Jump to content

Graham Boak

Gold Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Graham Boak

  1. The old technique would be to get an old brush and trim the hairs down to s stub. Then put some paint in a shallow bowl (milk bottle top will do), touch the tip of the brush onto the paint, rub most off onto a rag, then dab the remainder onto the fuselage sides. Build it up slowly. This is call dry-brushing, because there must be very little paint on the brush, certainly no wet. You can do much the same with small pieces of sponge, and nowadays you can get small sticks with fuzz on the tip, which will do the same job. However, as a hardened traditional brush painter, I have to say that this is something better done with a dual-action airbrush. PR Scale Aircraft Modelling did sell metal templates/masks, so you could get a similar effect with a simple one-over spray rather than having to produce individual spots. It helps to have a clean brush and some thinners to remove spots that have become unsightly blotches.
  2. I think Bob probably has the answer, but possibly these later variants also had a little more power? This might be linked to the clutch problems on the Mk.XV that delayed its use. The Mk.XII does appear to be something of a "rush" variant, using what was available/just arriving, so it is possible that it was simply easier to use what was available in some numbers if it managed to do the job. Perhaps it was always a little marginal on cooling, whereas the later variants were optimised - and allowed for tropical use.
  3. Because it has a single-stage supercharger and thus lacks the intercooler between the stages which requires extra cooling. It does however have the tropical radiator from the Mk.V rather than the slightly smaller original temperate one.
  4. Which would make examples still being flown by the RAF and RIAF up to the end of the war decidedly elderly airframes. Of course many will have been sitting in crates/MUs for much of their life, and may be much younger in flying hours.
  5. I wouldn't bet on that: late 20th Century Fords were notoriously easy to open.
  6. But not the Mexican ones? Certainly not the RAF ones. How about the French ones? I'm sure I've seen photos of NMF examples, although these could be postwar? But they would still be Lend-Lease examples.
  7. I suggest the reasons why the LNWR is overlooked are the same as the reason for overlooking the NER and many other pre-grouping railways. Lack of general interest in anything so far back in history and so parochial the market. Local railways means local interest. One of the points made in the first Hornby programme where the owner of a Kent model railway shop said that there was always considerable interest in Southern Railway subjects. Unlikely to be a lot of LNWR or NER interest there.
  8. Cowling and canopy, I believe. Not sure just what the cowling differences are, and they could be minor, but a later canopy is available from Falcon and so probably from Squadron too.
  9. The pale pink Spitfire Mk.IXs were 16 Sq, and not a high altitude PR aircraft but low altitude FR (Fighter reconnaissance), which were normally armed. The side-ways looking camera wouldn't be much use at altitude.
  10. That's because the panel with the thin bulge in the outer position was not introduced until the e wing in 1944.
  11. Armour didn't come about from experience in France, it had been planned and production organised in 1939 but simply weren't ready in time. Something else for which Dowding deserves the credit. Not to mention the off-abused Staff officers and bureaucrats responsible for making sure that all these good ideas actually were turned into hardware built in the required numbers and delivered to the necessary units. Nothing ever happens overnight, or without someone doing all the boring bits. I agree that it's very unlikely that the early aircraft sent to South Africa were so fitted.
  12. The Valiants were withdrawn because the alloy they were built with suffered badly from fatigue, so no they wouldn't have lasted. If they had set to building any Mk.2s then these presumably it would have been restressed for later alloys, like everything else in that timescale. I'm not sure just how easy that would have been, but not very.
  13. Very clever, but not convincing, as it breaks down at 1/24 and 1/12. I think that the answer lies in the figures scale of 54mm to 6 ft, which actually comes out to 1/33. something, but 1/32 is the nearest standard draughtsman's scale. Quite why model tanks came to settle on 1/35 is much less understandable: presumably for a similar reason that ship models became 1/700. Both are very awkward scales if you are working in conventional units, either Imperial of Metric. Once it became the norm to use calculators rather than scale rules, then obviously any scale would do. Going back, between 1/72 and 1/48 there was 1/64, which ties in, I believe, to US model railway S gauge.
  14. I believe that "early" photos of camouflaged US aircraft (1941/42 even 1943) show a dark grey, not so far indeed from RAF Dark Sea Grey, where later photos (1944/45) do show a much lighter colour. I'm aware that USAF Neutral Gray was supposed to continue as the correct colour until the eventual replacement by natural metal, but I don't believe that this is what is consistently shown.
  15. We have treat this before, but not from this misunderstanding. Besides, I was already writing this when you posted, so I carried on.
  16. US engines did not have forward collector rings, only Bristol engines, where it formed part of the cowling in order to improve cooling and reduce drag. It formed an equivalent to the US NACA cowling seen on the types you mention. Qualification: some of the smaller, older, US engines did have forward collector rings as seen on the Boeing/Stearman Kaydet, but these were smaller in diameter and did not form part of the cowling design: such aircraft usually (though not always) lacked cowlings. I don't think that all Bristol engines had anything before the collector ring, I think this a later innovation. The collector ring and this forward piece were often painted white on Coastal Command patrol aircraft to improve the camouflage, and painted black on night bombers to reduce the glow from a hot exhaust.
  17. Bloody Shambles, Vol.1 p255. 9/1/42 Bingham-Wallis took off in W8146/D with Pinckney acting as basic ground control. No contacts were made. A few days later Pinckney and Bargh were sent to Moulmein to attempt en-route interceptions, but the raids ceased. Nothing more on night fighters that I can see in Vol.1, but there is a photo of W8245/D, presumably a replacement after the loss of W8146..
  18. The Anson had its own share of tweaking between the Mk.1 and the XXs, Not much left of the original structure by the end. I was tempted (well, slightly) to get one of these, but was put off by some comments on its quality. I wish you well. But to the Manchester line you can add the Shackleton and Argosy.
  19. I gather that the Italeri rear fuselage is the same for both variants and (possibly) wrong for both. The side gun positions were introduced on the production line: I presume that's true for the rear gunner but don't know. The Schiffer book on the B-25 will presumably say. There were a range of temporary rear gun positions on B-25s, usually with the rear transparency removed and the gunner lying prone. The RAF only operated the B-25 in Europe - discounting a handful of ex-Dutch early aircraft that provided the backbone of early PR operations in India. If they were RAF examples then they weren't going to the Far East. An OCU would, by definition, be training crews on the type they were going to fly in combat.
  20. The F Mk.IX had the hole for a fuel cooler in the port wing. Because of the lack of a gun camera, this was added later to the starboard wing - I think this is a slight bulge. For the LF Mk.IX and subsequent the fuel cooler was not necessary. I don't remember reading what happened to the gun camera. (Time to dig out the AE article. I've not seen the same discussion for the F. Mk.VIII. This, I suspect, will depend upon whether the engine cooling system change came in on the Merlin 63 or 66. Similarly the Mk.VII - except no Merlin 66 option.
  21. I presume this is the small Mk.IX intake not the earlier one, too late to check on my Mk.VIII tooling, if it is there. You don't mention the fuel cooler intake, easy to add, but otherwise it does sound good.
  22. I don't think that any model provides it, unless it is in Eduard's early Mk.IX kit. I don't know of any model of any true F.Mk.IX.
  23. Indeed: it is longer and wider than the initial (temperate) intake for the Mk.IX, which in turn was larger than the intake on the Mk.V.
  24. I suggest that you either obtain the articles yourself, as they include much more than I can quote, or await the republication of them in a Guideline book to be published (I gather) later this year, or certainly in the not-too-distant future.
  • Create New...