Graham Boak

The only photo I've seen didn't show the aerial fit, but was a view of a formation at some distance. I was surprised that they were turreted, thinking that there'd be more space within a target tug. A quick Google "515 sq Defiant" brings it up. http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/14078/boulton-paul-defiant

The aircraft is basically clean and fresh, but there's a fair bit of exhaust staining from lean running suggesting new aircraft at the end of a long ferry flight, or series of flights. The RAF fin flashes have been painted out carefully using paints chosen to restore the original camouflage rather than, as more normally seen, just a patch of (say) Olive Drab to cover the original markings in a casual way. This suggests that we are seeing something official not a casual hand-over of a used hack, which is backed by the lack of any RAF service history and the presence of two such aircraft (at least). The use of the old HF radio aerial suggests use away from the main areas of operation - although that may have been true of SEAC in general when this aircraft arrived. The 40mm guns don't seem to have been fitted. A quick look at close serials shows several other aircraft with no known RAF use, but sadly gaps are a feature of the records rather than a useful guide (other than eliminating the majority), and none of them are Mk.IID. I did wonder about plans to operate Hurricanes in the close support role in China, as the US had no airborne anti-tank weapon in the theatre, but think that even if aborted this would not have gone unnoticed in the histories. There is mention of a plan to operate an RAF squadron in China, but in that case why change the markings? However the hand-over of a couple of Hurricanes for use as fast despatch aircraft could go unnoticed, though the need doesn't seem vital and you'd have expected them to turn up in other photos by US Veterans. A bit more background: HWxxx serial Hurricanes were arriving in the first half of 1943. 20 Sq began converting to the Mk.IId in May 1943, with the first operation in December. So we can expect a date for the photo around early summer? The aircraft would not have been carrying the gunpods on ferry flights anyway, but the underwing ferry tanks in their place. Not visible here.

The problem is partly that the grain size of the paint doesn't scale, so a model with a matt finish will look more matt than the original. Generally speaking the RAF (and other nations) paints were smooth anyway, so a satin finish would be more appropriate. At least for one newly painted. If you are doing a weathered one then matt is more appropriate, even if strictly too grainy in appearance. Beware however of judging from restored aircraft. They are often given a gloss finish because this is more durable than a matt one.

if you look at the almost head-on view, you can see that there is a "step out" at the deck level on both sides, which then tapers down to meet the lower hull just below the level of the anchors. Ahead of this the bow is clearly narrower. On the starboard side the railings can be seen to be inboard of this, and although the railings are lacking on the port side the chamfer from deck level to this feature is clear. It looks for all the world like an additional armour plate, except for the way it tapers in towards the hull lines.

Perhaps gingerbob (or someone else) can make it clear, but wasn't the early cannon fit different from the production B wing? Perhaps this is why a choice is provided?

Could this be used to cut out aircraft serials from decal sheets? I'm thinking here of 1/72, between the wars underwing serials, or the fighter squadron markings across the top of the wing. Less flexible than a decent printer, admittedly, but with non-fading paints rather than inks.

HW805 Mk.IId Far East Struck off charge 12.1.44. That's all that Air Britain has. Not one of the US-operated ones in the Med, however. There is a story of one RAF fighter that landed in China after bad weather during an operation over Burma. I don't recall whether it was a Hurricane or Spitfire, but probably not a Mk.IId? Presumably it is somewhere in Shores or Franks works.

I can see one feature in the photo, although I wouldn't have called it a knuckle in the same sense as that on the Town class cruisers (except Birmingham). I don't know what to call it, but over the distance described there has been an increase in the flare up to the deck, resulting in a tapered step to the hull side visible forward of the anchor. And presumably another aft? The length appears to be a slightly darker grey, presumably shadow? This flare is then chamfered where it reaches the deck, rather than the deck widening. I don't know whether this is on the other ships of the class or not, but I don't recall seeing anything like it before.

I suggest either RA Burts British Battleships 1919-1945, or Normal Friedman's The British Battleship 1906-1946. I don't have either, but both are highly detailed works from highly recommended authors.

Post #6. If Humbrol 245 = RLM 74 than it shouldn't have a greenish tint anyway.

The Bu No is given with the photo, 72933. Judging from the contrast with the Insignia, the aircraft isn't in Sea Blue Gloss. Beyond that is probably guesswork, but the drone Hellcats were painted Red, and that would appear much the same in b&w photos. I'm tempted to say red with an orange vertical tail, but I'm far from sure where that came from and may just be imagination. Squadron Signal did a series of books on USN colours schemes, so there may be something on trials aircraft in the appropriate one of those.

That's what washing-up bowls were invented for, they just had to find something else to do with them until the modellers caught up.

An interesting set of colour schemes - wot no Transport Command? TG503 is a particularly interesting choice, being delivered to the A&AEE then going back to the manufacturers for a sales tour, to Australia and New Zealand. It seems to have been silver overall with a (blue?) fuselage lightning flash. In 1951 it went to the Radar Research Establishment for trials of the H2S Mk.9 in the ventral radome until replaced by WD482. It then went to the Bomber Command Bombing School for assessment as a Lincoln replacement, as a result of which it was approved as the prototype T Mk.5. Air Britain has it with the BCBS before conversion to a T Mk.5: The T Mk.5 entered service in 1960 which is before the use of Light Aircraft Grey, with the aircraft in overall silver, initially with yellow trainer bands, then are seen with the strip dayglow. Was there also an intermediate silver with orange dayglow - presumably. They ended their days with a white top over LAG. The transports went to white tops over silver, but did the BCBS go to LAG overall with dayglow before adding the white tops? I don't know. Either way: if TG503 is with BCBS and red trim, then it should be in silver, surely? If that's a later date with dayglow, it's as a T Mk.5. Lots of colour opportunities just with the one aircraft.

If you can create a diffused line that is 1/72 (or 1/48) of an inch wide, then yes. It's my opinion that many of the models on display have overdone the effect. Perhaps I've just missed the best.

AZ has re-released some of the earlier Sword kits under their own label, but not this example. The two organisations are separate, but there does seem to be a friendly relationship. However, shouldn't two examples of Spitfire instrument panels show a remarkable resemblance anyway?

There are two very clear serials in this strip of pictures: BR226 and BP973. Both are Calendar aircraft. Examples of these photos have been used elsewhere to illustrate Calendar. Which source are you using for serials/delivery links? I made a long and fairly painful attempt to sort the 1942 carrier deliveries over ten years back, and the result was published in Brian Cauchi's book. If you look in "Spitfire The History", you can trace the history of each aircraft from build through MUs to eventual listing as present on Malta. The examples that were delivered by the USS Wasp (and later by HMS Furious) lack the shipping information presented for the others that went to Malta via Gibraltar, so can be fairly readily extracted. The dates at which each aircraft goes through the MUs align with the two specific operations (and later the one with Furious). Supporting information for some is given by the loss dates, and from combat accounts in Shores' "Malta 1942: The Spitfire Year". Photos of Bowery are much rarer, one of the hangar deck full of Spitfires, a pre-launch view of the deck, and a take-off (with Spitfires coded 3 and 4 - codes 1 and 2 were used on Calendar).

I suspect the answer is neither, but possibly the Bedford without the overhead rack which is postwar. The AEC was mainly used on the heavy bomber sites, so I'm not sure that the Baltimores would qualify. Matador do a conversion to early QL variant, although at least one has been done on this site by scratch-building the differences (which are small). If you don't get a good answer here try http://www.airfieldresearchgroup.org.uk/forum/airfield-vehicles.

There weren't a lot of paints available. I'd go with Roundel Red unless there is photographic evidence otherwise. Colour photos of other DAF aircraft show a glossy red.

Merrick has done more than one book on the Halifax. I was referring to the latest one referenced above, where P94 has two photos of a crashed Coastal Halifax... In the first edition (Ian Allan) of his earlier work (simply called "The Handley Page Halifax" there is nothing relevant on these ages, in the second edition (Aston) there is the tail of the crashed LL141 bomber. I'd say that the other exhausts in the kit are not right for the aircraft in the photo, although the saxophone ones were used on many Coastal Halis so might even be right for that one, earlier. The 4-blade props are a bit of a hint that it is a later aircraft. I'm not familiar with the photo of N: which aircraft is it? I guess it is 58 Sq, as the Met units operated Mk.Vs, from where most of the white scheme photos come. Looking at some of these, I'm not sure but that there isn't another form of exhaust on some of these Coastal Halis, one that I haven't seen mention of anywhere, but I think I'd need some clearer photos. It is a nice photo for showing how the bomb doors worked - the kit does not have the outer doors open. A bit of knife work allows you to crack these open, move the inner doors slightly further out, and make way for the proper triple-across bomb carriage. Finding the correct stores for a Coastal Hali is another matter.

Not Bowery but the earlier Calendar.

Very nice: but worth noting that these are the smaller Sparrow I not the large missile we are used to. I remember the Frog/Comet F3D Skynight with two of these on each wing.

There was considerable effort put into getting a fully satisfactory shroud for the exhausts on the Merlin Halifax. The standardised type of exhaust, usually termed saxophone, seen on early Coastal aircraft, was eventually replaced by Mod 487, a four-way ejector shroud. The same style of exhaust can be seen postwar on Lincolns: it has a smooth beginning followed by the actual openings as rearward-facing louvres, in more conventional style. These are represented by part 177, which I agree is not a brilliant representation. I do have a set of the later style, the last type seen on Merlin Halifaxes, which I think came from Freightdog. They can be seen in Merrick on p96, and on the SD aircraft profile on p84, but the best view is probably the photo on p75. (The term "rams horn" is usually used to describe the forward-facing ones on Hawker Hinds, and a few other late-30s Kestrel-engine aircraft.)

Thanks John: those Spitfire wings do look terrible, far worse than the Tamiya ones. I can see a couple of problems with the P-51 - the fat dorsal strake, the way the canopy sits too wide for the fuselage. I don't think that I'll bother.

You say it has some shape issues (which are?) and some interesting parts. Looking at the rather amateur video, it looked like a very ordinary kit with nothing particular to note, apart from the very large attachment places, which I suspect is not what you meant. By itself, that's no reason not to play with it, of course.

Nah, get it right. The Lavochkin however had a monococque wooden fuselage, rather than a metal frame, so perhaps it didn't owe that much. Presumably they are referring to the method of using resin-impregnated birch (schpon, in the Russian) in layers, but it seems that VL lacked the knowledge (or confidence) to go the whole way. Or perhaps a reliable supply of the resin-impregnated wood? I do agree about the British, and particularly the Geordie, problem with dipthongs. Especially oa.