Jump to content

Bruce Archer

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Bruce Archer

  • Birthday 10/04/1953

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Central Florida
  • Interests
    My triplets, Spitfires

Recent Profile Visitors

2,486 profile views

Bruce Archer's Achievements

Established Member

Established Member (3/9)



  1. hi! I have started a Spitfire PR Type IC and I am fitting the fuselage fuel tank behind the seat. What I need to know is where the fuel fill was located for this tank. Thanks ! Bruce
  2. I was sent several images of a PR.Ib and they showed there were no bulges on the upper wing. Now I need to know where the fuel fill was for the fuel tank behind the seat. Bruce
  3. From another forum, I learned the wing did not have any bulges. Bruce
  4. Hi All! I am attempting to build a Mk.Ib PR Spitfire. The issue I am having is the upper wing. I know the cameras for the PR.IB were fitted between the inner gun bays and the covers were left to service the cameras. But an additional hatch was added between the bays for the actual camera. What I need to find out is : was there a bulge on the camera cover on the upper wing. I have searched Spitfire the History, Wings of Fame 5, various Spitfire at war, and 7 other volumes Lots of info on the PR.iC and up but nothing really on the PR.IA or IB. Can anyone help ? Bruce
  5. Having a family tie to the B-26, here are a few thoughts.... I converted a Monogram 1/48th scale B-26 before the Lone Star conversion set. It takes more than shortening the wings and tail Windows are in different positions as are the hatches in the rear of the airframe. , The tail gun position is different, there are three( the first is a handheld gun in a tapering position, the second is stepped, and the third is a "ball" turret), additionally, the flaps are different. Also, you need to check to see if the early B-26 had spinners or not;, and to see if it has the intake filter housings installed. Do not forget the clear nose piece as it also changed. The Monogram Snap-Tite B-26 represents a B-26B-2/4 as it lacks the earlier tail gum position. As a Snap-Tite kit lacks an interior and wheel wells. The Valom kit is a horrible, bloated misshapen caricature of the B-26 which will take lots of work to fix. My Great Uncle Frank was an instructor in the Tampa area for B-26s, from the start of the training. He was there during the dark days of "one a day in Tampa Bay". When Jimmy Doolittle (JD) arrived he talked to the instructors first. His investigation found three major areas which needed attention...1st- The props were not being maintained properly, causing props to run away which would most likely cause the loss of the airplane and crew. JD had Curtiss send Techs to retrain the maintenance crews. 2nd- The batteries supplied by the Army did not have sufficient capacity for the airplane and were not the size specified by Martin. These were changed. and 3rd the training syllabus was changed. The B-26 was a "hot" ship and it was decided to train the crew to fly the B-26 like a fighter, fly it onto the runway and fly it off of the runway. No long flat approaches or climb-outs. The loss rate fell dramatically. Uncle frank preferred the short-wing B-26s. He called them the sports cars of the Army bombers and would run away from almost everything on the deck. He called the B-26B/C a flying pick-up truck and the B-26F/G a dump truck. He felt the Army caused the soul of the B-26 to be ripped out of the airplane. They actually had a B-26 (no suffix) with 2,250 HP R-2800s and were equipped with symmetrical paddle blade props. Uncle Frank and the instructors used it as a hack. He said it climbed as if there was no tomorrow, and nothing out-ran it down low. It was lost after hitting a flock of pelicans over the Gulf of Mexico. Bruce
  6. Unfortunately, I cannot open the images you posted. My main source for the first 10 Mk.II (Later Mk.III) Martlets is from Grumman's Historical office. According to the women who ran the office, the original order was for F4F-3 equivalent Martlets. When the BPF and FAA learned about the folding wings the order was changed. The BuAer thought the manual folding wings would be more than adequate for carrier use, and that hydraulically powered would take too long to perfect, and cause too much of a weight penalty degrading performance too much. The BuAer preferred 4 gun wings with more rounds per gun. From the 11th airframe on (AM964) the MK.II was fitted with a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-90 Twin Wasp ( easy to identify as the magnetos were moved to the rear of the engine). The pitot on top of the wing for all AMXXX serialed Martlets was the first attempt at a folding wing pitot and was not completely successful. The newer and better pitot was used on AJXXX serialed Martlet IIs. The FAA AMXXX serialed Martlets IIs were the only F4F/Martlet to receive the above wing Pitot. The lost at sea serials were put together from several sources, and if your serial disagrees with mine, let me know the sources you used. Bruce
  7. You mention an error in the article I wrote. Would you be kind enough to tell me what it is so I can evaluate it? The first Martlet Mk.IIs came directly from USN production. They were built to F4F-3 standards with the intercooler scoops and the carb intake at the 12 o'clock position. These 10 aircraft were redesignated MK.III. I not only used the references listed, but LOTS of images and serials. Plus when I started to write the article ( 9 years in the making!) the Grumman historical office was open, and the girls who ran it were immensely helpful Bruce
  8. It will take me a while to go through the above post. However, AM954 to AM963 ( 10 aircraft in total) were built as F4F-3s, with fixed wings. As they were closer to the ex-Greek order of F4F-3As, these were redesignated Martlet III. The remainder of AM serialed (AM964 to AM 999) and AJ serialed ( AJ100 to AJ153) were built with 6-gun folding wings with a two-speed single-stage Twin Wasp engine and were NOT F4F-3 or F4F-3A aircraft (Grumman called these F4F-4A aircraft). The AM serialed aircraft had the unique above wing pitot, AJ serialed MArtlets had the "standard" F4F-4 style Pitot. My records show only approx. 11 AM/AJ Marlets were lost at sea. The Martlet I, G-36 deliveries were formed from French and Belgian orders There are images of Intercooled F4F-3s without the bulge. The whole series of F4F-3 Wildcats have oddities within the series. The reason I wrote the article was the confusion with serials, type, and fuselage length in front of the wing.
  9. Hi All! The Greek F4F-3As were contracted to be delivered in the then standard USN scheme of overall Non-Specular Light Grey. The BuAer number and type were located on the fin in black as per USN standards. When they arrived in Egypt, they were erected, the national markings were applied and the BuAer numbers were relocated to the rear fuselage with "Royal Navy" above. The Martlets were assigned local serials later. and camouflage colors were also added at a later date. Check my article ( fhttp://www.clubhyper.com/reference/wildcatfaaba_1.htm )or the BuAer and FAA serial cross reference. Bruce
  10. Everybody needs to realize the Allison Mustangs were different aircraft from than Merlin Mustangs. Yes, they looked like each other but when you actually start to measure things, they are very different. Bruce
  11. The answer is no. What do you wish to make? If you wish to do a Mk .I, then you need the Mk.Ia kit and the Ultracast Mk.I conversion set. There are no Mk.I USAAF equivalents to the Mk.I. To make a Mustang Ia, F-6A or a P-51 use the Mustang Ia kit. For the A-36, Use the A-36 kit. For the P-51A, Mustang II and F-6B use the P-51A kit. There was an F-6B kit also. The carb intakes and radiator intake are different between marks so you need to be aware of these differences. Let me know what you wish to build, and I point you in the right direction. Bruce
  12. I am looking at the booklet which comes with the boxed set "Eagles Call". No squares are shown inboard of the cannon.. Is your sheet from a single kit, Prfipak or weekend edition? Bruce
  13. I just pulled the Eduard, Airfix, and Aeromaster instructions for MD*T. Here is what I found: MD*T is shown twice, once as MD*T and once as Lt. Wooten" EN851 of the 307th FS 31st FG As scheme "E" it is not mentioned to use either wheel. It does have the wheel covers Eduard, Airfix, and Aeromaster show a "standard " camo scheme, the scheme is not standard, it shows much repainting Eduard does show the flare port on the fuselage, no one else does Eduard, Airfix, and Aeromaster missed the dark area between the legs of the "M" on the Starboard side Eduard, Airfix, and Aeromaster missed the circular opening on the leading edge of the port wing near the fuselage ( gun camera?) Eduard, Airfix, and Aeromaster missed the square patch on the port wing leading edge between the 20mm gun and the fuselage The starboard side image I have (sorry, I do not know who has the rights to it) does not show the installation of an IFF MK.I "cheese cutter " antenna The starboard side image I have does not show a serial number The MD*T for Aeromaster, Airfix, and Eduard shows the wrong position of the codes And all of that was gotten from the image of Gentile leaning against the prop on the port side, and the one starboard image I have. Other aircraft in the sqn. are also different so they are no help. But o get even more of the story, I need a Port side image Bruce
  14. Thanks, I already have that image. But it does reveal some details that Eduard and Airfix missed, such as the black spinner backplate, the covered wheels, gun camera (?) port and the patched -over opening in the wing leading edge. I cannot see if it has the IFF Mk.II installed.
  15. I was forced to make my own PRU Pink as there are no shades which, to my eye, replicate the color. Take your favorite insignia white, thoroughly mix it. Then take your favorite red, completely mixed, and add the red to the white drop by drop, mixing between drops. When the color turns, and you will see it turn, that is the color PRU Pink. It is a extreamly pale off white with a slight pinkish tinge. Bruce
  • Create New...