andyf117

Can't help with the equivalent paint, but that colour is actually BS381C 537 Signal Red, not 538 Post Office/Cherry Red... ....and though the "main body structure" is often stated as being overall BS381C 637 Medium Sea Grey, in actual fact the underside was BS381C 626 Camouflage Grey, as correctly depicted by Airfix in their painting and decal application guides (1/72 kit version shown):

I was going to suggest similar, but using this method - I wrote this article nearly 30 years ago, and still cast parts the same way to this day:

You previously mentioned the front one's already fitted - with or without the blades attached?

The simple answer is that markings sizes and styles were stipulated in official Air Ministry documents and diagrams, and some commands adhered to the policies specified for their aircraft more rigidly than others. In the case of Coastal Command, when it came to squadron codes and individual aircraft letters, it was initially 'one size fits all' - 48" high characters with 6" stroke widths, regardless of whether applied to a twin-engined patrol aircraft or long-range fighter, or a twin or four-engined flying boat.

The "older" Revell Chinooks were re-issues of the Matchbox kit - the MH-47E was a re-box of the Italeri plastic, which is what the Airfix kits were also...

Direct uploads here...

All is still not yet completely lost - I've experienced similar with protective sheets, but after careful peeling and gentle cleaning have successfully salvaged and used some. It is possible to remove residue that's become attached to the design using a damp (not wet) cotton bud...

You could scale this side-on image of a sister aircraft to measure the markings for comparison with the kit sheet - but they do go over windows: This shot's one of the other decal sheet options: As is this one: (Images removed as since reposted direct, below)

Airfix decal sheets often stand the test of time quite well - and that one doesn't appear 'toasted' to my eye... ....an advantage of it having two markings options is that you can try using a couple of the decals from the scheme you're not going to finish the model in... ....or even just the 'nameplate' - which also always had carrier film, for use on the stands that used to be provided...

Currently, one account has filled 13 pages and counting in 'Test Post' - at least these Korean 'attacks' have been confined to that sub-forum... ....I did volunteer to assist as a mod during a similar run of spamming some time ago, but seems no-one has to authority to issue such powers... ....has anyone tried contacting Steve via the 'other' site? Might have more luck attracting his attention there, as that's where money's generated...

That would be about right for what I saw when I popped in earlier - 35 pages worth in the 'Test Post' section, seemingly from just three or four accounts... .... DLTBGYD

And the Koeans are back, in the 'Test Post' sub-forum, at least - active as I'm typing this (09.00 GMT)...

Your efforts are much appreciated, gents, as always... ....Korean, eh? Makes a change from Bloody Vikings...

Two photos here of 42-100646 at a later date, before being sold for civilian use: https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/aircraft/42-100646 - a shame that the accompanying details about its previous unit assignment are incorrect!

Yes, note the 'adapter' between pylon and rail - they've carried them for a number of years; this one dates from 2015:

Roger Freeman's book 'The Ninth Air Force in Colour' has just one photo of 439th TCG aircraft - it's poor quality, but does confirm light grey codes and yellow serial. Available to view here: https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/media/media-395789jpg Photos showing other 91st TCS aircraft in Kenn Rust's '9th Air Force in World War II' and John Hamlin's 'Support and Strike', along with those below from Young's 439th TCG history "Into the Valley" all indicate that the L4 forward fuselage code was the 'standard' 48" size ('standard' as in specified, though variations were common)

Worth bearing in mind if offering models for display somewhere such as the suggested locations - or others, like a library or local museum - is that there are basically two avenues to go down: One is to outright donate them, in which case you have no control over their eventual fate, as and when the location decides it no longer wants or is unable to keep the display. The alternative is to loan, in which case you retain ownership, so when they are no longer wanted or able to be kept, you would (or at least should) be asked to take them away. Either way, I can say that in

I think I may have figured it out - until now, whenever I viewed a thread where@JakubJakepilot had posted, the link in his signature to his 'Desert Storm' site would trigger a 'Malware blocked' pop-up warning at top right, recreated here in a Google search: That's no longer happening, and it looks like I'm getting the one above instead, before I even reach the site - though no idea why it's saying 'Insecure login', rather than 'Malware blocked'...

For the last couple of days I've been getting this from my Firefox extension each time I visit the site - anyone else?

Exactly what I've done in the past, and have recently been doing again - and yes, it can make the hobby virtually self-funding! I had hundreds - and likely still have - stored in boxes, which I'm gradually whittling down, as I'm never, ever, going to complete the restorations and projects that I had planned for the vast majority them... ....intact, reasonably well-built ones I sell individually, or in small themed lots, whilst those in less good condition either go into "Builder's Bundles" or "Spares or Repairs" batches - everything gets listed 'priced to sell'; sometimes it's

Pretty much, yes - same applies to the USAF E-3 AWACS, which still retain high-visibility schemes with full-colour markings, as does the EC/RC-135 fleet... ....generally 'stand-off' assets which won't (hopefully) be operating in hostile airspace, and/or are used in roles where camouflage isn't a requirement. Similar principle applied to the RAF Nimrods and Victor tankers that were finished in Hemp, which had nothing to do with their airborne roles - that was mainly for concealment against concrete aprons when parked.

Though FS34079 is generally regarded as a good equivalent/close match for BS381C 241, as for which one of those two samples matches it better - given that they purport to be the same colour - is hard to tell here, but what I'd suggest is to directly compare them to printed versions of your photos if you can, and decide from there, as on-screen images are invariably much brighter and lighter... ....meanwhile, a couple of gratuitous shots of the aircraft in your photos - ZJ118/B, No.1419 (Tactical Support) Flight/No.28 Squadron:

It's not an uncommon misconception regarding the Merlin, and isn't helped when a well-known current aftermarket decal manufacturer quotes different colours by name only for the main airframe and the rotor blades - 'Olive Drab' and 'Dark Green' respectively - whilst a previous one had stated on one of their sheets that the main overall colour was BS381C 285 NATO Green with BS381C 241 Dark Green blades... ....at least they got that bit right, as the blades - both main and tail - were (and still are) 241 Dark Green. ....meanwhile, my sweeping statement that "only" RN Wessex and S

Maybe if you had asked if anyone here had any experience of dealing with "Mr Owner", then people like Niels and myself could have let you know about his circumstances, and you might have exercised a little patience - instead, you launched straight into a tirade, and have subsequently made sarcastic remarks in response to other people's explanations and reactions... ....a classic example of how not to win friends and influence people.

Actually, that's incorrect. RAF Chinooks, Pumas, and Merlins were finished in BS381C 241 Dark Green - which was, as you say, applied over Black on the two former, and Zinc Chromate Yellow on the latter. Only the RN 'Junglie' Wessex and Sea King were finished in BS381C 298 Olive Drab.