Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gingerbob

  1. Hmm. Spitfire Mod 1762 "To introduce Seafire type oleo leg fairing & undercarriage door", applies to 21,22,24. First mentioned as LTC 2200 28 May 46, then there are several dates that all appear to be July. Also a couple of other notes in the Mod register that I can't make much sense of, but don't appear to tell us much. This is after the "true" Mk.22s have all been built (that is, Castle Bromwich deliveries), as I recall. So the implication is that it IS, or can be, a retrofit. A quick look at the pilots' notes says that 22's guns were hydraulically fired, 24's were electric. I'll have to go through it carefully to see if there are other differences specifically stated.
  2. Since when did objective truth get in the way of a good hangar-flying session?
  3. Stainless steel, and is a scuff plate for where the tire might contact the inner door.
  4. gingerbob


    When I saved the image and zoomed in I could see a diagonal line against the Sky band connecting the right end of the top (horizontal) bar to the "circular" lower part of the numeral, thus I do believe that it is 434. bob
  5. This painting shows RAF roundels: https://www.mightyeighth.org/mission_one/ I did find the part in the book about Eaker, and remembered accurately. (p.166, if anyone has the book) Now you've got me interested, so I'll do a bit more probing, but probably won't have anything to add for a day or two.
  6. Here's a photo, if the caption is correct: (well, on the linked page, that is) https://www.wikiwand.com/en/RAF_Grafton_Underwood I've just been reading "Air Force Spoken Here", a biography of Ira Eaker, and it claims that US stars were hurriedly painted on prior to the 4 July mission. I should probably find that in the text again to be sure. Now, I'm not sure I fully believe it, based on that evidence, but it is at least "evidence" of a sort... Wouldn't you think there might have been some press photographers there on 4 July? bob
  7. gingerbob

    A good mitchell

    It isn't a perfect kit (what is?), but I've certainly not heard consistent complaints about it being difficult to build. I'm afraid that I haven't attempted it myself... yet. The old Monogram/Revell 1/48 kit (not the OLDE Revell) is also good, but is of the classic Monogram era, not what we expect from a "modern" kit these days. It is also the later J (or H if you find one), so you might ask yourself which Mitchell you actually want, if you haven't already done so. bob
  8. ...and put the landing light covers on! Lovely camo. I know that's a terribly original comment, but so be it.
  9. Here's a post of mine comparing tanks (and I'm relieved to see that your image agrees pretty well with my conclusions: (sorry, scroll down to the image, not very far. Note that the actual measurements (per GD drawing) are given a bit further down the page)
  10. Were you (and the 'munk) at GraniteCon in Manchester NH? I didn't make it, but noticed a Chipmunk among the builds on a Facebook photo album. bob p.s. Looks good!
  11. Thanks Alan, This begs the question of where one gets silver fern roundels suitable for, say, a 1/48 Harvard! (Apologies for a bit of thread tangent.) bob
  12. I think it is because they were set up for tropical climes, whereas the XII was strictly UK.
  13. Well, first of all figure out if you're doing a Vc or a Vb, but in either case the new Eduard is a safe bet. The Airfix Vb is also a good kit, but not quite as refined as Eduard's.
  14. My guess is that it is a port for a signal discharger, and the panel that "covers" the hole has something that looks like it could be a cap over such a hole, though I didn't study carefully to see if the two line up as I imagined they might. Edit: In a TBF-1 manual I found this text: (manual here: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/grumman-avenger-tbf-1-pilots-handbook.38589/ And a photo of the starboard side in same manual shows what I thought I was looking at- the "star" like thing to left of the wavy clips, which presumably hold the rounds. Note that in a TBM-3 manual the starboard side looks rather different, and I didn't find any mention of such a device. bob
  15. If you click on the "silverhawk..." link provided above, the second photo (first black and white, of a busy ramp) shows a Mitchell II in the relative foreground- with code 'AT' on the nose- that features the side guns and tail gun installation. Graham is correct that the B-25J (Mitchell III) had a deeper rear fuselage, but it also had the dorsal turret moved forward to just behind the cockpit. It gets a little harder to tell them apart if the dorsal turret has been removed, as happened sometimes with postwar examples, but the tail gun installation is noticeably different. I believe that the side gun installations were also different, but that's a little more subtle.
  16. Yes, initially Mk.IXs had the "wide" bulge. The "slim" (single cannon) bulge began to appear something like spring 1943. bob
  17. Nice choice- if I ever get around to building a Storch, Spanish Civil War is one of my top picks.
  18. I'm quite ready to be corrected, but I don't think ETO Mustangs had a wire fitted. I know that this has been discussed (not necessarily on BM) several times... Based on one of the photos above, remember that when open the canopy "lays on" the fuselage, it doesn't follow the bottom line "straight back". You probably knew that, but it is a common oopsie, and sometimes some adjustment to the parts is necessary to make it sit correctly. I'll join the others by saying that I hope the Covid thing passes easily for your family. bob p.s. Yes, that's the landing lamp sticking out of the wheel well.
  19. Well, there goes my idea of using a spare Aeroclub Canadian canopy on the Airfix kit!
  20. Well, I take the date that these mods are first discussed at the relevant meeting (the title of which I can't remember offhand!) as quite indicative, but subsequent dates I don't understand well enough to get much from. I also see the ever-popular "blame it on the uncaring bureaucrats" theme creeping in. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that these chaps were at times frustrated by how long it was taking Supermarine (or who-have-you) to make the latest ideas come to fruition. A change as significant (?) as new styles of roundels probably should be well coordinated, lest the eager young bucks file after-action reports such as, "The aircraft was wearing completely wrongly-proportioned "British" roundels, so I shot it down, deducing that it was being operated by the enemy."
  21. And I see you've found the Rumourmonger thread:
  • Create New...