gingerbob

It is pretty obvious from the rest of my comment that I believe it to be in the book, just that it isn't correct.

I can't present supporting evidence offhand, but that sounds like "fake news" to me. Probably one of those facts that found its way into the wrong context in the book. The wingtips had been detachable since production began, so that may refer to the feedback on the prototype!

Yes, before BofB. Somewhere I've got record of when removal happened, but I don't think (offhand) that it pertains to 'a' winged aircraft.

VHF wasn't universally adopted overnight. But unsurprisingly, 11 Group and neighbors got priority. Even that might be a more simplistic statement than what really happened, but I haven't seen anything spelling it out. I ran across one ORB comment recently about a formation in which one pilot communicated an engine problem (?) to the only other one who could hear him- I think they specifically said VHF. THAT I found surprising, but it also probably was a squadron doing convoy patrols and such, rather than offensive sweeps into France. I've also seen several comments about having received Spitfires, but they don't yet have radios fitted, so aren't operational. Also, when changing bases (and Groups) they had to get new crystals fitted for the frequencies in use locally. That may pertain to HF, I'm not certain offhand.

Yes, that serial is a Wellington. I think you've got the right answer. It is not unusual to see an error continue consistently through a month (or longer) and then show correctly from the beginning of a new month. My guess is that either a new record-keeper took over, or perhaps with a new month one of the things on the "to do" list was to check the list of which individual letter was given to which serial. In other words, I surmise that sometimes the record-keeper would have a list, and when the pilots (or whomever) turned in the list of who was on the day's ops it might just show Burton in 'A', Prang in 'B', etc. Thus sometimes you'll see a serial merrily continuing to appear on ops after it (pretty certainly) was shot down into the Channel on the 12th! Edit: Also, it is quite common to see prefix errors, and I've seen some ORBs that just list the numerals, so likely the serial might be passed to the record-keeper as numerals only, who then could easily substitute a common and familiar prefix like 'N' for the correct 'P'. I was reminded of this while looking at a Sqn using Spit Vs, where it applies even with two-letter prefixes.

Now that's what I call a snowblower!

I've had that idea, but not yet actually tested it. I'm honestly not sure if I'm clever, or just a thief, since I can't remember the origin of the thought! Knowing me, I'd do it on water-soluble paint and mess the whole thing up.

Cool! I have a soft-spot for Mazda owing to their Wankel work, and the RX-7 (original shape) in particular. But that first box art image makes it look like the photo (or at least the car) has been "compressed" along the horizontal axis! I also approve of car kits done in "proper" scales- that is, the ones that are standard for aircraft. bob

Perhaps not to those who had "swallowed the Kool-Aid".

Oi- show some respect! I've only just gotten one (and yes, I had a pretty good idea of what I was in for, but it is better than the other 1/48 Hampdens... maybe. The best thing about it is that I didn't pay very much . That and I can say, "I don't think he'll be very keen- he's already got one, you see!") Excellent point. I had my early-adolescent period of fascination with Luft '46, but eventually I grew out of it. I won't comment further lest it be deemed (or recognized as) political commentary. As for the Fw 187, I've got the Special Hobby kit in 72nd, but I wish I could get both single-seat prototype and "production" version in 48th. It seems I've got a thing for low-slung, (seemingly) over-powered twins!

Hmm. I think by this time, in this area, they'd have been using VHF radios, which means no wire from mast to rudder. You can see the "spike" atop the rudder and the little pennant on the mast in the photo of the aircraft (which would have held the wire for the older style radio), but in a closeup of him in the cockpit (claimed to be same aircraft, at any rate same time period) I can't see the wire that would be running down aft of the mast. Likewise I can't see the "cheese cutter" IFF wire from fuselage to stabilizer, but that's not unusual in photos. I don't know enough to say whether "most" aircraft had it at this time, or only some. (In the closeup, you can see the location on the fuselage, but that's at the edge of the photo, so hard to say whether anything comes out. Here's the image I'm talking about: https://www.americanairmuseum.com/media/17188 Edit: 71 Sqn got the Mk.IIs primarily from 602 Sqn, who were converting to Vb. Their ORB notes the arrival of the Vbs, and that they need to have VHF fitted before they could be operational. (They probably were delivered with no radios, rather than having HFs that needed to be switched over.)

I don't have experience of that kit, but usually the advice is to (at least) scrape the mating surfaces down to "naked" plastic, so that they'll actually stick. I just got the image of a young sailor pausing while under attack at Pearl to think, "Boy, those sure are nice looking aircraft, but what exactly is that color they're painted in?"

Ah nuts- I was looking at a Hasegawa Mitsubishi Mu-2 at a show this past weekend, trying to find... justification... to buy it. It was meant to be the military version, which put me off a bit, but had I remembered this GB I could easily have talked myself into it. Ah well, now I'll have to actually make up my mind from among what's already in my stash. bob

Well chaps, before this group build disappears over the horizon behind us, even though I did my usual "I came, I saw, I got distracted", I really enjoyed it. I'd have put F-18s very far down on my list of interesting airplanes, but to some degree I'm willing to reconsider! bob

Just what I was thinking! (that and, "why don't I have this in my stash yet?" Yes, I knew about it, just hadn't tracked one down.)

One of the nicest airliner builds I've seen! (to be fair, most of the ones I've seen look good, but this just...)

The HF.IX more or less replaced the Mk.VII (as a production necessity). They were segregated, with the HF.IX squadrons remaining with Air Defense Great Britain. Note that I am going from memory, so there may be exceptions, but this is the general trend. (I am also ignoring service in the Med at the moment.) I don't know how the RAAF treated HF vs LF distribution. The HF.VIII was at the particular request of Australia, and as I recall [relatively] high altitude interception was the concern, but I'd have to dig up the communications in my files to see what more specifically was said. You are correct that Eduard has this confused, calling their "pointy wing VIII" kits HF.VIII. The chord out toward the tip was greater, compared to the "standard" Spitfire outline, but it does match the "pointy tip" Spitfire wing outline. Morgan & Shacklady introduces confusion in cases like this because of either giving "facts" in the wrong places or misunderstanding what those facts actually represent. That's assuming that they've transcribed the numbers accurately, which they don't always.

I was referring to the "locally sourced on our own initiative" story, not "get your standard RAF camouflage paints (or as near as you can) from manufacturing sources in theatre". The latter makes perfect logistical sense.

That says a lot more about us than it does about the historical reality. I don't think anyone would argue that for every thread discussing the most precise "match" for regulation colour X, there's a thread trying to understand/justify/speculate on some anomaly that lets us do something just a little bit different. Or a lot bit! And yet Jeffrey Quill talks at length (in his book) about the problems that Spitfire Vs ran into when more and more equipment was called for, much of which went, at least partially, in the fuselage aft of the cockpit, and the chain responsible for doing the work and keeping the aircraft in an airworthy condition failed to heed the weight & balance instructions. As to the examples you cite, they each have a specific setting/reason, and in many cases are intended to be temporary expedients. Another problem that occurred to me about this "run off to the hardware store" trope is who would be paying for the paint? I can't see the typical airman pulling out his wallet in trust that he'd be reimbursed by the very government agencies that he was circumventing. Let alone having the sort of ready cash to be able to pay for it in the first place.

As Andy suggests, the PR.X was a bit of a "lash-up" to get a pressurized PR Spit ASAP. Mk.VII fuselages [the design/structure, not "recycled fuselages"] were adapted, since they were already built for pressurization. I'm not convinced one way or the other about the (possible) whip antenna, I just did a quick search, thought I got lucky, and put it on here! PR.XIXs (eventually?) did have a whip, which was further back on the fuselage. I'll try to poke around a bit more to see if I can find anything out- I like this sort of question. bob

Aires is infamous for needing to thin the kit plastic to a vanishing point in order to (hopefully) make it fit. This would most likely apply to the sidewalls in particular. I would recommend a pre-emptive dose of patience, and a great deal of careful test-fitting not just of each component, but of how one component fits in relation to things around it- for this I'm particularly envisioning the bottom part, and how it meets the sidewalls and wing underneath it. Remember, too, that even if you can force the fuselage around the cockpit, if that makes it end up wider than God (aka Tamiya) intended, that will affect the fit of the wing and possibly its dihedral.

Here's a shot of SR396- note that you can "view full size" - when you do so, you can just make out the whip aerial. I suspect that the "small appendage" you speak of is the beam approach antenna- also on SR396, slightly aft of the fuselage roundel? bob

Possibly because the X entered service in mid-'44, and somewhere along the way the whip antenna replaced the mast, as slightly less drag. This is not to say that the whip was commonly retrofitted- I don't know that.

Tip- if you see an acronym with underlining, hover your cursor over it... wait for it...

I do think that simply airbrushing more on top is doomed to failure. What have you got to lose, besides some time and $40 for a replacement kit, by trying to strip what needs to be fixed? I'd start with the "topical" approach others have suggested, but be aware that it is likely to encroach on bordering areas, so don't let that bother you. Regardless, be patient- more harm is likely to be done by impatience than by anything else (aside from a too-aggressive solvent that eats the plastic!) Please also report back, whatever happens, for the benefit of the rest of us. Incidentally, I've got a Monogram F-106 that I inherited from a friend, "reduced to components", and is now marinating in a bath of Simple Green. The paint didn't magically dissolve away, but a bit of scraping with a fingernail dislodged much of it. Considering how long it has been in the Simple Green, there might be such a thing as too much patience (aka procrastination). bob