Jump to content

Graham Boak

Gold Member
  • Posts

    12,353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Graham Boak

  1. The new Osprey shows this with blue codes, whereas these are red on other representations I've seen. Is this just a complete aberration (like the Danish Condor in blue trim rather than red in the Warpaint) or a result of more up-to-date information?
  2. Seems logical enough, and strangely I haven't looked at what I have on the Veltro (not the Walk Around). To be completely honest, I haven't looked at what I've got on the Folgore either, on the principle that the idea was new to me so there'd be nothing there. Perhaps an unsafe assumption. Initially I couldn't see your image, but it has popped up now. It does match the description given for the Veltro in the Osprey, but doesn't show access hatches. The text does call for the camera to have two belly doors operated by the pilot, rather than the protrudance with lip This might be convenient, for I do have two Veltros and was wondering what t do with the other. The same problem about markings does arise, although as all twelve went to the same unit then it would be a pretty same assumption to pick a number between 1 and 12. Assuming I have suitable transfers for the 310th... For the Folgore, the camera was different and no underwing tanks, so I wonder if the drawing was originally for a Folgore and the Veltro received a slightly different camera fitting?
  3. The recent Osprey on the Folgore mentions recce versions with a vertical camera behind the cockpit, but shows no examples. Can anyone add information as to just what would be visible (and where) on the airframe, camouflage and markings for any of these aircraft, and availability of any transfer sheets that can be used or adopted? I see that Kora offer a sheet for the Saetta in this role, with presumably much the same modification but remaining unknown to me. I presume that these were used prior to the introduction of the Folgore.
  4. Interesting to note that at although 607's first score of Hurricanes (by serial - possibly not by delivery date?) had TR9D and the DH prop, quite a lot more had TR1133 and Rotols. I doubt that two different standards of radio were used on the same unit at the same time in a combat area, which suggests that the TR9D would have been refitted before sending to France, in line with the vast majority of aircraft already present. Whether transmitter stations capable of using the VHF. wavebands were ever sent to France is beyond my knowledge, but it seems unlikely. Fighter Command would have had priority.
  5. Graham Boak

    The Weather,

    However, anyone with his eyes open will see people drinking alcohol in hot weather and leaving pets - perhaps less commonly children - in cars with closed windows. So no to accusations of "nanny state" but just repetition of good advice that is widely not followed. Whether it will be any more followed now is another matter, as I suspect that government websites largely go unread by those who might benefit most from their advice. but to claim that people don't need to be told these things is simply unreal.
  6. It's only my assumption in the end, not having seen it discussed. There may be some more specific peculiarity of the Dove, but the most obvious reason is usually the right one.
  7. The rotation of the prop(s) meant that air was deflected upwards on one side of the fuselage and downwards on the other, so the shape of the aircraft had to be modified in some way to prevent the aircraft rolling. Other answers were to mount the fin at an angle (Swordfish, Hart family, Hurricane), give the vertical tail an aerofoil section, or even make the wing longer on one side (Macchi fighters). The most obvious one of these is probably the large twist in the tail of the Skyraider. I do recall one modeller complaining about the amount of work required to correct this appalling error on Airfix's part - after all the Monogram Skyraider had nothing like it! You will find other terms mentioned such as the gyroscopic effect of the propeller or engine/propeller torque.
  8. It's a lovely book and highly recommended, but won't provide what he wants. If such exists at all.
  9. The Otaki kit always looked nice, if you couldn't see the flat bottom, but the only time I ever saw the other one was probably the Monogram kit made up, it looked very chunk and blocky - flattish fuselage? Unless you can think of another 1/48 Spitfire Mk.IX of about the same vintage?
  10. There is a reference in Dixon's Blackadder biography to him having a replacement Hurricane with a Rotol prop, suggesting that these were rare in the squadron in France. Memory suggests that he was flying B at the time. 607 had four or five L serials, but only in later 1940 when the unit was rested. The only N serial I have was N2568 which they "collected" from 501 Sq coded SD.B during the withdrawal in France. I don't have any of 607'c codes for these. I don't have a serial for U.
  11. Nothing beyond even basic modelling skills. Just what's so fearsome about a knife, a file and some filler?
  12. I've not had any problems brushing enamel paints onto Dissolved Putty or Surfacer. Mine are getting too thick too, so I might try Cellulose Thinner. I get mine from the local hardware store, but only small tins.
  13. I think an Empire would have had trouble getting off the ground with a fully loaded Mercury on top. A bigger wing and more powerful(?) engines would make a lot of difference. Oops. Water, of course. Change to "getting into the air",
  14. Given that they appear to be close to Eduard at the moment, doing a Mk.IX would seem unlikely. A Mk.V is a possibility, but the world is not without decent Spitfire Mk.Vs. Not that this sems to bother Aram Hobby, For a desired (I presume) Polish connection there are French fighters that lack recent kits.
  15. Just one more word: perhaps the Renwal kits you saw were crude, but they were also the original producer of the "Frog De-Luxe" series of 1/600 scale US warships and larger-scale military vehicles - I had the Nike-Ajax and the Skyweeper but a friend had the magnificent Atomic Cannon. These were certainly not crude.
  16. I found the Optivisor uncomfortable to wear and a few pairs of cheap spectacles from Boots a better bet. Obviously not so if you wear glasses already. That plus stronger lighting for the workbench. I have since found a cheap spectacle frame with clip-on lenses that is better still and will fit over any spectacles already being worn. Probably on Amazon but since the latest model room reorganisation I've been unable to find them to confirm details. PS I used to have a magnifying lamp - still do but it has been retired from use as it is heavy, clumsy, and gets in the way. Plus, at the moment, the base is acting as a counterbalance to a shelf that is otherwise too long to fit above the modelling table.
  17. Yhey were also on early Mk.VIIIs. I believe they were mainly seen on the F. Mk.IXs, which have other differences from the more common LFs, notably the oil cooler in the wing root and no gun camera. There are a number of published photos from the first press visit to a MK.IX unit FY code as I recall, and wet aircraft looking very glossy). The wide fairing should be visible. How square it is at the from depends very much on the angle at which the photo is taken, but it should be snubby at the front rather than a nice ellipse. On the same theme, photos of Mk.Vc with the slim fairing appear to be fairly rare.. Ditto horn balance elevators.
  18. I saw this on Renwall kits when in Bristol 1965-68. They were mainly, in my memory, WW1 subjects, and received rather half-hearted comments in model magazines.
  19. Given that Cookenbacker above has shown it to be short in the rear fuselage, possibly not. I wouldn't turn it down for being a resin kit. A good resin kit is not appreciably more difficult to make than an injected polystyrene one. You do have to be a little more careful cutting/scraping it to avoid bending it as the resin has next-to-no give and may snap. Some of the older resin kits had a poor reputation for that. I've not done a CMR one but they do have a good reputation, so this could be a good one to try. The price is another matter - you could almost certainly get a Ventura Seafire for less. Probably cheaper still to try x-kitting at a lower price. (One suggestion if you go that route: pick as a donor kit one that you know is faulty other than the bit you want: say the engine from the Airfix PR Mk.XIX?)
  20. The wing gets thinner (reduces in depth) as you move outboard. It also thins as you move aft from the main spar. Is this what you mean by "slanted"? However the Spitfire wing is not deep enough to have any significant plate surface between the upper and lower wing surfaces. So no "wheel well" in the sense of an individual unit dropped into the wing structure. Just a hole in the lower surface with walls around it. Which would suggest that (allowing for the odd few thou of differing skin thicknesses) there'd be no significant difference between the Marks. But if any difference did occur then the redesign to the Universal wing is the one most likely to change things. However this change did not affect the external wing dimensions.. The undercarriage had to fit in the same limited space.
  21. The change in wheel position in the well changed with the introduction of the Universal (C) wing. On this wing the skew angle of the undercarriage was altered, moving the axle position forward when retracted. This allowed the wheel to lie flat in the well as opposed to needing a bulge in the upper wing surface.. This was linked to a stronger upper wing at the root, and it seems likely that it was these changes that produced the effect you see. However there were also previous mods aimed at strengthening the wing root which I know no details of, so these may also have had some effect. I'm afraid I don't understand quite what you are seeing, nor (if I read it right) how this could come about. There were no change to the wing's basic dimensions in this area. However the change to the Universal wing would seem to be the logical time for major alterations to this area.
  22. Colourcoats are entirely suitable for brushing without the assistance of compressed air.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...