Graham Boak

Less drag than that chin thing. As demonstrated when RR was pushing their "power egg" approach, and they tried it on a Mosquito. I believe it was the fear of combat damage that led to the leading edge radiators to be abandoned (but see Fury) and I suspect the weight of protective armouring over such a span.

Thanks, this is the tailplane to body incidence, which is what can be measured on the ground, statically. In flight, the wing will be producing considerable downwash so that the actual angle with the local airflow will result in a negative angle of attack, and downward lift.

I think I said rather more than that. namely that the entire fuselage is too deep with the tail carried too high. What you have if a P-51B from the rear of the engine, not an Allison Mustang which would have a much smaller radiator bulge because the rear fuselage is lower. It is a familiar mistake on several kits were the makers have not looked at the aircraft.

Late in the H-15 run, I believe. But often fitted in the depots or field, so like all types, check the photos of the one you are doing if you can

It rather depends upon the period. The "Black box" kits were as good as anyone if not better. However that does include the P.23.

Yes, increasing the area will increase the tail power. Methinks the contradictions go away.

Have you ever considered actually considering at the points raised and seeing if you agree or not? Or is that below your standards?

Orange? The Boscombe high-altitude calibration Javelin was red and white, as the photo shows. There is another thread where the red/orange discrimination is discussed, but there seems to be no way of coming to any conclusion. My understanding is that the Cougars were Red too. It quite likely the US colour International Orange, which is red in other languages.

Changing the angle of incidence would alter the trim, and may well be part of the answer, but unless we have rigging diagrams I'm not sure how to find that out. I'd be surprised to find it had a lifting tail because I was told that such things were intrinsically unstable. A gust would not result in an automatic return but a divergence. But I was just a performance man so what would I know? Maybe @Zephyr91 might comment?

Oughton states 21 a/c were transferred, listing the RAF serials, codes where known (usually) and ex-USAF serials and histories where known. Most are H-15s, with a few Js at at least one H-20. The key matter still seems to be just what nose the Airfix kit provides, and how this might differ between the relevant production batches. Hidden in this is the question that if Airfix have based their kit on an L, does it match any of the BC Liberators? There were however a lot of White ex-Ls in SEAC, so going back to the original requests, examples are present. The details of the noses are in Consolidated Mess, which I went looking for last night but couldn't find. So I slid my chair back a minute ago and guess what was filed under the computer desk? A quick look suggests that the actual differences are few, mainly a change from the rectangular window to a bulged one behind the nose turret (often modified in field to this fit) and similarly an extra window behind the bomb-aimer's transparency. However the L has a distinct kink in the forward fuselage to accommodate larger bomb-aimer's transparencies. Looking at the Airfix kit box art, this appears to have the nose of an H-5/10/early -15/FO. Phew.

Consistent with having moved the tail forward, leaving the question "Why?" There must have been some reason.

The difficulty as I see it is that extending the nose is destabilising in pitch and yaw, whereas adding a tail turret moves the cg aft and so is destabilising too (as is the top turret, aft of the wing, to a lesser extent). Both these features would require more tail, either a greater area or moving aft (or some other design alteration such as larger areas of tailplane and fin/rudder). Moving the tail unit forward would be counter-productive, making the aircraft less stable. Therefore there is some other feature not discussed so far. Were the short-nosed Liberators excessively stable?

Thank you Giampero. As an aside, I saw the Macchi on my Android phone, but the G,50V on Windows - though the Macchi has since appeared as I type. I do have a double apology. I now find that Signor Caliaro does describe the C.201, twice. Once in passing in his section on the C.204. The description is followed immediately by "This aircraft would remain only as a paper project..." which is actually referring to the failure of the Isotta-Fraschini engine of the C.204. I feel this has possibly been the result of some confusion in the editing, Elsewhere, in an early chapter dealing with the competition between the C.200 and its rivals. he includes the photo you posted with a small amount of text. I'm afraid I was reacting to a couple of quick looks through the book rather than waiting to have read it fully - which to be fair would take some time to absorb. But I do think he should have included the C.201 in a small section of its own. The book has an index but only for people. This doesn't explain the drawing of the C-200/DB601 hybrid. Perhaps someone's idea of a joke? I'm glad I didn't attempt the conversion - although bearing in mind some of the things I did when I was much younger. it would have been quite sensible.

As I understand it, the problem with the Falcon was the long time taken to cool it down compared with the short time it could stay there. Something likely to be much more suitable for a bomber intercept than the rapidly-changing conditions of fighter-fighter combat.

I recall a drawing many years back, showing an C.200 with a DB601 engine, described as the C.201 and an abandoned project in favour of the superior C.202. I thought that this would make an interesting conversion of the Revell C.200 using the DB cowling I has spare. Well, logical enough, but was this true? I've just bought the recently published Crecy book. Aeronautica Macchi Fighters by Luigino Caliaro, and it looks superb. However, I can't find any mention of the C.201 - despite the inclusion (a very brief mention) of the C.203 which was definitely not a fighter. A quick google produced mainly typos for the C.202 or a range of suggestions which appear to apply more to the C.200bis or C.204 (as in Caliardo). Presumably there was some project labelled, however briefly, as the C.201. Possibly a (thought simple) conversion of the C.200? Can anyone provide help here?

Certainly easier: TS530 was a B-24H-20 The rest appear to be J/B.VIs or Mk.Vs. B-24H deliveries to the RAF appear to be all in the serials BZ, EV and EW, in Oughton's table, but at the moment I can't don't have to hand the link between US serial and variant. I think this is in Consolidated Mess. However BZ970 is 42-64431, whereas the other BZ are in the 2-640xx range. This could be a hint...

There certainly were Coastal Command aircraft with the Emerson nose turret, and quite a few B-24H delivered to the RAF (excuse me for not chasing up all the details as to which). That's not counting the ones transferred from the 8th AF, which I presume did all end up in Bomber Command. RAF B-24H can be found in Oughton's book on the Liberator for Air Britain, with individual histories. Identifying which ones had noses which would match the Airfix kit (or be easily modified to) is another matter, taking us back to Consolidated Mess for the details. But if you are happy with just getting that nose turret in Coastal White, yes there are several.

I don't know of any Zs in the 61/62/63 scheme. There was a demonstrator that had a three-colour scheme, but with a free-flowing pattern and the colours used have been open to argument.

A clearer view shows it to be a Blenheim with the outer wing tip removed, but without any fairing. Presumably it was being serviced for some reason and then just pressed into use for the benefit of the film. I think that this may have been on the Life magazine visit - several superb colour photos have been posted here and elsewhere from this visit, There was a clipped wing Blenheim. One example was cleaned up and had the wings clipped as part of trials for the PRU (as it became). The overall benefit was small.

If I may return to the tumblehome, is this present on all the plans you studied, or just the prewar vessels?

That 1mm is over a very short distance, and yes it is clearly noticeable being greater than 10%. The whole rear fuselage is raised with a much deeper radiator. which when combined with the reshaping of the nose for the Merlin, there's hardly a part of the fuselage that isn't different.

I refer you to the book Consolidated Mess, which goes with considerable detail into all the variations of the nose-turret Liberators. They were built in several factories, with differences in each separate production batch from each factory. Then you will be aware of what discourages anyone attempting to actually get all these variations into a model. EDIT: correct title. Sorry for anyone who tried to find it by the wrong one.

My understanding was that the 3rd volume was largely to include extra information and corrections to the earlier volumes, so it isn't surprising that a later book from JAPO (or indeed anyone else well-informed) that individual items in Pt.1 could be altered. Which is, after all, very much common is later studies of a subject, and not just Luftwaffe ones.

The comment about tumblehome is interesting as I was not aware of this. There were a number of steps (as in built ships) up to the Thompson design that was modified to the Liberties, slowly increasing in size. For those to whom this is new, the Liberties are basically a welded version with oil burners and a concentrated superstructure. Having the bridge before the small hold is the most obvious difference, with the lack of bulwarks. I had considered doing my Trumpeter Liberty as an Ocean (I already have the Skywave Liberty) but because I had already glued in the deck I thought it perhaps too far done. Brave man - isn't Embassage a little bit smaller, which I why I thought the Ocean an easier conversion.

You don't need to apologise, I do. Annoyingly I had written Mk.VII before "correcting" myself. However the information re availability still stands.