Jump to content

Graham Boak

Gold Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Graham Boak

  1. The RAF did have a black distemper for temporary operations at night, but this is not what was applied to the port wing underside. As a marking, it was to last for several months, hardly temporary. Even viewed from the distance of 80 years. It was no more temporary than the Sky band and spinner, or yellow leading edge. These were markings dictated by Fighter Command, and possibly were not painted on at the factory but at the MU. Aircraft intended for overseas use did not (normally) have the Fighter Command markings, but did carry the black underwing. It would seem logical that this was therefore painted at the factory.
  2. Sorry, my experience of Matchbox kits did not include "ease of assembly" unless perhaps this included being willing to accept a range of values for wing dihedral (to think of just the one example.) Simple, yes, with few but crude parts by modern standards, but not good fit without working on them? The quality did admittedly vary considerably across the range.
  3. The Almark transfers are a better match for the wartime RAF colour, but that's not allowing for fading in service nor finding something to match the others in the kit.
  4. The wedges were developed to help get the aircraft off aircraft carrier decks. I don't recall any reference for them in use by the RAF in wartime.
  5. It would be a little surprising to confirm two separate sources of spinner production for such a short run of aircraft. Yes the spinner went on for further use on later variants, but not for some time after the decision was made to go ahead with the Mk.XII.
  6. Not quite your key area of interest but the Eduard Ju.52 should be mentioned: it is also available (at least on ebay) in Revell boxes. Another source, if with limited RAF interest, is FToys. As you've probably gathered by now, there is a wide range of 1/144 aircraft and perhaps a more restricted request might have been more helpful. Especially as you can also get 1/144 ships and a wide range of AFVs. N gauge railway products could also be considered.
  7. This isn't going to change the advice given above, but the history may be slightly murkier than suggested. A slight jump in assumptions there, Troy. The question however is not when the Day Fighter Scheme (DFS) was introduced for Fighter Command but when it was applied to Mosquitos. The Mosquito was in service for over a year before these publicity photographs were taken, and Paul Lucas did venture into the murky worlds of rare available photos, AM and DH records in search of just how they were painted before this. This is described in the Guideline booklet. He could not find definitive evidence, nor (IIRC) come up with a date from which they were definitely in DFS. Logically there will be a dated memo to that effect. So there is some doubt about the initial service colours of the DK series. To avoid going anywhere near that matter, the question would be knowing that DK333 was painted (or repainted) after DFS is confirmed. I would suggest that the likeliest answer is DFS, before the Night underside as applied..
  8. I have recently made the AModel I-17 and Bf.109X, both very early AModel kits and definitely somewhat crude. However neither of them caused as much trouble as the recent Airfix Blenheim (shelved partway for future struggles) or Hurricane. (Not quite true about the Bf.109X, but that's a long and irrelevant story involving a conversion. Self-inflicted, no fault of the kit.) I can well imagine the problems with a Tu.128... However the Dove is more recent, and I would expect it to be similar to their Jetstream which I do have, Still not exactly Tamiya, but even at their previous standard there's no comparison to the problems presented by Airmodel conversions. However, as the OP has said he doesn't have the money for the AModel kit and is prepared to work with what he's got, how good AModel kits are becomes irrelevant. Personally I'd sooner save up a bit longer, but everyone differs. The more important thing now is to find out what is still needed, for example does the kit come with the correct canopy for a Devon? Aer there differences in wheels, engine cowlings etc between Herons and a Devon? Did Devons differ among themselves (bet they did)?.
  9. I recall there being a drawing posted in the thread dealing witn SAAF Spitfires, but I didn't keep a reference to find it.
  10. If you are talking about the stereoscopic fitting with tw downward facing cameras, then that's probably true. However from comments on 40 SAAF Spitfires in italy, there was a standard modification for FR work permitting either one sideways-looking camera (either way) or one downward facing camera, This was not something fitted in production.
  11. I think that I first saw this in an issue of SAM. At this stage it was possibly linked to an intended scheme for RAF Hurricanes in Norway, although later-published photos of 46 Sq showed that it hadn't been used. It was later that the 880 Sq photo appeared, showing the mixed-scheme formation. I suspect that it may also have appeared in a profile for a proposed Hurricane on floats. None of which explains P3114..
  12. Given the age of the reference, have you cross-referenced this with more recent plans for the Magister, and indeed compared the kit to Magister kits? Just as an independent check (or two?) There is also a Hawk Major in the Museum at Montrose, so it may be possible to obtain measures of the fuselage depth. I used to work with Pete Amos at Dunsfold, so know that he is (or was) a keen modeller, so it is unlikely that he will just have copied the early plan for his magnum opus without having done some checking. However given the size of his task it is possible that such things creep in. I know that errors in KP kits are not exactly unknown, and entirely agree about warning fellow-modellers, but it would be best to rely on more than one source before risking damaging sales of the smaller producers - or indeed anyone else!
  13. Agreed, but there are more important aspects of this than the use of a specific pigment. RN use was very small, and I don't think that there's any evidence of the Army being adversely affected by using brown for a few years - they did manage to produce a perfectly acceptable olive green with SCC15 without using chromium oxide. But unless evidence is found of specific Japanese problems with pigments (as opposed to oil and other strategic materials) then suggesting it as a cause of late-war colour changes is just imaginative. Maybe: but if the Allies didn't have the Chromium Oxide, and the Axis powers suffered from severe shortages of strategic materials, then who did?
  14. Not just the British Army but also the RN had to remove green from their camouflages - in this case the Western Approaches scheme invented by Peter Scott. This was indeed said to be because of priority given to the RAF.
  15. This would because rare, as the Night underside of the Intruder scheme had rather fallen out of use by the time the Mk.VI was commonly in use. Mk.VIs were used in small numbers in 100 Group as escorts to Bomber Command, so this is likely to be your best place to look.
  16. One comment to make is that by this time the "normal IJN green" was a browner shade than the one in use earlier the war. Indeed, often described as brown. There was a thread on the subject recently which is probably worth your while chasing up. Colourcoats do a version of this paint but when I used it it came out still too green for my eye, for whatever that's worth. Possibly it was much like early US Olive Drab which also was often reported as brown, either due to poor matching to the specified hue or through fading, possibly both.
  17. The first ones to go were (I understand) painted a specific desert colour on top of their service Panzergrau, but the later ones will have been painted in the factory. There were two different hues of light brown used, but neither were Dunkelgelb which came into use after the start of the Afrika Korps. Just to further confuse matters, the first Tigers were reported to be in green, which was probably more suitable for Tunisia.
  18. I've never seen any problem in paying for entrance to a show. Either as an ordinary visitor or a club putting on a show. Free attendance to those who actually turn up to set up and take-away the show tables is fair enough: all other club members are just the same as the general public. £5 is peanuts for an afternoon's interest. The cost of petrol to drive there? Modelling is not a cheap hobby anyway. However, I can remember - it wasn't that far back - when there was no such things as the smaller shows, and any that did exist were purely local affairs for club recruiting purposes. Despite the internet, I still think that the prime purpose of going to shows is actually seeing the models/books/tools that you've read about elsewhere: to get a chance to really see them, to investigate traders (of all kinds) who don't have a presence on the internet - and if they do, that doesn't mean I've actually come across them there. Nobody knows every kit/transfer set/accessory/book that is available, or can spend the time digging in the obscurer corners of the internet all day. (And I do quite a lot of that anyway!) Meeting fellow-modellers I've known or know is a good thing. Maybe even meeting a few I'd like to know... but the social side isn't a great priority. I've not the slightest interest in "showing off" my own models, and to be brutally honest generally only a passing interest in the finished works of others, unless they pique my interest in some manner. A quick walk past more club tables is all they get. Perhaps less than they deserve. I would certainly miss the shows if they disappeared - yes the modelling hobby would go on regardless, but then it did before the shows too, and the shows are a bonus. PS: I recall the IPMS criticising under-table sales because of the passage blockage problem, only briefly mentioned above. That still seems like a good reason. If a few clubs are abusing the system as described above, then it is up to the show organisers to stamp it out. Limits on the number of boxes of such sales, or a ban on those clubs that have abused.
  19. Interesting. I have not received my subscription May copy of SAM. Better check to make sure I renewed. No doubt an email to SAM will sort it out.
  20. Picking at a minor point here, I thought that there was a Stuka Unit in the BoF with codes described as RLM77?
  21. There does not seem to have been any Oxfords converted for target towing. They would have been a bit slow with that much extra drag. The T prefix for trainer, as with the other role prefixes, was not introduced prewar, so the simple Mark Numbers were used to establish production. Once they were introduced then T2 would be, and continued in the same way for many years, used as a convenient simplified abbreviation of the full designation T Mk.2. However official documentation carried the full official designation - I cannot confirm that there were no exceptions but would not in the slightest be surprised that such existed.
  22. I wouldn't have thought that the floor of a Schwimmwagen would be wood, and looking at 1/76 models the underside appears to be smooth like metal. As for the Kubel, possible this would begin as metal and change to wooden later in the war? Just a guess.
  23. My understanding is that the Dornier and the Ju.52 did not sell in the expected numbers, which would explain why they are not more commonly seen as finished models. I suspect that this read across to their large 1/72 kits too, despite the considerable justified praise heaped on them. However the change of ownership appears to have reduced any chance of seeing any major variant re-releases of these subjects.
  24. There's a world of difference between the colour available, even in a browner version, and the red-brown seen on these profiles.
  • Create New...