Graham Boak

Terence Kelly, in his first book of his memoirs, stopped at St. Eval on his way out to the Far East. He described seeing PR Spitfires in Blue and one in a dirty grey. Not very pink. PS. Maybe a different Terence - the Hudson one not the Hurricane pilot. Higgins? The loft is closed for the night so I can't check. PS. Coastal colours? In old Airfix mags? PPS. Given that the liner which impressed him was in lavender, how did he end up with two shades of pink, anyway? OK, not really a question for this thread.

Quarter lights are the transparencies each side of the windshield.

I think this as a confusion with 17pdr guns being mounted on 25pdr carriages (very officially) in the later stages of the desert campaign. No doubt in the middle of the night I will remember what they were called - possibly Pheasant? This was because there was a shortage of the 17 pdr carriages: there certainly wouldn't have been any spare stocks floating around the ME during the Desert War.

No. PRU Pink was only of use in certain conditions, and was much paler than is usually represented anyway. The two Mountbatten Pinks disappeared rapidly from use when he moved on to other things.

As far as I know, the small bombs were paint in 02, with the others carried externally in the colours of the aircraft undersides. Much like the US and UK, details such as explosive content and fusing were painted on using a colour code, I believe in the form of bands on the fins. Sorry I've no more details. PS in Cosford Museum, the Hs293 was in 65 and the Fritz-X was in 76.

Not as a specific choice, but the second Airfix and the original Revell were as much a Mk. IIA as anything else. The Hasegawa basic release was very easily modified to one, or for that matter the later Revell.

But still a Bristol engine so should still go the same way round? Back to the references... Looking in Putnam's Bristol Aircraft, I'd say the kit is right. Looking in Putnam's Gloster Aircraft, those V-struts appear on an experimental Gamecock used to test the Hele-Shaw propeller, but the photo of that shows a different nose. The exhausts suggest a Gamecock II. Added after the following post: The Grebe had a different engine but the prop went the same way round.

I get the impression that he already has the Italeri one, so there's more modelling interest in working with that one. It'll never make a silk purse, admittedly. If he hadn't bought it there'd be no good reason why he should, I agree. I don't have the G, but did make an F (and have ended up with at least one more, after the gift of a Mistel Ju.88) and after changing the spinner and the wheels (actually, I missed that) I don't believe that it is too terrible. I've certainly had worse 109 kits - not that that is any good reason to perpetuate them! However there is a major discrepancy with the AZ one, where the fuselage is too shallow at the wing leading edge, affecting the appearance of the nose and making the wing leading edge too high. This has been corrected on some of the later G-10 toolings, I gather, but that's not a lot of help here. You can fix it: I've cut a slot in the fuselage and wedged it apart, but I still have a lot to do to finish it. and wouldn't really recommend that approach.

Sanger took over Contrail, so likely they are the same. I haven't heard of any Grainger drawings of the Mk.III. However Aeromodeller had a set prepared by Ken Merrick, which were available from MAP/Argus, so may still be available but I don't know who from. Following A.L. Bentley's experience with copies of his drawings, I'd rely upon the Grainger ones, except for the engines and perhaps some aerials, of course. Oh, and the Preston-Green gun position. And the twin 0.50 tail turret, with or without Village Inn. ( or was that only on the Mk.VI?) I suspect that you can use the Grainger plans for the Merlin-engined variants with the Warpaint ones for the engines/pannier/wingtips etc.

I believe that the Army Co-op followed Fighter Command in their camouflage instructions, at least as far as the fighter-recce units. Obviously not for the Austers.

Two more ways: - just misinterpretations of brief glances in varying light. - This was how the Germans painted their He113s on the Channel Front.

From the side, the canopy on the Shark looks very like that of the Harvard, but I think it wider, with a rounder top, and a very different windscreen. Shame...

If you know what was going on, then you'll have a better idea on what you have to represent and hence (hopefully) how you go about it. If you are doing an aircraft painted with RLM2 it will be very very matt when new and very very patchy when old. Whatever you are doing, a very dark grey is better than a pure black, but in this case perhaps a satin dark grey undercoat with very patch matt black for the surviving bits of RDM2, which will not be around the leading edges, where people clamber up to the cockpit or remove engine panels

Not chipping, I think, but it could rub off onto the hands so any wear showed up something rotten. It was eventually replaced after DH told the Ministry it cost 23mph on the Mosquito. Actual trials at Boscombe didn't find anything quite so extreme, but similar comments were coming from trials on night bombers such as the Halifax. At that time the Hali was suffering with problems of over weight and excessive drag partly due to excessive requirements, so any penalty from the paint was the last thing needed!

There was a Hurricane which defected, but that was a Mk.II some time later (a Czech pilot), I don't know quite where to go to check the story of this aircraft, but I'm pretty sure that the only British fighter to end up in France in this period was the well-known example of Hardy's Spitfire. I'm sure that a Hurricane would be equally well known (well, almost). Whereas over 150 Hurricanes are simply known as "Lost in France" during the actual campaign.