The main planes were appropriate to Mk.IX, at any rate, so I don't see why they would have been painted the earlier way, unless someone just did what they were used to doing and hadn't gotten the memo. None of this, of course, actually answers the question of whether or not the lines were retained (repainted).
×
×
  • Create New...