Troy Smith

The OLD XF-17 is greeny blue, the NEW XF-17 is very dark blue.... I have no idea when the change was, the old XF-17 is 23ml, and probably 10 years, or more old. I got it from a shop that was closing, as well as the X-16 gloss purple, a post by Mike Starmer on a Humbrol mix for ANA 623 led me to try mixing them, and by eye it looked good. I found I needed to take the Elliot chips out into bright sunlight to properly see them.... Can be tricky here in 'sunny' England! Do you have the Elliot book? Not sure from the thread is all, but photos of mixes without something to compare too makes it very hard to judge what you are seeing Sorry for any confusion caused, there are mixes for Tamiya, often from their instructions that have been about for years, as well as the confusion over what the Sea Blues look like, as they are frequently quoted as being the same as FS15042/25042/35042.... Hope you find a mix that works for you though which is what matters.

@Adrian Hills did one in 2021 A tip, the site search is not very good, but try adding Britmodeller into a google search term, and now you have another build to check. As you can see it's very do-able with some forethought and a few tweaks and tricks. HTH

Do you know which XF-17 you have? The greeny blue, or the very dark blue version, AFAIK @Casey has the recent very dark blue XF-17. This make a huge difference to the finished mix. as a couple of period colour images note the comparison to the Insignia Blue

here https://www.forcedlandingcollection.se/RAFe/RAF112-RS623.html Looks like classic Xtradecal research... 20240320_112138 by juney27, on Flickr red spinners? I don't think so... look Sky to me, possibly white. Some Banff wing Mosquitoes did have red spinners though, well, Max Aitkin's did. 3 more pics in the link. The uppers look quite faded, HTH

When I did mine circa 1981, I found the belly panel fit was poor, of course back then I'd not learned to adjust before glue, IIRC the panel is proud, I suspect 10 mins scraping and sanding will get a decent fit. You may need the odd tab for it to sit against as well. I think care is also needed with the nacelle to wing join, again test fit scrape sand and adjust as required. Too late now, but AFAIK British seats used leathercloth in a fetching racing green! there are a bunch of Photobucketed photos of an unrestored T.III in Norway here, but if you right click them an open in new tab, no watermark! https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234913230-mosquito-t3/#elControls_972953_menu I wonder if @Bengt can re-up? IIRC There were pics of VV-A somewhere online, crashed in Sweden, I'll see if i can find them HTH

Done @JOCKNEY

On possible problem. When I trying out mixes for ANA606, 607, 623, I was using an old 23ml Jar of XF-17 This is a mid-dark greeny blue. I found a mix I liked for ANA623 with this. (which was 1:1 XF17 to X-16 gloss purple!) this is the mix vs Elliot chip in low sun 50621068 by losethekibble, on Flickr I then bought some new 10 jars in the last year, and XF-17 is now a very dark blue. This is not batch variations, but a totally different color. I have read of other Tamiya XF colors being changed as well, so an old mix will no longer work. quote from here, by the owner and researcher of Colourcoats paints, who has made up samples of Royal Navy paint from archive formula. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235078859-accuracy-of-ammo-by-mig-jiménez-raf-wwii-colours/page/3/#elControls_4045174_menu "I'm going to point out some facts about real-life paint manufacture and either the reader will understand and "get it" or will not understand and are in no position to contradict me. 1) Usually camouflage colours are fairly low saturation colours because these blend in better with nature. They're seldom bright and bold. Low saturation colours are normally manufactured by adding coloured pigments to a base made from inexpensive white or white and black pigments. 2) Colour pigments are expensive. The expense varies depending on the specific pigment, but they're expensive. 3) The only way to over-saturate a colour so much is to substantially over-dose your base with the expensive colour pigments. I'm not talking about a few percent more or less - that causes minor differences which you only confirm the presence of with one swatch adjacent to another - I'm talking more in the order of a double dose to get something you obviously look at and think "woah". 4) In the case of colours like dark olive, these are mostly white, black and ochre (which is relatively inexpensive for a colour pigment) sometimes further tinted with a bit of red or green (which are often very expensive). 5) There can certainly be variances in a manufactured paint, but these tend to be greatly overstated, i.e. used as a ready made excuse for all sorts of mistakes. Ultimately, the only way a manufactured paint can end up so oversaturated is to have dumped in a vast amount of the expensive pigments, if not adding in new additional pigments in large quantities not expected in the recipe. Frankly, it's difficult to see how any manufactured paint could end up so drastically off target, particularly in the over-saturated sense, by any business that wasn't actively trying to bankrupt itself by roasting through obscene quantities of pigments like chrome green which were already expensive at the start of the war and in particularly short supply during. 6) I'd venture that most of the "there was a war on, you know" type apologists for such spectacular errors probably don't have any actual experience of what is and isn't possible when mixing different proportions of 2,3 or 4 pigments when 2 of those are usually black and white just to make your base to tint. You simply cannot end up with a Humbrol 30-esque bluish green using only the ingredients to make olive - i.e. you'd actually have to sabotage it by introducing if not blue then an obviously bluish green. Same goes for that bright green Spitfire above - you can't achieve that with black, white, ochre and a touch of red - you'd need to fire in a lot of bright green pigment in to get that saturated on an overly-light base. It would be more tan-like just using the basic olive green ingredients which only turns obviously olive when tinted enough with black. Put another way, with a fixed number of pigments in various ratios you WILL end up somewhere within a certain envelope, and usually when colours like this bright green are discussed it's because it's well outside that envelope. The point of all the above? In essence it's harder to make a credible explanation for how such a colour might have been arrived at in a real-life paint manufacturing environment than it is to demonstrate that someone would have had to go to a lot of trouble to get it so far wrong. That is harder to rationalise than just getting it closer to correct." Perhaps the most insightful bit of information about wartime paint I have seen on here. While is the US there is the wildcard of Olive Drab, in the case of the Navy sea blues, they are tinted grays, I don't know what the color pigments were, but we are talking about vast quantities of paint made in the USA during the war. good points Ron.... but But as for what looks right? Actual decent wartime images are in color are rare, I was rather surprised at the chips in the Elliot US Navy camo book, in particular ANA 623, @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies described it well as a "deep smoky blue", I think @Casey as said the wartime sea blues are more greys than blue, while they are often represented by the version of ANA623 that later became FS15042, which has a deep green hue to it. These threads at best are about trying to pin down the standard, so you can adjust to suit, how you represent colors is your choice, personally I have learnt an incredible amount about actual colors from this, as well as great appreciation for how carefully selected the actual colors were, and I'm still learning. cheers T

Thanks Very impressed with the detail and crispness, one thing that would help, the cockpit decals are very thorough, but all separate, would not 1 or 2 decals for the starboard cockpit wall have been easier.... 2024-03-23_02-37-16 by losethekibble, on Flickr As there there are NINE separate tiny decals on the cockpit wall, as many are mostly white they are nearly impossible to see on the backing sheet, at least the kit has two sets! You can see fitted K11-19 or so above, note also the throttle quadrant has a decal too.... They also don't really want to stick, and are very hard to trim, I have been using Kleer and then Microsol, mostly too see how possible this was to do. Possible but incredibly fiddly is the answer! K16 is a good example, far right decal, as it is supposed to fit over two bumps at the bottom, which is doesn't really want too.... One decal and microsol would seem better, but the attention to detail is stunning! Been doing more paint on the sprues, as well as more tiny decals elsewhere, lots of detail work but not very exciting in photos.... still got the radio decals to do! It's a real contrast to my build, a 60 year old Frog kit with basically no internals 20240206_212236 by losethekibble, on Flickr Thanks for reading.

ANA 606, 607 and 623 are 3 separate colors. @Casey she recommended Tamiya lacquers. The mixes were harder with just the XF acrylics. HTH

what solvent do you use? If you use Colourcoats naptha they dry fast, especially if air brushed. a how to here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-WqrJR5SDY note in the vid comments Q - Can I use White Spirits to thin the Colourcoats enamels? A - Sovereign Hobbies Yes, but it will give a stronger smell than Colourcoats Thinners, and give longer drying times. It will work otherwise though. Thanks for looking in! As an aside, I repainted the lettering of a sign at work using Humbrol gloss enamel last year, which I thinned with lighter fuel, (which is light naptha) and it went on a treat, very smooth, covered well, solvent flashed off fast, touch dry in minutes. I avoid oil paint usually but this was outside by a main road. White Spirit is sticky oily gloop compared, it basically clear paraffin. Neat work @Creepy Pete I have one of these stashed, no idea if it will ever get done but a fascinating subject.

one for @Linescriber if he sees this. A good question old chap. After a load of searching I found this on Flickr. EAA2014Fri-0069 Supermarine Spitfire Mk18 TP280 N280TP Frasca by kurtsj00, on Flickr pic enlarges a lot, but is a warbird. Looks to have 10 screws, which look believable, and the tool for opening it in an emergency is likely the crowbar if no screwdriver too hand, that is supposition though. @gingerbob ? Like the panel tape stencil, neat trick. Well worth giving an Xtradecal sheet a close eyeball on the details, they are not always diligent.... Toodle pip!

in case the following comes in the TL;DR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TL;DR category, here the short version. They make errors. Often. I don't have a problem because they are Spanish, I have a problem with the accuracy of their products, if a British company was frequently as poor they would get the same complaint. (see my complaints about Xtradecal research for example) Please read this carefully. Check the links. This seems to be systemic in their operation, and to cap it off, AK and Vallejo have also misrepresented sources. They could have actually just made a bit more effort and GOT IT RIGHT. Just so you know, while related to armour colours, AK have used the name of the UK researcher, Mike Starmer, on British Armour colours https://mafva.co.uk/?p=2607 this is about their book, Real Colors of WW2, with his name on the cover. https://ak-interactive.com/product/real-colors-of-wwii/ a mere 47 euros..... and how they treated the work of one of their sources, and the paints that piggyback on this https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/track48/ak-interactive-real-colors-t10663-s20.html "Regarding the AK book. To be honest I am livid and disgusted at the way they published the British section. My submitted original text was requested to be shortened, which I did. They then edited that without my knowledge. I sent complete sets of camouflage diagrams with copies of the official orders. These orders were totally ignored. Then redrew some of the disruptive diagrams in their own style and colours transposed onto mostly American vehicles, apparently the British didn't have any of their own. To cap it they then applied a disruptive pattern from one tank type onto another type, it doesn't fit of course. The ultimate was putting the pattern for the Greek based A10s onto a Crusader which never carried the design nor deployed to Greece. Samples of their paint were sent to me for assessment. None were accurate, not even close, which I reported back with larger samples. New samples then arrived for testing, still not right. In discussion I discovered that they were matching under 'daylight' lighting! FGS are they not sharp or what? I gave them up as a waste of my time, I told them that too. Rant over." OK, this is amateur hour. It's not like there is no daylight in Spain, or spectrometers? They were corresponding with the noted researcher, who sells books including paint chips. I'm sure a company with their turnover can afford a spectrophotometer, is a color measurement device used to capture and evaluate color? https://www.xrite.com/learning-color-education/other-resources/what-is-a-spectrophotometer They don't seem to actually understand US Navy colors, I have this set. Light Grey, Blue Grey, Sea Blue, Intermediate Blue, Insignia White, Dark Sea Blue. Er, there 3 USN sea blues, all are different colors, I have the set, I have this book. it has an extensive set of actual paint color chips in it, and is considered the standard reference by researchers. They are given their correct names, The AK paints DO NOT MATCH any of the book chips, wrong or right name. Their RAF set is poor as well. As is the Israeli set. I own them, and they are wrong. And it's not like the references are not available, even if they are on the second hand market. Vallejo? Oh, they have a similar approach, and have also irritated Mike Starmer, https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235135144-british-armour-colours-north-africa-4142-and-44-normandy-onwards/#elControls_4885579_menu "Whilst on the subject of desert, and other British colours, I have been advised and have artwork that Vallejo are adding to their box tops 'In collaboration with Mike Starmer' I wish to point out that I have not knowingly advised Vallejo on their British colours sets. I have never been sent any Vallejo paints to run comparison tests on. Having only very recently seen the colour illustrations on the rear of the desert and European sets I will point out that not only have they not put correct colour terminology of the paints enclosed, but most of the suggested schemes are very inaccurate, to put it mildly. They evidently have no idea of the correct colours to use in the schemes they show. Please be aware. The layout of the Caunter pattern on the truck illustration on their Caunter set is not accurate. " and "Regarding Vallejo, I received a reply. In 2018 I did apparently agree to them using the term 'in collaboration with ...' However in my response I pointed out that I had never seen samples of their colours for me to see and check for accuracy. I also pointed out that their artwork instructions were mostly inaccurate in terms of colours supposedly used in certain schemes. I suggested that it might be a good idea that their artist should either know about what he or she is drawing or take advice from someone who did know about the subject. In addition, I pointed out that using their own colour notations to denote 'British' colours was wilful misinformation to their customers. As yet I have no reply." I have Mike's books, and he has taken the time to email a drawing of relevance before I bought them, and an overview of his research along with mixes is on the mafva site, linked above. The paints work well, I use Vallejo model color a lot, but I have to check and mix to get accurate colours, and they have a large presence online, but the Chinese model companies, eg Trumpeter/Hobby Boss sell loads all over the world, and are popular, and are frequently wrong. They still sell. Usually well engineered, but doesn't make them any less wrong. There are other paint companies who get it wrong, but the Spanish ones are notably and persistently poor in colour matching. The above linked to some MiG AMMO, RAF set that was eyewateringly bad matches. Bright pea green and a dark red brown, these even made the tonal values wrong, Dark Green is darker colour to Dark Earth. Are there any other model paint companies apart from AMMO, Vallejo and AK? Not that I am aware of. If there are others working to the highest standards of accuracy, I apologise, and can you link to their products. If not then it's not a generalisation, but a verifiable statement. THEY ARE BAD AT RESEARCH AND COLOUR MATCHING. It is not unreasonable to make modellers aware of potential problems? It just happens that there 3 are all Spanish, and a large market presence, and sell paint sets that are by the accepted standards of the colours the WRONG colour. Modellers buy their product as they presume that they are what they claim to be, and then are let down. I see models online all the time that are the wrong colours because of this. AK even have this on their site https://ak-interactive.com/who-we-are/ MISSION Our goal is to offer tools to the modelers so that they can put aside the most tedious tasks of their hobby and they can focus on achieving better results in their scale models day after day. This simplification of tasks, combined with realism and historical precision, is the key to the success of our acrylic paints, oils, enamel based effects, Real Colors, Weathering Pencils, products for dioramas and vegetation, etc. To carry out this commitment, we strive every day for modelers from all over the world to collaborate in the development of new products as well as to participate in demonstrations and tutorials so that the international modeling community is enriched and does not stop innovating. Hmm, corporate We even have had a member analyse the Vallejo Model Air range https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235124742-acrylic-vallejo-air-measurements-of-full-range-of-paints/ I did this work because Vallejo is known for giving sometimes random labels to their paints - the label on their bottles are not always a good information about the color they are supposed to be, and sometimes they are misleading - there are better matches in their own paint range. So, it has taken a member here, to buy the paints, analyse them and do comparisons to find they actually make better matches but mislabel thme? There are other companies making paints, but they make colours, I'm not impressed at the Hataka RAF paint I saw, Xtracrylix I have are not good, Humbrol have a poor reputation, but they are not as big offenders as the big 3 Spanish companies. Tamiya sell matches that are not good either, but a lot of their range are not specific. My next major paint purchase will be a load of Liquitex and I'll be mixing my own, which I already do, but should make that task easier. No. Not denying anything. This time I have given a more in depth reply. Please show, with proof, that anything I have said is incorrect or inaccurate. This is open modellers forum where user can contribute information and discuss matters, I know I have been flippant in my description of the colour matching process, it's called humour, but my basic point stands. There are three model paint companies, who all happen to be based in Spain who all have a particularly poor record in accurately matching known colour standards. The question is though is why? And even when provided with accurate information they still get it wrong?

Model competitions are not judged on accuracy, but the quality of the model. I would caution on the last, on here you will usually get very good information, but I have seen some poorly reasoned opinions, which are not very valid. There is a vast amount of cobblers floating about online, not helped by wildly inaccurate model paints, you only have to browse youtube builds and Farcebook to see a multitude of horrors, with plenty of 'looks great' comments, not just planes, tanks with rusty tracks and hulls. 3 week old BoB aircraft looking like they have spent 9 month on a coral airstrip in the Pacific etc etc etc. On here you can get some of the best information and their sources you will find anywhere. In this specific case? No, RAF Dark Green is not controversial, it's appearance is well known and documented. It's a dark olive green. It can go brownish with age, or fade, but overall it held up well. Post war Dark Green fades in different ways though. Problems start in the model world with Humbrol 30 and their 50 year of getting Dark Green wrong,H30 is actually distinctly blue hued green. It WAS olive green in the late 60 until someone at Humbrol stuffed up and it has never been corrected. And then the deluge of Spanish paint companies employing color blind babbons to randomly select their matches and names....,. or they might as well @foz this, from the boss of Colourcoats, who is the only model paint manufacturer you will find posting on here, and has made up sample from original formula, is still one the my personal lightbulb moments on REAL paint. Remember in WW2 we are talking about vast amounts paint, the Army used a lot less paint than the RAF and they used 8,000 TONS a year. The army had to stop using green pigments for 2 years as the RAF needed all of it. start quote. I'm going to point out some facts about real-life paint manufacture and either the reader will understand and "get it" or will not understand and are in no position to contradict me. 1) Usually camouflage colours are fairly low saturation colours because these blend in better with nature. They're seldom bright and bold. Low saturation colours are normally manufactured by adding coloured pigments to a base made from inexpensive white or white and black pigments. 2) Colour pigments are expensive. The expense varies depending on the specific pigment, but they're expensive. 3) The only way to over-saturate a colour so much is to substantially over-dose your base with the expensive colour pigments. I'm not talking about a few percent more or less - that causes minor differences which you only confirm the presence of with one swatch adjacent to another - I'm talking more in the order of a double dose to get something you obviously look at and think "woah". 4) In the case of colours like dark olive, these are mostly white, black and ochre (which is relatively inexpensive for a colour pigment) sometimes further tinted with a bit of red or green (which are often very expensive). 5) There can certainly be variances in a manufactured paint, but these tend to be greatly overstated, i.e. used as a ready made excuse for all sorts of mistakes. Ultimately, the only way a manufactured paint can end up so oversaturated is to have dumped in a vast amount of the expensive pigments, if not adding in new additional pigments in large quantities not expected in the recipe. Frankly, it's difficult to see how any manufactured paint could end up so drastically off target, particularly in the over-saturated sense, by any business that wasn't actively trying to bankrupt itself by roasting through obscene quantities of pigments like chrome green which were already expensive at the start of the war and in particularly short supply during. 6) I'd venture that most of the "there was a war on, you know" type apologists for such spectacular errors probably don't have any actual experience of what is and isn't possible when mixing different proportions of 2,3 or 4 pigments when 2 of those are usually black and white just to make your base to tint. You simply cannot end up with a Humbrol 30-esque bluish green using only the ingredients to make olive - i.e. you'd actually have to sabotage it by introducing if not blue then an obviously bluish green. Same goes for that bright green Spitfire above - you can't achieve that with black, white, ochre and a touch of red - you'd need to fire in a lot of bright green pigment in to get that saturated on an overly-light base. It would be more tan-like just using the basic olive green ingredients which only turns obviously olive when tinted enough with black. Put another way, with a fixed number of pigments in various ratios you WILL end up somewhere within a certain envelope, and usually when colours like this bright green are discussed it's because it's well outside that envelope. The point of all the above? In essence it's harder to make a credible explanation for how such a colour might have been arrived at in a real-life paint manufacturing environment than it is to demonstrate that someone would have had to go to a lot of trouble to get it so far wrong. That is harder to rationalise than just getting it closer to correct. from https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235078859-accuracy-of-ammo-by-mig-jiménez-raf-wwii-colours/ The Mig Ammo are bloody awful too, bright pea green and some dark reddy brown .... There is a post further on in that thread with a youtube showing mixing from pigments. We regularly have colour discussion on here, there are areas that are 'best guess' but a lot is well documented. You seem interested from your few posts, so hope of interest and use.

Bf109's on their own were of no threat, unless they came down to try to strafe something, and that was in real terms, just a nuisance. Bombers were the threat. You intercept bombers. This is part of the Bader Big Wing controversy, Park wanted to hit the bombers before they bombed. Park would not intercept 109 sweeps if he knew that is what they were, as it could just lose RAF fighters. Main losses occurred when RAF fighters got bounced, especially new to the battle units. There are cases of Sqs being decimated like this in 2-3 weeks and having to be withdrawn. Poor pre war RAF fighter techniques didn't help. Despite the hype, you really don't want to get into dogfights. Height of Bf109 escorts is more of a problem, as you can trade height for speed, and bounce RAF units. A lesson lost on Fighter Command in their 'Lean into France' era fiasco, where the the level of threat felt could be gauged by the Luftwaffe leaving just two Jagdschwader to deal with all of the RAF, JG2 and JG 26. IIRC in R'V Jones Most Secret War he talks about being asked if the Germans could detect bombs in British planes as they would intercept escorted bombers but leave fighter sweeps alone, the reply was what speed were the fighter sweeps flown at, which was fighter speed, not bomber escort. Later, with the rise of the dedicated fighter bomber, then that would change, but it's easy to spot the obvious with hindsight. There is nothing like a real war to eventually displace peacetime theories, and how my mid war both sides ended up using the same techniques and tactics, as they worked. Apparently the RAF had about 80s Spitfire Sq by 1942, being wasted in this kind of pointless incursions, when they would have been better employed in the middle or far east..... but that is another story/discussion/argument. Back your questions, the Hurricane was half a generation behind the Bf109 and the Spitfire, and was near obsolescent as a result. But aircraft depend on pilots, they are only sometimes flown at their theoretical limits, the Poles flew Hurricanes, but were highly trained AND combat experienced pilots, who knew about gunnery. Not to dismiss the Hurricane, within in it's limits it was a very useful and reliable aircraft, and armament aside, remained basically unchanged from it's original basic form. While the memories of RAF pilots are fascinating to read, they are not always the people to ask about wider tactics, as that was not their area. Example again of the Park vs Leigh Mallory, and individual pilots observations, yes, RAF Sqs were sent in one or two to attack large German formations, "The Few" but the analysed view, 12 British fighters attacking 100+ German bombers, is a target rich environment, chances are anything you shoot at is the enemy, get in, hit hard, leave. What that Sq was unaware of, but the German bomber formation was aware of, is that by feeding in 1 or 2 sq at a time, that formation maybe have been hit 5 or 6 times before reaching their target. This led to demands for close escort by Bf109's, which they hated as they had to fly slower, and lost the height and speed advantage mentioned above. I will stress again, if you have not read it, get a copy of Bungay's Most Dangerous Enemy, as all of this and much more is analysed in very readable detail. Bungay was not a historian, bear in mind 'historians' have a particular thesis that they like to argue*, this is the nature of academic history, but had been a management consultant, and lived and worked in Germany, so could speak German and read German records, and pretty much looked at this dispassionatley and analytically, as well as having far more in depth research available. Park come out as superlative commander, mention is made that in wargaming simulations done with historical knowledge the simulators were hard pressed to better his decisions. And it was not a fluke, he did the same in Malta in 1942, including instead of 'send fighters' he specified 'send Spitfires' There is masses of data here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org *in this I am thinking of comments about the work of Martin Middlebrook, a chicken farmer from Boston, who produced many very indepth books filled with personal anecdotes, his first being First Day Of The Somme, which was criticised by an academic historian for it's lack of high level tactics and the like, an author called Correli Barnet. He gets a mention in Most Dangerous Enemy about some of his tendacious use of data to prove a point, eg in his critique of lack of efficiency in British production, that it took 12,000 man hours to build a Spitfire, and 5000 to build a Bf109G, not mentioning the Bf109 had been designed to be mass produced, or that it took 5000 hours to build a Hurricane. A final example, the Bf110 is usually dismissed, but bear in mind a Bf110 could cruise at 300 MPH, about the top speed of a Hurricane. It also stayed in production throughout the war and served on every front. Of note is their use by Erprobungsgruppe 210 as fighter bombers.... and Bungay's suggestion of how the German's could have won the BoB. Some food for thought I hope @PatG and the following pages are well worth reading, I have just found that Martin Middlebrook died at the start of March, I was fascinating interview here http://roadstothegreatwar-ww1.blogspot.com/2022/06/an-interview-with-historian-martin.html His book on the Nuremburg Raid is one of the best one stop primer for an overview of the bomber war I have read, as it covers in a few chapters all the important developments in the campaign, to set the scene for the story of that particular raid. And this is the page which refers to Corelli Barnet and his thoughts http://www.hellfirecorner.co.uk/middlebrook2.htm

It's got a name, Temperate Land Scheme, as do all British camouflage combinations. (Malta variations excepted) I see you are a new poster, so I don't know what you do and don't know, but if you have not see this you need too. scans are here https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Camouflage-Markings/Supermarine-Spitfire And if new to you it will be very useful, while old, it was the first publication which had access to then recently declassified documents. It explains what, when and why and is incredibly useful, I don't think it has been bettered as one stop guide to the basics. the other in the series are also available. HTH

various pilots have stated they would use the rudder trim to make their aircraft NOT fly straight and level, 'flying like a drunken hare' I see to recall being used as a phrase, possibly by a Luftwaffe pilot, as straight and level flight was too predictable. Probably somewhere in Steven Bungay's Most Dangerous Enemy which has a lot of details like this in it.

It was a lot easier to change the wing tanks on a Hurricane, and an awful lot had been lost in France, so the majority in frontline service were new airframes. I was stressing the point on the source of Hurricane burns, as it's usually assumed to be from the front fuel tank, and the book is the only place I have seen the actual reason listed, I have not seen in mentioned in any Hurricane book, or even ones on the BoB, so it's a bit of 'lost' information. It also explains why there was a separate term. The book was a charity shop purchase years ago, and it was new too me then. To check I tried google example https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201127-the-forgotten-fighter-plane-which-won-the-battle-of-britain " A mix of design defects and pilot habits created one particularly gruesome problem with Hurricanes. At first, the aircraft did not have armour around the fuel tanks, and nor did the tanks “self-seal” if they were punctured, something which became standard during World War Two. The doped fuselage and wooden frame could catch fire quite easily. Fuel would flow from damaged tanks in the wings to an empty space under the cockpit, but a bigger problem was the main fuel tank which sat directly in front of the cockpit. If it was ignited, it shot a jet of super-heated flame straight into the pilot’s face. Another factor compounded this. Some of the more experienced pilots at the start of the Battle of Britain had originally flown biplane fighters in the 1930s and tended to fly with the canopy open. Also, early Hurricanes had a problem with carbon monoxide fumes leaking into the cockpit, so an open canopy meant they could take their oxygen mask off (it was an incredibly uncomfortable thing to have on your face for the whole mission). “All they did by having the canopy open was the temperature would go up to several thousand degrees in about three or four seconds – it was like turning the cockpit into a blast furnace.” Hurricane pilots often had only a few seconds to get out of the cockpit or face life-changing injuries, or worse. So many pilots suffered such very similar injuries – severe burns around the eyes, and on their hands as they tried to shield their face – that British surgeons came up with a nickname for it: “Hurricane Burns”. The open canopy, the unarmoured fuel tank in front of the cockpit, the tendency for Hurricane pilots to fly with an unfastened mask, all combined with agonising, disfiguring effect." So the term has come describe classic fighter pilot burns, but why the specific term, and the McIndoe book gives the answer. The book IIRC also mentions the tanks were often hit breaking away from attacking bombers, where the undersides were exposed. I'll have to re-find the book to check I'm not talking cobblers! HTH

Neat choice Alex, one of the rare desert scheme in Dark Earth and Light Slate Grey. TZ233 look to have a red spinner, TP391 in dark blue Just in case it's not crossed your radar (or anyone reading this) the Mk.XVIII wing has different panelling, Airfix just reboxed their Mk.XIV and didn't revise the wing. Not hard to fix though. HTH

new Spitfire in England by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr this is one of the best period colour images showing Temperate Land Scheme, Dark Green is an dark olive green, Dark Earth is a subtly green hued mid brown, Sky is a very pale yellow green, note also the Very dark blue, brick red and orange hued yellow, and Medium Sea Grey is a subtly prurple-blue hued grey. Almost no acrylic model colour get this right. Spitfire by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr Test Pilot c1944. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr Note Ocean Grey has a subtle green hue, but tends to look blue next to Dark Green weathered Spitfire II April 1941. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr Spitfire Mk.Vb, c1943. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr Spitfire by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr Spitfire Mk. V ? by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr all from here https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=8270787%40N07&view_all=1&text=spitfire all period colour collated by @Etiennedup HTH

Somewhere in THE RECONSTRUCTION OF WARRIORS : ARCHIBALD MCINDOE, THE ROYAL AIR FORCE AND THE GUINEA PIG CLUB, by E.R. Mayhew There is reference to specific "Hurricane burns" caused by the wing tanks being hit, and with the open structure of the construction, the flames coming up from the bottom of the cockpit. The Spitfire had a sealed fuselage so it was only the front tank that was the issue. HTH

I was very kindly sent some kits from Arma Hobby, thank you @Wojtek Bulhak @GrzeM including this one So this looked a good reason to build it, and a interesting contrast to the Frog Hurricane I just built, which was, erm, basic https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235136191-hawker-hurricane-iic-f171f188-novo-78104/ box contents 2024-03-17_01-54-09 by losethekibble, on Flickr and, inspired by @Cookenbacher I started painting still on the sprues 2024-03-17_04-21-21 by losethekibble, on Flickr All Tamiya, the X-16 Aluminium I was thinning with water/flow improver, which wasn't quite working so tried adding isopropyl, and almost flowing it on, which worked well and gave a decent smooth finish after a couple of coats. Then XF-4 yellow green, and I tried painting in the stringer lines in the wheel roof, will need a touch up. I need a stronger work light. I suspect once washed and in place there won't be much too see though... The ANA 611 Interior Green is a @Casey mix 27 parts XF-4, 5 part XF-11 J.N. Green, 1 part XF-1 black Though my JN Green is very old, 23ml Jar old, so maybe a different colour, as my test mix strip had a 1:1 mix of XF-4 Yellow Green and XF-5 Green which looked very close by eye. I didn't go an dig out my Elliot US Navy Camo book with the chips to check though as I did the mix at night, and was on a roll in the afternoon doing this. see https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235135141-help-needed-with-tamiya-paint-mixes-for-usn-ana-colors/#elControls_4866760_menu for more mixes I really need to tidy up the desk, part of the reason I just did some painting but it's a very impressive kit. Many years ago I got a load of Aeromaster decals cheap off Squadron, they were $2 a sheet, and was long enough ago I was able to send them to a friend in the US to forward them as Squadron wanted some ridiculous price. One was a 72nd Mustang sheet..... Thanks for reading.

If you are lucky @Mike Starmer will see this. They will mostly be mixes https://mafva.co.uk/?p=2607 This is chapter and verse, with Tamiya mixes. Vallejo mixes are here https://alliedarmour1940.wordpress.com/vallejo-paint-mixes-for-british-armour/ SCC2 70826 German Camo Medium [145] Seems good to me. AK make these colours, or claim too, I'd not trust their "matches" though. See here for Vallejo mixes used https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235095700-matchbox-176-morris-c8-mk-ii-17pdr-gun-willys-jeep-set/#elControls_4128713_menu The Morris C.8 is SCC2 with SSC.1 disruptive. The tarp is SSC14 disruptive. HTH

No, common misunderstanding. The XVIII had wing with revised gun bay panelling. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235014550-spitfire-mkxviii-mk18-photos-of-wing-panelling-differences-confirmed/ The Airfix XVIII kit just a rebox of their XIV kit. Redoing the wing is not a major job though. HTH

Nick has not posted on here for a long time, you maybe able to contact him via his Aviation of Japan blog though. This may help, listed as being Don Geffene http://whalens.ca/geffene.html Hurricane BG827 30 Sqn P/O ‘Jimmy’ Whalen Ceylon August 1942 see also HTH

there is a reason why I say never trust a profile without a photo but they did have some interesting schemes another neat one here https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235110850-aims-148-do-217-n-2r22-conversion/ Hope of interest/use