Troy Smith

you need to type as it appears, with a space between Mike and Starmer like this @Mike Starmer not MikeStarmer.

Hmm... the dynamic duo of Richard Franks and Richard Caruana.... treat with caution. Caruana does masses and masses of profile work, looks pretty. frequently inaccurate. @VincentDucassou Have a read of this http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/camo/bob/bob_camo.htm It's quite old, but the author is a member, @tango98 and he did a lot of work on this, interviewing veterans, wrecks examination, RAF crash reports. It's a good over view. looks to be standard BoB finish, 71/02 upper with 65 underside note on the same main page, and the best source, photos of the subject RLM 02 - Revell 45 "Revell 45 is matched to RAL 7003 Moosgrau (Moss Grey) which is closest to 5 out of 6 samples of RLM 02 measured. " see https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235072075-best-rlm-02/#elControls_3663656_menu There are other in the Revell range which is matched to the German RAL paint standards, but the subject of what matches what in model paint can be, rather fraught. I'm not sure of other Revell matches, but the source quoted for Revell 45 is a noted, and respected researcher. I have a pot, and it looks good. While often described as green-grey, it's an olive grey. The BoB lasted from July until October, and RAF units got rotated in and out of 11 group, which bore the brunt of the fighting, depending on losses. Also, the RAF in 11 group would intercept raids with 1 or 2 squadrons, but that raid would often get intercepted in several encounters. And, the point was to stop the bombers, on occasion, the Luftwaffe did fighter only sweeps, which were ignored. Keith Park, the 11 group commander, used his forces with care and precision, there have been examples of wargamers doing realistic simulations of attacks, even with the benefit of hindsight, overall Park's decisions have been hard to better. As has been mentioned, there are plenty of books, going into more and more detail, to the point of knowing exactly what units met Some good recommendations, if you want an idea of how detailed, you may want a copy of The Hardest Day by Alfred Price, can be picked up cheaply, eg https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/books/dr-alfred-price/hardest-day/9780099695301 One RAF unit that you may want too look at in more detail is 74 Squadron, as they were led by 'Sailor' Malan, (who later wrote what became 'The Book' the ten rules for air fighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Rules_for_Air_Fighting and were experimenting with non standard RAF formations early on. From reading various books, and for a really good fairly modern overview Bungay's - Most Dangerous Enemy is hard to beat, and despite "the Myth" overall RAF Fighter Command was run by professionals who had prepared carefully for this, and knew exactly what they were doing, and with a couple of exceptions*, were never even close to being beaten, The Luftwaffe were a powerful force, but muddled in what they were trying to do, and got a very nasty shock when they came up against what was the most formidable air defence system in the world. * the exceptions, oddly, for an island, the British had at the time a very air sea rescue service, and too many RAF pilots were drowned, and the RAF fighter tactics were rigid and didn't work, base around a tight vic of 3 aircraft (the Germans called this the idiot row) and got a lot of pre war professional pilots killed, while the Luftwaffe had used the Spanish Civil war as a training ground, and did have what became the standard fighter formations for all airforces, the pair and 'finger four' RAF units that adapted to what worked, like 74 sq, were more successful, but there are cases of RAF squadrons coming into 11 group, and being effectively ruined as a unit due to losses, a successful 'bounce' of unit flying in the pre war fashion could lead to heavy losses. Some units were so depleted they they then were withdrawn to regroup and retrain. This is just a quick overview of what other books do in much greater detail. This is getting pretty esoteric, as this is about 618 Sq, who were training to use the Mosquito 'highball' which was due to be used in the far east. They never saw action as the war ended. I'll @The wooksta V2.0 as he's interested in this Mosquitos rarely got attack attack U-boats, as by that stage of the war a u-boat with any sense was submerged. Anti shipping Mosquitoes are another subject, and you want to do some research on the Banff strike wing, this is list of sorties eg https://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/sorties.html Lots of modelling possibilities, Mosquitos, Beaufighters, RAF Mustang escorts etc One final point, the site search is not great, but try adding 'Britmodeller' into a google search term, as there have been many discussions on these subjects over the years. HTH

Probably a lot easier than what I have been doing, mind you, I still have most of the WW2 Airfix 1/76th figures I painted up, about 12 to 15 boxes of them, so, doing 100 figures, while time consuming and eye straining, could have been done in the time my figures mods have taken.... as long as it goes OK, I'll be posting them up soon. Been good for practical problem solving! But I have had to wear glasses and an optivisor at times... Your figures were very colourful though... cheers T

if you quote, or tag a member, use the @ and the start typing their user name @Bertie Psmith or @Tak5haka they get a notification, handy for notifying a member that they have been mentioned. HTH T

Artist - Richard Caruana. There is a reason why I have the sig line about profiles, and he's one of them. Very pretty. Often inaccurate. Refer to photos whenever possible. the Franks book on the Hurricane is a very pretty, but shoddy book, full of mistakes, omissions and downright fantasy. Similar comments have been made about the Airframe and Miniature Mosquito and Boomerang books. I do not have the Defiant book, but just a note of caution as to why if in your research you find conflicting information, a possible reason. Caveat Emptor. available here https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Camouflage-Markings/Boulton-Paul-Defiant Old, but published just after a load of wartime material was declassified. Which one. There are only so many, is this the kit option, PS-V/L7026? If so, being specific helps. On the IWM site, which @dogsbody linked you too. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205126775 there is a zoom button. Do that. Up really close, the turret look to have the base ring and the rear part, the sliding turret doors, in Dark Green, the front part, round the guns, look to be black. if you conform that this L7026 is your chosen subject, perhaps @AndyL maybe have another picture which could confirm my assessment, or, if another airframe, say which one, as you won't get a better answer than that. Sorry if sounds like a lecture, just years of being on here has shown it best to ask detailed specific questions for a query such as yours. HTH

Thank Pete, in the end I really couldn't face either slapping more paint on, as it was getting thick, or stripping it again. It's drying off after some matt varnish and an oil wash, more varnish and some pastel chalk and i'm done. I can always redo it if it really bugs me. Meanwhile I've been hacking some 1/48th figures to get them to fit into something else, which has been useful for techniques and problems solving, but also a time consuming and at times, trying exercise, including losing an arm, the models, not mine.... another pinged off today but was able to find that. cheers T

NO. The drawings are wrong. error is still being carried on, eg last years Valiant WIngs book has Caruana drawings showing the Mk.I intake, The book has a photo showing a IID when the author finally notices the wider intake. The book is full of this kind of error though. The best set of Hurricane drawings don't show the MK.II unfortunately, well, their are roughs that do, not sure if they show the intake. (I have them saved, on a flash drive, I'd need to go on a search) You should be able to make a wider intake by eye, the photos I posted above show that the position is the same, and just the intake is wider, the rear fairing is a simple shape. I was hunting for a good photo, I know I have a couple saved. I can have a go at the modifications myself, the 72nd Arma Hobby kit does have the correct intake, which is always helpful for shapes. Problem is, in wartime photos this is usually in shadow, even in flight, but on the few where you can see the shape, it's the same as the image below, which is, which is LF363 of the BBMF, not the best resolution, but if you compare with the Mk.IV photo above, you can see the fairing. I presume that is there just to smooth the airflow, but it makes modelling it easier, in that you add a splice to the existing intake, and then add the faring at the rear, it's not a complex shape, basically a triangle. Hurri BBMF underside crop by losethekibble, on Flickr it taper at the rear, as I said, not usually clear in photos, this is a walkround of the NASM Hurricane https://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/5080-hurricane-mkiic-nsamuhc/ I'll have a look at my Hurricane projects box when I find it it.... there's a lot of other boxes...

I just posted this in WW2, the videos lined are really well worth watching, as while the Eduard kit has a 'wow' factor, there are some issues in construction, which if you know abut them, and potential fixes, will make the build a lot more enjoyable.

as the other post states, the differences are due to partly the use of Typhoon airframes and other factors, by the time of the Tempest II these had been 'ironed out' so there is no series 1 or 2 Tempest AFAIK. @Chris Thomas would be the chap for any Tempest II differences, I'm not aware of any, but it's not something I have looked into.

the wider intake is better seen on one of the BBMF IIC's, as you get good quality pics of the underside eg https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/hurricane-underside-royalty-free-image/502108771 the Hurricane IV in Birmingham has lost this rear fairing Hawker Hurricane - P3395 Think Tank 052 by touluru, on Flickr Hawker Hurricane - P3395 Think Tank 080 by touluru, on Flickr this gives you a good idea how this is wider than a mk.I Hawker Hurricane - P3395 Think Tank 043 by touluru, on Flickr Hawker Hurricane - P3395 Think Tank 049 by touluru, on Flickr A project I have not attempted my self, yet... my part done is buried in a box... HTH

you need to use the BB code, like this 20210725_000329 by J Hanratty, on Flickr the blue on the right looks OK. IMG_1131 by J Hanratty, on Flickr xf-64 and xf 59 are nothing like RAF Dark Earth and Middle Stone though. I have not finished my mixing experiments with Tamiya to give you mixes I am happy with, mostly as I need to order some more paint.... B ut, I post this one often, this is a well weathered desert Spitfire, and the Free French Mk.I Hurricanes were already old when handed over to the French, as evinced by the profiles showing 3 colour uppers, when what it is fresh dark earth over the old RAF markings, anyway, most of this airframe is faded, but also has fresh patches of DE, various places, and MS, behind the N RCAF Spitfire V, 1943. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr This is a fresh desert plane, note this is South African with Orange roundel centres, compare to the spinner. Spitfire Vb...............SAAF by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr Close up of Hurricane Mk II d . by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr the photo is dated 6 april 43, and a larger view shows Hurricane lost that day HV663 was delivered 2 sep 42, but then had to get to Africa via the Takoradi route. a couple more in desert scheme Hurricane 1944. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr Hurricane IIc by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr while WW2 colour pics can be not exactly ideal for colour reference, these hopefully will give you some guidance as to how the colours appeared. HTH

I regard to my comment about picking a scheme, to clarify, the Series 1 kit will give you less options, not many were made, which IIRC has the fuselage fishplates and spar bulges, and as they mostly didn't have drop tank capability, they were not used by the 2nd TAF, but the series 2 had a much wider usage, and thus marking options. So, pick a scheme, you want D-Day stripes, probably a Series 1, something from the 2nd TAF in early 45 would be a series 2 kit for example. Or, if you can find it, get the Royal Class boxing which has both kits..... While an upgrade of the previous tooling, it has some issues, which are fixable if you know about them, @Paul Budzik did a 3 part review of the kit on youtube, and Paul a few years back made a stunning 1/32 scratchbuild one, https://paulbudzik.com/models/tempest-page.html so he knows a bit about Tempests part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZZykgNNaA Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi1Kh0lFLdw part3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEkoLlQRZiY well worth the time, especially for the wing details. PS - This is part 4, on the series 2 kit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rilJONELzM there are also reviews of the Tempest II by him now as well. HTH

I think BE500 is just in plain Night, BE500 was delivered or taken on charge 21 Oct 41, and does not have the typical appearance of weathered RDM2 This was discussed, the operations book talks of a rapid repaint before the Dieppe raid, I'll link it in if I can find it. Aluminium, looks to be oil stained if you look closely. Merlins leaked a lot of oil! One detail that nearly ALL* Mk.II Hurricane kits get wrong, the carb intake, Hase use the Mk.I, the Mk.II is wider, and has a rear fairing, just about visible in the underside shot. *the 72nd Arma Hobby gets this right. A propaganda press visit. And one reason this scheme is in so many kits and decal sheets. HTH

I think you are overthinking this. Too complex, try this way of making WW1 wings The pioneer of scratchbuilding in plastic was Harry Woodman, he wrote the book, literally see http://web.archive.org/web/20080122044909/www.wwimodeler.com/harry/woodman.html note "by kind permission of Harry Woodman" for wings http://web.archive.org/web/20080327095940/http://www.wwimodeler.com/harry/chapter3/09-wings.htm Note this note at the end of the description "The process as described may seem very long and complicated but it is not so. It has taken the author almost as long to describe it in print as it does to do the job once the wing pattern has been scored. A s always, it is most strongly recommended that a 'dummy run' be carried out first to learn the hazards; one of the commonest faults is to provide over-generous helpings of cement, resulting in the softening of the thin plastic card. When the knack is leamed it will be seen that it is the most effective method of reproducing fabric covered wings and is ideally suited for 1:48 scale and larger scales. The adventurous can use the system for 1:72 using 5 thou card, but great care is needed, especially when applying cement." I posted up a link to the whole book, as a download, the above is as web pages. https://rclibrary.co.uk/files_titles/1216/ScaleModelAircraft_Woodman.pdf I have some old Scale Models magazine from the early 70's and his work was outstanding, I was gobsmacked to get a 1976 issue where he describes making his own photo etch, and provides templates. A true pioneer. Note, if this seems daunting, the materials are fairly cheap, so you can experiment, and when you succeed in work like this it is very satisfying, and then you can add new skills to those. Having grown up reading old model magazines, there is now a tendency to go direct to aftermarket, or in the case of the methods you proposed, aim to make your own aftermarket, when for a one off wing, a simpler solution exists using some modelling skill. HTH T

If it's anything like the Hurricane book, don't. That is shoddy, badly researched and full of errors. As is the Mosquito book according @The wooksta V2.0 and their Boomerang book. for example https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235024331-concerning-tempests/&do=findComment&comment=2776608 I'm now very dubious about anything by the author, as this seems a pattern, where information is gleaned from many sources, is not checked and some downright cobblers is stated as fact. I can do a 5 minutes on the Hurricane book before I get rather cross and have to do something else. Given the sheer volume of books produced by Richard Franks, on a range of types, this is not that surprising. Re the Tempest series 1 vs series 2, it's not clear cut. The first Tempest were based on Typhoon fuselages, and they had other small features, some of which get changed over at different points. As the quote below will demonstrate. You will make your life easier by picking a scheme you like, and then pinning down the details, by going @Chris Thomas author of this and others and a series on the 2nd TAF as well, and the book that came in the Eduard Royal Class Tempest boxing as well. OK, this is what I was looking for, same thread, for ease of reference, by Chris Thomas. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235024331-concerning-tempests/&tab=comments#elControls_2779625_menu " Tempest V Series 1 and 2 First let me say that difference between Series 1 and Series 2 Tempests is not entirely clear to me. The terms seem only to appear in Hawker records; I have yet to find an RAF record that mentions them, let alone defines them. Records of individual airframe status no longer survive so photographs (frustratingly few) provide the most reliable record, supplemented by official correspondence which states intent rather than the actual event. By definition ‘Series 1’ Tempest Vs were the first production aircraft and somewhere in the the first batch (100 aircraft JN729-773, JN792-822, JN854-877) the Series 2 appeared (or after the first 100 some would have us believe). There were a number of changes in this period and I feel that the difference between Series 1 and Series 2 would have been defined by more than the replacement of long-barrelled cannon with the shorter variant (as usually cited). The first 50 Tempest Vs (presumably JN729 to JN773 and JN792-796) were built using the centre-sections from a cancelled Typhoon contract. This is the box-like structure, made from steel tubes, that sits between the wings. The Typhoon centre-section was very similar to the Tempest version but because of the latter’s slimmer wings, the wing root fairing would not quite fit over the Typhoon version. This resulted in a small blister over the offending structure which is evident in photos, often with much of the paint rubbed off by fitters’ feet. One can be clearly seen in the photo of JF-L or J (which may be JN768) in June Miljevic's link. I rather suspected that this feature might have been associated with the ‘fishplates’ discussed in the above posts. However I was a bit surprised that when I examined relevant photos closely and the fishplates were evident well beyond the first 50 Tempests, almost to the end of the JN-series. Latest airframe identified so far is JN862 (85th). First confirmed without the plates is JN875 (98th). The longer-barrelled cannon (Hispano Mk II) was replaced much earlier than sometimes claimed – some sources indicate all the JN series were Series 1 with the long cannon. The latest airframe I’ve been able to identify with the protruding cannon is JN767 (39th). There is a photo of JN801 (55th) in full stripes at Newchurch in late June/early July 1944, which is the earliest found with the short-barrelled Hispano Mk V. Some sources state that the shorter cannon was retrofitted to some of the earlier airframes but I have not found any evidence to support this. Finally we have a set of internal changes that cannot be determined from photos, namely the fittings required for the carriage of long-range tanks (LRT), bombs or RP (unless the aircraft in question is actually carrying one of these devices). Also in this category is the equipment with spring-tab ailerons. However, it is known from Air Staff correspondence that LR tank capability was expected from the 51st production aircraft (JN797) with bomb carriage fittings from the 151st aircraft and RP fittings from the 351st, i.e. bombs and RP were not available until the 51st and 251st EJ-serialled Tempest Vs entered service. This was no handicap as bombs were not used until April 1945 and RP not until the last quarter of 1945. There was no possibility of the LRT (and possibly the bomb/RP) mods being retrofitted owing to the limited access in the Tempest’s thin wing. The arrival of the much-vaunted spring tab ailerons remains obscure (to me any way). So exactly which of these features heralded the change from Series 1 to Series 2 I don’t know for certain but the ‘pukka’ Tempest centre section, the short cannon and LRT capability all seem to arrive after the 50th aircraft which might well be changeover point?" which is why I say, pick an airframe, and go from there. HTH T