null_null981707818191
-
Posts
284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by null_null981707818191
-
-
Thanks for the replies - I shall investigate further!
-
I'm in the midst of painting lots of little Airfix 1/76 WW1 British and German infantry to go with my now completed Airfix 1/76 Male and Female Mk 1 tanks for a trench diorama, but I've hit a problem. Does anyone have any suggestions for a genuinely matt finish Matt Acrylic varnish that can be brush applied to the figures? I know that Vallejo Matt Acrylic Varnish in aerosol cans dries to a genuine matt finish, but it's not a controllable enough jet for very detailed or specific work. I've tried decanting some and brushing it, but it doesn't like that very much either! I've tried Army Painter Anti-Shine Matt varnish - dries with a definite sheen; I've tried Revell 36102 Clear Matt - dries to a more-or-less satin finish; I've tried Vallejo Matt Acrylic in bottles - dries to a satin finish. I don't want to risk using a lacquer or oil based varnish in case it damages the very fine detail that I want to render to a totally matt finish, so it needs to be water-based acrylic. So any suggestions would be welcomed!
-
At risk of repeating the 'wish list' that I've posted a few times before for previous years,
- 1/72 Fairey Battle - a new mould without the previous problems, inaccuracies and raised panel lines
- 1/72 Handley Page Hampden - a new mould without the previous problems, especially in terms of the transparencies
- and in the light of my recent WW1 project, a 1/72 Sopwith Triplane!
-
I feel a diorama coming on as an adjunct to my WW1 aircraft mini-project!
-
Some really kind and generous comments - thanks everyone! One of the reasons that I've enjoyed the project so much - especially compared to my more usual builds of WW2 aircraft, mostly newish (at least) moulds - is that each in their own way has challenged me to improve my own modelling skills, without it ever becoming a bind. I've got a Swordfish and a Walrus on the shelf at the moment, which I've been avoiding because of fear of rigging - but I guess I've dealt with that particular phobia. And thank you for the specific comment about wood effect, Paul: I really enjoyed experimenting on that and I'm pleased with the outcomes. I did think of getting a DH4 from old time Airfix, but the guy selling it wanted silly money.
You make an interesting point Rod about cannibalising other models to produce a 'cut and shut', but I'd see that as a waste of a kit... Each to his own, and I do admire those who do extensive conversions, although in fairness, I've yet to want to build a marque that wasn't already available.
But I think the most important thing of all is what Mr Symmons keeps reminding us: "Remember, we do this for fun."
-
Captain Triggers and Lieutenant Bravington are ready for take-off!
I’ve completed the Airfix 1/72 scale BE.2c, and with it, my World War 1 mini-project (the Airfix aircraft bit anyway – more about that later!). As I intimated in my last report, I thought that it might be quite an interesting and hopefully enjoyable build, being a much more modern moulding than the previously completed models. Certainly the fit was very much better, and the lack of flash positively pleasurable, although the large number of ejection pin divots was a bit of a bind!
There was however some excellent engineering – the cabane struts are more or less average-modeller-proof, and really work well to locate the upper wing, which – utilising the provided strut-jigs – meant assembly was so much easier, without the need for at least two extra sets of fingers. So full marks to Airfix for those aspects.
My usual materials and methods were used for painting – brush-applied Vallejo Model Air Ivory 71.075 for the doped linen which was the basic finish, and various wood effects built up on the fuselage, struts and very well modelled-propeller using streaks of a variety of colours, finished with gloss varnish. The engine cowling metal is Vallejo Steel. The engine is a mini-kit in itself, and quite fun to put together and paint with a variety of metallics. Drilling out the exhausts was a bit fiddly though...
You may recall that I posted a question about a mystery part – which did indeed turn out to be a large plate camera, which I used because I decided to go for a nominal representation of a 12 Squadron RFC reconnaissance aircraft – the serial number is accurate at least (I found a photograph of 1744)!
Although – as mentioned - getting the wings and struts in place was much easier than on the previous biplanes, the rigging was a challenge as usual. I added the wing-top and tail-plane 'horns' using bits of stretched sprue and drilled a few extra holes to thread the rigging through. For this model, I used the now tried and tested combination of Roket Hot CA with Roket Blaster CA kicker; for the actual rigging, I used MIG medium fine rigging line which seemed to me to be accurate in terms of scale.
So I’ve completed my WW1 aircraft project – at least as far as available Airfix kits are concerned. I’ve still got a Revell Sopwith Triplane and as Roden SE5 to build, but as they’re not Airfix, they probably won’t be appearing on this forum. So here are a couple of pictures – firstly of the Imperial German Air Force Fokker Triplane, the Eindecker III and the Albatros D.V
and secondly the RFC Sopwith Camel, the BE2c and the Bristol Fighter
– and a final picture of all of them together. Really enjoyable and interesting to build a coherent group of aircraft - and all from Airfix boxes!
I might well be sticking with WW1 for a little while longer, but in terms of Airfix kits, I’m thinking of a little diorama down in the mud using a Mk I Female and a Mk I Male tank and some WW1 British Infantry that I picked up for not very much outlay – and they won’t need any rigging…
-
FWIW when I renewed, I got the full goodie-box (which includes the Meteor) back to me within three days. And of course if you are renewing (as opposed to joining) you get the 10% discount, so the Meteor and a year's membership is only £27.00 - which I think is excellent value.
-
My membership box (as illustrated in an earlier post!) was sent by Royal Mail as a 48 hour tracked parcel. I guess it's just the luck of the draw as to which parcel service is used. The problem is that Evri (and other couriers) are now - as I understand it - undercutting Royal Mail, so businesses will tend to use the less expensive option, which in turn threatens the future of Royal Mail, whose service is (or so I have found) invariably reliable. I guess if you're paying for postage on an item, you're entitled to get a reliable service, and if Evri costs less than Royal Mail, why is there only one postage rate quoted when making a purchase? And if the postage cost quoted is for a Royal Mail parcel, why use Evri at all? It's a bit of a conundrum...
-
This just arrived - only renewed three days ago! Nice that this year's pack includes an enamel badge again.
FWIW, I think membership is good value!
-
Hi Grumpy OM
The info about 12 Squadron is interesting - I'll follow that one up as well.
The other challenging aspect (if I'm going to go down the 12 Squadron meets "Wings" avenue) will be the placement of the Lewis gun - it would appear that the squadrons on the Western Front devised their own mountings on the side of the fuselage in order to be able to fire forward (albeit at an angle) just outside the propeller arc.
Many thanks!
-
Hi Dominic
I'd seen the Blue Rider sheet that you mentioned on the Hannants website. I might well investigate further!
Thanks for the interest in my ponderings.
-
Hi Dominic and Grumpy - and thanks for your valuable input, ideas and advice. I totally concur with the view that it was intended to be mounted on the outside of the aircraft - and next to the pilot would indeed be accurate (as explained by Dominic in his post mentioning 'design limitations'). In this iteration (as a reconnaissance machine) it's hardly surprising it became 'Fokker Fodder'.
The kit version that I'm using has schemes for Leefe Robinson's Zeppelin-downing night 'fighter', and an RNAS version based in Scotland - so neither of them would have had the camera fitted.
As I want mine to reflect the use of this aircraft on the Western Front, I'll use the generic decals, but do a bit more research for appropriate serial numbers etc (perhaps for 12 Squadron, although was that the black and white chequerboard design?) - or I might just go for a general homage based on the machines depicted in the aforementioned "Wings" DVD series! (which were presumably historically accurate for he period).
Which of course means I can use the camera!
Happy days.
-
Your conclusion regarding using CA accelerator is much the same as the one to which I came! I've enjoyed reading your progress on what was at times a tricky little build. So well done to both of us for getting it done.
-
That's very kind (and overly modest!) of you Dominic. I think we both deserve a pat on our respective backs for producing two good builds from a venerable kit. I'm certainly happy with the way mine turned out, and I hope you feel the same about your version - on which (I have to say) I think the cowling colour is more accurate than on mine.
So I guess we're tied for first place!
-
I'm currently working on the BE.2c, and I've a discovered a mystery part which is not mentioned anywhere in the instructions. It's labelled on the sprue as part A11 and I suspect that it's meant to be a plate camera which - if my suspicion is correct - would be affixed on the outside of the fuselage, however there are no fixing points on the outside, but bizarrely, there are two of exactly the correct size on the inside of the cockpit (also illustrated on the instructions). If it is meant to be a camera, I guess I could simply drill through to provide fixing location points on the outside of the fuselage?
I've included a picture which shows the very tiny mystery part as clearly as I can photograph it (placed on the instructions, just underneath the circle which reads C04) - you can also see the illustrated locating points on the diagram on the inside of the cockpit (underneath the top of the two arrows). Any suggestions or answers to this conundrum gratefully received!
And for a very recent moulding, it's a bit disappointing to have to fill in the ejector pin marks, two of which (on each side) would be visible even with the fuselage closed up... Still nothing that a bit of filler won't cure!
Bye for now!
-
Thanks for the various complimentary comments – always nice to know that other modellers appreciate the effort! I found it very interesting to work on a relatively newly tooled model compared to the vintage and/or ‘classic’ models built previously as part of this WW1 project. The detail, tolerances and fit on the E.III were all significantly better and finer than the previous four completed (Sopwith Camel, Bristol F2, Fokker Triplane and Albatros D.V) but although there was much less flash to trim off, the fineness (and consequent flimsiness) of some of the parts made removal from the sprue quite tricky, and removal of the occasional mould seam line quite critical. A very big plus-point was that this kit had not one, but two, well moulded and accurate propellers, obviating the need to scratch-build, although there was no indication as to which to use… It was also useful to have an easy-to-follow rigging diagram, and the moulded rigging fastening points on the wings made location easier than usual, although a very fine drill was needed to open them a little bit following painting. Also, whilst the decals were the now usual high-quality that we are used to with Airfix, their thickness required several doses of MicroSol to settle them over the rigging points on both faces of the wings.
As a general comment, the actual plastic of the more modern kits is a very different consistency to original, earlier mouldings. It seems to me to be very much softer, and less likely to snap or fracture if being slightly bent when necessary.
Learning to do the rigging has probably been the steepest learning curve - I've by no means mastered it yet, but I'm gradually getting the hang of it, and getting to grips with various types of CA, kicker and rigging line will be useful for future projects.
Looking at the latest catalogue for 2023, I note that the dog-fight double featuring the Bristol and Fokker Triplane might persuade a few people to have a crack at WW1 modelling – and whilst the moulding might be the original, at least the decals will be fresh.
So thanks again for saying some nice things about my efforts. I’ll let you know how things go with the BE.2c…
-
I’ve recently been watching the box set of the excellent ‘Wings’ DVD series in which the Fokker E.III Eindecker appeared very much as the villain of the period (particularly when ranged against the BE.2c – aka ‘Fokker Fodder’) and so the Airfix 1/72 Eindecker seemed to be a logical and faintly topical aircraft to continue my little World War 1 project.
It’s a relatively modern moulding/tooling – dating to 2016, so significantly easier in terms of fit (excellent)and filler (none required) compared with the vintage and classic kits I’ve been working through so far.
It all went together quite straightforwardly, although some of the parts – whilst accurately moulded and needing very little clean-up – were very fragile and in the case of the tail assembly, positively flimsy -but I suppose that reflects the actual aircraft anyway.
I built it straight OOB, and it was quite an enjoyable build. Painting was – as usual – brush applied Vallejo acrylics. Light Slate Grey ((714067) seemed a good match for Humbrol Matt Slate Grey, although I used Vallejo Steel (71065) rather than silver. The undercarriage and other struts were painted in Vallejo IAF Green (71126) and after applying the decals (which were of excellent quality as one might expect from a modern Airfix kit) the whole thing was given a coat of Vallejo Matt varnish.
For once, I didn’t have to scratch-build a replacement propeller – the kit one was much more substantial, and I used my now customary layering of varied shades of brown and yellow with Almark decals applied prior to a coat of Vallejo gloss. The rotary engine was well-detailed, and benefited from a variety of different metallic shades.
And then it was time for rigging… My previous efforts have made use of AK Thin lycra-type rigging, but this time, I decided that would be too thick for a model this dainty, so instead I used Mig Ammo Medium Fine. I had thought that a monoplane might be easier than the previous biplanes, and it was certainly a little less fiddly, although the relative fineness of the line was more of a challenge. The real advance in terms of my own modelling skill-set was using CA kicker for the first time. Combining Roket Blaster with my usual Roket Hot super-thin CA was a real revelation – instant and far more accurate adhesion!
So there we are – another one completed, and of course given the reference earlier in this article to ‘Fokker Fodder’, the next one on to the work surface will be the Airfix 1/72 BE.2c.
Thanks for taking a look.
-
The best advice that I can offer, as a relative newbie to rigging (and it has been a very steep learning curve) is to decide when to stop sticking fragile bits on to the model which stick out and will inevitably get knocked off because of the amount of handling and twisting and turning required when rigging. And most - if not all - of the painting needs to be completed too. At that point, do all the decals as well, because otherwise applying them will risk messing up the rigging if it is extensive (control wires along the fuselage etc). Use the thinnest possible CA adhesive (it sets quicker) and get some vinyl extensions that slip on to the top of the CA bottle - much easier to deliver very precise amounts.
Best of luck!
-
You make an excellent point Ratch - perhaps there's an extra marketing 'tool' for Airfix to include in the instructions for the re-released 'Classic' kits a facsimile of the original 'locate and cement' sheet - although I do recall a few problems if the staple through the folded paper baggie top could sometimes tear the instructions if not prised open carefully. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be!
-
Hi Thomas
Good tip regarding looking at the diagrams for 1/32 builds - I'll give that a whirl for sure.
As to the 'missing' bumper braces under each wing tip, they certainly weren't in my kit, and absolutely no mention of them on the instructions - although they do appear on the box-art; they wouldn't be too difficult to fabricate from stretched sprue and retro-fit if I have a moment.. You mentioned 'colour plans' of the instructions: mine were very definitely monochrome. At least by 1988 (when mine was boxed/printed) there were pictorial instructions, rather than the original purely text versions as originally supplied way back when.
But all part of the pleasure/challenge of building old/classic kits I suppose.
Hope Santa brought you lots to build!
-
Thanks for some lovely compliments. I know we build really for ourselves, but it's nice when others enjoy what we've done!
To answer your question Ratch, the AK Thin to which I referred describes itself as "high elastic stretch rigging" - it comes on a 20m bobbin, which should get me through my WW1 phase... I've tried the Super-thin, but it's almost invisible! On the next build, I'm going to try using some CA kicker, because the Eindecker needs some precision placement, especially on the top of the wing!
Best wishes to everyone for a very Happy Christmas!
-
So the Bristol F.2B is now finished, adding to my little line-up of WW1 aircraft (joining the Fokker Triplane, the Fokker DV and the Sopwith Camel about which I have previously posted).
The Bristol F.2B is indeed an ancient kit, as you can see from the date moulded inside the fuselage, and this of course meant one or two problems with fit (and filling!), not to mention having to completely scratch an undercarriage ‘leg’ because there was only one in the box (and I didn’t think it worth contacting the spares department given the kit’s age!). The one on the left was my version.
I tried to include a bit of cockpit detail by adding an instrument panel, and the supplied machine gun mount was totally the wrong shape (and not in any way to scale, being far too thick to be realistic or useable) so a replacement was fabricated with stretched sprue.
Other additions included the ‘bolts’ added to the propeller ‘hub’, and when it came to rigging, I added the ‘wires’ and horns for the wing and tail flaps.
Like the new mould BE2c which conveniently comes with strut alignment supports, I decided to try and add the struts to the bottom wing first, using a cardboard guide that I cut to the correct 14° angle. Once they had set very hard, I then added the top wing (which lined up more or less exactly) and finally squeezed in the cabane struts.
The rigging was far more challenging than that experienced on the previous three WW1 models, the Bristol being double-bay, and to judge from the illustrations that I found, far more elaborately rigged in each bay. I used AK Thin fastened with Super-Thin Rocket Hot CA.
As with the previous RFC Camel, paints were applied with a brush, using Vallejo Model Air Brown Violet Brown RLM81 which seems to be very close to PC10, with the undersides being painted with 71075 Sand Ivory. The cowling was painted with Mid Ocean Grey (which seemed to be more or less the correct shade and finish). Varnished wood-work areas (the propeller and struts) were painted using a variety of brown and yellow tones to give a grained finish once varnished.
The decals were in very good condition, and were those supplied in the box, being the markings for the aircraft flown on the Western Front in 1917 by Canadian ‘ace’ Major Andrew McKeever DSO MC* - who accounted for at least 29 enemy aircraft whilst a member of 11 Squadron.
With each of the WW1 aircraft I’ve built, I hope I’ve added a bit more modelling technique or developed a modelling skill a little bit more. The kits have certainly been more of a challenge than some more modern (in every sense) Airfix offerings. Next on to the work-top is probably going to be the latest E.III Eindekker – a monoplane, so the rigging should be a little easier and everything should fit better!
Thanks for taking a look.
-
Your recollection regarding aircrew is correct - Douglas Bader had more leg! I did think of replacing them with PJ productions figures (which I used on the Fokker Dr1 and the Albatros) but I've got a Roden SE5 (shame Airfix didn't produce one) to build sometime, which has no pilot, so I was saving the figures I've got left - don't want the expense of ordering more...
-
Hi Rod (aka GOM) - glad you've decided to come back to the Forum. Thanks for the comments on the Camel. I did think about rounding off the front of the cowling, but it was so badly moulded that part of it was missing anyway and had to be reconstructed with filler, so I didn't dare risk filing it away elsewhere. As already mentioned, whilst I'm not at the moment interested in radical conversions (cf one of your threads) it seemed logical to tweak the Camel to a more representative one. What puzzled me was that the painting guide reflected the twin Vickers that I installed, whilst the kit didn't.
And I suspect you might be correct about the Bristol being a better kit - certainly the moulding seems to be better and apart from a completely missing undercarriage leg which I shall have to replicate, there's not a huge amount of scratching to be done.
But there's the still the rigging to anticipate - and the Bristol is double-bay!
BRISTOL FASHIONED - Airfix 1/72 Bristol F.2b
in Aircraft
Posted
Hi Richard - If you look at the various forum sites that make reference to PC10 I think it's fair to say that you will not find a definitive answer! My understanding is that it was a greenish finish originally, which 'faded' to a brownish colour - so I guess both could well be correct... Which is of very little help, I'm afraid.