Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Matt

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)
  • Birthday 06/24/1967

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Freetown MA, USA
  • Interests
    Spitfires. 'nuff said.
  1. With a wet weekend I got a chance to get a bit more work done and get some pictures taken. I didn't like the way the miniguns were coming out, so I've decided to ditch those and go with just 19 shot rockets pods. This looks like a common fit for 135th AHC aircraft based on the pictures available. That also opens the door to doing 'American Woman', assuming I can figure out how to pull the markings together. Progress right now is gated around getting the figures squared away. The door gunner and crew chief have been finalized, the final step was to convert the heads to represent the face shields being down. The pilot is straight forward, hands and feet on the controls. To get the right look the right arm had to be cheated in towards the center of the lap and the left arm lowered and the hand turned out to grasp the collective properly. I have no idea yet on the co-pilot. As there are no miniguns, there would be no need for the flex-sight which is what the kit figure is set up to do. I'm thinking of having him turned and looking out to the left. That means I need to finish the seats and put the side armor on to make sure it all fits with the figure. In the meantime, I did some initial painting of the cabin, just to see what techniques I could work with. I also put some paint to the engine, mostly for the tailpipe as the rest will be hidden. Based on pictures, it seems that most door gunners on gunships used free standing large ammo cans to hold their ammo belts, so I scratched up a couple of reasonable facsimiles. Still more painting to do here. One challenge is going to be sourcing or building lengths of 7.62 ammo belts. Having decided on using the 19 shot pods, I had to modify them to make them appear as if some shots had been taken given the nature of this piece. I figured 4 pairs would be a reasonable number for one or two passes. It took more time to research what the right firing order was for these pods than to do the work. That's it for now. I did get part way through doing the IP and other panels, but I wasn't happy so I stripped them. Hopefully second times a charm. Cheers, Matt
  2. Coming back to modeling after about a 6 year layoff and a bad case of AMS. This happened to be one of the few unstarted kits left in the stash. The plan was totally OOB, just something I could get through start to finish. I've built one before, and I was never very happy about the static stance just sitting there, but I didn't want to go build an entire revetment diorama either. So I'm going for an inflight build. I'm not going to sweat trying to make the rotors look like they are spinning, just something more 'action' than sitting on the shelf. This means spending some time making the figures a little more 'active'. I'm not totally sure of which ship to depict. I was going to do the 135 AHC Taipan 127, but after doing some research I may do 'American Woman' instead if I can figure out how to do the markings as I havn't found a decal sheet yet. Not a lot of progress yet. A lot of dry fitting, sorting out the mounting and starting to hack around the posing of the figures. On the pole Right Hand Door Gunner Left Hand Door Gunner Cheers, Matt
  3. I started a UH-1C mid-August. I haven't done much other that a lot of dry fit, some work to pose it in-flight and general hackery of the figures. If its eligible , I'll be happy to join. Cheers, Matt
  4. Ahh, that is better. Looking at those sets, then as a rough rule of thumb, the aircraft with the large pointy rudders are 'late' and the aircraft with the smaller rounded rudders are 'early'. Cheers, Matt
  5. I'm sorry, I don't see any other examples in that link, no matter how far down I scroll. I only see MK483 and ML171 Assuming you are referring to 'late' MkIX details vs 'early' MkIX details, then the basic masks for the National markings (the roundels and fin flashes) should be the same, however, see Edgars point on the changes in January 1945. You would have to be more specific on which exact Spitfire (Serial) you are proposing on building and in what timeframe (as many aircraft ended up moving between different squadrons, or had different personal markings through their life, then the particular scheme you have selected may date that aircraft to a very particular point in time). If you are proposing on using one of these sets completely (roundels, squadron codes and serials) to build a specific aircraft, then I think you need to tell us what those serials are, and what you mean by the 'late' details in the cockpit. Spitfire development was a fluid process. So a 'early' serial MkIX may still have survived long enough to be fitted with mods made later in its life, whereas another early serial may have been destroyed before that mod and would not have had it. If you really want to be that particular to make sure the features you have in the cockpit match the specific aircraft you are going to paint it as, then this is the level of research that you need to go into. Otherwise, its probably not something to get overly concerned over, so long as you have the correct Mk and armament fit for the serial you are building. Cheers, Matt
  6. I'm not sure what you mean by 'early or late'. The link is to a set of masks for 2 specific MkIXc Spitfires. According to the notes, there are masks for the national markings and code letters, and decals for everything else. So, the masks themselves could be used on any Spitfire of that period. The code letters would limit you to those squadrons or any squadrons with that combination. So, I don't see anything that precludes you using them on early or late build MkIXs , or any other Sptifire in service at that period. If you are asking if these would work for a MkI, or an early MkV then no, unless you had a particular subject that was still serving at that period. Cheers, Matt
  7. If you just need the replacement kit decals I probably have a bunch of those you are welcome to. Matt.
  8. Matt

    Eduard figures?

    I pretty much agree with the linked review. The biggest issue I had with them was the poses. I couldn't see any way to pose the pilot / mechanics on an actual model (Tamiya 1/48th Spitfire) without major corrective surgery. In the end I gave up. Fit is ok for multipart plastic figures. More like the old Tamiya figures than say the really nice Gen 2 Dragon figures. Matt
  9. Thanks. It isn't as time consuming as it might appear. Here's how I tackle it. I work with Acrylics, mostly Tamiya, but PollyScale or Xtracrylics as well. I mix up the basic colour (dark earth in the picture above) in a small disposable plastic cup. I thin it, add some retarder and some gloss until its ready to spray. I mix up more than I will need. I lay down the base colour until I get a nice even consistent shade. It doesn't have to be flawless bu you want good coverage. Then I'll pour a small amount of the left over base colour into a new cup and mix it into a darker shade (maybe with some grey or black or dark green or brown, whatever works). I'll thin it out some more, lower the pressure and then slowly work in the darker shading. Sometimes I'll go over it in patches then darken some more and go over again in certain places, depending on what seems right. Then I'll take some more of the left over base colour, pour it into a new cup and lighten it up and thin it out, and lay down the lighter shades. Again, I might do 2 or even 3 variations. Once I've done all of the dark and light shades, I'll take the remainder of the base colour, thin it right out, and then mist it over to tone down the shading and tie it all together. With acrylics, you can do all of this is one sitting. So long as you don't apply the paint too heavy and wet, each coat will be dry enough by the time you've prepared and mixed the next shade to keep going without a pause. I think that dark earth on the Spitfire above took maybe 20-30 mins from start to finish. These are probably the best pictures I have of the process. This example follows the more dogmatic dark panel / light centers approach, but you get the idea. This is after applying the mid-stone base, the darker shade and the lighter shade. You can see the 3 shades, and also that its overdone, far too contrasty This is after re-applying a thing coat of the base mid-stone colour to tone it all down. because you are doing this on top of the base colour, it makes it easy to repeat for each additional camo colour What I've found over the years is that I'm getting better at judging some subtle to make the variations of the shades, so the first passes are not as contrasty as this and need a lot less toning down than in this example. It just takes practice and experience. Hope this helps. Matt
  10. Caveat, this is my personal opinion, others may vary. With either technique I don't think we have to be that dogmatic that the shading must be in panel lines, or the highlights must be in panel centers. Pre and post shading are just artistic techniques that allow us to introduce tonal variation in the final colour. Why we do that is varied. For sure, we might be trying to replicate the weathering of dirt in panel lines or the affects of sun bleaching. Also we are trying to introduce tonal variation to just break up the 'toylike' look of a solid colour, making it seem more 'realistic'. Other modelers will use filter washes or dot filters with oils to produce the same effect. At the end of the day, you have to experiment and find out what works for you. That not only means a technique that you are comfortable producing, but that provides the end results that you are looking for in a finished model, and that suit the subject. Recently I've started breaking out to more random 'patches' of light and dark, mixed with a 'striping' on shades to try and give the effect of wind and rain streaked weathering. It feels more natural to me than the dark lines light centers approach for the WWII subject I build , but everyone has their own preferences, and different subjects will require different methods. Cheers, Matt
  11. You could, but that would require even finer control of the technique. Don't forget that unlike pre-shading, with post shading there really isn't such a thing as going too far. If you end up with a post shading result for a colour that has too much contrast, (the dark shade is too dark and the light shades are too light) then all you have to do is go over it again with a thin mist of the base colour , just like you would with a pre-shade, to tone this down and even it out. Cheers, Matt
  12. The key here is that you put flat Tamiya on top of flat Tamiya and then used an aggressive agent (alcohol) to remove the wash which removed all the paint. What you want to try to do is apply a wash in such as way that the amount of effort and agents needed to remove that wash are as easy and least harmful as possible. A gloss coat (Future or Tamiya Gloss, or any appropriate Acrylic gloss) can help in 3 ways. 1: A nice smooth coat makes it easier to remove the wash, so less scrubbing and less need for aggressive agents. 2: It provides a bit more protection for the underlying coats. 3: It helps the wash flow into all the panel lines, meaning you can be more precise and use less, so there is less to clean up afterward. Oil paints are a good choice for washing over Acrylics because the paint itself and the thinners (mineral spirits) are not aggressively harmful to the acrylic paint. Mineral Spirits are not Alcohol. If you go this route, go to an art supply store, invest in some oil paints and a can of appropriate thinners. Some people use a mix of ground up pastel chalk, liquid dish soap and water. The advantage here is that you can remove this easily with water which won't harm the underlying paint if fully cured. If you really must use Acrylics for the wash then apply a good gloss coat, and thin them well with water and not an aggressive thinning/cleaning agent. A little liquid dish soap may help as well. Some folks use cheaper craft paints rather than modeling paints as they can be less reactive. At the end of the day, no matter what you use, if you have to rub and scrub like crazy to remove the wash then you are going to damage the underlying paint. Hope this helps, Matt
  13. No worries. PM me an address and I'll hunt up what I have and get them out in the mail this Saturday. Matt
  14. I have a bunch of the B's in different sizes. I have a couple of sheets of either C or C1, I forget. So, the next thing is to figure out the correct sizes. I'll look to see when I get home if any of the sheets specifically mention the Fort III to say what size the markings were on it, but it could be a pretty obscure aircraft to be on the list. The roundel size varied from aircraft to aircraft. I found a couple of plans, but the pictures are too small to read the measurements for the markings http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nxN_vjldtng/Sdio...ress_Camo_1.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nxN_vjldtng/Sdio...ress_Camo_2.jpg If you can take this and offer them up to your kit and take a swag at how big you need each type in mm and let me know I'll send you what I have that is closest in size slightly larger and smaller. Also, have you sourced the Fin flash ? if not let me know and I'll dig a few of those out as well. For future reference, XtraDecals do very nice sheets of each roundel type in different sizes. Cheers, Matt
  15. Which style of Roundel ? The A/A1 are the red/white/blue and red/white/blue/yellow with the wider white ring (same width as the blue) The B type is the normal upper wing red/blue The C/C1 are the later war red/white/blue and red/white/blue/yellow with the very narrow white ring RAF Roundel styles Cheers, Matt
  • Create New...