SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

The Official 1943 70th Anniversary Group Build

89083 views
650 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:20 PM

Building a good Tamiya kit is a good place to start for aircraft. Around 2000 they put out a whole line of really kit 1/48s - the Corsair is one of them. I know the Jug is very well thought of. They were all good to varying degrees and are all in print. The new A5M3/5 came out about three years ago and kind of upped the ante. They're old ones are better than I recall. I had an A6M2 from the 70s and was surprised to see recessed panel lines and a very clean kit. Not as much detail as newer issues of course, but it will make a nice Kamikaze plane.

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Beaverton, OR
Posted by Ghostrider114 on Friday, May 10, 2013 2:15 AM

I have to say, this Corsair was the first Tamiya aircraft I've done, and I'm impressed by the level of detail compared to the old RM kits I built as a kid.

Good luck with that Hamp.

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Australia
Posted by taxtp on Friday, May 10, 2013 2:35 AM

I've built the Tamoiya P-51B, in RAAF 3 Sqn colours, and it remains one of the nicest kits that I have built. There is some slight inaccuracy with the cockpit floor, but you can't tell once it is completed. I'm no officer of the color police, but I have a book where the author researched RAF Mustangs, and found that at least the 3 Squadron RAAF ones were painted in American equivalents of British colours. I went with it, looks a bit different.

Enjoy it.

Cheers

Tony

I'm just taking it one GB at a time.

  • Member since
    April 2013
Posted by SchattenSpartan on Friday, May 10, 2013 4:33 PM

What do you think of the cockpit color on my cobra?

I just found out that I used RLM82 instead of interior green!!! Bang Head

I went to my local hobby store today and tried to find a nice green for the cockpit of my P-47... (tey had a darker color in the pit as far as I know...) To find a nice shade of green, I took a bottle of every green Gunze color and put them all onto a table. When comparing it with the color I used for the cobra and the hellcat, I saw that RLM82 looked damn close to it. I took a bottle of interior green and it was significantly lighter. It seems like my interior green paint is a RLM82 bottle with a wrong paint number on it....

In short: Gunze failed and now my Hellcat and Cobra have their inside painted in RLM82 Bang Head

Clemens

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Friday, May 10, 2013 6:11 PM

The story of US interior colors is told in detail at http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/stuff_eng_interior_colours_us.htm . According to another IPMS chart US interior green is close to FS: 24151 . I did my own from primes. Golden Fluids makes a green chromite into which I put a little yellow and some Vallejo reflective green. (It's the closest match I've made to one of Archer's color samples.) If the data in the article above is correct and Archer is correct then I'm not sure any of the commercial paints really gets it. It should be a yellowish green, but not too light. In the real world very few people get picky about cockpit colors: some kind of light green will do the job.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    April 2013
Posted by SchattenSpartan on Friday, May 10, 2013 6:46 PM

Thank you for the link, Eric!

Judging from the pic of the catalina (2nd one), I think the RLM color works well as a US cockpit green.

Clemens

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Beaverton, OR
Posted by Ghostrider114 on Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:37 PM

I wish I'd remembered this sooner, I took it a while back at the Tillamook Air Museum, the same trip I got that Corsair pic I posted earlier.

This is the cockpit of an FM-2 Wildcat, it shows some of the cockpit green trim, I also have a pic of that corsair's cockpit, but it doesn't show the green very well.

I wish I got more pictures of cockpits.  They had an Oscar too, if I got a picture of that cockpit, it might have settled a debate earlier in the Imperial Japanese GB.  Unfortunately, by this point in the trip I'd gone through 3 sets of camera batteries taking shots of the Tomcat they have in their collection (it's an old blimp hanger, the light wasn't good, so I had to use the flash a lot), so I was a bit more conservative on everything else.

On that note, if anyone needs any reference shots of an F-14A, I'm your man.

How does MMs interior green stack up, Eric?  Testors calls it FS34151, which should be the matte version of the same shade you pointed out (FS24151).  Personally, I don't care about the sheen, because I'd matte everything down anyway.

  • Member since
    April 2013
Posted by SchattenSpartan on Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:16 AM

The green I used seems to be quite the right shade... Were the gear bays painted in the same color as the cockpit? Eduard says so at least (I don't really trust them)

Clemens

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:10 AM

If your asking would green chromite have been used under the wheel assembly, it was. The stuff was designed to protect metal from corrosion and that was a heavy use area. I'd have to check the article again, but I think you'd have found the stuff inside the frame and wings throughout the aircraft. You can see it under the wheels when they're down.

Museum aircraft should be okay for US subjects. However, don't overestimate the ability of people restoring aircraft. In many cases a plane will be given a finish that's best for display (ie gloss) as opposed to what was used. The problem that faces anyone is that many issues will remain murky forever. The Japanese color debate has been going on for thirty years now and will never stop. Personally I strongly disagree with some armor gurus about gray/brown German tanks in France. Must remember that color standards used today have to be translated back into what existed 70 years ago and the translation isn't always easy. As noted things are better with US subjects and perhaps UK because we still have actual paint samples to use. This is not true with Japan and many German colors are "iffy." I can tell you as a working historian that matters that "everybody" knows at a given moment are exactly the kind of thing that are poorly recorded. It was very difficult to find out the effect US bombs and artillery had on ground targets until I was led to a manual sitting in someone's attic. Some of the best naval historians in the country were very vague about the organization of ship personnel during wartime (it varied according to ship, but there were general "divisions" used on all large vessels). Knowledge becomes foggy and a manual unused gets lost. Then you get situations like that faced by the USN in the 80's when they brought Iowa back into service and had to track down ship's veterans because there was no data on the use of some of the subsystems.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:16 AM

Although, looking at planes undergoing restoration is humbling in one way. In real life aluminum objects get all kinds of little dents on them. I have no idea how you can replicate fully the uneven surfaces of a real life object, especially one serving in wartime when "spit and polish" was out the window. Actually I think the airbrush causes problems here. The effect you get with an airbrush on plastic is akin to the kind of paint job you'd see on a modern car where the color of the car is baked in. WWII weapons were metal objects with a paint job laid on them. It's different. Add in a zillion dents and rivets and the modeler should be a little humble when claiming realism.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    April 2013
Posted by SchattenSpartan on Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:50 AM

I am a little bit counfused right now:

If I remember correctly, the Thunderbolt had it's cockpit painted in a darker green than the other us planes. But the gear bays and the rest of its interior were painted in "zinc chromate".

Were the other planes painted "interior green" in the cockpit and "zinc chromate" or "zinc chromate green" (which one?) everywhere else or were they painted in the same color everywhere on the inside?

Clemens

  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: MN
Posted by Nathan T on Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:02 PM

What applies for one type of A/C does not necessarily apply to other types. P-47 had dark dull green pit, and Yellow zinc chromate interiors. This was Republics way. Bell did things differently. They had their own factory mix for green zinc chromate and used this in the wheelbays as well.

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Beaverton, OR
Posted by Ghostrider114 on Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:59 PM

Case in point, this same FM-2 appears to have white in the landing gear bay.

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: ON, Canada
Posted by jgeratic on Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:31 PM

I can't offer any specific paint chips for cockpit interiors other than what can already be found on the net,  but I do recall a forum thread one time dealing with why  green was chosen for this location.  There was mention of a modern Russian fighter, in which psychological testing was done, and it was found this colour was best for calming the pilot's nerves.  Perhaps the same reasoning during WW2?  

Maybe it is just me, but I find some versions of zinc chromate a very pukey looking colour, so I have some doubts it was left as the final finish in the cockpit area.   Please correct me if I'm wrong.

btw, great work everyone!

regards,

Jack

  • Member since
    April 2013
Posted by SchattenSpartan on Sunday, May 12, 2013 2:58 PM

Nathan: So the airacobra had it's gear bays painted in the same color as the cockpit?

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:10 PM

The wheel bays call for interior color in every kit I've ever seen, regardless of service. They might not have been precisely the same (I weather the hell out of it regardless) but it would not have been NMS.

There's no psywar involved in the chromite color. The military found that the chromite primer undiluted was too bright for a cockpit so it was mixed with black (less black) and what resulted was "interior green" which was made an "official" color certainly by 1940 with the ANA directives published that year. These machines were completely utilitarian - you wanted a decent set of colors that would be durable, not cause production problems (aluminum paste was normally used in chromite but omitted if short). The Army liked OD for almost anything because it was versatile - going to matte color was a necessity even though it caused a less durable finish. The Navy's wartime colors were meant to be camo - initially flat blue/gray/white (more or less) done in matte finish: contrast the prewar colors that were good for ID and more durable gloss. Every color change made by either service was done for military and industrial reasons. When it became obvious that US planes were going to have altitude advantage the Army did away with paint more or less altogether to save weight and gain speed. Books by Dana Bell or Robert Archer go into this in some detail. At least we know quite a bit about US colors, although a "specification" did not mean a real world aircraft. If something was changed during service, for instance, USAAF planes often used the closest possible RAF paint. So the color schemes were not up to Richthoven's standards, but all the world's air forces wanted something that would work and heck with appearance. The US was certainly the most business like of the bunch.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: MN
Posted by Nathan T on Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:58 PM

SchattenSpartan

Nathan: So the airacobra had it's gear bays painted in the same color as the cockpit?

Yes, I'm not a total expert, but 99% sure.

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2013
Posted by SchattenSpartan on Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:20 PM

Thats good...

Now I don't have to repaint itWink

Thank you, Nathan!

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:25 AM

1/48 AMT P-40N (OOB)

Paints: Vallejo Model Air & Model Color, Golden Fluid Acrylics

Weathering: Salt, Com.Art/Iwata acrylic paints

Techmod (Zestaw Kalkomanii) Decals

The reproduced print above “Escape from Cape Moem” by noted aviation artist Jack Fellows serves as the cover art of the paperback version of “Fire in the Sky”, a book I wrote about twelve years ago. It's a good print of its genre and I have one hanging over my modeling desk in California. The subject is dramatic enough – a top Japanese Army Air Force ace and group leader Shigeo Nango was shot down by Robert DeHaven the top ace of the 7th Squadron of the famous 49th Fighter Group over Wewak New Guinea in June 1944. The choice wasn't random because Robert DeHaven spent several hours of his time helping me reconstruct elements of the air war in the South and Southwest Pacific. He was extremely thoughtful, well spoken and very well informed having served as head of US Fighter Aces for several years in addition to his two years of Pacific War combat. It was a genuine pleasure to have known him.

Briefly put the kit was a fine example of the 90s vintage and I would recommend it without hesitation. I went to considerable effort to wash out the colors and scratch things up a bit: details are on a long build post in the Aircraft Section “1/48 AMT P-40N in New Guinea Garb Complete.”

Here let me say a little bit about 5th Air Force. Although the fighting around Guadalcanal got a lot of press, a much larger and much more important air campaign took place in 1943 – early 44 in the Solomons and New Guinea. Representing the allies in the Solomons were the excellent USMC and USN land based Corsair squadrons supported by the P-38s and bombers of 13th Air Force. Systematically they destroyed the Japanese Naval Air Force as they worked their way up toward the major Japanese base of Rabaul on New Britain. The job was done so completely that the IJNAF was not only crushed in the Solomons but also lost their carrier bound squadrons that were unwisely thrown into the battle, thus losing the last of their good pilots. The pitiful performance of the IJNAF in 1944 was a direct result.

New Guinea is not as well known, but to the Japanese it posed a desperate problem. After an abortive offensive toward Port Moresby failed in 1942 and the Japanese fortified zone near Buna was crushed in the same week as Guadalcanal was lost, the Australians and Americans – with Douglas MacArthur, for better or worse, in the saddle – quickly went on the counteroffensive. They could see that a move up the New Guinea Coast would allow the allies to cut Rabaul off and New Guinea also. That meant the loss of 300,000 IJA troops. It also left the door wide open into the Philippines and the “Southern Resource Zone” (oil, rubber etc) seized by the Japanese as the object of the Pacific War. Lose New Guinea and the PI was toast. If the US had air bases on Luzon, Southeast Asia was worthless and the war lost. In the event, the Japanese put nearly a million men into the effort to stop the Southwestern Pacific Offensive (which came together with King's Central Pacific drive on Leyte). If you've ever wondered why there weren't 250,000 IJA troops on Saipan or 50,000 on Iwo Jima, it was because the entire overseas reserve was thrown into first New Guinea and second the PI. Given a German defeat Japan was doomed regardless. However, it was only because the US (ably aided by Australia and New Zealand in the SOPAC and the Brits in India) was able to spread the Japanese Army out like a chicken on a spit in 1944 that Japan was forced into military ruin in 1945. Indeed, until MacArthur's forces bottled up the Rabaul zone by seizing the Admiralties in early 44, all US commanders assumed the Pacific War would last until 1946. The bomb, of course, was an unknown quantity at that time to everyone concerned.

The New Guinea campaign was one of the most brilliant fought in the 20th century. Whatever MacArthur's faults earlier or later, the dazzling march from Buna to Moratai and Biak was a textbook example of combined arms. MacArthur was not keen on attrition – he had seen that in World War I and saw it again on Bataan and Buna. Instead, once given the naval, land and air resources, MacArthur bypassed one major Japanese position after another and capped things off with the brilliant coup in the Admiralties. The 7th Fleet which operated the landings rarely had any carriers before Leyte so the whole campaign revolved around gaining a progressively larger zone of control in the air. For this MacArthur depended upon 5th Air Force. The organization was commanded by very bright and very driven General George Kenney. MacArthur was an unusual boss – he could be pompous, wary and duplicitous if there was any doubt about a subordinate's competence or loyalty. If MacArthur had confidence in a subordinate he gave them unwavering support and startling autonomy. He was a “for or against” type of leader. When the machine got running it revolved around the operations of the “KKK” (Krueger, Kincaid and Kenney) in whom MacArthur had confidence with the Australians more or less running their own war. Of the lot Kenney was closest to his boss in vision and temperament. MacArthur loved publicity for its own sake but also knew that “good press” would help the Southwest Pacific Theater to get very scarce resources. So Kenney, a formidable leader under any circumstances, was eager to highlight the exploits of his great aces and fostered the almost bizarre organizational “corporate culture” that had 5th Air Force engineers (sparked by an eccentric aviation engineering genius named “Pappy Gunn) creating “masthead” bombing attacks by B-17s at night and the home brew B-25 “strafers” which became an almost perfect weapon for the theater – so good that North American produced a proper version for wider distribution. I think it's worth noting that after the war Kenney wrote a biography of Gunn, and also one about Richard Bong: it's unusual for a general to write about lesser lights in his command. It's also unusual for a general to accept what amounted to a “sit down” strike because they were flying planes worn-out to the point of danger. In return Kenney's men flew a huge number of sorties considering the slender resources and always irregular (although good) maintenance system.

It's not easy to explain but the men of the 5th Air Force squadrons developed a kind of swagger. Perhaps it reflected success. Having never been stung by serious defeat, as USN pilots suffered in some of the carrier battles, 5th AF attacked aggressively and effectively. As victory piled upon victory (the Battle of the Bismarck Sea was a staggering blow to Japanese morale) and Japanese bases were chewed up by the fighters, strafers and B-24s there was a kind of assumption of victory. It was typical of Kenney (and his very fine subordinates like 5th AF Fighter Command leader General Wurtsmith) that they took great care in working “green” pilots carefully into the system. They also drilled into everyone alike the importance of discipline and teamwork at every juncture. Kenney claimed he never wanted a “fair fight” and he rarely offered one. By 1944 Kenney had authorized a kind of corporate memory of combat advice and doctrine written by his top pilots and squadron commanders specifically for those new in the theater. The message was a drumbeat – stay in you element – only fight when the advantage was already yours – guard your wing even if it meant an enemy might escape. The point, of course, was that if the advice was followed, the enemy often did not escape.

It helped a great deal that the USAAF had excellent aircraft for the theater and the IJAAF did not. Although the top 5th AF aces flew the P-38 (and had good success with the P-47 for a while) several squadrons kept P-40s well into 1944. DeHaven was a great fan of the plane. He found it more maneuverable than the P-38 and appreciated its extreme ruggedness. So as long as range allowed, the Japanese would get the “Wewak” treatment. (Wewak was the major IJAAF air base until demolished in mid-44. It was crushed so completely and so quickly that “Wewaked” became a verb in 5th AF.) In rapid successions the target was assaulted with B-24s, probably escorted by P-38s, with the strafers coming in low covered by P-40s. When the succession was right, there was almost no proper response. In New Guinea the Japanese warhorse was the Ki-41 “Oscar” - the most maneuverable combat aircraft of the war. (DeHaven claimed he saw one do a double Immelmann – the kind of maneuver usually seen in air shows.) It was also the slowest and carried two .50 caliber machine guns. As no 5th AF flight would dogfight with Oscars it was simply enough to keep up speed, make passes until American guns ignited the very flimsy Japanese fighter. As noted, if a Japanese fighter pilot looked up, he would very likely see a US fighter above him: down a bit, there were more. The Ki-61 Tony could do better but was always crippled by miserable operational reliability. Japanese bombers were second rate affairs and “easy meat” for any US (or Aussie) fighter. So even before the refined versions of the P-38 appeared in mid-1944 the early 38s and P-40s were wracking up startling kill ratios. It should be noted that this was all done on the attack. And during attack over the most inhospitable terrain on earth. (One 5th AF fighter pilot asked me the rhetorical questions: “what's the difference between ditching in the jungle or the ocean? Nothing.”) So it was no accident that 5th AF fielded America's two top aces – Bong and McGuire. There were also a sizable cast of supporting players like Gerald Johnson and tactical guru Charles MacDonald. Nine of DeHaven's 14 kills came in a P-40 which I think made him the US top P-40 pilot. (A couple of Aussies did better in Desert Air Force.)

All of this was done in beastly conditions. With everything in short supply, forward bases handled very complex maintenance on a regular basis. No American base had hangars – many lacked revetments – so aircraft were out in the tropical sun every day. With all fields made with Marsden matting, and heavy rain a daily occurrence, that meant that the plane took off or landed in either mud or dust on every outing. Judging by pictures of a 5th AF “flight line” these aircraft were regularly trampled on by ground crew so they would have been faded, dirty and nicely scratched.

Anyway, the results were impressive. At the start of 1943 5th AF was in the process of formation. By March they scored their spectacular victory in the Bismarck Sea. By the end of 1944 5th AF had done to the Japanese Army Air Force what the USN, Marines and 13th AF had done to the Japanese Navy Air Force – crippled it permanently and made it ripe for the crushing blows of 1944.

Pics Below

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    April 2013
Posted by SchattenSpartan on Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:50 AM

That. Is. Just. AWESOME!!!!

I love it, Eric! Especially the weathering is delightful....

A lot of nice background information as well

Clemens

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: ON, Canada
Posted by jgeratic on Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:22 AM

Eric, an interesting finish - not many modelers are brave enough to replicate that grubby look.  My only question, at least what appears on my screen, is a prevailing sense of black, but then again everyone has their own taste.

Noted too on your build thread inquiring the origins of black and ocher.  There are many forms, but as a pigment both exist naturally, though black is usually attained after burning something organic (ivory or coal for example).  Also, with the three primary colours (yellow, red and blue), you can also make a very close approximation of these pigments, yes even black.

regards,

Jack

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:43 PM

You're quite right about chromatic black. I have a version done via blues and one done via greens and have used both on ships. Ocher could mean almost anything. There's an article on IPMS Stockholm about US interior colors that touches on OD that claims the Army wanted a paint with nine pigments but that due to the industrial craziness present during the war manufacturers often made do with what was around. As far as the photos go, I most certainly wanted the plane to look dirty.  I did give the plane a good dose of exhaust that goes over the victory markers and is quite dark.  Ideally I would have washed out the national insignias but I was afraid to touch them. But I had the same trouble with photos on this model as I did when I was taking pics of my Val a while back. There's no green in the brew other than that added by Vallejo. If you were at my house, I think you'd agree that the only photo that really gets the color is the one that's second to the last - it has the brownish/khaki look that my sample of olive drab showed. But the eye wants that "fugitive" green and it sure gets it on photos. I had the same problem when I did my Val a while back. The picture of the front shows the amber gray intended and the one below shows the fugitive green on the rampage.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

G-J
  • Member since
    July 2012
Posted by G-J on Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:55 PM

Absolutely stunning.  Great build.  

And I liked the write-up as well.

On the bench:  Tamyia Mosquito Mk. VI for the '44 group build.  Yes, still.

On deck: 

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Georgia
Posted by Rigidrider on Friday, May 31, 2013 4:47 AM

Eric, Even though WWII had been over for many years before I was around, as a kid the P-40 was always my favorite allied aircraft(and still is) The whole family of this airframe Tomahawk, Warhawk, etc...So sleek and mean looking, You did this beautiful old aircraft justice! Great Job!!!

Doug

When Life Hands You A Bucket Of Lemons...

Make Lemonade!

Then Sell It Back At $2 Bucks A Glass...

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Friday, May 31, 2013 6:59 PM

I agree. Because it had the more easily tended Allison, there were a fair number of P40s that made it to "warbird" status and they're staples at air shows. I told DeHaven that the plane had "fighterness" and that pleased him. Tough bird and we were lucky to have it considering the alternatives.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    April 2013
Posted by SchattenSpartan on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:10 PM

I'm sorry for the lack of updates on my side, guys. I'm still waiting for a resin prop I ordered for the Cobra...

  • Member since
    September 2009
  • From: Guam
Posted by sub revolution on Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:26 AM

Ebergurud- Once again, a fantastic build on a fascinating subject with a great write up! That is one beat up looking plane. Some people say there is such a thing as too much weathering, but I think we often forget the conditions that this war was fought in. In many cases, planes were flown until they fell apart, and I think you have created a very well used bird!

I will have the front page updated for you tonight.

Thanks, Budd

NEW SIG

  • Member since
    April 2013
  • From: Minnesota City, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Posted by FlyItLikeYouStoleIt on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:01 AM

EBergerud: - Refreshing example of awesome weathering. I feel that models of any combat AC of  WWII should look worn, tired and just plain beat. Great job, she's perfect!

Bill.

On the bench:  Lindberg 1/32 scale 1934 Ford Coupe and a few rescue projects.

In queue:  Tamiya 1/35 Quad Tractor or a scratch build project.

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • From: Berkeley CA/St. Paul MN
Posted by EBergerud on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:15 PM

That's an interesting observation I've thought a lot about it. If you take a good look at especially color films and photos (some very good early color was used in WWII by US cameramen) it's very obvious that on a flight line almost all aircraft show significant wear. I'd say dust and dirt/fluids would be most common, then scratching and last fading. All aircraft would have shown exhaust - those engines were huge and all pushed the limit of the engineering of the time, radials especially. Museum planes can be deceptive here because they'll get a rub down after each of their rare flights. (William Wyler's "Thunderbolt" illustrates this very well - some planes are much tidier than others.)  That said, there was a huge turn over of aircraft in WWII so a spanking new plane could be there too. But I dont think it would have been long before it would have shown dirt and exhaust stains. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't weather a new mount. "Weathering" shouldn't just show wear (or "distressed surface" a term fashionable among armor fans) it also emulates the play of light on the surface, so I'd think one could use filters and washes a plane even if it was supposed to in "delivery day" condition. I admit that I might be way off on this subject, but as noted in my write-up, I don't see well defined minor panel lines on real aircraft, but rather something more indistinct.

About ten years ago a great armor model would have been like one of the very complex builds that Tony Greenland and others did. And they remain impressive and include some of the techniques used by Mig Jimenez and others today. But to my eyes the Spanish School armor modeling when well done better evokes the real subject. And evoke is all we can do. Even the greatest model is still going to look a lot smaller than the real thing. Actually I'm surprised that Mig Jimenez at AK or the folks at MIG don't put out a DVD on aircraft weathering like they've just done for ships - I can't think of any reason why some of the techniques wouldn't transfer over. Part of the fun anyway. And my stash now contains too many blue chip kits for me to buy more. That leaves extra change crying for books, DVDs, paints and other gadgets nobody probably really needs.

Eric

 

A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and won't sink with you in it.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England
Posted by Bish on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:42 PM

Nice look build Eric. It isn't easy to get that sort of finish and do it right, you have certainly pulled it off.

I am a Norfolk man and i glory in being so

 

On the bench: Airfix 1/72nd Harrier GR.3/Fujimi 1/72nd Ju 87D-3

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.