Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

sanguin

Members
  • Content Count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

68 Good

About sanguin

  • Rank
    Established Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Fairly near the Shepherd Neame brewery in rural Kent
  • Interests
    Things Swedish and things a bit off the beaten track.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,260 profile views
  1. Boyd, it is a question that many of us have asked! Another link to confirm the replies the others have given: https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/historic-aviation/115663-navy-wessex-paint The blue-greys all seem to look similar depending upon the lighting, the film, the exposure and the printing. And that is just in books and magazines. On a computer screen ....who knows? John
  2. Somewhere in the darker recesses of the loft I have a kit of the Mi-8, manufacturer unknown until I find it. However there are some pictures that may help you, I just did a search on Mi-8 Hip images and a few show the underside that may help you. Try: https://www.e-pic.se/Aircraft/Aircraft-sorted-by-type/Mil/Mil-Mi-8-Hip/i-vF5hxqd/ That has a few underside shots that may sort you out. I have also looked without success for various kit instruction sheets. There are a lot of 'Hip' kits, but most seem to be from the same original (and inaccurate, I'm afraid) KP moulds. I have not yet found instructions that show what you want, but that was only after a quick look on line. I will look in the loft later and see if my kit sheet is more helpful, but I am not optimistic! John
  3. sanguin

    RMS Queen Mary

    Google will reveal a lot of images, but in general very few seem to show the details you seek. There is one book: Gray Ghost: The RMS Queen Mary At War by Steve Harding but even that is light on detail. Probably the most obvious external features other than the paint job are the degaussing loop around the hull within a steel duct and extra carley floats/rafts on decks. Unlike the WW1 hospital ships it seems that the QM retained her exisitng lifeboats (or possibly larger ones later in the war but using the existing davits) and relied more on floats, rafts and some smaller boats on the foredeck for emergencies. Guns were fitted, but they are either airbrushed out by the censor or lost behind the mass of soldiery on the decks for departure or arrival photographs. Allegedly these were primarily 40mm Bofors type anti aircraft weapons but when these were removed late in the war a 6" gun was left as the sole offensive weapon. Other than that it was grey paint,usually pale grey although the tops of the funnels were restored to black later in the war. I have no information about the decks, most aerial views have them covered in troops so nothing is visible. This may not be of much help but there may be others more learned than me out there who know more. Now if you want to do the Queen Elizabeth in her war service, a lot more information seems to be around. All the best, John
  4. Oh, and while your at it Mr decal producer, can you try and tack a few white 'Qinetic' labels on the sheet as well, please? The ETPS/RAE badges are few and far between on exisitng sheets so thanks for including them, Truro. John
  5. Nigel, those bits of concrete were not for the large Chain Home towers. I have learned something today, I thought it ws another name for the Vintner site. Thanks to my magic tome, St Boniface Down was in fact a Chain Home Low site, the 'bedstead' antennae were mounted on wooden masts identical to those Ed Russell has modelled. These were designed to detect low flying intruders from across the Channel and North Sea. Many were operated by the Army and Navy, depending upon location and logistics. From 1941 they virtually all featured two power-turned antennae and either concrete or wooden huts. All were mounted to cover approaches from the sea, usually on higher ground. Most were set in places away from civilisation and in exposed sites where the winds blew and the rain was never vertical. Ventnor had a Chain Home station but I cannot say what, if anything, remains. Google Earth is good at helping to trace sites, the Dunkirk one even shows the shadows from all of the masts if you use the time line facility. John
  6. This bit of a Britmodeller thread may help: Scroll down until you see three pages of profiles; at the bottom of the third page it says that the squadrons of No 4 Group used all black camouflage from 1941. No date in 1941 is given. I believe that 78 squadron was part of 4 Group and November is the 11th month so I would consider 'all black' to be probable.... I'm sure that somebody will come along and either make that 'certain' or prove me wrong. John
  7. I live about half a mile from the site of the Dunkirk Chain Home station that was built in 1938. There is only one of the steel transmitter towers still standing. This link can tell you a bit more: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/d/dunkirk_ch/index.shtml There are other links, the original structures around the site are equally interesting but rarely seen; a 240 foot steel lattice mast covered in modern aerials tends to attract the eye. I had the privilege of hearing about the building of the transmitting and receiving towers from an elderly resident many years ago. He worked with his father on the Dunkirk build, then stayed with the company and built towers around the UK. The original timber towers were prefabricated as creosoted pine lengths that were bolted together to form lattice or warren girder sections. They were bolted to a concrete base, each of the four main legs had its own base. Being timber they were relatively light and to erect a mast under ideal conditions took a gang of about ten men days rather than weeks. However they were not rigid. Being timber and bolted, once the height got near the 200ft mark the top swayed a bit. Peter Rook was in his eighties when he told me about it, he said that mostly they accepted the swaying but when he worked on the towers at Scapa Flow and the wind really began to blow it was very, very frightening. As the radar electronics improved the timber masts were replaced by galvanised steel to reduce the error due to the masts moving in the wind. They remained until the site was reduced to one mast nearly fifty years ago. From the 1950s that mast held a very large microwave dish that was part of the NORAD communications network. This was removed in the late 1990s and we no longer had USAF vehicles visiting the site. It is now commercially owned and used for a wide range of data links and comms aerials. There is now planning consent for a data storage building adjacent to the mast. One set of proposed plans for the new building showed a design similar to on an airfield control tower to show its RAF heritage. Ain't architects wonderful? The fact that virtually everything on site apart from the masts is either fully or partly underground and screened by large earth and brick blast walls never occurred to the designers. I also have a copy of Building Radar by Colin Robinson, published by English Heritage. At 600 odd pages it has fairly comprehensive coverage of the development and construction of UK radar sites up to 1945, but if anyone wants any more info then please PM me. Congrats on the lovely model of the Chain Low installation, nice one Ed! John
  8. Living only a few miles from Throwley, I have both the 'Airfield Focus No 58' written by Anthony Moor published in 2003 and his much expanded 'Kent's Forgotten Airfield Throwley' from 2007. Both are interesting in themselves, but neither gives much in the way of photographic coverage to Be2c. The larger volume has one image of a ?doped linen Be2c of the RNAS serial 992 and a Be12 A6303 with no obvious squadron markings. If you want pictures of night fighting Pups or Camels, please buy the second version. Mine was £12.99 in the Faversham Society shop; I assume the second hand prices reflect the minority interest and small print run. As to the Be2, not worth your consideration, i'm afraid. John
  9. sanguin

    Spitfire XVI TB752

    Thank you for that, Graham. The Fundekals instructions do not show any fuselage band, which is the logical choice. I was bemused by the black band as normally the work done by the Medway Preservation Group is spot on for accuracy and this seemed to be so unusual. I am pursuing a third edition copy of the TB752 monograph just to see what that can tell me; I know where to get one but it ain't cheap! Thanks again, John
  10. Andre, There is a kit, one 1/72 example that I have found is available in the UK: https://www.kingkit.co.uk/product/magna-resins-1-72-2572-douglas-skyraider-target-tug It is a Magna resin kit. These kits are not usually an easy build, the quality of the kits is varied as is the fit. If you get this it may be useful to get another 1/72 plastic Skyraider kit (such as Airfix) to replace some of the poorer quality resin parts from Magna. I know because many years back I bought and built the Magna kit, my first proper resin model. It was not a very good build, in part due to the kit but mainly due to my inexperience and lack of skill. I eventually threw it away, but not before I had decided to buy another kit from Magna to build 'one day' when I felt more skilled. I think that is possibly the same kit that Kingkit are offering, I sold it to them some years ago with a lot of other stuff when I had a clear out. It is not a kit for a novice but it is the only 1/72 Skyraider target tug in town. It even has Swedish civil markings. Good luck and I hope that it will make an excellent museum exhibit in hands more skilled than mine! John
  11. sanguin

    Spitfire XVI TB752

    I visited the Manston Museum a few days ago and the Spitfire TB752 does not feature a sky fuselage band, but has a black band. If you look at the 'virtual walk around' on the Museum website you can see it: https://www.spitfiremuseum.org.uk/360virtualtour I am surprised that nobody commented on this in the previous entries on this thread; the volunteer I to whom I mentioned this at the museum said she thought it had 'always been like that' and and could offer no explanation. I have always thought that any fuselage band should either be in sky or not present at all after repainting post war. To be correct with its red/white/blue spinner I assume that it should not have any fuselage band (either sky or black). Please can anyone clarify whether the scheme as shown on TB752 is correct, an error or still unresolved and painted black to indicate this. Thanks, John
  12. I claim no knowledge about paints or any of the technical stuff about colours, hues, reflectance and the other variables that some of our far more learned members can deploy. However my personal view of Bosun Blue is a very dark blue that would appear to have been darkened using either black or very dark grey mixed into the basic blue. If this makes sense, a deep blue is still clearly seen as blue but Bosun Blue is a dark colour that appears to be blue. Also it does not appear to have any obvious green tones present. If I need to mix it I add drops of black to any dark blue until it satisfies my eye; utterly unscientific but I suspect that is what happened at squadron level. I would be delighted if any other members could make any better suggestions using a less empirical basis to describe the colour. John (who despite the astigmatism and short sight apparently has good colour vision when looking at blood cells and bacteria down a microscope).
  13. I cannot think of any single source that covers even the RAF squadron bars, never mind the huge range of decorative squadron/unit images used elsewhere. This applies to both books and, as you requested, on line. The nearest I have found for the RAF is this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Royal_Air_Force_squadron_roundels To find out about each individual squadron, click on the link below its 'bars'. Not much on why the colours/pattern were chosen by each unit and what was done to ensure that there was no duplication or 'near misses' when they were first suggested. I believe that a few were based on some of the symbols/shapes used in the First World War or their earlier RFC/RN badges, but I am happy tone corrected by others. I presume that some hapless and lowly desk-bound officer had to carefully balance squadron histories, seniority and what they proposed to either approve or reject the designs. Then some much more senior officer who had past connections with the squadron would change it all... Allegedly my 'home' squadron (500, Royal Auxiliary Air Force had the green orchards of Kent zig-zagging through the white cliffs of chalk on a background of the waters of the English Channel. Not too obvious to the uninitiated.... Can anyone else contribute any other sources? John
  14. The Tiger Meet site has no useful images: https://www.natotigers.org/tiger-meets However for those looking through their archives, the 53rd used F-105Ds for the Tiger Meets during 1961-65, F-4D Phantoms during 1966-76 and F-15A/B from 1977 onward. There seem to have been a small range of 'Tiger' patches, most variants of that found above by Dennis. Images of Phantoms bearing the badge are very few, in part because the badge was of modest size in those days. Exotic tiger stripes adorning front line fighters were not the norm in those days! John Late extra! I found this which may or may not help: http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5238 Said to be 1972 pictured at Upper Heyford.
  15. Well, we Brits used 'mark' numbers to differentiate upgraded versions, some Europeans used 'serie' in the same way, suffixes of A, B, C etc also worked well. Block numbers are a more recent innovation. However, 'tranche' offers a 'je ne sai quoi' that all of those miss. The 'Mk google' version of the venerable OED on line: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tranche What more can I say? John Apologies for the thread drift, but the heat has gone to my senses.
×
×
  • Create New...