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. :)

Graham Boak

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,120 Excellent

1 Follower

About Graham Boak

  • Rank
    Completely Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Graham Boak


    The Hastings wing can be described as basically a Halifax wing plus extrs bits. So making a Halifax wing from a Hastings wing is much simpler than the other way around. Modellers can do anything, of course, if they are prepared for a lot of work. Even make the Formaplane Hastings... IIRC, there were postings on the Flypast Historic Aircraft forum that illustrated the differences between the two wings, but at least two years ago?
  2. Graham Boak

    Where to start?

    My only query is whether the latest superb kits might not be a trifle overwhelming for someone new to the game. Lots and lots of tiny tiny parts... For something rather simpler as a first step into 1/700 RN, I suggest the Tamiya Vampire which is fairly straightforward and rather nice. Also a simpler camouflage to start with. The Tamiya O/P destroyer is older and cruder, and less accurate to boot. If you could find the CVE HMS Tracker that would do nicely - at the moment it is being sold by Tamiya as the USS Bogue but the plastic is the same.
  3. Graham Boak

    MPM #72567, Gloster Meteor F.Mk,I

    And the respective dates for the discovery of this flaw and its solution, to compare with the build dates of the F Mk.Is? After finding the flaw, and then finding the solution, they also had to prepare for production of these new ailerons with the internal wing structure changes and skins. All these things take time, and overlaps between development and production are far from unique to the Meteor.
  4. Graham Boak

    The Revamped London RAF Museum

    The Typhoon is back in the UK.
  5. Graham Boak

    All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

    Fighters Squadrons of the RAF gives Z4095/W and Z4089/U.. No idea about dates of use, other than a feeling that Z serials may be a little later.
  6. Graham Boak

    British P40B or C?

    In his Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947, US historian Peter M Bowers states that "discrepancies and contradictions exist in Curtiss records matching Tomahawk and Kittyhawk designatins to RAF serials and equivalent US Army models." Working from British official records, he identifies the Tomahawk Mk.I with the P-40, or Model 81. The Tomahawk Mk.IIA, or Hawk 81-A2, he describes as being equivalent to the P-40B with protective armour. The Tomahawk Mk.IIB are "generally equivalent to the P-40C" and were also Hawk 81-A2 except for the 100 diverted to China, which Curtiss designated Hawk 81-A3. This book was published by Putnam in 1979, so there may have been some more recent research clarifying the "discrepancies and contradictions", but if so I haven't seen them.
  7. Graham Boak

    British P40B or C?

    As I see it, in the top posting the first picture is an early (and incidentally unarmed) aircraft. Possibly originally US or French? The second picture shows that the British have required a slightly different layout of the instruments (they did have a standard arrangement of the key 6 instruments in the shape of a T, but I'm not sure that's what we see here.) There are also rather more instruments for the pilot to monitor. The small panel in the top right shows that a modified version of the top row was adopted later. In the third posting we can see the modified version. That Curtiss chose to do it by means of an overlay is just one engineering approach. Presumably they thought it easier that way.
  8. Graham Boak

    RAF Hudson OTU - code C3

    By the date of the roundel, TSS is far more likely.
  9. Graham Boak

    RAF Hudson OTU - code C3

    On the Barracuda the gunner pulled the lanyard from his rear cockpit. Who pulls it in this case? Is it done from the top of the fuselage whilst the aircraft floats on the water? Is there an exit on top of the fuselage - hatch for the astrodome, perhaps?
  10. Graham Boak

    RAF Hudson OTU - code C3

    That dark line running diagonally down from top right is reminiscent of the lanyard stuck on the outside of Barracudas to release the dinghy. I don't recall seeing it, or anything like it, on Hudsons.
  11. Graham Boak

    Researching 17 Squadron RAF

    Ask your local library to get hold of a copy of Fighter Squadrons of the RAF by John Rawlings. There's a lot of information on the net, but still a lot more in books.
  12. Graham Boak

    What is this?

    But for the tail, I'd say it was a Po2.
  13. Graham Boak

    HMS Manchester

    IBG are doing H, G and I, but just how the kits will differ between each other we've yet to see, other than that we are promised different year options. They are doing Glowworm, which can't have had many changes. Also Harvester 1941, Hotspur 1943, Ilex 1942, Ithuriel 1942, and another G which I forget. Garland? I may be being a little bit cynical there, but three new hulls seems a little too good to be true. (As a possible guide, just what were the differences between their Hunts?) See this for some of them http://www.ibgmodels.com/IBG_models_KATALOG.pdf
  14. Graham Boak

    HMS Manchester

    I have Belfast at 66ft without bulges, according to Whitely. Which makes it 52 inches wider than Newcastle, or nearly 1/10 of an inch in 1/600. The Belfast deck is indeed wider than the Tiger hull, which is also wider than Newcastle but considerably less so. On the model, the Belfast superstructure is about 1/5 of an inch narrower than the deck.. (Raven and Roberts quote 63 ft 4 in for all, as far as I can see. So I'm ignoring that.) I was indeed assuming that the forward superstructure was the same width on all the ships, because it seemed (to me) very unlikely that this very important structure would have been narrowed and hence reduced in volume at a time when internal volume was under desperate pressure. Or perhaps the design was too early for that to be realised? Measured at the rear of the forward superstructure, I have a dimension equivalent to 65ft for the Belfast deck in the Tiger hull. Allowing for the actual widest part to be slightly further aft, that seems close enough to the 66ft width for me. (Which would make it too wide for the 63ft 4 in, too.) However the B gun deck is only 55ft, which is still some way short of the 61ft 8in true(?) width of the Newcastle hull. Oh dear. It isn't just the B deck that has to be widened, but also the (signal?) deck above that. I assume that the central bridge tower over that will have been the same size. My concern regarding the potential (and presumed) Flyhawk kit is that the ones that have already been released appear to have far too many tiny tiny pieces for my failing fingers and eyesight, not to mention a reliance upon etched brass. I fear it may be a few decades too late for me to properly appreciate. I would like to know your opinion of the Penelope, bearing that in mind.
  15. Graham Boak

    1:48 Harrier 500lb free fall bombs?

    The Mk.82s are US low drag shapes.