Graham Boak

"Might be"...? That's a bit uncertain, isn't it? However, as I am content with Colourcoats, I am equally happy to let others chase Nick or Jurgen up. I've seen an AK book, and didn't rate it. Not least because the subjects appear far too wide for the size of the offering.

I've seen no reference to this on Griffin Spitfires or Seafires. Not have I seen any external changes I therefore suggest that the Aerovee filter/intake as common to late Merlin Spitfires was fitted to all later aircraft, including Spitefuls, Seafangs and Griffon Spitfires. Obviously larger as necessary.

As always, the answer is Colourcoats. As for the accuracy of AK, their British Army colours had first rate input from Mike Starmer, but he was very disappointed with the products. Whether the same is true for the aircraft colours I don't know, and have no intention to find out buy buying any. Other people's opinions welcome.

That's pretty good, but what about the rest of the nacelle behind the leading edge?

Later, the aircraft were certainly Engine Gray - also known as Seaplane Gray, which is what I did mine in. I don't know whether earlier they were in Marine Blue (whatever that is) or Sea Blue Gloss.

The M and P had the Bramo 323A engine, the Z had the Bramo 323D. So only the same engine as in basic type, with quite likely some spares carry-across, but I don't know what if any external differences there were. The Z does appear to have a slightly more open cowling, which is sensible enough for a more powerful engine but is based on a photo of the MV2. Source of the above Classic's Do.215 by Mikael Olrog. I think that I'd try a central keel to the profile shape, then putty it up using the (at least most of the) remains of the old nacelle tail rather than cutting it back fully. Tidy up the flap and rear of the wing first.

I think that you do deserve more response for this excellent work, but I'm not sure that mine will be helpful. 1. I am interested in WW2 softskins, so was drawn by the heading, but there are a number of things which push me away. I am interested in the faults you can find with the overall shape of the model, such as the tyre size and short chassis. However I would not be too concerned about the hub detail or the correct layout of the chassis cross-pieces. After all, this is a wartime subject and these areas would rapidly be covered in mud and dust. I would be very interesting to see how this short chassis has affected the body shape and dimensions. 2. I do not own a lathe nor a milling machine. Anything done on these has therefore no relevance to me and cannot help my build. (I don't have this one, I do have the truck which I presume has much the same flaws.) 3. The sheer number of photographs is daunting, and it is difficult to find the ones that would read across buried in the ones I find irrelevant. 4. The sheer time and effort spent on one single truck does not appeal - I have dozens waiting to be made. Were I to reject a kit because the tyres had the wrong grooves, I think that I would have much much fewer kits both made and waiting. All modellers differ, of course. I would not recommend that you approached your model in any other way than you have, and the work is admirable. However I do suspect that many modellers on this board are closer to my "style" (if it justifies that name) than yours, and that this explains the lack of response.

JG54s experiments in Russia have been linked to experimental trials leading to the 8x series of paints, rather than unit exuberance. The colours on their Fw190s have been identified as the prewar 6x series, which would not have been generally available on the steppes.

Much of the mass of the cannon was concentrated around the cg, although the actual reduction in barrel length would count as slightly destabilising: it and the fitting of the cameras would work together in a bad sense in moving the cg aft, as you say. However, if this is considered alongside the PR Spitfires, it would not seem to be a problem. It may have made the aircraft slightly less pleasant to fly. In comparison the aft fuel tanks were considered seriously destabilising, although there appears to be two opinions on whether this was due to the upper of the two tanks in particular and handling was satisfactory with just the lower tank - as was used in service on the Mk.XVI, Bearing in mind the Seafire's known range limitations, it is perhaps odd that these tanks do not seem to have been considered. Or were they?

The missing stub was also seen on at least one batch of Spitfire Mk.IXs, which would be earlier than the folding wing, I suspect. At least earlier than most Seafire IIIs.

Patents are applied to ideas: the actual engineering does not have to be fully worked out and all too often doesn't work.

It was in the original release of the Mk.I/II, I hadn't realised it was in the Mk.VA. The one release it wasn't in was the lower-priced Mk.!

The tank would not be capable of driving away at anything less than very low speeds (in aircraft terms - maybe 30 mph) so any release would probably not be at a speed providing enough lift for the airframe to rise clear - more of a slide off the back.

I think you could rule out the 200 gallon tank as the missions flown by Coastal would not require that sort of range capability, assuming that this large tank, normally carried by late PR aircraft, was stressed to combat values anyway.

You could also try wrapping 40 thou card around the symmetrical section, cutting new gills from a similar thickness strip and then creating a new cowling front from filler, perhaps reinforce by pieces of strip. Still fairly laborious and you are still left with the nacelle. The suggested resin piece sound far superior.

Which leaves the question of why fit the new cannon to Seafires but not to RAF aircraft. To be fair, the Seafire could do with any weight reduction.

Pretty pointless without reference to what they - at least theoretically - should have been. Anyone of those options could have been in the right ballpark, or miles off. Indeed in the case of 76 more than one of them could well be a good match, on different aircraft at different times.

OK Bob, but then for the Seafire the inner cannon would also have to be mounted further back. This seems odd. Why should they change all details of a perfectly good working system? Occam's Razor suggests that fitting Mk.V cannon seems a whole lot more likely. Going back to the shorter fairing on the E wing, are we looking at some remnant of the original design for four cannon, where some stagger is necessary for the two feeds? This also takes the Czech Spitfires out of the story, or do we need extra-short barrels for Mk.Vs in the outer position? As on later Mk.22s and the Mk.24. Talking of which, why should the Mk.V be fitted to late production Merlin aircraft yet these later examples still are produced with long barrels? But we also need short barrels for those 4 cannon Malta Mk.VC where the inner gun has been removed. Fortunately the Airfix Mk.VC gives that. I wondered what it might be good for. Amazing what scuttles out when you start lifting stones, isn't it?

The RAF only had one yellow, called Yellow. If some people choose to call it Trainer Yellow or Identification Yellow, that's just then being "clever", or jumping to conclusions. The roundel colours were called Red, Dull Red, Blue and Dull Blue.

I have a feeling that the Russians did do something similar using a T-60 and did drop the tank.

N serial will have been a DH, P serials were generally Rotol so use the Spitfire, offhand I've no idea about the Bader but surely there are photos or even models made of it, so a search should bring results.

We can only hope that they considered the crew inside the tank after it had been dropped, but I rather doubt it! High deceleration, not a lot of cushions inside a tank, and a lot of hard sharp metal lumps. The Hotspur was designed by sailplane enthusiasts: not that there were a lot of alternatives, after all, and the early examples might have made rather nice sailplanes but that's not what was required in a military environment. Thence the wing needed shortening. It is of course possible that as it was realised that the Hotspur was only going to be used as a trainer, more was taken off than would otherwise have been required. A simple cycle of lift off, release and land was all that was needed.

Yes, there are major differences between the T.3 (which is a rebox of the original Heller kit) and the FAW 9 which has been described as that kit retooled - but if so then in a fairly major way! Not just the front (including the cockpit) but also the absence or not of the reheat. As I recall, there were some problems with the nose of the Frog Javelin. The problem being that those aircraft with the US radar had fatter radomes (ending with the FAW.8) and shorter noses than the variants with the British radar (ending with the FAW 9) and kit manufacturers have been known to stumble over this. Which may have some relevance to differences between the Frog/Novo kit and the ZTS/Mistercraft ones. AFAIK the distance between the exhausts and the intakes was the common feature on all marks - allowing of course for the difference between the dry power engines and those with reheat. So you have two different backends and three different noses - not counting the prototype, of course (also an earlier Frog kit). PS Modified slightly because Lord Riot sneaked in.

It wasn't a new mould, but came as an AOP Mk.6 without the float and ski options.

I'd like to see more about this "short fairing" on the E wing Spitfires. A shorter inboard fairing requires a shorter barrel or (as on the B wing) the breech mounting further back in the wing. I rule out, in the complete absence of photos, the barrel sticking out further from a shorter fairing.