gingerbob

Forgive me for saying this, but I think in most cases, at least, the "mismatched" black/white is actually an error of interpretation for what is, in fact, ailerons still in (painted) aluminium. Nice looking build!

Great boarding ladder, and the "display base" for it (the ladder) looks pretty darn good too! Oh, the wonderful thing about Tiggers... bob

Blimey, not faffing about, are you?! I've always thought that this was an interesting looking airplane, way back to my impressionable youth. It'll be sorely tempting if I run across a "bargain"...

Well, I'm normally only really interested in aircraft kits, but if they did a KZ650...

Yes, red circle reads 17.25. Blue looks to be 68.94 (the last is definitely 4). Edit: confirmed (sort of) by another drawing that gives overall as 68.9. I'm not sure whether this is simply curtailing one decimal place (other measurements do give hundredths) or an actual discrepancy.

Darn it, now you've got me wanting to dig out that kit!

Anything new since the ones in this thread? (I found it again yesterday when seeing if I could shed light on this thread's question.)

I'm not sure the point of this side discussion. It is well known that some late Vs had the 6-stack exhausts fitted- it is somewhat associated with LF.Vs, but there's no hard correlation. IF your Mk.V has 6-stack exhausts fitted, then yes, "Mk.IX" ones should be appropriate. Whether a set intended for one kit directly fits another is a separate question, but I wouldn't think it would be too hard to make it work.

So I can put Spitfire exhausts on my Meteor?

Thanks for that!!!

I'm not trying to change the rules (too late now!) or start a fight, but it seems peculiar to me to include biplanes in the category of "high wing". It's sort of like saying that muesli is oatmeal, because they both contain oats.

Great work and excellent presentation!

Hmm, Gomtuu, you do have a point. However Mk.I vs Mk.II is also a relevant part of this investigation, since it directly affects the radiator housing (and core). Perhaps we can at least try not to get too off on that tangent!? Keeping things "strictly focused" is virtually impossible, and sometimes those seeming tangents bring in valuable information that contributes to understanding the original theme, but it also gets frustrating trying to keep track of where you encountered some good information when it bears no relation to the claimed "subject" of the thread.

What has always puzzled me is why these I>II got new serials. There's no reason that I'm aware of that this would be necessary.

Umm, you just slam-dunked me (I trust you understand the jargon) when it comes to great pics! I think it was the 7th photo [on the page that I linked to, according to Tony's quote] that I meant to link to, not just a collection. bob

Yes, the bomb doors (at least the front half?) opened to enable access to guns and ammunition stowage. It seems plausible that the rear-facing wingtip "clear" is only on bombers, but I've got no firm convictions. Yes, that kit has some accuracy problems, but you won't mistake if for some other aircraft, so have fun with it- and if you start feeling like you ought to ____, remind yourself that it is a horrible, detail-lacking, inaccurate antiquated kit, so you're not obligated to do anything you don't want to. But do enjoy yourself!

G-AFKX, one place to see the profile photo is p.37 of the "All the Hurricane Questions..." thread.

Hi Larry, Boy, it doesn't look too promising. Some of the Mk.I masks might fit, but definitely not enough!

Ah, but can you? This kit is on the top echelon of my very short "must have soon" (at least theoretically) list. I'll definitely come back and study carefully when I undertake it, to see if I can learn from your mistakes (or your takes, for that matter). Not to mention I'll pop in just to live vicariously, too! bob

Quite common, I think. I've also seen a small plate put there to fill the hole. If it is the exhausts with that tube to supply heated air, once disconnected it should (I think) simply be a straight-through tube. But don't worry, I won't be sighting down the bore to see if you've drilled it out on your 72nd Spits! (or if I do, I won't bring it up)

Hi Geoffrey, Very interesting. The double entry for Seafire XV gave me a momentary pause, but then I remembered that it had a "hybrid" cooling system, with symmetrical housings (unlike the Spitfire XII), but with a different arrangement of cores (compared to Spit VIII/IX, etc), because it had no intercooler to worry about. So it was probably a sort of "half this and half that". It has been mentioned before, but we must remember that "radiators" are the cores, while the housings ("cowlings") were generally part of the airframe. So you could have two different cores th

Glad to help. Notice that the bracket that the "pennant" bolts to remains- you can see it as a little "protrusion" on the mast.

The little door near the trailing edge opens when the flaps go down. (there's the "elbow" of an actuator that protrudes and pushes open that door) The red on the front of the cannons is (I believe) tape to seal them until use. Agreed no wire from the mast- there'd be the little triangle "pennant" on the back if there were. The one from fuselage to stabilizer is IFF, and I think I can just barely see it in this photo.

Per "the Hurricane II Manual": For transport purposes, Hurricane II aeroplanes are packed in cases measuring internally 29 ft 6 in long x 9 ft 6 in wide x 8 ft 3 in high, each case containing one complete aeroplane with engine installed; the aeroplane is divided into the following units before being packed: Airscrew Port outer plane Starboard outer plane Rudder Fin Tail plane and elevator Engine, fuselage, and centre section

Yes- but very mildly.