FROG F207, Armstrong Whitworth Whitley, Rovex industries ltd, 1969
Modelling world
by James Goulding
Frog ' Flying Barndoor'
Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
ALTHOUGH the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley was an important aeroplane in the early part of World War II it has, for some puzzling reason, been totally ignored by all kit manufacturers until now. Happily, Frog has put the matter right with a 1/72nd kit which is delightfully in character with the full-size subject. The kit can be made up into either a standard Mk V as used in Bomber Command's early offensive or the Mk VII maritime reconnaissance aircraft which did such vital work in U-Boat hunting. Both versions were, of course, powered by two Rolls-Royce Merlins, and both were basically similar except for equipment. The Whitley V was a "clean" aircraft with few external excrescences, whereas the Mk VII may appeal to many modellers by virtue of its vast array of radar aerials and mounting masts. The electronic paraphernalia provided for the Mk VII in the kit includes the upper masts on the rear fuselage, the mounting under the nose and the two underwing mountings—which should be angled at 20deg to the line of flight. Unfortunately the dipoles have been moulded on the upper masts only, which is a pity because these are a prominent feature of these aerial arrays. As it is, the modeller is faced with many hours of tedious work adding these small rods. I feel it would have been better to mould the nose and underwing aerial bars and dipoles as complete, flat, individual parts, with the vertical mountings as separate parts. This may have added a little to the cost of the kit, but I am sure modellers would accept this. The side aerials, mounted on the rear fuselage, have been omitted, which is again unfortunate. Two different versions of these aerials were used; one consisted of eight single-rod mountings on each side of the fuselage, and the other, a continuous wire aerial mounted in a rectangular pattern close to the fuselage sides. Only the former version could have been moulded.
On the major components of the kit the holes for the Mk Vll's aerial mountings have been only partially bored, so that no filling is required for the bomber variant.
The transfers for the maritime version are for an aircraft of 502 Squadron of Coastal Command based at Aldergrove, County Antrim, Northern Ireland. This particular Whitley was painted in the standard Temperate Sea scheme colours of Extra Dark Sea Grey and Dark Slate Grey on the upper surfaces, and all-white on the under surfaces. Modellers should note that on the colour chart, on the back of the kit box, the names of the colours have become transposed. Dark Slate Grey is the " green " shade, not the blue-grey indicated. As from February 2, 1943, it was officially decreed that Dark Slate Grey be removed from the Temperate Sea scheme, leaving the entire upper surfaces Extra Dark Sea Grey. High-gloss finish was applied to the entire white undersides, but the fuselage sides remained matt white. Although this scheme was certainly applied to Whitley VIIs, 502 Squadron was re-equipping with Halifaxes at about the time of the colour scheme changes—so it is unlikely that its Whitleys were repainted in the new scheme.
The chosen subject for the Whitley V transfers is P5005 DY-N of 102 Squadron,'1 Linton-on-Ouse, the aircraft captained by Grp Capt Leonard Cheshire VC, DSO, DFC (as he now is) on November 1 2/1 3, 1940, when he won his DSO. (For story and photograph of P5005 see April issue.)
The transfers for this Whitley have the squadron code and aircraft letters printed in white, but my own belief is that these would have been painted in grey, possibly the MAP colour known as Sky Grey. The above-mentioned photograph of P5005 does show very light letters, which could be interpreted as being white. However, care must be taken when assessing colours in black and white photographs because prints produced on "hard" paper can give exaggerated contrast, and a tone that looks white may not in fact be so. From 1938 until mid-May, 1942, bomber and fighter code letters were generally grey. The grey paint used during 1938 and 1939 was specified by the Air Ministry and in fact had the same specification number as Medium Sea Grey when that colour was first introduced on the undersides of fighters. (Although the colour was in use by squadrons for some years, the name Medium Sea Grey does not seem to have been applied to this grey until it became a standard surface-finish shade. And although the shade remained the same, this grey had several paint specification numbers during its life.) From 1940 onwards, until the introduction of Dull Red letters, there is evidence that Sky Grey was also in use for code letters, and this was probably the reason why so many people and publications in the past have quoted "light blue" as being used for these letters. Sky Grey was paler than Medium Sea Grey and could possibly be mistaken for pale blue under certain lighting conditions.
As night raids by Bomber Command increased during 1940, opinion was gaining ground that the grey letters and the Type A1 fuselage roundels then in use were too visible and bright during searchlight illumination. Consequently, many squadrons increasingly applied a dark wash over these markings in order to dull them. Eventually, in May 1942, the new standard Type С and C1 roundels and fin flash, using narrow yellow and white rings, were introduced throughout the RAF. With these new markings came a new colour, Dull Red, which was used for the red in the national markings and for code letters in place of grey on all bombers, except the Mosquito. (The Mosquito, because of its incredible performance, was painted in day fighter colours to hide its bomber role.) In view of the concern over the brightness of existing letters and roundels, I cannot believe that white code letters were ever used on bombers operating over enemy territory during the war years.
Concerning the model generally, the fit of parts is excellent, but one word of warning should be given. The component wall thicknesses seem thinner than usual on a model of this size, and the modeller must ensure that excessive cement is not allowed to run inside as the walls could easily melt and collapse.
The "down" version of the undercarriage is mounted on a base which has the doors integrally moulded. I am much in favour of this system, which has been used on several Airfix models with success. It works splendidly and the doors are much stronger than in the old method of attaching each door individually. A moulding of the closed doors and slightly protruding wheel is also included in the kit for those modellers who like to display the model with wheels retracted.
The turrets are not movable, but this is not likely to offend many serious modellers—although it may disappoint younger enthusiasts. A small correction is required to the frcnt turret. This is mounted with a protruding lip over the bomb-aimer's look-out, whereas in fact it was beautifully faired flush. The correction is quite simply effected by cutting back the turret recess in the fuselage nose and filing away the lip. This also sets the turret back closer to the side glazing aft of the turret, which is again more correct. For some reason the bomb-aimer's look-out is offset on the model but it certainly wasn't on the real Whitley.
Two items on this model which could have been improved are the radiator intakes and the propellers. The radiator intakes are rather shallow, whereas on the real aircraft they were deeply recessed. The deeper intakes would surely not have posed any moulding problems, and would have enhanced the appearance of the engines.
The propeller blades are rather flimsy (a similar fault was seen in the Frog Tomahawk), and some improved form of producing these would be welcome. The spinners are also rather too small. The propellers and spinners on the Whitley V and VII were the Rotol rounded type. The all-wood blades of these were quite thick compared to contemporary de Havilland types. The Rotol propeller designed for Merlin engines appeared to have a standardised spinner diameter, designed for one specific type of aircraft and adapted for use on other types. It faired beautifully into the Spitfire's nose contours, probably being designed for that type, and it was quite a good match to the contours of the Fulmar. But it was oversize for both the Whitley and the Hurricane, which resulted in the spinner being too large for the existing fuselage or nacelle contours. But the step-down in the contour did not apparently have any undue effect on performance, and the production advantages made up for any aesthetic considerations. The Merlin Whitley prototype had de Havilland propellers, around which the nacelle contours were designed, but when the Rotol propeller was adopted for production aircraft no redesign of the nacelle was undertaken.
The Frog Whitley has very light surface detailing. Many times in the past I have criticised models for having excessively heavy surface details, but in this case I would have liked heavier engraving, particularly on the wing. It is so fine that it tends to become obscured when painted. The wing surface aft of the massive box spar was fabric-covered and the appearance of the model would have been enhanced if the fabric areas could have been simulated.
Frog's Whitley lends itself to many interesting conversions. The Mk IV is simple, only the fins and rear fuselage requiring alteration. The Mks II and III are more ambitious, with conversion also involving the installation of Tiger radial engines, an Armstrong Whitworth type rear turret, and, in the case of the Mk II an AW nose turret also. The most difficult would be the original Mk I, which was generally similar to the II and III but lacked dihedral on the outer wings. Marks I, II and III also had ventral "dustbin" turrets. An interesting civil conversion would be the turretless BOAC versions, finished in Dark Green and Dark Earth, with Aluminium under surfaces, but a problem here might be the apparent lack of paint scheme references; very few photographs exist and the BOAC Whitleys may have had a very different camouflage pattern to the Bomber Command machines, as indeed was the case with the BOAC Mosquitoes. Still further options of course are the parachute training Mk Ills and glider-towing versions. There are many from which to choose.
All the points of criticism I have made do not detract from a very fine basic model, which has, above all things, the one essential quality—an accurate outline.
The price of this kit is 1 7s 6d.—J.G.
AIRCRAFT Illustrated, June 1970
|
Chematik/Gomex Armstrong Whitworth Whitley, 1990-s
Armstrong Whitworth
Whitley V/VII
Manufacturer: Chematic
Scale: 1:72nd
Price: £13.99
Type: Injection moulded
I've always had a desire to build a Whitley, but have been faced with a dilemma - I haven't had the nerve to more than occasionally examine the pristine Frog example amongst my kit stock, whilst the East European offering I obtained a few years ago was of such poor quality I eventually gave up trying to build it and passed it on to someone prepared to mould his own transparencies and tackle the other deficiencies. With the arrival of the latest version of this ex-Frog kit, however. I took the opportunity to finally add a model of the type to my collection.
On first glance at the contents of the eye-catching box the mouldings don't look bad, but a closer examination reveals quite a bit of flash on some parts, while others have a very rough finish to them, though nothing that can't be cured by a little gentle sanding. Some of the runners attaching the parts to the sprues are very thick and demand care when removing them, particularly at the wing and tailplane tips where they also extend onto the inner mating surfaces. After separation and cleaning up, a dry fit revealed that all ihe trailing edges were rather thick and needed thinning down and in the case of the starboard tailplane an I/8th inch gap occured between the upper and lower halves, equiring considerable scraping and rubbing down to get a satisfactory joini. Also during the dry tit, the main wings were found to be too thin at the root, resulting in a step at the fuselage joint. This was solved by cementing a strip of plastic card along the leading edge between the top and bottom halves inboard of the engine nacelles.
The fit of the nacelles and engine units is quite poor and some work is needed to get a reasonable fit in these areas. The nacelles are moulded as pan of the wings and have an L-shaped joint which, as it hardly mei anyway, was largely unaffected by increasing the wing root depth - the gap to be filled was just slightly bigger! In facl, as the engine units were a little too deep initially, correction of the wing root thickness helped to reduce the ridge around the upper engine to nacelle joint. The undercarriage units plug into the nacelles and the two-piece well and door assemblies needed a little trimming to accept the gear legs and then be pushed into their recesses.
Turning to the fuselage, interior detail is basic in the cockpit and virtually non-existant elsewhere. The front turret especially needs additional work or a gaping void is apparent when looking into it. In the case of the rear turret, the mounting for the guns bears no relation to the original Frog iiem and appears lo be a replacement for loss or damage to the mould. As such, it is a very rough H-shaped part with four holes to take the gun barrels. Not only are these holes in the wrong places, but as the whole item won't fit inside the turret anyway it is best replaced, the mount being generally similar to that used in other types such as the Lancaster.
A prominent feature of the Whitley fuselage was the arrangement of 16 small windows in four pairs on each side. Opening these up using their moulded locations as a guide helps to improve their appearance and is far more effective than simulating their presence in painted form. Fit of the fuselage halves was not too bad. the underside join needing more attention than the top one, whilst previously correcting the wing root thickness meant virtually no filler was necessary when they were attached, just a little sanding lo eliminate the inevitable join line.
As the kit painting guide appeared basic the Aircraft in Detail feature from Scale Aircraft Modelling Vol.15 No.6 was used as a more accurate reference. The bomber version had been decided on during construction, the ASV aerials being omitted accordingly. No problems were encountered during painting, but application of markings was more challenging - the Hannant's descripiion 'bad decals' being an understatement! Colours and sizes for nearly all the markings are wrong, the only exception being the code letters for the Coastal Command aircraft. There was no choice but to use alternatives such as Modeldecal sheets.
This release of the Whitley is certainly better than some of those previously seen, but still requires work to build an acceptable model - not one for the beginner, but within the capabilities of the average modeller.
Andy Sheppard
Review sample supplied by Hannants.
Scale Aircraft Modelling Vol.17 n°07
|
