More RAAF Kingfisher Questions

More RAAF Kingfisher Questions

Joined: April 20th, 2005, 3:54 am

August 4th, 2010, 10:04 pm #1

The build goes on and am stumped on a couple of issues.

With a bit of doubt over the colour of the squadron codes on the camouflaged scheme, I've gone for yet another aluminium finish. The Red Roo book says no upper wing roundels with a couple of photos showing this, the decal sheet says upper wing roundels?

The beaching gear seems to be a dark colour, maybe a dark grey? Wheel hibs in a shade of grey also?

A ring mounted machine gun is provided for the aft cockpit but I'm wondering if it would've been carried later in the war?

all suggestions welcome!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2010, 7:21 am

August 5th, 2010, 3:52 am #2

David,

1) Codes on camouflaged Kingfishers were Sky Blue as per orders. When they first went to 'silver' they remained Sky Blue for a short time but, were later changed to Black.

2) I agree with the no roundels on upper wing. They should have been there but the few photos showing the upper wing show no roundels.

3) Beaching gear appears to have been yellow early and black late.

4) Several shots of 'silver' aircraft show the mg stowed, (i.e. under the rear canopy). It can be clearly seen in the bottom shots on p.35 and p.38. I can email clearer prints if required. Be careful of some of the dates given in KITH.

Cheers,
Peter
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 20th, 2005, 3:54 am

August 5th, 2010, 5:01 am #3

No upper wing roundels, Black beaching gear and weaponry in the aft cockpit it is!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2007, 3:34 am

August 5th, 2010, 10:16 am #4

David,

1) Codes on camouflaged Kingfishers were Sky Blue as per orders. When they first went to 'silver' they remained Sky Blue for a short time but, were later changed to Black.

2) I agree with the no roundels on upper wing. They should have been there but the few photos showing the upper wing show no roundels.

3) Beaching gear appears to have been yellow early and black late.

4) Several shots of 'silver' aircraft show the mg stowed, (i.e. under the rear canopy). It can be clearly seen in the bottom shots on p.35 and p.38. I can email clearer prints if required. Be careful of some of the dates given in KITH.

Cheers,
Peter
I'd take an wild guess that the beaching gear would have been coated with grease, lanoline or some other oily anti-corrosion substance, which would probably give it a darker hue, regardless of colour.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2005, 9:03 am

August 7th, 2010, 12:01 pm #5

The build goes on and am stumped on a couple of issues.

With a bit of doubt over the colour of the squadron codes on the camouflaged scheme, I've gone for yet another aluminium finish. The Red Roo book says no upper wing roundels with a couple of photos showing this, the decal sheet says upper wing roundels?

The beaching gear seems to be a dark colour, maybe a dark grey? Wheel hibs in a shade of grey also?

A ring mounted machine gun is provided for the aft cockpit but I'm wondering if it would've been carried later in the war?

all suggestions welcome!
Hi David,
Not sure if you are aware, but the September 2002 edition of Scale Aircraft Modelling ran a comprhensive and lavishly-illustrated article on RAAF Kingfisher opeartions, 13-pages long, with lots of good photos, colour side-profiles etc.
If you would like a copy ,yell out, and I will get it to you snail mail next week.
TOR
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 3rd, 2008, 4:35 am

August 7th, 2010, 4:56 pm #6

I think I have a scanned copy of that article..n/m
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 3rd, 2008, 4:35 am

August 8th, 2010, 12:21 am #7

The build goes on and am stumped on a couple of issues.

With a bit of doubt over the colour of the squadron codes on the camouflaged scheme, I've gone for yet another aluminium finish. The Red Roo book says no upper wing roundels with a couple of photos showing this, the decal sheet says upper wing roundels?

The beaching gear seems to be a dark colour, maybe a dark grey? Wheel hibs in a shade of grey also?

A ring mounted machine gun is provided for the aft cockpit but I'm wondering if it would've been carried later in the war?

all suggestions welcome!
Emails inbound n/m
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 10:19 pm

August 11th, 2010, 8:06 am #8

Hi David,
Not sure if you are aware, but the September 2002 edition of Scale Aircraft Modelling ran a comprhensive and lavishly-illustrated article on RAAF Kingfisher opeartions, 13-pages long, with lots of good photos, colour side-profiles etc.
If you would like a copy ,yell out, and I will get it to you snail mail next week.
TOR
I take it you are referring to the plagiarized article by Glen Sands and illegally published by SAM in direct infringement of the authors and publishers copyright. The irrefutable proof of this theft was the wholesale reproduction of the two typographical errors contained in the original IPMS Australia Modelcraft magazine articles by Barry Pattison which were faithfully reproduced in the SAM article but which had been corrected in the Red Roo book, Kingfisher in the Antipodes. Apart from redrawing the profiles and colouring them, nothing else original was done. The Red Roo book was, by the way, re-printed from Barrys two Modelcraft articles with permission of IPMS Australia and the author.

The whole affair left a very bad taste in the mouths of a number of well known modellers and researchers here in Melbourne who had generously extended assistance. Strange that people should hold this article up as something superior to what had already been published locally, twice.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 5th, 2005, 9:03 am

August 11th, 2010, 9:05 am #9

Hi Gary,
I know nothing of any of this. I am just a regular buyer of SAM, who happens to enjoy this magazine immensley, and I make no apology for that. My sole intent was to offer some assitance to a fellow AMI member and modeller, and nothing more. As far as holding the SAM article up as something superior to locally available aviation literature, (where the hell did that come from!!!), I make no such claim. You obviously have unresolved issues with the owners and publishers of SAM, and for that you have my sympathy and understanding, however I have NO stake in this and resent any inference to the contrary. Maybe you need to pull back a little here Gary.
TOR
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2010, 7:21 am

August 12th, 2010, 3:09 am #10

Gary was not the only one affected by Mr Sands great confidence trick. Several prominent modellers and researchers in Melbourne, (yep me included), were the victims of Mr Sands short stay there, and there is still considerable anger among them.

He built up our confidence and expressed a great interest in the RAAF. Being helpful, (and, as it turns out, somewhat gullible), Aussies we helped him with information and photographs. He was quite clear that this was for 'personal information only and not for publication'. Imagine our horror when, within months of his return to the UK, this material started to appear in SAM under Sands' name. There was no acknowledgment of the sources, let alone any payment to the suppliers of the info he published as his own research. In the case of the Kingfisher article, as Gary mentioned, this was DIRECT PLAGIARISM. I can point out many of my photos that he used as they still contain the blemishes on the original and, even, at times the incorrect info on the reverse was used in the captions. When the source of the material was pointed out to the editor of SAM he was far from sympathetic.

I can understand Gary's upset about your mention of the SAM Kingfisher article. He did the correct thing, obtained all the appropriate permissions and payed the writer of the original ms for the right to publish it under the RedRoo Imprint. I referred to the RedRoo book in my original answer to David as I was sure he had a copy. Later, you referred to the SAM article and Gary, being a little twitchy on the subject of plagiarism reacted, incorrectly assuming that you recommended it as a superior reference.

I can see nothing in what Gary wrote that infers that you had anything to do with the SAM articles. Gary, on the other hand, incorrectly infered that you regard the SAM article as being superior to the RedRoo book. You did not say this. Sometimes, when the red mist rises it temporarily clouds our judgment.

So Gents, let's accept this as a minor misunderstanding on the part of both parties and, in the best Aussie tradition, how about a metaphorical handshake and let the matter rest.

Cheers,
Peter Malone
Quote
Like
Share