torqueofthedevil

In your eagerness to dismiss my thoughts as irrelevant, you have introduced some spectacular irrelevancies of your own. The Typhoon and Meteor, mentioned by you alone, are irrelevant. So is 1937, because the RAF wasn’t involved in a large-scale conflict at that time. And stating that it was perfectly adequate for 1937 is also pointless – time doesn’t stand still, and that was a period of very rapid development in aerial warfare. The point is that in 1940, when the war started in earnest, the Battle was in no way fit to play a useful role. Yes it was operating in a particularly dangerous environment, and yes any aircraft would have sustained heavy losses, but the Battle was an unmitigated disaster, more so than the Blenheim. The Battle had not kept up and the airframe was so incapable of being improved to any kind of acceptable standard that it was immediately relegated to second-line duties (again, unlike the Blenheim). This is in stark contrast to other types such as the Il-2, which was unsatisfactory in its initial version but which was able to be improved to a point where it became not just a war-winner but the most-produced aircraft type ever. I absolutely understand that a large part of the Il-2’s success was through weight of numbers – but that wasn’t always the case, and the conditions faced by many Il-2 crews were sometimes no less hazardous than those faced by Battle crews over France. The fact that the actions on the Eastern Front happened several years later does not invalidate the comparison.

Agree. That said, there will have been a transition period when both colours were in use, possibly even within a single bomb load (changes to military livery rarely go smoothly, even in peacetime - among many recent examples are red white and black Tucanos, and no fewer than six colours of Sea King wheels!). Equally, the last few buff bombs might have been repainted after the decision was made to change the paint scheme. Hard to say for sure.

Seeing as 1/24 features in the OP's list, I will offer a very brief verdict on what's out there. The Airfix 109E is (to this amateur at least) a lovely kit - very basic by modern standards, but a decent shape and fit, and ripe for detailing. Having both types of canopy certainly helps. The Trumpeter 109Gs and K-4 are as detailed as you would expect from a modern release. There are plenty of reviews which give the full account of all the pros and cons, which I won't attempt to improve on, but suffice to say that they turn into very impressive models!

Thread OFF (sorry!) The Battle wouldn't have done pretty well in Spain (compared to the Ju 87 at least) because it was unable to deliver its payload accurately. Surviving a sortie to drop another bomb in the wrong place the next day does not equate to a pretty good performance. Tell me, if Fairey had produced such a decent aircraft, and the Air Ministry was alert to developing trends in aerial warfare, why did so many brave and highly trained men meet an untimely end over France in 1940? Bad luck? Or shall we point the finger at the dastardly Germans for not playing fair? I would suggest that the failure of the Battle is a combination of a complacent firm failing to offer a product suited the current situation (not the situation two or four years earlier), aided by a blinkered ministry which ignored what was happening outside its ivory towers, preferring instead to trot out daft ideas about bombers always getting through. What should they have done? As a general point, the obvious alternative was to put a lot more energy into pursuing twins. Specifically, the Air Ministry should have had Fairey building other firms' aircraft. The limitations of single engined bombers (payload and survivability) were plain to see, so aircraft like the Beaufighter, Whirlwind and Mosquito could have been more useful and/or entered service earlier had there been more urgency. The Blenheim was rather less awful than the Battle, and could have been somewhat better. Please don't tell me again that I'm just enjoying the benefit of hindsight - what I'm saying was readily apparent at the time to any country which was actually paying attention. The proof of this is aircraft like the Potez 63 series, the Fokker G1, PZL P37, all of which were developed at a similar time to the Battle and Blenheim. In fact the French had several useful light twins in service by 1940, but no single-engined attack aircraft; the Germans only fielded the Ju 87 because nothing else could match its accuracy. And when you consider that the French had A-20s in combat in May 1940, the general ineptness of the Air Ministry becomes painfully apparent! Thread back ON, thankfully, because the fate of the RAF B-17s is fascinating!

You're absolutely right that Fairey weren't entirely responsible - the Air Ministry and the RAF share the blame for the Battle's disastrous operational career. But I think you are being rather generous in suggesting that its limitations were only apparent in hindsight - from 1936, there was a stark demonstration of how fast aerial warfare was developing, yet is there any evidence that Fairey attempted to improve the Battle to suit it better to the reality of late-1930s combat? Again, I accept that the company was not solely guilty of failing to keep up. And as a wider point, my views are undoubtedly tainted by fellow feeling for the poor sods who had to take the aircraft into harm's way - whoever was responsible for the slaughter, it wasn't them!

I don't think I do, and I don't find the contradictory opinions of various Barracuda folks hard to understand either. The views of military personnel of the equipment they operate, much like anyone in any walk of life, is coloured largely by their experience (or lack of) with other equivalent kit. To a monoplane pureblood, who had limited knowledge of what else was on the market, the Barracuda probably seemed perfectly acceptable. Whereas to an experienced Swordfish man, or someone who was familiar with the Avenger, the Barracuda would have felt rather disappointing (I accept that the disdain of the biplane cadre is not necessarily an objective assessment of the Barracuda). And of course there is always someone who for purely sentimental reasons becomes ludicrously attached to something entirely unlovely and sings its praises far and wide, completely ignoring fact and reason... As for the relative merits of the Avenger, Helldiver and Grace, to me it is irrelevant that the other aircraft were designed later - the point surely is that in 1945, the Barracuda was in several key respects (range, defensive armament, carriage of offensive armament) inferior to what the other seagoing nations had in service, while not offering a clear superiority in other fields (sure, the Son-of-a-Bitch 2nd Class had its issues as well!). And the fact that American torpedoes were poor and Japanese carriers non-existent doesn't reflect on the quality of the aircraft themselves. To me, what is most disappointing about the Barracuda is that Fairey appear not to have learned the lessons of the Battle - how many changes they could have realistically made to the Barracuda once the awfulness of the Battle was known is open to discussion, but the sad fact is that they supplied a turkey to the RAF and some years later supplied another shabby aircraft to the RN! And the fact that the Barracudas managed to operate reasonably effectively says much more about the quality of the air and ground crews than the aircraft - just another example of the determination and flexibility of British forces when confronted with often hopelessly inadequate equipment.

Yes, and from what I understand, rightly so! Doesn't compare well to the Avenger or Grace, does it? I suspect your previous explanation of why we only dumped Barracudas over the side is rather generous...after all, there would have been plenty of new Seafires and Fireflies back home as well!

I remember reading that the other reason for doing this was to prevent the value of scrap metal going through the floor - no doubt it was pretty low anyway in the period following the war, but having thousands more aircraft dumped on the market would have made it even worse!

The other thing to bear in mind is that after years of war and all the associated deprivations, scrapping all those aircraft was just another tedious task to be completed before life could get back to normal. Delaying the task to take lots of photos would have seemed a strange idea!

Agree. The Spitfire simply wouldn't have offered the Germans anything they didn't already have within a useful timescale. After all, the Spitfire had many of the same issues as the Bf 109 - narrow track undercarriage, short range, cramped cockpit etc.

This profile features in Flying Colours (1981). Unfortunately, a number of the profiles in the book have turned out to be rather inaccurate, and I suspect this is just another to put in that category!

Just to clarify, the marks in service currently are HC5, HC6 and HC6A (upgraded HC4). The latter two are almost identical while the HC5 (upgraded HC3) has the fat tanks.

Thank you so much David, that's just the kind of detailed reply I was hoping for. Sorry for the slow acknowledgement, it's been a busy few days. Presumably there is no way to confirm the different colour scheme on the tail of 'Black A' in the colour profile? I haven't had a chance yet to look for the pictures of 110165 but I'm guessing that there is no sudden change on the tail unit. I'll have time over the weekend to see for myself! Much as I have seen photos of Me 262 tail units separated from fuselages, I'm still surprised by the choice of colours on the profile of 'Black A' because a mottle of 74 or 75 over 76 was (if I understand correctly) fairly rare on Me 262s - only the very early aircraft would have had those colours, plus perhaps the handful of night fighters. Once again, my thanks for your generous response.

All very interesting, thanks. How does sprayed Klear compare to Humbrol Gloss Cote which I have sprayed before?

Wow! How many coats is that - I'm guessing more than one? And then sprayed on or brushed? Really sorry, please could you explain what ipa is? Many thanks for all replies, very interesting!

Evening all, I'm after details relating to the above aircraft which is pictured at Zatec airfield in 'Air War over the Czech Lands' by Jiri Rajlich. There is just one photo, in which the aircraft is partially dismantled; the accompanying profile shows it with a replacement tail unit in 74/75 and no markings at all apart from national insignia and the 'A'. Has anyone seen other images of this aircraft? I'm very keen to find out more about its camouflage and markings, and also about its history before it ended up in pieces at Zatec. Any help much appreciated!

Interesting to hear - I'm going to give Klear a whirl for the first time, and I was going to ask how to thin it ready for spraying. If I can brush it on, so much the better! Could I spray Klear when I do a large model? If so, any tips or guidance?

Thank you, that is another interesting idea I'll let you know what happens...unless it's a complete disaster in which case I will pretend I never asked!

Brilliant, both great ideas. The soil here in Shropshire is pretty regular in colour (unlike the stone which is distinctly reddish) but it could certainly be altered. Many thanks to you both for the quick replies!

Has anyone ever tried to crush the coarse WS turf to make a finer grade? If so, did it work? The reason for my enquiry is as follows: I am trying to make a 1:48 diorama of a Dakota at Dien Bien Phu, and the accounts I have read describe 'clouds of orange-ochre dust' which were thrown up by the first aircraft to land. Even once the airstrip had its PSP cover, there would still have been plenty of dust around and underneath, and WS Fall Rust is probably about the right colour - but the coarse texture won't look much like 1:48 dust! I'm new to building dioramas, so if anyone can help (or suggest an alternative material) I would be very grateful!

I have only just started building dioramas, and to avoid wasting money on quality bases, I am experimenting with cork noticeboards - very cheap! B & M charge only £2.49 for a 60x40cm one, and WHSmiths do a frameless (but stiffer) 40x30 for a meagre £1.50! So frankly, even if my clumsy attempts are a disaster, at least it won't have cost much...anyone else tried the same?

Again I'm both impressed by and grateful for all the information provided. Next time I'll make my post in the correct section of the forum!

I really like the sound of MRP - I will try to use up the Xtracolor stocks which I have left, but my results with it have been a bit variable even when new. I realize that this is probably my fault rather than the paint (ie perhaps wrong ratio of paint to thinner etc) but having a paint which comes ready to spray removes the chance of getting it wrong! And any excess paint left at the end of the job can go straight back in the jar. I take the point about the difficulty of brush painting details with MRP, but I could use the Xtracolor for that. Again my thanks to everyone for their contributions.

Thank you for all the replies - plenty to ponder! A variety of useful ideas and information, much appreciated

...would you recommend to someone who was starting out with an airbrush? I'm actually not new to this, but getting back into it after a break, and most of my Xtracolor enamels are quite old. Typical subjects are Luftwaffe or Japanese aircraft in 1/32 and 1/48, which is why I went for Xtracolor in the first place. Now I see that Humbrol also offer the main RLM colours as well, so do I (a) just buy new Xtracolor enamels (b) try the Humbrol ones or (c) go for something completely different? All opinions or guidance gratefully received!