Blimpyboy

To amplify @Bjorn's comment earlier in the thread, I’ve always liked the MB.326 family and its derivatives !

That would be a good body of work for policy and doctrine researchers to get their teeth stuck into! I've no doubt that you'll find conflicts where some governments have been far more hands on and restrictive, whereas others will have seen some governments apply a more laissez-faire approach. A more simplistic, quick-'n'-dirty answer to that would be (especially for a Western-style democracy): if war is an extension of politics with other means, the buck ultimately stops with the government of the day. Therefore, the motivation and requisite policy decisions behind conflict-specific RoE orders (and entering into conflict, in the first instance) are entirely political! A good military will, after all, prepare doctrine and operational practices to align with government policies and directives. Another reason why governments can (sometimes over-cautiously) adopt RoEs and procedures that, depending on the operational environment, negate BVR capabilities. If your government policies require positive ID through visual means, for whatever reason, you're probably gonna want a weapon more suited to the furball! Guns can, of course, fail like any other weapon. Guns aren't carried just because missiles can malfunction, 'though - as was pointed out, they can be a more appropriate solution for any number of tactical 'problems'. In the hierarchy of range capabilities, combined with many missiles' technical limitations, guns are a very effective arrow to have in the quiver - it's always best to prepare for the worst and have a range of options, right?

There will always be politically-motivated RoE - that’s what I was referring to!

True, but RoE and LOAC requirements can - and often do - nullify the BVR advantages of those modern technologies. Plus, things still break/malfunction, and other tactical and strategic contingencies will always be factors to consider, which mean that it’s always best to be ready for the close-in fight. There’s a reason we still train in Basic Fighter Manoeuvres!

More fat-fingering on my stupid mobile ‘phone!

I contend that the businesses providing third party target services certainly are conducting (commercial) operations, like any charter service/contract airline.

I note that, in the ‘alternative bomb loads’ diagram above, the bomb seems to use a similar - if not identical - carrier (or rack, if one prefers) and crutch arrangement to that used to carry torpedoes. It also shows the bomb protruding outside the bomb bay interior. I presume, therefore, that the 2000 lb bomb would have required portions of the central and rear (and possibly front) sections of the bomb bay doors to remain open. Thoughts?

Would the doors for the narrower front section of the bomb bay have remained open, or were they closed, when carrying this bomb? I note there's a little bit of clearance between the bomb nose, and the front section of the bay - if the diagram below is accurate. Also, does anyone know if there are any other pictures of Beauforts carrying this bomb - and which non-British Beaufort users are likely to have had this bomb?

You may already have seen, or contacted the people at, the Bloodhound Missile Preservation Group. They may be able to help: https://m.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=100044120244006 and https://www.bmpg.org.uk/index.html I think there’s a good Swiss museum site, which may have some good info in their archives. I’ll see if I can’t dig up the URL for you.

I did wonder about the 'applied all at once' bit. Perhaps a bit of artistic license, and compressing the process to fit into a singular painting? If a true and accurate observation of a singular point in time, I also wouldn't rule out corner cutting (I've seen similar shoddiness in two air arms and more than a few commercial firms)... Having said that, I agree that one would want the primer to cure before painting. Even in hot weather (presuming a dry, less humid part of the country) I agree that there'd need to be some time between coats! Nice pick up!

Yeah, yeah, another zombie thread revival... Anyway, here is a picture of an Australian Oxford (like the Mosquito, largely made of wood covered in fabric) being painted, in a manner very similar to that described above: The caption for this picture (painted by artist Max Ragless) states 'Ragless depicts an RAAF Airspeed Oxford being spray painted deep red, aluminium and bright yellow by Ansett Airways Ltd staff. "With all three colours being applied at once and the job done out of doors, this made a most colourfull [sic] subject" April 1945'.

That clears that up - although, part of me was hoping the beam training scheme would be all yellow (something one doesn't see much of)! Nice ones - and very clear too! Thanks again all, I'm really gonna get cracking on the Ox Box now!

Right... I'm happy with the green and yellow colours used on these aircraft (thanks again all, particularly @Stefaan and @William Marshall), my issues are now: 1. Is the aircraft in the opening picture to this thread overall Canary, or does it have upper surfaces in silver/aluminium and lower surfaces in Canary (noting the Ron Belling painting in one of my earlier posts)? 2. If the aircraft is determined to be silver/aluminium over Canary, what colour are the elevator uppers (again, noting the Ron Belling painting)? Thanks again for your thoughts. (a confounded - as usual) BB

I also note this painting by Ron Belling shows silver/aluminium upper surfaces - plus yellow on the upper surfaces of the elevators! The head scratching and search for answers continues...

Thanks very much @Stefaan and @William Marshall! I take it, therefore, that the commonly seen profiles of this aircraft are incorrect in depicting the upper surfaces in silver/aluminium...

Ooh, I remember that copy and decal sheet! I managed to pick some up (since re-gifted) at a model show in Australia, when visiting my son - I should have kept some, because I also want to make a SAAF Harvard!

Hello all! Dusting off a half-made 1/72 Oxford, I've decided to make this South African ship, which was used for beam approach training: Does anyone out there have any info, regarding the green colour used for the bands on this aircraft? I've seen mention of Dark Green (the British colour) and Olive Drab (the U.S. colour). Is it one of these? If it's Olive Drab, is it OD 41 or ANA613? Or, is it likely to be a different green altogether? Thoughts on a postcard, please (thanks in advance).

There's always Print Scale sheet 72-117 (option number #8), but I don't know if it's an accurate representation...

I have little to add, literature wise, to the various iterations of the Maru Mechanic book, other than FAOW 47 and Model Art 565 (which have limited information): Perhaps this chap's build log may be of interest (and some use) to you: http://wind-earth.net/seusakuki10.html. And, for no reason other than why not, here are some pictures! Good luck with your project!

You could also get a 1/144 Kaori-X to go with your KF-21, to model the South Korean take on the Loyal Wingman concept (https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/korea-dipping-toes-loyal-wingman-concept-kf-21).

There's quite a bit on the Korean interwebs. Anyway, you can always try and order the Academy 1/72 kit: https://m.academy.co.kr/product/172-12585-대한민국-공군-kf-21-보라매/1676/category/1/display/9/ See here, also: If 1/144 is more your style, there's always the Tori Factory kit: My Korean is super-bad, but I'll try and collate some of the (what I think is the) better pages and see if I can't post 'em here. Anyway, while I struggle with the Korean pages, here are some pictures showing the 6 prototypes to date (apparently, the 6 prototypes are painted in different colours, to aid selection of the most appropriate colour scheme, when the aircraft is brought into service).

While Mr Color is (sorta) widely available, there is also Vic Hobby: https://www.hlj.com/jasdf-camouflage-colors-f-2-vihvicsv182 and https://www.hlj.com/air-self-defense-force-camouflage-6-color-set-vihvicsv177

Here are some pictures (nothing that looks like a light colour, 'though): https://wang68926.firstory.io/episodes/cki7ikafqjuca0873x5w9ehfq (you can embiggen the picture that's on this page). Here's both pictures, together (from the museum): Plus, profiles (to be used with all due caution...):

These threads may be useful to you, too: and http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/298942-jasdf-f-4e-sea-camo-colours/ Otherwise: https://www.scalemates.com/colors/mrpaint--713/mrp-295-navy-blue-and-intermediate-blue-jasdf-paint-set-acrylic-lacquer--12469 and https://www.scalemates.com/colors/mr-color--657/cs665-jasdf-oceanic-camouflage-color-set-lacquer--23974# and https://modelingmadness.com/scott/accessories/cs655.htm

Late to the party, I know... It's not an overview of the squadron markings, but - starting at page 52 - here is some background behind their formulation: https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-36-Misc-Pre-War-Squadron-Markings-Poles-at-Halton.pdf Enjoy!