Yes, it takes off decals though you may need to use the old toothbrush a bit, but generally leaves the paint below intact, so you need to do a second treatment where there were decals.

Paul

I have used Modelstrip, it does work, but it does take time, is not the easiest thing to use and in my experience anything at all delicate does get broken.

Recently I used Mr Muscle on a Matchbox Victor, which would have taken about ten tubs of Modelstrip to strip. It certainly does the job,in many ways it’s easier and is a lot cheaper if doing anything of any size. But you do need to be careful. I am generally not the type to get too worried about warnings on the can, but I wore proper gloves for this stuff and sprayed it outside. Even then, I nearly dropped the model when standing downwind of it!

Paul

Hudson and Anson followed Coastal Command practice of famous naval men/explorers. Hudson after whom the Hudson is named and Lord Anson who no doubt did something famous, probably involving the French. Beaufort and Shackleton fall in the smae category. No idea on Ventura

Paul

The reference to the Fulmar is appropriate – the Fulmar was a development of a bomber prototype built to meet the same requirement as the Henley was (if you follow that). In other words, it’s appropriate to compare the Henley to the Fulmar rather than the Battle.

The Battle was built to an earlier requirement. At the time the proposal was issued, international disarmament conferences were still going on and one of the proposals was for an international treaty to limit the weight of bombers. The proposed weight restriction if adopted could have ruled out some of the bombers then being looked at such as the Hampden. The requirement which led to the Battle was in part an insurance against the limit being adopted – to ensure that if the international limit was agreed and proposals for heavier bombers had to be scrapped, the RAF would still have bombers of the largest weight permitted. Put another way, the Battle was never intended as a normal light bomber, which would have resulted in a smaller plane, but was really a “light-medium”

A couple of years later, a proposal for a true light bomber was issued. That led to the Henley and the prototype of what eventually was developed into the Fulmar. However, both Hawker and Fairey were busy and by the time prototypes had been built, it was decided that it wasn’t needed any more. If you think about it, that’s probably right, could the Henley have achieved much more than just sticking bombs under a Hurricane’s wings?

The Battle however was already in production and because the RAF needed to expand as quickly as possible and nothing else was then available, it continued to be built.

Paul

Vildebeest is I understand Afrikans for Wildebeest

Paul

Avro Bison and Blackburn Blackburn are my favourites – and the French 30’s bombers.

Vildebeests aren’t ugly, there characterful.

I’ve never thought the Barracuda that ugly. Is it like with the Battle, influenced by its reputation? After all , the Avenger is not exactly pretty but nobody’s mentioned that.

Is the reason we have so many naval ones that they have to be designed to impossible specs which require them to do everything yet still be usually single engined and fit on an aircraft carrier. For example, the reason as I understand it that the 1920’s fleet spotters were so ugly was because of an official requirement that obsevers had to have an enclosed cabin to lay out their nav charts and it’s hard to fit an enclosed cabin in a 20’s single engined aeroplane elegantly. Again the Barracuda had to be designed to do about everything.

Paul