Totally Mad Olivier

Thanks, yes, the snow has gone, we were lucky yesterday, we could come-back under the sun. But today is rainy... Some docs contradicting also partially the diagram: My today personal conclusion after long debates and documentation on the rivets question is that: 1) there were 3 areas on wings: the most frontal one (nearly the same up as bottom contrarly to what the diagram 154 shows) was really smooth, with no rivets visible, an intermediate on which a more simple treatment was applied, on which rivets could be visible (especially on the field after several missions, on a quite worn aircraft as the Missouri in January of 1945) and a third one on which the rivets were very visible, even when leaving the factory, as no treatment was applied on the concerned panels. The latter concerned among others the ailerons and the elevators. 2) there is though a remaining doubt in my mind (still the same than expressed in my post#640), concerning the most external part of the wings. The restoration pics 152 and 153 suggest that this area was covered and smooth, with invisible rivets, while the period pics 145 and 151 suggest that these areas were intermediate, with possibly visible rivets. Up to now (and in the lack of new info, I will stay on this option), I have not removed my rivets on these panels, trusting more the period pics than the restored aircraft (we could see many small errors on these restored P-51, as mentioned John Terrell, only a few of them being really very accurate). But I could change my mind on this precise point, if some expert brings new infos... All the best Olivier

Hi John, what photos do you mean? Let us see again this one I posted above: This one, imho, contradicts also at least partially the diagram 154 and is in coherence with the docs 152 and 153, except for the external portion. It is in total adequation with the doc 151 above, while this is up and 151 was bottom. I am not an expert, but there are imho 3 areas: - one, front, really smooth (light blue on the diagram) - one, intermediate, with an Alclad coat, not as smooth as the first one, contradicting the diagram 154 - and one with no surface treatment at all.

Waiting for certainties about the upper surfaces, I ever did this, that we can take for granted:

Thanks a lot to both of you, Garry and John, for your help. Garry, I understand what you say about the up and low surfaces, with this diagram showing the different treatments between both but: - John Terrell also brought us the up side of the wing, and it is imho totally contradictory with the diagram 154. I suppose the guys who made the restoration of this P-51 knew what they did, applying the putty on the same 40% up and bottom: - there is imho a contradiction on the bottom external portion between this doc 154 and the period pic in the doc 151 above - many of our period pics contradict too this diagram with a nearly 90% of the up side puttied. So??

Hello to all, I am back home, and about to remove the wrong rivets on about 40% of the wings (see above). But I have a doubt about the last portion, with contradictory docs: This portion gets the putty on the left pic, showing a P-51 being restored, while the right pic is a period one. On the latter, the same portion is remained uncovered with the putty. I have ever mentioned above this contradiction, without getting an answer. If the best experts could bring the light, I would appreciate a lot. Olivier

Hi Rumblestripe, you are 100% right about the red and when I built the Fiat, I could experiment how the result depends on the primer coat, as you mention. The question is: will I get a metal look applying the Dark Green over a silver or alu primer? It is a very good question and the only way to know is to do trials, what I intend to do soon. But, aware that the Dark Green covers much more than red, I intend to apply a light coat thinned a lot with alcohol (what I explained above in the post#634). About the finish, I have abandoned the idea of getting a quite glossy surface, and I should apply a satin one... Thanks for following and for the kind comments... Olivier

Dear Hammond65, thank you very much for your kind comments about my build and about the thread. I can see you are not convinced by my equation S/S= G Personally, I remain convinced I am right on that point, because we have exactly the same effect on the Old Crow we have on the Missouri (doc 20). In both cases, coincidentally, we have a glossy mirror effect on the wing area reflecting the fuselage. And on the 2nd Old Crow pic, the same glossy area we had on the first one is now satin, imho just because not reflecting the fuselage. I personally don’t think this is due to the sun but it would be good to find other examples to convince you. As a consequence, I should apply a satin varnish on my model. P.S: did you notice how the Missouri is worn on the crew pic? (much more than on the other ones). It would br great to be able to get dates of these pics. Was the crew pic taken before the others, suggesting that the aicraft has been at least partially repainted? Or was it done much later, just before the end of England’s tour and his return back home? Maybe Lt Columbo (alias Antonio) will find the answer to that question...

The thread has turned very quiet and I feel a bit alone... Unfortunately, some of my questions above have remained without answer... Myself, I won't write anything in the next 24 hours, as I will be traveling to go back home after nice holidays far from this awful weather actually happening in France and Europe... But be sure my motivation is intact. The next posts - at my return - should concern more the build than the research aspects, unless some of you come forward.

Reading in the Juan Manuel FAQ again (my Bible) the pages 127-128 (how to paint a cannon or machinegun?), an idea came to me. Why not apply first a coat of alu (Tamiya enamel XF-16) on my Missouri? I applied such a coat on my Fiat 806, before the bright red coat, and thus I got a very nice and realistic metal look. For the OOB version I made of this car, I applied the red directly on the plastic and I can tell you that the result is not the same at all. On this XF-16, I would apply the RAF Dark Green and the Medium Sea Grey, thinned generously with alcohol, getting so a very thin coat allowing, by using a flat clean brush, enhancing metal on reliefs through the dark green. Of course, trials will be necessary, especially to see if doing so, I don't lose my rivets... And of course, other complementary weathering techniques would be applied over the green and grey...

I wonder if this "new" Tamiya LP is the same than this one, that I frequently use and that is not new at all: this enamel paint, great especially for metallics (but not only), allowing as airbrush as paintbrush, is unavailable in France, but you can get it on Amazon or ebay. I have several of these great Tamiya enamel paints (as good as the acrylic ones). Thinned with the great Tamiya X20 thinner (or with their Lacquer thinner for a more glossy finish), they will never disappoint you. Now, as you, I heard about these new Tamiya LP, and I wonder if they are the same or not...

Here is below the lower panel Fencer-1 mentioned above and the Laurent enlargement pic in the concerned area. Thanks a lot for this info Fencer-1 and welcome in the thread, I hope you will bring other great docs like that! Cheers Olivier

Un grand merci Laurent! Great pics, showing the lower cowling panel and also traces on the underbody! All the best Olivier

Thanks a lot, Antonio! However, I can't see very well the lower cowling panel Fencer-1 showed above. Would someone have a pic showing this lower cowling panel on an earlier P-51D??

Laurent, you posted this pic last february, 10. Do you have the full pic of this P-51 underbody? If yes, it would be great if you could post it. Merci d'avance Olivier

I think I have understood something about the mirror effect: look at these Old Crow pics, taken the same day: What I mean is: a satin surface facing another one = a glossy surface! (satin + satin = gloss) creating an optical illusion... This completing the excellent Antonio's demo in the post#592, using C. Baltrinic model. I go on thinking however that the Missouri was bit more glossy than the Frenesi (see my post#613 above), and I will use the great Frenesi pics we have (thanks John!) as a reference taking that in account...

First of all, I want to thank all of you for your great contribution to this thread, turning it imho into a real reference one about the P-51D-10-NA of the 357th FG. There are many traps because of the many changes and updates on this aircraft, and, thanks to you, I (and with me, the readers, next builders of this thread) should avoid some of them. Now, I would like to have your opinion about the gear wells, because I know it is also a matter of debate regarding the inside color. Some pics would be welcome too, as for the underbody on P-51D-10-NA...

Thanks a lot Jamie. Your post confirms me in the intention to apply the RAF Dark Green as a base coat. And what about the bottom? Medium Sea Grey seems to be the most probable, do you agree? Olivier

Can you precise this, please, Antonio?

I made this comparison restored Frenesi/ Missouri and it shows imho that the Missouri Green was more gloss than the restored Frenesi. If we consider the Frenesi is at 5/10 (satin) on the scale, the Missouri would be about 6,5, probably...

Sorry again for my ignorance, but what do you mean by "fin fillet". I often read that mention without understanding...

Hi Antonio, we ever had this doc, numbered as 22. Interesting to see anyway how the Missouri is worn on that photo... Indeed, while it really looked EDSG up to now! This build will turn me mad! Every time you seem to find truth, a new development comes to contradict the previous one. I thought the Frenesi was painted Extra Dark Sea Green... Well, I can't make head or tail of it, and I think I will finally go for the RAF Dark Green, as JMV... I think we will never be able to be sure of anything on that matter... Thanks John for these very nice pics. So, also on that point (the finish), we have a controversial... The problem is that we talk about mat, satin and gloss, while there are, as for colors, an infinity of subtle variations... That is why I mentioned above a scale of mat/ gloss. On this scale, 0/10 would be totally mat, 5/10 would be satin and 10/10 would be lacquer mirror finish. The question is: where was the Missouri on that scale? For now, I would say (maybe I am wrong) between 5,5 and 7/10, what the docs seem to confirm imho. I don't think a more mat surface (less than 5,5) could give this mirror effect we have on the doc 20. Of course, I am not an expert...

On my Macbook screen, this rudder fabric (mentioned as « Olive Drab ») is very very close from the RAF Museum Extra Dark Sea Green: This is for now the color I would like to get... When I will be back home (in 1 week), I will try to find the good mixing with Tamiya acrylics, unless someone here has a recipe...

This very important chart deserved to get added to our "best of" docs: If I had to apply the base color paint now, my reference would be the RAF Museum Extra Dark Sea Green for the upper. But of course without any certainty to be right. And you? For the lower surfaces, probably the Medium Sea Grey from the same RAF Museum chart... Notice the more red yellow from this chart, compared with the IPMS one.

Hi Antonio, Great job with the Chris Baltrinic build, with very convincing conclusions, to which I totally suscribe. So your intuition (post#568) was right. You deserve the Brit Gold medal 🥇 for all what you ever brought to this thread, congratulations and again thank you. This last discover is very important, meaning that a mat finish applied on a camouflaged RAF Green like we could see on the 357th FG P-51Ds, is a mistake. The several examples of that fact confirm that imho. Notice that the Baltrinic build is very nice but not weathered at all, a respectable choice, but my challenge will be to get this mirror effect on a weathered aircraft, like the Missouri appears on ours pics. A kind of synthesis between the amazingly well weathered JMV build (my reference) and the Chris one, to which we can refer from the finish point of view (I don't think the JMV build would have the mirror effect in the same conditions). Notice too that the finish of Chris model is more gloss than satin imho. I am not sure you will get the mirror effect on the left wing with satin finish. All that will require trials on a second wing, that I will do as soon as possible, but I could follow my first idea (my post#491 p. 18) and apply the Marabu gloss varnish thinned with the great Tamiya X-20 enamel thinner. On my previous build, the Fiat, this combination gave a satin/ gloss surface (let's say 6,5/10 on a mat/ bright scale, 10/10 meaning a lacquer mirror effect). Taking part to a contest, it had been slightly criticized on that point (with right) and I had redone the body painting job, choosing the Tamiya Lacquer thinner instead of the X-20, and getting so a more glossy surface, better for a new car even of that period (8/10 on the scale), that would be the definitive one. P.S: I noticed also, on the same model, that the angle that the P-51 fuselage does with the ground is too important compared with the real aircraft. I don’t know what kit he used but this point will have to be checked imho... This would suggest that either the main gear legs were too long, either the tail leg was too short: Cheers Olivier P.S: another question we may wonder is: was the finish the same on the whole aircraft? in other words, shouldn't I use several combinations of varnishes following the areas. Look at the fuselage of the Missouri on our docs really doesn't look bright at all, just satin, no more, while there is a light but real shining effect on Chris build... You'll say maybe just a question of light... Yes, maybe... To illustrate what I just said, now look at this enlargement of our doc 106: Do you agree with me to say that the red and yellow grid is mat (no shining at all) while the fuselage and the propeller are at least satin, with shining areas... I should certainly take that in consideration, and these differences of brightness will give imho a more natural result.

Hi Antonio, your pic shows also the small circular gun camera hole John mentioned above: Cheers