This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Giorgio N

Members
  • Content count

    9,787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Giorgio N last won the day on November 13 2012

Giorgio N had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,294 Excellent

1 Follower

About Giorgio N

  • Rank
    Completely Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 22/07/69

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,750 profile views
  1. You'll never find one single match for the finish of a rifle, even less for an M16... As the aluminum receiver is anodized, these parts will change their finish over time as the process is not as durable as others used on steel. Today's rifles are finished in a very dark flat grey when new. Earlier rifles were a slightly lighter grey because the anodisation process was different (and used chemicals now banned because of their toxicity). With time the finish tends to become lighter and more "metallic", so much that on worn rifles the metal shows through. There are also cases of receivers with a different finish on the upper and lower part. The M16 family is very modular and it's very easy to assemble a rifle mixing parts form different manufacturers. While this is quite common for commercial rifles, military ones are a bit less mixed but 2-coloured receivers are not that uncommon. So even without considering the more extreme cases, depending on the age and the type of M16 you want to reproduce you may need one grey or another to start with. From a modelling point of view a lot would also depend on the scale: for a 1/35 rifle to be honest I'd just follow Steve's very good advice, to add some variation you may decide to use black for the steel parts and a dark grey for the receiver. If you're building a larger replica, for example one of the Trumpeter 1/3 models, then I'd still start from there but at that point the choice of paint may be a bit more important. Again, depending on the model you can start with a darker grey (say something like FS36081) or a lighter one (like 36152). For such a large model it's of course important to add some depth to the finish using variations of the base paint so you may relly end up using more than one grey anyway. In terms of what colour to use, you can search for gun-metals, every model paint manufacturer has one. Or you can mix your own starting with a dark grey and adding some silver or steel. In acrylics I'd probably use the Vallejo colours and add some Vallejo air metallic paint. I'd use the Air metallic because their pigments are finer. An interesting alternative is Lifecolor's reflective agent, that when mixed to any Lifecolor acrylic allows the paint to be buffed when dry and reveal a nice metallic finish. The same Lifecolor has a set of paint aimed specifically at guns and weapons. The set includes a couple of colours to represent wood (not relevant to the Armalite family), 3 metallic greys with different casts (grey, blue and red) and one port of reflective agent. P.S. I may also add that the plastic parts of the M16 family have changed quite a bit over time, but let's just say that for these I'd use a very dark grey, for example Tamiya's NATO Black
  2. It's impossible to give a match for the grey of something like a rifle because the metal parts are generally not painted but chemically treated. M16s have aluminum alloy upper and lower receivers and these are anodized. This process can result in different colours depending on a number of parameters in the process. Steel parts (like the barrel, flash hider, front sight) are generally "blued" but this term describes a wide number of different processes that can result in different colours (some like parkerization tend to be grey, others lead to blue hues, some others result in greenish and even brownish finishes). As the M16 variants have been made over several decades, rifles from different eras may have also been treated differently depending on the then current requirements from the Army. Personally I'd choose a grey that looks close and add a little gun metal to give a metallic sheen. And a drop of blue
  3. I'm not sure how easy it will be to use the lifecolor paints for the smoke rings.. they are not the finest and when thinned beyond a certain limit they just separate in droplets. I'll watch your experiments with interest ! One possible solution is to add Vallejo's glaze medium, that makes the paint more transparent while retaining the standard thinning ratios. I've used this to make my own washes using Llifecolors and seems to be working, may be worth trying
  4. Have to agree, some of Matchbox's more exotic subjects are not likely to have the potential market for a mainstream kit. And no, Revell couldn't do a G.91Y starting from their R as both wing and fuselage differ too much between the two variants. Revell' G.91R is not a great kit anyway and suffers from several inaccuracies. But I'd still prefer new moulds than the reissue of these oldies. The only reason I'd buy a Revell reissue would be because of the decals, that are generally very good. Yes it was reissued by Revell but IIRC it was several years ago. As for Revell not issuing a new mould, that would depend on the subject. If it's a subject for which they can make more money with a new tool, they'll do one. They had Matchbox's Me.262 (itself quite a good kit) but made a new one and the same happened for other subjects. Even more interesting what they did with the He.70 as they had the Matchbox mould, that had been reissued by Revell in the past, and then preferred to rebox the ICM tool last year (to be honest a much better kit)
  5. I went to check that website out of curiosity and was quite surprised by the inclusion of a number of Luftwaffe aircrafts operating in support roles (and the He,113..) while none of the RAF aircrafts in the same roles was included. Now I can understand how the RAF website may exclude the Roc due to the very limited use by the Air Force (and I guess not many in the RAF would like the world to know that they made use of the FAA worst), but I'm sure that a few other types would deserve some recognition. Guess that had I been a contestand in Pointless I'd have chosen the Defiant, this would have likely resulted in a low enough score. I admit I'd have not probably thought of the Beaufighter
  6. Looking forward to these ! There's a very thorough explanation of the modifications needed for the 205 on the Aviolibri book on the type, let me know if this can be of use to you
  7. Love this model, a very good job on an old kit
  8. Knowing the show, I'd say that the Beaufighter would have been quite a good answer. It is officially recognised as having served in BoB, so I can see no problem there. Of course as enthusiasts we can object that the type service during the Battle is questionable, but it was indeed in service. Personally I'd have answered with something even more obscure, like the Roc ! Unfortunately I don't think this is listed in the RAFM website, but 2 AACU Rocs served during the Battle and one even claimed a damaged He.59 during an air-sea rescue mission
  9. Really, I'd rather have Revell issue new moulds of some of Matchbox's unique subjects, like the G.91Y or the Hawk 200, or of those subjects of which no "mainstream" kit is out yet. While I have several Matchbox kits in the stash, the only ones I'd buy today at a full price are probably the biplanes, the Provost, the Tempest and the Mystere. Maybe the Viggen.. I'd buy some others if I can find them at bargain price. And then there are some for which the seller would have to pay me to take them, like the F-16 and the A-7
  10. A correction to my previous post: while browising through some old magazines in search of a Phantom picture, I found reviews for some products of this company. They did issue a number of conversions, among them the SIAI S.1019 (to be used on the Airfix O-1 Bird Dog) and an Mc.205 fuselage to convert the Tauromodel Mc.202 (Tauro later issued the Mc.205)
  11. For big companies I mean companies like Revell, Italeri, Airfix and similar, companies with a good distribution that are likely to be found in every hobby shop. Sure Hasegawa have had 2 P-40s in their catalogue for many years, Academy followed at some point and yes, I forgot Hobbyboss and their Easy Kits (although IIRC their P-40E and N are heavily influenced by the Academy ones). Since the P-40 was used in large numbers during the war and was quite popular with modellers in the past, I'd have expected for example Revell to replace their ancient tool (they only reboxed the Vista K for a short time) when they issued their line of single seat WW2 fighters. Italeri has a P-51 and other WW2 fighters but never touched the P-40, Hasegawa never felt the need to replace theit admittedly still decent kits and Tamiya gave us other types but not a P-40 (and they may never do). Nothing against the kits made available by Special Hobby and other Czech manufacturers, I have SH's recent F and is a lovely kit and I don't mind building kits from the likes of Sword and AZ. My comment was not aimed against these companies but expressed my surprise at not having seen that many kits of the P-40 compared to other WW2 types. P.S. while Special Hobby first issued a P-40F several years ago, the kits shown in this thread are recent moulds, the older kits were very different and still old school short runs. These new ones don't differ much from a Revell or Airfix kit
  12. The radome on the Phantom is indeed in an earth brown fibreglass, but pictures where this colour is visible don't show the kind of smooth and gloss finish seen in pictures of "red nosed" British Phantoms. If these radomes weren't painted red or brown, at least they had received a good gloss coat. I have unearthed a good close-up of the radome carried by XV426 "P" of 56 Sqn. during the 1987 Aviano airshow and this is in a gloss reddish brown (notes say similar to 10115). In the picture the radome really looks painted, not left in natural fibreglass. The finish is similar to the ones seen on the F-4J in the link above, including the very visible white stencilling. What I remember was that the radome was used for the "showbirds", but this was not official information, the truth may well be different. In any case the finish was not the result of wear on the radome but was deliberate
  13. Yes, Academy did, but that was almost 20 years ago...
  14. It's a fantastic model, really great job. My only very small reservation is on the weathering, as the F-106 fleet was usually kept very clean. Of course, it's your model so if you like the style go for it. It's beautifully executed
  15. Not sure that the Luftwaffe Phantoms can be considered as lacking in unusual paint schemes... apart from the various official schemes, a wide number of experimental schemes were tested on both the F-4Fs and the RF-4Es over time. Not to mention the many anniversary schemes.