War in the Desert - African campaign GB - 12/9/07 to 5/13/08

I have completed my Tamiya Bf109E-4/7 Trop. For a kit that looked fairly simple, I am not satsified with the finish I gave it. I learned first hand that painting yellow is apparently hard. Also I learned some things about decal application specifically things like white stripes. I am calling this done for now, but I may go back and try and correct somethings in the future when my skills improve. Or simply buy a 2nd one and take what I learned from this one and apply it to that one.

Not bad Tom.  Doing a wash to accent panel lines would have been helpful.  Painting yellow is easier if you first apply a thin white base coat.

Regards,  Rick 

rjkplasticmod wrote:

Not bad Tom.  Doing a wash to accent panel lines would have been helpful.  Painting yellow is easier if you first apply a thin white base coat. Regards,  Rick

Thanks for the information about yellow, will definately try that. Yeah I was going to try drafters pencil like Manny uses, but never did make it to a store to buy one. I will probably try to get the panel lines done when I get back from vacation around the first of the year.

Made some more progress on my little Panzer.  Model was Futured, decaled & given a wash of Burnt Umber to bring out some detail. After assembly & a top-coat of PollyScale Flat, she looks even more Tankish...

Still need to add several detail pieces/fiddly bits & do some dusting with pigments/pastels.

Comments welcome.

Regards,  Rick

Nice work on the Bf 109/7 Tom!  And yes, yellow is tough to do.  I like Rick's idea of laying down a white base to help keep the yellow nice and crisp.

Rick, you're PzKpfw III Ausf. N is looking great! 

I'm hoping to get some time on my workbench this evening.  Between my busy work schedule and all the holiday functions I haven't had any free time! 

rjkplasticmod wrote:

Made some more progress on my little Panzer.  Comments welcome.

It looks very formidable!

Ho ho! Looking VERY nice RJK! What wattage bulbs do you use to take your pics? They're always perfectly clear, nice and bright. Was considering going outside to take some more pics - but it's snowing here today...AGAIN.

Leaadas - I'm with RJK on this one - a wash would really help bring out the detail on your bird. Pretty solid otherwise. 

Espins, Darson - thanks again for your kind comments! Plan on getting a few more pics up...maybe today. 

*EDIT* - just realized in the pictures I re-shot I have a huge piece of cat hair sitting right on top of the grenade covers. Nice! 3rd try is always a charm...

Leaadas - Pretty good!  I agree that a light wash or mechanical pencil would help out.  Also, is it flat-coated?  Looks kinda glossy?  Did 'Black 8' have a mottle camo on it?  I seem to recall it did but I could be wrong. 

Rick - It definitely looks more tankish.  The wash turned out nice

I have a question for the P-40 experts.  AmTech for whatever goofy reason provides (2) 500 lb bombs, supports and locator holes in the wings of the P-40K.  Every resource and picture I've reviewed tells me only the centerline location on the P-40 was stressed to handle a 500 lb bomb.  The wings could only handle 20, 40 or 60 lb'ers.  I'm planning on installing one of the provided bombs on the centerline position, but was just curious if anyone could verify if the wings were stressed to handle bigger bomb loads. 

Thanks!

Thanks for the comments guys, appreciate them.

dupes:  I use small studio type flash units for most of my photographs.  They are bounced out of small photographic umbrellas to diffuse the lighting.

arki:  The p-40 usually carried a drop tank on the centerline but could be armed with a 500 lb. bomb in that position.  Only a very few P-40's were modified to carry bombs under the wings & although it was rare, I have seen a few pics of them carrying a 500 lb. bomb under each wing.  I've never seen a pic of one with 3 bombs or 2 bombs & a drop tank installed, so I'm guessing the weight would have caused serious performance degredation.  If you can find one to peek at, the Squadron Signal "P-40 Warhawk In Action", no, 205, has a pic on page 53 of a Kittyhawk IV from RAAF 80 Squadron carrying 2 500 lb. bombs, one under each wing.

Regards,  Rick

rjkplasticmod,

Your build looks flawless.  Your washes are excellent.  After the detail pieces and pastels are you calling it done?  In my opinion that's when the real fun STARTS!!!  Weather that bad-boy up and show that it saw some action!!!

Some builders are content leaving it alone at that point, I think adding the extra detail and trying to tell a "story" with the weathering you reach another level of enjoyment of building.

Curious to know what you think.

rjkplasticmod wrote:

arki:  The p-40 usually carried a drop tank on the centerline but could be armed with a 500 lb. bomb in that position.  Only a very few P-40's were modified to carry bombs under the wings & although it was rare, I have seen a few pics of them carrying a 500 lb. bomb under each wing.  I've never seen a pic of one with 3 bombs or 2 bombs & a drop tank installed, so I'm guessing the weight would have caused serious performance degredation.  If you can find one to peek at, the Squadron Signal "P-40 Warhawk In Action", no, 205, has a pic on page 53 of a Kittyhawk IV from RAAF 80 Squadron carrying 2 500 lb. bombs, one under each wing. Regards,  Rick

I have the Squadron Signal "Curtiss P-40 In Action", #26, but not #205.  Unfortunately the picture you reference isn't in my book, but there are several pictures of note.  On page 24 there is a pic of "Li'l Joe II", 79th Group with a single 500 lb on the centerline.  On page 26 there is a pic of a 324th Fighter Group P-40F with 2 small (30 lb?) bombs under each wing.  And on page 32 there is a famous pic which I have attached below courtesy of BlackWolf's Flickr site. 

Interestingly enough, the "In Action" aircraft data breakdowns for P-40E through P-40K list the wing bombs quantity & size as (6) 20 lb M-42 or 30 lb M-5 or 20 lb T-7.  The P-40N apparently couldn't carry any.

I'd love to see a picture of a P-40 with 500 pounders under each wing.  Any chance you could scan that pic, Rick?

dupes,

Really nice piece of work there!!!  You nailed the base, first try...even more impressive...the variety and placement of the rocks are excellent.  The vertical lines of the grass help "frame" the vehicle..I'd add more, create "bunches". The round base is a nice juxtaposition to the angular vehicle, did you intend to do that?  Lots of artsy-fartsy talk there...but it matters to pull off a good presentation.  I like the mesh on the top, is that photo-etch? Shovel is nice, consider adding additional oils as grime at the "hold" spots (apply straight-up from the tube).  Might want to add more road dust to the bottom/sides. (I have a great resource to refer you to if you're interested...get back to me)

Very convincing build.

Hey SMJ! I love detailed feedback like this.

The base was a lot of fun for me. I've been drooling over really neat bases that I've seen under "other" people's kits, so I figured it was about time I tried one! The oval base was definitely intended, both as a nice offset to the angular scout car, and it's impossible to mistakenly arrange lines in parallel with the base if it's curved.

The grass - had thought about adding more, but I wasn't sure that anything like that actually existed on the African plains...seemed about the right colors, and I figured "desert sparse" was probably the safest route for me to go. I definitely wanted a vertical element, hence the addition of the road sign as well.

Top mesh is indeed PE, comes included in the Tamiya kit (along with the main gun barrel)! This isn't the NEW new 222, but the OLD new 222. As in, not the original release. Get it?

I'm still contemplating firing a thinned coat of buff on the lower half, perhaps if I wrangle up a decent photo setup you can see what it actually looks like now, instead of just shadows. It may indeed have enough already...you just can't see it.

Again, my thanks!

dupes:  Ask & ye' shall recieve...

My photo set-up is temporary, basically on a folding table in one end of my modeling room.  I am currently using a Nikon D80 with a 18-135mm zoom lens for most of my pics.  The first pic shows the set-up as if a photograph was being taken.

The next pic shows the flash & umbrella units turned so you can get a better idea of what they look like.

 The main flash is on camera right & is wired to the cameras flash synch.  The smaller flash on camera left is the fill light & is triggered by a slave sensor.  After photographs are taken, I use Photoshop Elements 5.0 to resize for the internet & enhance any minor discrepancies.  I always end post-processing with the "Unsharp Mask" feature in Photoshop, as I find it is essential for high quality jpg images on the internet.

Regards,  Rick

Wow, wow, wow....this is EXACTLY what I needed!

I'm going to have to take a while to digest this...and go through my camera manual to see if I have the capabilities of tripping an external flash unit. 

THANKS RJK!!!

BTW, your glass display case rear right is awesome. Did you make it yourself? If not, where did you get it? AHHHH!

dupes:  You're very welcome.  Glad it was helpful.  The glass display case is a commercial one intended for merchandise display.  I bought it several years ago from a local dealer in Detroit & then added additional glass shelves.  It holds about 70 1/48 model aircraft.  I'm not absolutely sure, but I think it was manufactured by Waddell.

SMJmodeler:  Thanks for your comments on my Panzer.  I build mostly Aircraft & prefer light weathering on Aircraft.  I only started building a few Armour kits in late 2006, & I agree that Armour models usually benefit from more heavier weathering.  However, I don't believe in weathering just for the fun of it.  Whenever possible, I try to model from photographs of the real vehicle being replicated & make the model as realistic & true to the real one as my limited skills & modeling limitations allow.  I do have some reference photos of the Panzer I'm modeling & they show it to be dusty, but otherwise fairly clean with no visible evidence of paint chipping or battle damage.  So I'll probably not add a lot of heavy wear & tear to this model.

arki:  Sorry, I'd be happy to scan the pic if I could, but my son borrowed my scanner several months ago & keeps "forgetting" to return it.  Thus I remain scannerless .

Regards,  Rick

No problem, Rick.  Thanks for the help anyway

arki30 wrote:

Leaadas - Pretty good!  I agree that a light wash or mechanical pencil would help out.  Also, is it flat-coated?  Looks kinda glossy?  Did 'Black 8' have a mottle camo on it?  I seem to recall it did but I could be wrong.

It might actually have a mottled one. I went with kit decals so I used the one labeled NAfrica/Libya, but it may not be entirely accurate. And yeah it has been flat coated, it does look a little shiny even then doesn't it? Well a wash will most definately be happening after the holidays. I will post more pics when that gets done.

arki30 wrote:

I have the Squadron Signal "Curtiss P-40 In Action", #26, but not #205.  Unfortunately the picture you reference isn't in my book, but there are several pictures of note.  On page 24 there is a pic of "Li'l Joe II", 79th Group with a single 500 lb on the centerline.  On page 26 there is a pic of a 324th Fighter Group P-40F with 2 small (30 lb?) bombs under each wing.  And on page 32 there is a famous pic which I have attached below courtesy of BlackWolf's Flickr site.  Interestingly enough, the "In Action" aircraft data breakdowns for P-40E through P-40K list the wing bombs quantity & size as (6) 20 lb M-42 or 30 lb M-5 or 20 lb T-7.  The P-40N apparently couldn't carry any. I'd love to see a picture of a P-40 with 500 pounders under each wing.  Any chance you could scan that pic, Rick?

Here are two scans from "Curtiss P-40, From 1939 to 1945" by Anis Elbied and Daniel Laurelut, published by Histoire & Collections

The P-40N was the FIRST and ONLY variant of the P-40 to be equipped with two underwing pylons for either two drop tanks or two 500lb Bombs.

You're basically correct Scott, but there is photographic evidence that the RAF & RAAF had other versions of the P-40 equipped with underwing bomb pylons.  They were clearly field modifications, not from the Curtiss factory.

Regards,  Rick

rjkplasticmod wrote:

You're basically correct Scott, but there is photographic evidence that the RAF & RAAF had other versions of the P-40 equipped with underwing bomb pylons.  They were clearly field modifications, not from the Curtiss factory. Regards,  Rick

I don't believe any of the field modifications could handle the 500lb bombs.  Only the P-40N with the factory pylons could do that (in addition to the centerline droptank).  I dug through all my references and couldn't find anything to the contrary.  

Good stuff, Scott!  That actually runs contrary to what Squadron says, which is the P-40N wasn't equipped to carry any wing bombs. 

Well, I don't want to beat this into the desert ground as I wasn't planning on installing 500's on the wings anyway.  Just was curious as to why AmTech provides (2) for the wings.  Kit instructions don't even call for using the bombs on any of the kit schemes!  We could sit this one on the shelf next to field-applied zim. 

That colorful bomb was apparently a drop tank fitted with fins, nose and fuse.  It had some sucess but was rather dangerous to drop. 

arki30 wrote:

That colorful bomb was apparently a drop tank fitted with fins, nose and fuse.  It had some sucess but was rather dangerous to drop.

I'm sure it was!  ROTFL

well my son told told me he does not really want to build planes, then he said well an ME 109 is ok....

so I guess I will be changing some of what we are doing....

I will still be building a spitfire in US colors and maybe a P 40 in British as well as the ME 109 I also am finishing up a Stuart for this build, ah did the Polish use the Stuart? hmmmm. I think he will be doing his Stuart as a Honey so he can get British and German {with the Me 109}

Two planes he wants to build a P 38 and a P51 so I think he will be doing a P38 for the US badge

so we may not build what we started with BUT #3 son is happy building so it's all good! 

Dupes and Rick:  Your builds look outstanding!  Hopefully both of you will continue to participate in this group build, especially since some of us (especially me) have only just begun.  Rick, I see your modeling ability is as evident with armor as with aircraft.

Tom:  Nice job on the 109!  I agree with the others in that a nice wash and giving it a bit more of a flat coat will really make it stand out, but I think it looks great.  Yes, yellow is a notoriously difficult color to get good coverage with, but I didn't notice any problems with yours.

arki30:  Nice job on your 'K' so far!  I built that same kit, and am glad AMtech provided two sets of fuselages since I didn't quite cut the first set at the right spot.  Looking at your photos, it seems you did a super job of attaching the resin tail. In answer to your question about why AMtech includes the 500 pounders for wings, AMtech's P-40s are re-pops of the AMT/ERTL P-40 series (I'm building the AMT P-40K now).  AMT made maximum use of the same molds (sounds like the Hasegawa P-40 series, doesn't it?), and the sprues contained parts that were relevant to one variant but not another.  That also explains why you have those small holes on the bottom half of the wing that need to be filled. AMT issued a P-40N, and that's the main variant which had the ability to carry large bombs under the wings (I don't recall seeing any photos of a 'K' with large bombs under the wings, and I have a lot of P-40 photos and books, but that's not to say it didn't happen).   Scott posted one photo of a P-40N with these bombs, and here's another from the Osprey book, "P-40 Warhawk Aces of the Pacific."

Mark

Mark Joyce wrote:

arki30:  Nice job on your 'K' so far!  I built that same kit, and am glad AMtech provided two sets of fuselages since I didn't quite cut the first set at the right spot.  Looking at your photos, it seems you did a super job of attaching the resin tail. In answer to your question about why AMtech includes the 500 pounders for wings, AMtech's P-40s are re-pops of the AMT/ERTL P-40 series (I'm building the AMT P-40K now).  AMT made maximum use of the same molds (sounds like the Hasegawa P-40 series, doesn't it?), and the sprues contained parts that were relevant to one variant but not another.  That also explains why you have those small holes on the bottom half of the wing that need to be filled. AMT issued a P-40N, and that's the main variant which had the ability to carry large bombs under the wings (I don't recall seeing any photos of a 'K' with large bombs under the wings, and I have a lot of P-40 photos and books, but that's not to say it didn't happen).   Scott posted one photo of a P-40N with these bombs, and here's another from the Osprey book, "P-40 Warhawk Aces of the Pacific." Mark

Ah Ha!  I wondered if that might be the case after Espins produced the data sheet on the P-40N.  Thanks for the great pic of a P-40 with a drop tank AND a 500 pounder under each wing.  I think I have that book, doh!  Now I sorta wish I was building a N just to bomb it up!  

I've already filled the extra mounting holes in the wings and at the centerline position (were intended by AMtech for the drop tank).  Next I'll drill out the new holes for the kit-supplied bomb support (which don't look very authentic, but will get the job done).  All other seams have been filled as well, just sanding and smoothing out now.

Mark Joyce wrote:

Dupes and Rick:  Your builds look outstanding!  Hopefully both of you will continue to participate in this group build, especially since some of us (especially me) have only just begun.

Not to worry sir! I have several other builds I want to finish for this GB...working on my Macchi 202 right now, followed by something U.S. as well as Britain - subjects yet to be decided!