Frank, keep your head down on this one 
Lazy research is the word that I would use ( without the inverted commas) and I would be interested in the composition of the "consensus" If IPMS was involved why did they pass on my name to the person in the UK who contacted me in Jan/Feb 2010 by e mail. As a result I consulted my files and did send details of the camouflage and markings and some scanned pics, time consuming I might add. Now what really pi**es me off is that I never heard a word back to even acknowledge the information.The new found unpublished photos mentioned perhaps were not sufficiently examined and interpreted otherwise the camouflage on the port side would not have been shown thus and the upper wing markings corrected and so on.
Each Hurricane has to be researched as a unit, no Hurricane was finished the same, now that is what I have been doing for the last 30 years.
Regards
Tony K
First up Tony, that was me - a total of four emails from the Feb 7th to Feb 14 during which you only ever sent one image and that was a colour port side view by Richard Caruana which you declared "nearest to a correct depiction of a Hurricane", of which the kit camouflage pattern also concurs (based on the standard RAF pattern). If you did send any more images or information, they never arrived, and despite replying I never heard any more from you so assumed you were unable to assist further.
As it is Joe and some guys from IPMS Ireland stepped in with a pile of info and observations which were then used to build a picture of 105 and work out the various details of the scheme. I discussed with Joe the various interpretations of 105s camo colours and the consensus was that 105 was in DG/OG/MSG.
I'm slightly puzzled why you feel the port side pattern is wrong when it concurs with a reference source you acknowledged as being accurate. As for the upper wing markings, please share - is there something both myself, Joe and others have missed here?
No slight was ever meant Tony, by no means do I doubt the time you have spent researching this subject matter over the years - equally I don't doubt the work Joe has done either, and for whatever reasons why our correspondence didn't bear fruit, Joe was able to supply the information in the time required.
By all means disagree with the results of that research but to call it "lazy", when in fact the efforts and lengths taken were actually quite considerable, is perhaps a touch disingenuous.
