1945 GB

I think it's mostly the eyes.

But--that looks good, Joe.  Nice shade of zinc chromate.

Thanks Check. Hey, I have a question for you. Have you tried any of the AM wood decking sets on any of your ship models? I'm curious how they look and how well they go on.

I used to get paid for writing on this kind of thing and I'm well enough read and I've talked to scores of pilots. Always room for error though.  As noted there's no complete agreement on planes. I'll stand correction on this matter - but here's how the jet stacks up as I understand it.

All Things Being Equal:

1. The jet was much faster than a P-51. It was also heavier and could lose energy faster. However, it had two alternate tactics in a one vs one (or 2vs 2 or 3vs 5). One was simple boom and zoom: 30mm canon are fierce and no 51 would trade head-ons intentionally. A pony could dive out, but if there was enough alt, the jet could track it down. Best outcome is 51 gets away.

2. This didn't make much sense to me at first, but I think I get it now. The 262 actually handled very well and had a tight radius for its weight and speed. It couldn't turn inside a P51 but if the speed advantage was near max (say +90mph) it could turn outside the Mustang and give it a burst - one round hits and the 51 goes down. (In other words the 262 is going around a larger circle than the 51 is going around a smaller one.) The danger to the jet pilot would have been extending the turn too long and losing too much E - the jet took a while to regain E in level flight and then advantage goes to 51. (Very like a P-38 or P-47 vs a Zero.)

3. The LW thought the jet was very much a fighter - Hitler had an odd point about the "blitz bomber" because land morale declined seeing nothing but enemy. But its designers and all responsible LW leaders saw fighter, and that's how most functioned. The reason you rarely heard about dogfights between jets and fighters was because jets were ordered not to engage in them. Killing fighters wasn't their job, and it was bad to try it. That said, jets bagged several allied fighters. 51 pilots had a tactic called "boxing" where four aircraft would attack at an angle that should give at least one of them a shot if the jet had slowed down for any reason. If it didn't the jet was simply to fast to fight. So P51s had a good shot if they outnumbered a jet 5-1 - and that was the norm. (Jet pilots were not experts by and large - they were told to keep it simple.)

4. The 262 met its Waterloo when USAAF and RAF fighters started standing patrols over every base that could handle a jet. Several were downed when landing or taking off. Indeed, most allied victories came in one stage of that or another. The other thing that could happen was that a 262 pilot would lose concentration - they only went full throttle during an engagement. So a flight of Mustangs could attack unseen ... you can guess. (Adolf Galland suffered that fate. He was badly wounded by a 51 and ended the war in a hospital - he believed the 51 saved his life.)

5. Check Korean War tactics and it's very clear that great speed could make a well flown jet almost invincible against a piston fighter. The 262 was a remarkable plane. The Mig15 and F86 airframes both derived from it.

Eric

I wanted to finish the MASH chopper. Now I can give all my attentions to my diorama. There is still quite a bit to do. I'll have pics when I get my computer problems solved

EBergerud

I used to get paid for writing on this kind of thing and I'm well enough read and I've talked to scores of pilots. Always room for error though.  As noted there's no complete agreement on planes. I'll stand correction on this matter - but here's how the jet stacks up as I understand it.

All Things Being Equal:

1. The jet was much faster than a P-51. It was also heavier and could lose energy faster. However, it had two alternate tactics in a one vs one (or 2vs 2 or 3vs 5). One was simple boom and zoom: 30mm canon are fierce and no 51 would trade head-ons intentionally. A pony could dive out, but if there was enough alt, the jet could track it down. Best outcome is 51 gets away.

2. This didn't make much sense to me at first, but I think I get it now. The 262 actually handled very well and had a tight radius for its weight and speed. It couldn't turn inside a P51 but if the speed advantage was near max (say +90mph) it could turn outside the Mustang and give it a burst - one round hits and the 51 goes down. (In other words the 262 is going around a larger circle than the 51 is going around a smaller one.) The danger to the jet pilot would have been extending the turn too long and losing too much E - the jet took a while to regain E in level flight and then advantage goes to 51. (Very like a P-38 or P-47 vs a Zero.)

3. The LW thought the jet was very much a fighter - Hitler had an odd point about the "blitz bomber" because land morale declined seeing nothing but enemy. But its designers and all responsible LW leaders saw fighter, and that's how most functioned. The reason you rarely heard about dogfights between jets and fighters was because jets were ordered not to engage in them. Killing fighters wasn't their job, and it was bad to try it. That said, jets bagged several allied fighters. 51 pilots had a tactic called "boxing" where four aircraft would attack at an angle that should give at least one of them a shot if the jet had slowed down for any reason. If it didn't the jet was simply to fast to fight. So P51s had a good shot if they outnumbered a jet 5-1 - and that was the norm. (Jet pilots were not experts by and large - they were told to keep it simple.)

4. The 262 met its Waterloo when USAAF and RAF fighters started standing patrols over every base that could handle a jet. Several were downed when landing or taking off. Indeed, most allied victories came in one stage of that or another. The other thing that could happen was that a 262 pilot would lose concentration - they only went full throttle during an engagement. So a flight of Mustangs could attack unseen ... you can guess. (Adolf Galland suffered that fate. He was badly wounded by a 51 and ended the war in a hospital - he believed the 51 saved his life.)

5. Check Korean War tactics and it's very clear that great speed could make a well flown jet almost invincible against a piston fighter. The 262 was a remarkable plane. The Mig15 and F86 airframes both derived from it.

Eric

 

No, I haven't, Joe.  I try to stick with the kit parts as much as possible, but I could see where AM decks would be helpful if the kit part isn't accurate.  I read somewhere that Tamiya's USS Hornet has an inaccurage flight deck shape, for instance.

Thanks Joe Rix: Yes I do plan to weather both of them, the Tasca Easy Eight kit is superb. Nice painting and weathering on your P-47 wheel wells.

Thanks Bish: I can see light at the end of the tunnel.

Moff: Looks like your post shading turned out good, there is not a right or a wrong way to do it. Some parts will fade or weather different than others.

Checkmateking02: Nice to see a ship model in the group build. Great work on her so far, that PE sheet looks scary. Been thinking getting my first ship model, my local hobby shop HobbyTown USA has several kits from Dragon.

Final work on the Sherman continues, did not have any problems with the decals they lay-ed down well. Two of them did tear a tiny bit but, they went back together with no problem. I mixed up a black wash, made up of water, model master acrly gloss black, and some liquid dish detergent. Using a fine brush, place the point where you want the wash to go into, and from it being thin, the was just flow's into panels lines, and or anything recessed. Other weathering will be down with dry brushing, and airbrush. I've added four fuel cans, and two crates on the back.

For the Hetzer all assembly is competed, just some final touch up painting. I've decided to use four Fallschirmjager figures from Dragon's King Tiger kit I have. Three of them will be siting, and the forth will be standing.

Dragon ships are a lot like Dragon tanks. They have many of the same virtues and vices. Bad instructions. Arguably over-engineered with an unnecessary part count - others will dispute that. Adequate PE so you can do one OOB if you have generic rails. Fit ranges from excellent to WTF, with more excellent. (Dragon kits can lull you - get a string of fine fits with complex pieces and begin to think - ahhh Tamiya - and then the roof caves in. Instructions don't help there. Worst thing about them in my view is that they do not have regular views of how an assembly should look after it's done. Which means you can't reverse engineer a vague assembly. Tamiya does not make that blunder.) I've done two of their USN DDs and took a very close look at a German DD - almost a light cruiser really. I've not done one of their biggies like Scharnhorst or Princeton. Your talking part counts well north of 1,000 and from the reviews I've seen neither are good kits for the faint of heart. But their 1/700 DDs are in a class by themselves, and they do make interesting kits. Rumors are around they're going to retool their old 1/700 Pennsylvania (a problem child) into 1/350 - that would finally give us a rebuilt US Dreadnought that earned their supper in 44-45 putting huge holes into Pacific Islands and even sinking a Japanese BB at Surigao. I pull my hair out every time I see a December 41 build of those ships - OK Arizona is a memorial. But the others turned out to be remarkably useful after being rebuilt from top to bottom. A very worthy build. And if they made a Washington in 1942 dress, I'd buy it tomorrow.

Interesting and informative, EB, since Dragon's destroyers are what I have most of, also an Atlanta class light cruiser I plan to build as Atlanta sometime soon--but think that I read it was originally put out by Pit Road.

Back to Shangri-la.

Essex class carriers had a short-hull and long-hull variation.  CV-38 was long-hull. Hasegawa split the hull into two parts, so they could release both types.  The fit is pretty good, but it does leave a nasty little seam to clean up.  

Plus, at the joint, Hasegawa included a vertical protuberance that I haven't been able to discern in any photo of the actual ship, so that will need to be cleaned up.

A photo of the assembled hull pieces. 

Thank you Bish, Check and Dan for the positive feedback.

checkmateking02

No, I haven't, Joe.  I try to stick with the kit parts as much as possible, but I could see where AM decks would be helpful if the kit part isn't accurate.  I read somewhere that Tamiya's USS Hornet has an inaccurage flight deck shape, for instance.

 

Dan: Your progress on the Sherman and Hetzer looks great.

Hi everyone,

I have my computer working, but it's really slow. anyway here is some pics I promised

Cork curbs

If you look closely, You can tell its not a wall; even though it looks like a wall. I didn't realize it looked that way til now.  Its a little hill about ten feet high, maybe an entrance to a park. it will be covered with grass. anyway here it is

DantheMan85

Moff: Looks like your post shading turned out good, there is not a right or a wrong way to do it. Some parts will fade or weather different than others.

Personally it's not my favorite, but it's not like I'm set in my ways at this point, so I can always experiment with new styles. On my final update post I plan on doing a little New Year's modeling resolutions list, for my benefit more than anyone elses. 

Thanks Checkmateking looks like your Carrier is coming along well.

Ebergerud: Thanks for the information on the Dragon ships, I know what you mean about the over engineered parts along with those large part counts from building many of there armor kits. I like how they pick and choose which kits get a metal tuned barrel, and which get a plastic two half's barrel.

Thanks Joe Rix.

Nice looking diorama Ken.

Yesterday and today I have been doing dry brush weathering on the Sherman. First color was Tamiya XF-1 Flat Black, maked sure to cover the stars so they don't stand out to bright. Then Tamiya XF-56 Metallic Grey for the tracks, and also applied that to some of the bolts, and other contract points Next I wanted to give the rubber wheels a faded look, and used XF-66 light grey. I think it's the wrong color I'm looking for, so I will pick something from my model master line that is some what darker. This morning I used XF-52 flat earth over the stars, and in a few other places. I find that using Tamiya acrylic paint to dry brush has advantages, and disadvantages. It dries fast so you can build the color up in one day, the down side is the little paint that is on your brush does not last as long as compared to using a enamel paint. I finished up today with cutting a piece of balsa wood to size, and painting a single coat of XF-52 flat earth on it. Been seeing many pictures of Shermen's with a block of wood in that spot to support or hold items.

Thanks everyone, Yea, I think its a change in  that it shows the desruction of war. It's too bad we all can't get along. I guess we never will. Oh Well.

Bish, in order for me to get something in, on time, for this build, I'm scrapping the Beaufighter. My sources at the two LHS that I deal with cannot say when they are coming in...so, in my limited stash, i've been sitting on a 1/72 Airfix Typhoon 1B...so, please, I'd like to substitute....I missed 43, don't want to miss 45 and I want to do 46, so, gotta get this one in...

Really nice work! Dan the Man has a new fan.

One question though, why did the color darken so much? It looked pretty light before the varnish. Am I missing something?

Bish

Moff, not trying to step on Dan's toes here, but washes do tend to do that.

 

But I really do mean it when I say it looks good!

First off, A Happy Thanksgiving to you all. And Bish, I hope you have a paticularly excellent Thursday. The wife unit has to work today and as such we will be enjoying our dinner on Sun. Thus, a good part of my Thanksgiving should entail some quality bench time.

Check: I really enjoy your attention to detail. Your modifications appear to be spot on and very well executed.

Ken: It looks like things are coming together rather nicely on your dio. I'm impressed with what you have going so far.

Dan: I hope I can get some clarification on what you are doing there. You mention that you have been "drybrushing" on the Sherman and then Bish and Moff mention it as a wash. Which it appears as a wash to me. Are you actually drybrushing a wash mixture on in order to get said build up? I'm not trying to be nit picky about terminology just wondering if you are applying a certain technique I may not be familiar with. In either case you're creating a nice effect. I like the balsa wood brace.

Rob S.: Although I was quite looking forward to your Beaufighter, I'm excited to watch your Airfix Typhoon. Is that their new molding? I've seen thier new tool Typhoon built up and it's quite an impressive kit.

Joe, well spotted, i missed the bit about dry brushing. Would be nice if this is a new technique.

I hopeyou guys have had a greazt day. The base was extremly quiet today with most being off work and the schols being clsed, and no F-15's roaring over head.

But Joe, ''Wife unit'' lol. I like that one.