DavidJC

OK, the motor might not be the same one as the one for 1/24 aircraft, but I still find it amazing that such a small motor (and power supply) could move that beast at all, especially with 70s technology. I really wouldn't have thought it had the power/torque to overcome all that resistance, especially as it was actually driving a shaft too as opposed to a pinion-to-pinion setup.

As a matter of interest, did anyone ever build the motorised option, and did it work? I never built it but one of my father's colleagues did who gave it to me. it was a massive thing and even then I wondered how such a small electric motor - presumably the same one as powered the 1/24 aircraft propellers - could move such a huge and heavy car kit with all that friction etc.

Oh, very nice! They are excellent airbrushes. So yeah, the .2mm will be for close work and beautifully fine lines, the .4mm will be for wider areas. Either way it is a case of practice practice practice with different pressures and different paints and their thinning ratios for any given circumstance.

Can we ask what airbrush you have bought? I don't know enough about them but I was under the impression that - generally - needles, though removable, are airbrush specific? That said, I think I have seen some airbrushes that have needles that can be swapped. It seems that for general use a .3mm is fairly standard for close work and fine lines but also being able to spray a larger area. A .2mm needle is used for much closer work and much finer lines with larger areas being more difficult. Anything over .3mm is for much wider coverage, I believe, which makes fine lines more difficult as you go up in size - although I take on board Ossian's post above. Do you have a compressor, or are you using the cans of air? Cans are great for a quick pass on a larger area or a quick and simple job, but you really are better off buying an air compressor with a pressure adjusting knob, even if it's relatively cheap and cheerul. It will save you loads in the long run and will give you far more control than a can ever will (which loses pressure very rapidly, even when new, when using it for more than a few moments at a time. Due to the propellant and contents, It 'ices' over, then you then have to stop to let it warm up before you can use it again). Any airbrush though is a case of practice practice practice, and then practice again. Everything is a combination of air pressure and paint consistency and each will have a direct result on the other. I wish there was a simple formula or guide to achieve the best results but there is none. The amount of mess and even models I messed up in my early days of airbrushing is terrifying; even now I get things wrong although thankfully have learned alot and have now minimised those failures. I have also learned how to remove paint, particulary when still 'wet' to have another go, although that's not ideal. As Ossian suggests try on some scrap plastic and/or old models before committing yourself to your newest model that you have laboured over. If you can afford to, build some cheap kits and practice on those first.

Is this the enamel-based Matt Cote or an acrylic-based version? There is a difference. The enamel-based Matt/Satin/Gloss Cote will need enamel thinners or white spirit, whilst any acrylic version will need its own thinner (I would be twitchy in using water).

Can't help I am sorry, I only wish I could. I built that kit some many years ago and even then I felt the yellow inaccurate. I am lucky I live very close to Victory and at that time had been over it many times. In my mind's eye, the recommended colours didn't look 'right'. Whilst colour is subjective, overall it should look 'right' to the viewer - even if I see a colour differently to the way you see the same colour, it should still look 'right' to us both. With Airfix naturally suggesting Humbrol paints, you might have to consider and look at alternative manufacturers to guage a more realistic colour. I wish I could suggest a more accurate paint, I am sorry i can't.

Jonathan Mock suggested thinning with water, I would prefer to use its proprietary thinner :-)

I just noticed that Jonathan Mock suggests thinning with water. I use water to clean up, but I'm twitchy about using water to thin and would - personally - prefer to use a proprietary thinner for application. Initially I thought we were talking Airfix Matt Clear Cote which is enamel based and has always looked cloudy in the bottle (which needs mixing absolutely thoroughly) but thus far I haven't seen the acrylic version as I think that's relatively new, hence my plea to test on a scrap model or other similarly painted surface first.

Please please please try a coat on a scrap model first. Please do not go hammering in on your pride and joy.

As Jonathan Mock says, make sure it is shaken absolutley thoroughly and keep stirring/shaking during its use. It can and does appear cloudly even when thorougly mixed. If you are at all worried, don't go hammering in on your pride and joy! Try a coat or two on a scrap model (or other painted surface) to set your mind at rest. If you're airbrushing (actually even if you're brush painting) it will need thinning to some degree, and keep stirring it during its use.

Each to their own with pre-shading but I have to confess, to my relatively inexperienced eyes, I do struggle to see the relevance. Not only that (and perhaps it's why I can't see the relevance) I can't seem to do it... I've tried on scrap models but for me the pre-shading just gets eaten up by the final coats of paint! I realised that it wasn't for me, anyway. I would prefer to put on a couple of light coats of the final paint scheme, then weather on top. To my mind that's what would happen in real life - fresh paint would become weathered rather than any weathering coming from underneath it. Of course great models can be clean and 'factory fresh', but are they realistic? Even the newest planes by the time they got to service would have some sort of staining. Wartime aircraft particularly wouldn't have had the cleaning they might otherwise have done. So whilst there is no doubt in my mind that a pristine WW2 modelled craft looks beautiful, the likliehood is that it would have had at least some sort of fuel/exhaust/gun stains with paint wear somewhere on it. Royal Naval machines were maintained beautifully, that was part of Naval discipline, but even then there'd have been fading and staining of various kinds - again, fuel, oil, hydraulic, gun and salt water. Arguably though, trying to attain a realistic 'faded' paint job just ends up looking like, well, a bad paint job from the modeller (well, it does in my case). Yet I am happy to lightly weather my planes by way of the panel lines and other stains. Thus the combination of 'pristine' paintwork with such panel line treatment and other stains might be an anomaly, but to my mind it works. Whilst, then, it might not be 'accurate', to my mind it does look 'realistic'. I suppose it's 'scale vs realism' again. In any event, it's interesting to see it's just a thorny subject here as anywhere else!

Something occurred to me last night. Much is made of modern kit transparencies being 'super thin' and absolutlely 'crystal clear' and 'flawless'. Absolutely and I love them. But when I have seen preserved aicraft in real life, the canopies have been heavy affairs, very scuffed, distorted and 'yellowing' - if nothing else, nothing like clear. That might be partly due to age, yet I have heard those of Fleet Air Arm days saying that canopies were anything but clear ,even when the craft was in service. Arguably then, the clunky, cloudy, thick efforts of the 70s are more accurate? So it seems we have another compromise here - another I am happy with.

All extremely valid Jonathan and very much part of the whole of this debate. The scaling of detail is something I mentioned elsewhere on here. Equally applicable to scale aircraft modelling, as the model railway world, the lining on 00 model railways locos/carriages/stock would be virtually unseen if not impossible to produce as markings on the model. But to have even tried to have reproduced them that small, even if it was technically possible, would have looked totally wrong. I think it's the same with panel lines. As you say, I'd think we'd notice they weren't there. Indeed I am trying to imagine the howls of protest from far more experienced modellers than I, as well as the modelling press as a whole, that a new-mould kit is without any sort of panel line or rivet detail at all, even if in that scale it would never have been apparent or even seen.

I know we've touched on panel lines elsewhere on this Forum and how nobody these days could accept raised panel lines (is there anyone?) which has sparked debate regarding depth-vs-scale. I was reading another Forum a few days ago where it seemed to me there was a little bit of pomposity regarding their own skills in modelling. That they were experienced and good modellers is not in doubt, but what struck me was their disdain for panel line 'washes'. Regular visitors to this Forum will know that in the past couple of years I have got back into modelling and produced some adequate results. Not good in my eyes, but I am a perfectionist. I have also discovered what I see as the joys of weathering, and have started to use dark washes in panel lines, as well as learning bit by bit on paint scuffs and engine/gun streaks. The modellers in question seemed to hold panel line washes in total disdain, almost suggesting those that engaged in the practice were beneath them - such comments such as 'never be seen in that scale', 'if a craft was that dirty in real life' etc etc. Like everyone they are entilted to their opionions of course but I beg to differ with theirs. Panel lines on model aircraft might well not be seen at 1/48 and certainly not on 1/72, which is where the compromise on effect vs scale comes in. To my mind though, when we add washes and weathering this does add so much realism (and for any of that of course you need those panel lines of sufficient depth). Admittedly I have been over-clumsy in some of my weathering recently but that's down to me and I've recognised that and learned from it. On the other hand, even subtle weathering scaled down would, if you would believe the modellers on that Forum, leave the craft destitute. I've enjoyed weathering my craft and have, therefore, been thankful for panel lines of adquate depth which the 'real modellers' hold in such disdain. What are your views?

Quite simply, yes. Especially with markings for HMS Eagle 1970-1972 to match the Sea Vixen.

I've noticed that some compressors can be very expensive, I do wonder why. I suppose they are meant to be used for longer periods of time and more frequently than my cheap and cheeful make. There are those that pump up a chamber then cut out, only starting again to pump up the chamber as it's used. are their any advantages to that, where my cheap and cheerful thing just continually compresses?

A point to note is that Sealink vessels often if not always had the BR logo the 'wrong way round' (that is the top arrow pointing to the left rather than the right). I don't know why that would be definively, but I've heard that it was deliberate. I've heard that though it was part of BR it was Sealink as an entity, but also something to do with ships running on the right unlike trains that run on the left and another theory where only one side of the vessel had the logo the wrong way round so that it showed the correct way when on the other side (how was this any different to railway locos?) Of course, a shipping vessel though will only ever travel one way in relation to the vessel where a locomotive, diesels here with the double arrow, can work either direction in relation to itself. So though the logos look wrong, it could be they are not in fact a mistake on Aifix's part.

That's come up well.

Stunning build. How out of the box is that?

I started with a now ancient Humbrol airbrush. For what it was it was actually quite good, but unforunately I damaged it. Spurred on, I now use an Iwata Neo which, whilst cheap compared to other airbrushes, including Iwatas, suits my needs. It can be a beggar to clean though and the O-rings can be flimsy, so watch your cleaning fluids. What I found annoying is that whilst compressors tend to come with a standard hose fitting, airbrushes do not. The Neo doesn't come with a hose or any indication of what connector for the hose you will need. I got into a terrible mess with mine and bought several wrong adaptors to start with. I got so confused I honestly don't remember what sizes I bought, sorry. But the airbrush itself is fine for general modelling as we would need. Even with my ham-fistedness I can get a reasonably fine line with it, not that with our (or more accurately my) modellilng you will need that *too* often. It's a huge learning curve though. It's not just the use of the airbrush but thinning of paints that go with it, what pressures to use, how far back from the model to spray with the thinned paint, or how close to. All of these things interact in a variety of different ways. But I am getting there. I think as important is the supply of air. I bought a cheap (cheap he says!) and very cheerful compressor, but eminently usable. I could be wrong, but personally I don't think it's designed for any more than 15 minutes here and there, so if you're going to be using it very frequently or for extended periods, look at a more robust compressor. What I like about it is that it also has a separate air regulator on the unit itself, so between that and the use of the airbrush, there's a good degree of control. I paid around £60-£70 for the version without an included airbrush; there's a more expensive version with an airbrush included, but if you're going to get a good airbrush, you won't need the one included with the compressor. Whilst that's a lot of money for many, myself included, it's only a few cans of compressed air which have no real control and even when full, can suffer pressure drop after only a short spray time. It's a 'Vogue Air' HS-216K compressor and I found a review on YouTube. It came with an inline water trap and filter, too. Look on YouTube for HS-216K Compressor. There is the airbrush for £15-£20 (or even less) which is a simple handle with a nozzle and glass bottle and dip tube. They are great for spraying relatively large areas, though they still need practice, but I'd not want to try and attempt anything small with them as there is virtually no control. I'm not knocking them since they do seem to have their uses, but all I ever found it did was just sort of blast paint over everywhere and everything.

I use an Iwata Neo airbrush. Whilst it's good, it can be a pain to clean and not as good as a very expensive airbrush. However, for someone like me who only uses it for airbrushing models with a degree of control, it's great, Even I can get a relatively fine line from it. It's been a steep learning curve to thin paints though. I also think a compressor is a must. You can get by with compressed air cans but honestly by the time you have bought a few of those you just might well have got a cheap and cheerful compressor. My compressor was only around £70 (only!) but it does have a variable pressure control which cans of air don't. So you have control on the airbrush and the compressor. The compressor is not meant in any shape for form to be used continually; again for me it is ideal since I only use it once in a while. Yes it's very cheap and cheerful, but for me it's ideal. Be aware, something that frustrated me greatly. Whilst compressors tend to have a standard output connection, airbrushes don't and you will have to make careful research into the connecting hoses. http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v3/714949508/1_8HP_newly_design_mini_air_compressor.jpg

It's true Airfix did a 1/48 Buccaneer from which one could build an RN version - yay! But by all accounts it was typical Airfix of the period. I'd be the first to congratulate Airfix on their new tooling kits and the beauty of them, at the same time we have to be honest with ourselves, Airfix did produce some poor kits in the past. I've not read one positive review of the Buccaneer with its poor fit. I have to say I never built it but from all my general reading the whole thing needs retooling (in 1/48!) in the same manner and standard as their newer kits.