Graham Boak

You write JW799/W199. This gives you the tail code W for the carrier and the side number 199 for the aircraft.

The Stencil seat was adopted after the early deliveries, possibly not very soon after either. I'm not sure when the large aerial was adopted. I recall an early Titanium example arriving on my desk at Kingston some time after the early deliveries, but can't confirm this as being the same aerial.

The Indomitable example may not have carried ASV at this time, as I understand (perhaps incorrectly?) that not all of her Albacores did. There were a lot of anti-submarine patrols carried out by aircraft without radar, so there may well have been no swapping around required, or possible. The aircraft would have been capable of both TT and anti-submarine roles (which I must admit was what I thought the Swordfish was there for). It does seem that many fighter pilots (and presumably bomber gunners) early in the war had little or no air-to-air gunnery training at all. Even training by shooting at a slow moving target would be better than none. Not all targets were flying at high deflection angles, and comparatively slow closing or crossing speeds would still occur in combat. The ideal, after all, is to sit on the enemy's tail making a zero-deflection shot. There was some effort spent in the war on higher-speed targets, leading up to the Miles Monitor, but previously including aircraft such as the Henley, Vengeance and Boston.

It isn't carrying ASV radar, so it is unlikely to have the set. I suspect that all role equipment will have been removed when it transferred to the TT role.

Gifts of War has Mauritius VII as XP.R, serial unknown. Source CH5635 and censorship 211752.

Yes.

No direct evidence I'm afraid, but Les Freathy's opus has a photo of a twin boom version being refuelled and the hose appears to be going into that forward central position.

And competition on model shop shelves still included pre-shaped balsa wood blocks. Don't know when they're born, some people....

I suspect this is the difference between geared and ungeared engines, but don't know that for sure. It does seem likely that some such difference would be required.

Interesting! Nonetheless that was the description given for the crash with the initial MBB conversion, with the comment that they'd rebuild the tail next time (and did) so I remain baffled by that one. The Merlin did go "the wrong way round" compared to most British types, and this led to an instruction from the RAE which basically said "don't do that again", and subsequent British engines didn't. Which did lead to confusion when pilots converted from Merlin Spitfires to Griffon ones.

That's a bit difficult to understand, as the DB and RR engines rotated in different directions! The Buchons (at least) were built with the fin and rudder (not tailplane) aerofoil reversed to suit to the Merlin, something which contributed to the crash of MBB's first rebuild to a DB-engined aircraft where this important bias remained unchanged. This was carried out on their later example(s). So I suggest that the Hispano rotated in the same direction as RR, and the airframes were built to match the DB, which would indeed lead to problems. Strictly it is the way that the propellers go round, of course, not the engine. This can be different or not, dependent on the gearing.

Light Grey overall could be seen on most of the types that immediately preceded the main Pacific War favourites: biplane Helldivers, Seagulls, Kingfishers, Buffaloes, Vindicators and early Wildcats. I'm sure that there were others. The colour was also used as the underside in the subsequent scheme with Blue Grey uppers.

I understand it as 507A being painted over peeling 507A which had long ago been painted over 507C. It being better to patch up the existing scheme than undergo a full repaint at the time. However, being based a Gibraltar would imply use in the Atlantic as well as the Med, so perhaps it wasn't seen as being undesirable anyway.

Frog folded. The Triang trains were TT gauge so Hornby wouldn't have touched them. They were both under Dundee-Combex-Marx (if that's quite right) who went bust. Airfix and Humbrol were together under some toy companies (Polistoy at one time?) before Hornby got them. The Frog Black Widow was probably black, and much earlier the undersized Blenheim, Hampden and Wellington were. Presumably the 1/96th Lancaster too.

1. Yes. 2. I don't think that relaxing tolerances on the wing attachment points would result in anything but poorly fitting wings. 3. It might, but additional loads on the outer wing have to be carried into the inner structure. 4. I disbelieve this story and will continue to do so until I see evidence for it appearing in individually researched material. It is however a very peculiar item to appear from nowhere.