James Venables

I don't normally enter into speculative discussion/debate on topics like this but since they have replaced their Mk.I/Mk.II with a new kit, they have replaced their Mk.IX with a new kit and have offered late marks as new kits, I wouldn't be surprised if they do a new Mk.V... perhaps even a series of them: Mk.Va, Mk.Vb, Mk.Vb trop, Mk.Vc, etc. Or they may scale down their Mk.XII now that it has been well received and a good seller. My 2 bob's worth...

No doubt it would, as it is for the same aircraft. It may not necessarily be a drop-in fit though - you may have to grind/file/sand away a little more (or a little less) of the cockpit walls to make it fit... but that's all part of the enjoyment of the hobby, isn't it? I found that the interior can be tidied up quite nicely with just a little basic scratchbuilding and some judicious painting/highlighting. Don't be scared to try it - a home made cockpit will cost you next to nothing and be just as satisfying once done. If you are planning to keep the canopy closed, then just a representation will be more than enough at this scale.

Not a fighter, but Grumman also did the Agcat.

Really nice, clean, sharp work. I have a set of the ICM figures in the stash that I have been keen to use. I have been contemplating a Spit dio for a while now, though I favour a late war period using a Spitfire Mk.XIV. May I offer a few words of constructive criticism? I always find a diorama most fascinating when it tells an interesting and logical story. While the craftsmanship of your dio is well done, the story is a little confusing... Firstly, the aircraft markings clearly place the diorama at RAF Hornchurch between February and September 1939, so the time and location of the diorama is set. RAF 74 Squadron received its first Spitfires in February 1939 and changed its squadron code letters to ZP at the outbreak of war, so the setting of the diorama is obviously within those 6-7 months. You are historically limited to a pretty narrow window of time by choosing those markings. In consideration of the above, the heavy gun muzzle smoke stains are therefore unlikely for the aircraft at that time, unless it has been doing some aerial gunnery practice, which is a possibility. Otherwise, the aircraft were generally kept meticulously clean; remember that the Spitfire was a brand new piece of military hardware at that time and the squadrons equipped with them were widely considered "elite". The pilot is in his cockpit with the canopy closed and his hands presumably on the controls, so we can assume he is about to start the engine. However, given that the muzzle stains suggest he may have just returned from gunnery practice, he may have just parked up, shut the engine down and is about to exit the aircraft. Either way, it is unusual to see the canopy closed at this stage of the starting (or shut down) procedure for an early Spit, so I suggest you open it. If the Spit is about to start, then it should have a trolley accumulator attached and at least one ground crewman standing by to assit with the start up. If about to shut down, then there would probably be a crewman ready to help the pilot egress from the cockpit. That crewman would probably already be on the wing at this stage, helping open the cockpit door, etc. The group of bystanders would definitely not be that close, whether it was start up or shut down, especially the WAAF and dog. I'm sure 1939 era airfield safety procedures weren't as anal as those that we see these days, but I'm also pretty sure that bystanders, dogs, girlfriends, etc would not have been allowed anywhere near the machine during engine starts or parking up after return to base. The ground crewman carrying the jerrycan is thoroughly out of place. Firstly, the Brits were not using that style of jerrycan until much later in the war and secondly, I haven't ever seen a photo of a 1939 era Spitfire being refuelled by can. It may have happened but the RAF seem to have had their airfields (especially the front line airfields) fairly well equipped and well organised with fuel bowser trucks and trailers available for refuelling. In any case, the crewman would not be casually walking behind a just-landed or ready to start aircraft with a full, German style jerry can of fuel. Obviously, the other jerry can is also inappropriate. The two fellow pilots shooting the breeze about their latest aerial encounter is just plausible if they were undergoing an active training role, but they are definitely not discussing combat victories. 74 Squadron did not see combat until May 1940. Their presence walking by with flight gear adds to the suggestion that the flight of Spits (including your diorama subject) has just landed. Your chap obviously came in several minutes after his mates. Lastly, the ladder looks a little out of place to me. It kinda looks like the gardener forgot to move it after trimming the hedge. Despite all of the above, your diorama does epitomise the "calm before the storm" pre-war period, with the aircraft parked on a nicely manicured grass airfield. Excellent effort for a first-time diorama but I recommend just putting a little more historical consideration into your work to help the "story" come to life in a realistic way. Cheers.

Just followed an earlier link to "The Stirling Project" and noted a comment that the Stirling plans were destroyed. So what did Airfix use as a basis when designing the kit? Or were the plans only destroyed at a later date?

Where on earth did you get that notion? Desert environments are as unstable as the sea floor. Obviously, rocky environments will not change too much over time but sand dunes are constantly shifting, changing shape, depth, density, etc. I am a geologist with almost 30 years experience in the mineral and oil exploration industry around the world, so I do know something about geomorphology. Whilst I still remain a little sceptical about this story, it is very possible that a wreck may have been repeatedly covered and uncovered by shifting sand drifts over the years. Note that the wing and fuselage surfaces are quite clean with only remnant paint in some areas, suggesting that the sand has been regularly shifting and abrading the paint away. If it is CG, then it has extremely good attention to detail. Also, the abrasion of the canopy and windscreen perspex and diffusion of the cockpit photo due to dust in the instruments and around the bracing, etc lends some credibility to the pics and story.

One of the most famous instances was not just the technology being stolen but the whole box & dice when Israel stole the Mirage III plans and built their own. I suppose the Ruskies reverse engineering DC-3's and B-29's is a similar story...

Not necessarily. Google Earth is not in real time. If you bother to look at Google Earth in the north African area, you will see that much of the imagery, whilst in lovely, sharp resolution, is more than several years old. In extreme conditions, it could take as little as a few days for a sand dune to shift enough to expose an area of rocky terrain (and anything else) previously hidden beneath. Similarly, if real, the aircraft could be buried again just as quickly. The guy who supposedly took the photos was said to be working for an oil company. If true, then someone undoubtedly has a GPS coordinate of the site. Oil companies don't just go meandering all over the desert; their surveys are based on predetermined grid traverses, which would naturally be navigated by GPS. Even if the actual site was not "pinged" with a waypoint, then retracing the traverse would locate the site fairly easily. There are numerous reasons why the GPS coordinate would not have been made public. Again, assuming it is real, then firstly, the holder of the photos and GPS coordinate has company protocols to follow, then there are regional politics to consider, the threat of the site being disturbed (there could be human remains nearby), the threat of unprofessional recovery attempts, etc, etc. If it were me, I would be keeping it very close to my chest until the proper authorities had been contacted via the proper channels and the site inspected by professional investigators.

I have only seen one photo of the interior of the Southern Cross, apparently taken shortly after the Pacific crossing. It was very bare indeed. I assume there would have been extra fuel tanks installed but I have not seen a pic or diagram of this. I cannot post photos from my current location (due to internet restrictions to photo sharing sites) but send me a PM and I'll e-mail you a pic or two that might help. James.

I had never heard of Topgun until a few weeks ago when I bought a Topgun Waco UIC-4 kit from an online deceased eastate sale. I have not yet seen the kit because I am working away from home for several months but the vendor assured me that the quality is very high and almost as good as current CMR kits. I bought the Vami DH-104 from Aviation Megastore a few years ago, which is a high quality casting. Although I paid around EUR27.00 for it at the time, I see it is now listed by AM at the same price as the Topgun kit. Makes me wonder if they are the same kit.

... or just buy the Airfix Mk.XII kit if you are in 1/48 scale; the Xtrakit or CMR Spit XII kit if you are in 1/72 scale...

"It is an aeroplane or an aircraft; never call it a plane!" - Douglas Bader

I only hope that if it is a genuine wreck, then it is recovered by a professional team who take the time to do the job properly. It would be a crying shame to see the aircraft recovered by dodgy operators who just hack off the wings and rip off the engine for expediency, and then transport and handle the parts without due care or regard to its historical value.

Paint them any colour you like from brown to khaki to pale green to dark green. Canvas has always been produced in a variety of shades, usually claiming to be "khaki". Defy anyone to prove you wrong for your particular aircraft. Personally, I'd go for a dark, dirty, dusty, oil-stained, brownish khaki colour. There's no way those boots would have stayed clean & pristine in there!

Too true. The Matchbox pilot figure was always very cleanly moulded but a tad small, too rigid and weirdly dressed - did anyone ever figure out what the heck is that thing around his neck?

I'll follow this build with interest. I have always thought the Gauntlet is a graceful looking interwar biplane and wanted at least one in my collection for many years. Back in the late 1980’s I purchased a few Matchbox Gladiators with the intention of trying to convert (revert?) one into a Gauntlet but that idea never came to fruition because I could not find a set of plans or enough other references to use as a guide. Several years ago I ventured into the world of Ebay and one of my first purchases was the Pegasus Gauntlet kit. I battled with this one intermittently for more than a year before I gave up. I'll get back to it one day as I'm always determined that no kit is going to beat me! The overall shape of the Pegasus Gauntlet is quite good, though it is a little too "fat" in the rear fuselage. The biggest problems with the kit result from the crude moulding (typical of limited run, low pressure injection kits), with rudimentary level of detail, and the necessity to scratchbuild everything beyond the basic shell of the aircraft. None of this is impossible; most is just tedious and frustrating. One of the biggest issues I had was trying to find a replacement engine and cowl ring. I first bought the Engines & Things Bristol Mercury but was very disappointed with this. It was little more than a vaguely engine-shaped blob of resin. I then purchased the Aeroclub one, which is much better than both the kit item and the E&T example, but still a tad basic and has a prominent mould seam through the cylinder head "bumps" which is very difficult to clean up. As is usually the case (Murphy's Law of Modelling #1), I was just starting to feel like I had the Pegasus kit under control when AZ Models announced their forthcoming kit, so the part-built kit was packed up and put aside, almost with a sigh of relief. In the meantime, I also acquired an Aeroclub Gauntlet quite cheaply on Ebay, which is light years ahead of the Pegasus kit, but multi-media type with white metal struts and still with that problematic engine/cowl. Incidentally, the Aeroclub kit also contains 74 Squadron “Tiger Stripe” markings that appear to be spot-on. I have since added a few of AZ Models Gauntlets to the stash, so I'm set for now. I haven't yet built an AZ Models Gauntlet but my initial impressions of the kit that it is the best of the bunch. When I first bought one I compared it closely with the Aeroclub kit and although I don't remember any details from my comparison I do recall thinking that the styrene parts of the Aeroclub kit had slightly sharper detail in some areas, while the AZ Models kit seemed to offer a much easier build. The BIG plus of the AZ kit is the lovely resin engine and cowl ring. I should also mention and thoroughly recommend the Mushroom Models publication, “Bristol Bulldog & Gloster Gauntlet”, which is a fabulous reference for anyone building a Gauntlet (or Bulldog) and/or attracted to interwar biplanes. Looking forward to watching your progress.

It will be interesting to hear how they interpret the serial... "A 69..." Possibly some Freudian explanation...?

Interesting thread. Note that the MMS Commer Q2 is 1:76 scale but it is available in 1:72 scale from Wespe: http://www.tracks-n-troops.eu/shop/index.p...roducts_id=1687 I don't know of a Coles crane in 1:72 scale but Wespe also make a Leyland crane that may(?) be suitable if required. http://www.tracks-n-troops.eu/shop/index.p...roducts_id=7133 I have a few Wespe vehicle kits (none yet built) and they seem to be pretty good. Like many "cottage" resin kits, they'll need a bit of time & patience cleaning up the parts prior to building and a little extra detailing will be required (eg. glazing, levers, etc) but the end result should be pleasing.

Pavla make them in 1/72, so it's possible they may also do them in 1/48 (I don't model much in 1/48 scale so I'm not sure, sorry). Alternatively, try Rob Taurus... but again, I don't know if he does them in 1/48 scale. Simplest solution would be a search of Hannants, Squadron, Roll Models, Ebay, etc.

Interesting comments. I built the Italeri F-51D about 10 years ago and I don't recall it being a challenging build at all. That said, I could be forgetting something, as it was a while ago. The only issues I recall now were: 1. Badly matching front and rear spinner parts - I had to temporarily tack the spinner front and back parts together and sand while turning in in a Dremel to get rid of the seam, then adjust the openings for the prop blades. 2. Undercarriage detail was a tad basic and heavy, I thought. 3. Tailwheel had a tendency to sit off-centre once the fuselage halves were joined and took a lot of coaxing to sit correctly. 4. Wing panel lines needed filling. 5. I recall that I had to do something with the carburettor scoop opening but I don't remeber what. Otherwise, I thought it was a clean and enjoyable build. I am pleased to hear about the decals too, as I always wanted to another in the RNZAF kit markings and wondered how the decals would behave. Cheers.

If you are not in a hurry, wait and see if AZ Models releases the Mk.IIb. They seem to be on a mission to cover all Hurricane marques.

... and the Wespe Models 40mm Bofors in 1/72 scale: http://www.tracks-n-troops.eu/shop/index.p...roducts_id=6576

Thanks for that. I like it... I like it a lot. One thing though - I note from the wing lower surface that the fairings for the underwing radiators are bulged more on the inside (ie. toward the centreline) than the outer sides. Is this correct? Only a minor point, but one that I have never noticed on a Griffon Spit before.

Thanks for posting the sprue shots of the Frog/Novo Mustang - I have often wondered what it is like. Unfortunately, it looks like it suffers the same problem as most early marque 1/72 Mustang kits, which is the inclusion of P-51D style leading edge fillets. This is not an impossible problem to fix (I did it on my Italeri P-51A) but fiddly and should really be unnecessary if the kit manufacturers had done their homework.

This has been a most fascinating thread, as is the "sister thread" over on AMI. I’m certainly no expert but after looking at all the photos, reading the various comments and doing some of my own research, my take on A29-575 is as follows. There is a definite demarcation between upper and lower colours. This is patently obvious in another photo of A29-575 "Black Magic" (AWM ref. P02808.001). Unfortunately, this AWM photo is not dated but the fairly pristine condition of the airframe in this photo suggests it was early in its operational life. The film fly-by screen captures of -575 offered by Peter also show the upper/lower colour contrast fairly succinctly. These pics do however, suggest a slightly lighter shade to the port wing under surface colour but I am certain this is just a trick of the light/reflection as there is no reason for one wing to have a lighter under surface colour... unless an entire wing was replaced (more on this below). The suggestion of overall foliage green is not correct. Do we have a date on the film from which the screen captures were taken? The muzzles are heavily smoke stained, so it is obvious that the aircraft had seen some fairly intense combat action at the time of filming, unless it was touched up to look that way for a better publicity effect in the film. The ADF Serials website states that the aircraft was issued to 78 Sqn on 25 May 1944, but the data card for A29-575 states “Rec’d 78 Sq ex 11 RSU” on 7 June 1944. Note that some references report that the aircraft was named “Black Magic” around May 1944 by its usual pilot, F/L Denis Baker, but this is obviously incorrect, as it was not yet in the hands of 78 Squadron at this time. On 8 September 1944, the aircraft was received by 22 RSU (Repair & Salvage Unit). The data card states “...for repairs result blown blast tube while strafing” and shows that “...engine change and inspection...” were also requested. Another notation on the data card on the same date states “A/c damaged port mainplane when blast fuse blew on straffing Kamari strip area. Port mainplane 30% ( R ). Remainder a/c ( U )”. The aircraft was returned to 78 Sqn on 9 October 1944. Note one entry refers to “...blast tube...” whilst the next entry says “...blast fuse...” Obviously, one of these entries is an error, but it is immaterial to the discussion about colours. I have no idea what damage is inflicted on the wing with a blown blast tube (fuse?) but I assume the abbreviations regarding the repair on the data card refer to 30% of the port wing requiring repair ( R ) and the remainder of the aircraft undamaged ( U ). Now, this extent of damage may indeed have dictated a partial repaint, at least of some wing panels. But does the plot thicken here? Considering the amount of damage, is it possible that the entire port wing was replaced? If so, and if the replacement wing were foliage green/sky blue, then this could account for what appears to be a different (paler) port underside wing colour in the film screen captures. Alternatively, the AWM photo OG2765 shows a line-up of 78 Sqn P-40s taken on Noemfoor in June 1944. The second, fourth & fifth aircraft in the line clearly have very pale undersurfaces and the second aircraft in the line clearly shows an upper surface camouflage demarcation on the cowl (which raises the question: was there a few P-40Ns getting around with disruptive upper camouflage or are these actually P-40Ms?). Could a wing from a wrecked aircraft in this colour scheme have been used to replace the port wing of A29-575? Is a P-40M wing compatible with a P-40N? Having said that, my “gut feeling” is that my speculation of a wing replacement was improbable and that the apparent difference in colours is just the light, as I said earlier. I feel fairly sure that if an entire wing was replaced, it would have been reported on the data card. Leonard Waters joined 78 Sqn on 14 November 1944 and allocated A29-575. The aircraft still retained the “Black Magic” name after Leonard became its regular pilot, so if there was any repaint during the September – October 1944 repairs, it could not have covered the entire airframe... unless the “Black Magic” name was faithfully reproduced prior to its return to 78 Squadron. This is also highly unlikely. So at this stage, I’m confident that we have an aircraft OD/NG with bare aluminium canopy frames until at least mid December 1944. It may have had a few panels repainted in FG or SB at some time but this was either after the available reference photos were taken or they are just not visible in the pics. As for the lighter coloured ailerons? Well, I can only guess. I can find no direct reference or reason for this. It should be noted however, that the paler coloured ailerons appear to be present on the aircraft in the AWM photo P02808.001 (that I referred to at the start of this post) which possibly shows the aircraft early in its operational history. It is also interesting to note that while I was doing some research for this post, the more photos of RAAF P-40N’s that I looked at, the more frequently I saw pale undersides on ailerons! For example, some well known in-flight pics of Geoff Atherton’s 80 Squadron BU-B “Cleopatra III” (the same airframe that started this thread) are taken from angles that show enough of the under surface to confirm pale aileron undersides. So... what’s going on? I made a mention in a previous post about aileron balance. Someone subsequently mentioned that new replacement ailerons may have been left in silver dope for this reason. Whilst it is possible that the ailerons are indeed in silver dope, I don’t think they would have been left unpainted for balance reasons; as far as I know, aileron balancing needs to be done with the ailerons ON the aircraft... so if replacement ailerons were fitted, it would not have mattered whether they were painted or not. I feel that the pale colour we see is definitely not white. Even though the underwing roundels were probably a dirty & discoloured white, the ailerons are definitely a tad darker than the white in the roundels. They could be silver; they could be pale grey; or they could be RAAF sky blue. Who knows? The truth is, I doubt anyone knows, so you take your pick and you challenge anyone to prove you wrong! I favour the silver dope option, though this then raises the question of whether new replacement ailerons were delivered in silver dope or in camo colours? Perhaps they are not new ailerons at all, but simply reskinned on a regular basis due to tropical deterioration and the point came where it was considered a waste of time and effort applying anything more than a protective coat of silver dope. I don’t know... does anyone? As I said above, take your pick from whatever scheme grabs your attention. The only catch is getting the top surface of the aileron to be plausible. I feel that: • If the bottom is silver dope, then the top will be the same. • If the bottom is pale grey, then the top would be US green and/or brown camo (depending on the camouflage pattern boundaries, of course). • If the bottom is RAAF sky blue, then the top would be foliage green. Or... you could go with my wild speculation of a OD/NG scheme with a replacement port wing in US disruptive camouflage on top and pale grey under with either silver dope or FG/SB ailerons. I’m sorry that I can’t post the alternative pics that I have referred to here. I am at work on a mine site in Indonesia for a few weeks, so I only have access to the work internet and the IT nazi’s have negated access to Photobucket. A quick Google search should turn up those photos for anyone who is interested. I welcome further discussion on this subject.