Jump to content

LDSModeller

Members
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LDSModeller

  1. As I stated to Space Tiger Hobbs in my post above, the P 40's and Hudsons were brought and paid for by British money. The expectation was that US manufactured aircraft would have RAF type colours albeit US manufactured ones. This Colour spec chart from DuPont, if you look at "Cockpit Light Green 71=036", really looks quite similar to the Lockhheed colours I posted above (from memory, Lockheed used Fullers paints) Regards Alan
  2. I have AVG colour photos too and I can also see Duck Egg Blue. I would suggest having a read of the Posts in this link by a one Nick Millman, very well researched (he can be found on Britmodeller) and see what you think? http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/76155-american-volunteer-group-p-40-tomahawk-colours/page-2 Regards Alan
  3. The Undercart legs would be silver, remember these are British ordered and British paid for aircraft NOT Lend Lease, so RAF colours (US manufactured versions) would be painted on by Curtiss Aerial - have a look at these http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/P40%20%20plans%204.GIF In this diagram of the fin note the aerial attachment http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/Tail/Fin.gif Regards Alan
  4. If you are referring to the P 40B's supplied from RAF orders to the AVG, then the colours will be RAF TLS (Temperate Land Scheme)painted in Colours manufactured in the USA most probably DuPont For the outer camouflage it would be Dark Earth/Dark Green/Duck Egg Blue aka Sky Type S*. In December 1940 an AMO was issued by the British Air Ministry for the above colours* to be on British Produced Fighter aircraft and also " any American Aircraft" in British Air Forces service ( I can supply AMO number if you wish). seeing as the AVG aircraft were ordered by the British Ministry Aircraft Productio
  5. Early 2017 suits me for this group build, I have a number of types of aircraft I could enter with. Thanks/regards Alan
  6. Bear in mind that while Pearl Harbour was December 7, across the International Date Line, Japan attacked at the same time, the British and Commonwealth Forces in Malaya/Singapore (Dec 8 1941). If a Pacific GB, then the start date would actually be September 3 1939, when the Commonwealth forces in the Pacific Australia/New Zealand declared war, and started to fight against German forces deployed there. The war against Japan did not start till December 7/8 1941. Points to ponder Regards Alan
  7. This of any help? http://www.squadron.com/1-32-Squadron-Canopies-F4U-1A-D-Corsair-SQ9404-p/sq9404.htm Regards Alan
  8. [quote A Sunderland was in the water at the dock, with some POWs doing some minor maintenance. Dad was in charge, standing on the wing supervising the operation, when one of the men dropped something overboard. He gave a smilie face, and made motions as if he wanted to dive into the water to get it back. Dad was then faced with one of the easier decisions of his RAF service: explain a lost piece of kit, or a lost prisoner. A shake of his head and a wave of his hand ended the situation in his favour! Things may not have gone so swimmingly for the Japanese POW had he dived off the Sunderland
  9. The RNZAF began replacing the straight refuelling probe with the "Dog Leg" type around April 1973 and some if not all the fleet (A4K & TA4K) had them circa October 1973, when they were first used for Overseas flights. So that should date your photo some what to at least 1973. This link will help I think with markings etc. http://redkiwi.weebly.com/delivery-and-new-schemes.html Hope that helps? Regards Alan
  10. Cool choice, its my understanding, that only those A4K's used in the Aerobatic team had the slats locked for safety reasons, rest of the fleet had them per normal. Look forward to some photos of your build :) Regards Alan
  11. RNZAF A4K sounds awesome- I had thought about joining with a Kiwi Skyhawk, but just too much on the modelling plate right now :rolleyes:/> How "early" are you planing on building? Reason I ask is that for the first 7-8 months of their operational service with the RNZAF (May- Nov/Dec 1970), the "Kiwi" was not used in the roundel, the "Silver Fern" was. Looking forward to watching your build progress :D/> Regards Alan
  12. RNZAF NZ7003 was literally the 3rd production "H" Model aircraft off the production line. NZ7001 & NZ7002 preceeded it as 1st and 2nd production "H" Models off the production line. NZ7001 was a test aircraft for the "H" series, flown in 1964 All three being delivered to RNZAF early 1965. NZ7004 & NZ7005 being delivered May 1967 The aerials on use on NZ7003 today are in the same place as they were 50 years ago. information on current updates to aircraft can be found here (note its a PDF). RNZAF C 130H Regards Alan
  13. New Zealand was also there with troops and aircraft. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/vietnam-war Our brand new RNZAF C 130H's straight afer receipt in 1965, started flying into Vietnam in support of our troops, until when Saigon fell. Regards Alan
  14. I don't know that I would consider New Zealand a minor Air Force during WWII. We were and still are a small country but consider this. Europe, we had 485/486/487/488 Squadrons, also 75 Squadron, flying missions (488 squadron served firstly in the Pacific war in the defense of Malaya/Singapore, before reforming in Europe). 490 Squadron flew from West Africa (Catalina's/Sunderlands). In the Pacific the RNZAF was attached to the USN, fighting a long side, I don't know if one could consider fielding more than 400 F4U/FG-1 Corsairs minor, not to mention previous to that, close to 300 P 40's fly
  15. You forgot one all important part of that sentence. From the King James version of the Bible Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Each of us living today, has divine parentage, and unfortuantely people have forgotten that. Men/Women have God given agency to make whatever choices in their lives they wish for, to their betterment or their detriment. Unfortunately the reasoning of man does not always lead us down good paths. Dallon H Oaks, stated this earlier this year "Those who have used human reasoning t
  16. Hi All A couple of links I would like to share with you, two scientists who are LDS like me and their thoughts on God and Science. Click here This one, Please read this for what it is, a Scientist telling how he lives with God/Faith and Science. This is not a my religion is better type thing. Click here Going back to the original question is ET out there? From my first post, I certainly believe there are other planets with Humans (as we know the term) living there. That they are sufficiently advanced in Interstellar travel, I cannot say- very possible. Are they here to abduct us or
  17. Thank you for the link, I am quite happy to view such things, as it gives a different perspective and keeping an open mind is part of what being a true scientist is. Finally, whilst you make good points, there is one thing that you don't take into account. That is the actuality that people through out time have spoken to God face to face, you don't take into account that belief is one thing, actual knowledge is another. When people have that type of knowledge, then what other people try to prove/disprove won't matter one iota. Really what can top that? You commented on the fact that you don
  18. I have studied Earth Sciences (core being Geological Scineces) at High School and University and I am deeply religious and believe in the Creation and do not espouse in any way Evolution and yes I have studied Evolution at school. The Caveat to my beliefs in the Creation is that I do not espouse the common doctrine that God created the Universe and the Earth in 6 Lunar (or Sideral if you prefer)Days and out of nothing or anything similar. God does not organise or create something out of nothing. To me the Philosphies and doctrines of the Creation go more like this. 1) The Universe existed
  19. Hi Glenn, Read with interest your comments on the Sunderland armament in your build site. Not all Mk III Sunderlands carried the 4 bow mounted MG's, only those based in the British Isles carried those. Sunderlands basd in West Africa and and the Far East didn't carry them. From the middle of 1944 and into 1945 some Sunderlands (Mk III/V) didn't carry the upper turret (either removed or built without), eg those flying the Bay of Biscay etc, as it was not considered necessary, the Luftwaffe were not really much of a threat anymore. Sunderlands (Mk III's) from mid 1944 based in West Africa d
  20. Hi Glenn, I see you are using the Eduard exterior set? Please note it's totally in accurate for the portholes, fuel tank covers on the wings and all those little circular parts that they would have you add. The Sunderland when the bomb doors were closed, had thin metal strips that cover the bomb rack tracks, they are not open as shown by Italeri or the Eduard set. This photo gives you a view of what it should look like, though partly open because some work was being done. Note: the bomb bay doors could be opened manually and the tracks remained covered The Italeri model portholes are not
  21. Interesting that you should say that about Japans plans for Fiji & Samoa. In 1942 the RNZAF was attached to the USN for the duration of the Pacific war, it was about this time that both the USN & RNZAF decided to begin to beef up the installations in Fiji, primarily Lauthala Bay (Laucla Bay) because of the Japanese advances in the Pacific. Obviously after Coral Sea and Midway, things changed a bit and other plans for bases in Fiji were shelved. Lauthala Bay however remained in RNZAF hands with it being a flying boat base, and RNZAF PBY-5's flew regularly from there to cover "Dumbo Mi
  22. Quick question, are you meaning conquest of the Solomon Islands? Fiji Islands are another 1325 miles/2133 Kms SE of the Solomons. My Grandfather (not a Marine) fought against the Japanese in the Solomon Islands Thanks Alan
  23. Hi Patrick, Awesome that you are building an RNZAF Vildebeest These two links are for both a Vildebeest and Vincent (essentially same aircraft) The Vildebeest is from the RNZAF Museum. http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/2338 The Vincent is held by a private collector who is curently restoring the aircraft here in New Zealand. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/67934-vickers-vincent-walk-around-part-1/?hl=vildebeest Hope these help with the interior? Regards Alan
  24. Hi Aaron, Coming along nicely. The RAF/Commonwealth Aircrews though outnumbered managed to score against the Japanese, Geoff Fisken 5+ kills, Noel Sharp 3 Kills etc with the Buffalo. The larger model does have extra parts, but many I had to scratch build. The Boomerang looks good, my late father worked for CAC (Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation) who built the Boomerang, at Fishermans Bend in Melbourne. Some years ago at a family day function, I had the oppertunity to stand (on what remained) on the airfield where the Bomerangs took off from after they were ready for dispatch. Regar
  25. Looking very nice!!! Look foward to the finished item :woot.gif:/> Thanks for posting photos of your model Regards Alan
×
×
  • Create New...