Jump to content
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. :)

Vladan Dugaric

Members
  • Content count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About Vladan Dugaric

  • Rank
    Newbie
  • Birthday 25/12/65

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    vladan_dugaric@hotmail.com
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Twickenham, UK
  • Interests
    Scale aircraft modelling, photography, airshows

Recent Profile Visitors

1,256 profile views
  1. Mixing Revell Paint

    Number of layers depends on how opaque that nail polish is. You will need to apply layers until you have even coverage. I cannot really say how long you should wait between coats, as you would have to test that using a plastic card. Nail polish dries pretty quickly, but that process is exponential (it slows down with drying, if after time T half of remaining solvent evaporates from paint, after another time T the remaining half will be halved, and so on, so the paint never fully dries, but becomes dry enough to handle after a while). If you thin the nail polish, drying time depends on which thinner you used. Once again, for brush painting, you cannot use too hot thinners, as they will mar the plastic or paint beneath. I would try applying the second coat after at least several hours, and more likely at least a day. You have to let the paint dry sufficiently, as fresh coat applied over paint that is touch dry but still not propely dry will cause the layer underneath to start expanding, and that can lead to cracks appearing in finish. Letting paint dry long enough will minimise the risk of cracked paint, but it cannot guarantee that it won't happen. The best way to do this would be to spray.
  2. Mixing Revell Paint

    It might work, but first test it on a piece of polystyrene to check if the amount applied by brush is small enough not to etch through. You will probably need to apply using just one stroke and not come back to that spot until it dries fully. Another thing to remember with lacquer paints (nail varnish/polish is usually a lacquer) is that it dries (solvent evaporates), unlike enamel paint which cures (reacts with oxygen from air) in addition to drying (solvent evaporating). Lacquer paint can always be re-dissolved using the solvent present in the fresh coat of paint, unlike enamel, which cannot be re-dissolved using its solvent. This means that you must be very quick if you want to apply another coat, or it cannot be done without marring the finish in the previous coat of paint. That is why hot paints are usually meant for spraying only, which will re-dissolve paint underneath, but it won't run and the amount of thinner present in the new coat is so small, to only let the paint adhere well. However, it cannot be sprayed on thick to the point of running, as this will mechanically damage the finish underneath. This is the reason Tamiya acrylic paints are very hard to brush paint. They are acrylic lacquers, and painting the second coat almost instantly softens the layer underneath, making a gooey mess in the process. This can be somewhat prevented by painting a coat of Klear on top of fully cured paint, then letting it fully cure, as Tamiya paint won't soften Klear, letting you apply a second coat without damaging finish underneath.
  3. Mixing Revell Paint

    Nail varnish is usually too hot to paint with a brush, as it will etch plastic. Spraying it will cause very little etching (which will make the paint stick better), but won't damage plastic surface and details.
  4. KA Models 1/72 F-14A Tomcat

    It is a reboxed Fujimi Tomcat, as the sprues look identical to it.
  5. The Best 1/72 Scale F-100C I Can Build

    Just a note about Triple Zilch, when you do build your D model: it was sprayed Aluminium lacquer, so apart from the hot part of the rear fuselage around the engine bay, which was titanium, unpainted, and heat stained, the rest of the aircraft was not natural metal.
  6. I agree. We should not have to do it on a modern, well-researched kit. The filled and painted wings were not that well known fact among model builders and kit manufacturers 30-40 years ago, but in the past 10 or 15 years this horse has been beaten to death and now most modellers and most manufacturers either are, or should be, aware of this. Thus, no excuses for not doing it really. If AMK can include two sets of wings in their upcoming F-14 kit, I see no reason why someone would not be the first to either have a filled and puttied wing, or two sets of wings if they fancy rivets all over one set. Let's see what Eduard do next year with their Mustang (but, knowing their love of rivets, I am not holding my breath; then again, they do make several different wing versions for their Spitfires, so perhaps we can still dream).
  7. I mentioned to Airfix team on SMW 2016 that filled wings or additional sprue with them would be great as no other kit has that option, but I presume that added cost of tooling for extra sprue put a stop to that. Also, as they had sprues on show, tooling has been done, and any changes to it would be a possible minor tweak if issues with short shot parts, fit, or excessive flash were found. Experience tells me that any sprues on show, even if a year or two before the regular release, almost always mean that tooling is final. The only exceptions I know of were a significant retooling of Trumpeter 1/32 Grumman Wildcat which had disastrous early reviews, and a minor adjustment to Airfix 1/72 Spitfire Mk.IX after prop shape and symmetric hatches on rear fuselage were reported. Good thing is, there are only a few panel lines to fill. If you look carefully at Mustang wings, you will see a very faint trace of where panel lines were if light is just right. It is more of a slight imperfection in the smooth metal surface than a panel line, and it can only be seen when the light falls almost parallel to the surface of the wing. Filling the panel lines on the model and smoothing, without trying to perfectly hide them, would be prototypical, and it should not be too hard to do. Just filling with Mr Surfacer 500 and later wiping with alcohol, or using any of the water based putties (like Perfect Plastic Putty or even white milliput) and then wiping with wet finger or tissue would do the trick, without any need for sanding.
  8. News Italeri 2017

    You're right. I somehow always thought it was a repop of Hawk/Testors kit, but it really is original ESCI. I was under that impression ever since I built it in late 80s. Anyway, apart from shape which is in general OK, it has crude detail and inaccurate canopy framing. It is a product of its time (late 70s). Hasegawa kit is very nice, covers more or less all versions, and nearly perfect, apart from heavy rivets on wings, tail and empennage (all fixable, either by filling or replacing with parts from the excellent DACO upgrade set). Still, it is good to have more choice in the market, so hopefully, Italeri will release a new tool F-104. It is interesting that no F-104 kits have been produced by Chinese manufacturers yet (although I am sure they will cover the entire family eventually).
  9. News Italeri 2017

    ESCI 1/48 F-104 is an ancient Hawk kit. Hopefully it is not a re-release of that.
  10. 5 spoke wheels have the same weird hub shape as on Revell 1/32 Spitfire Mk.I—hubs bulge out instead of in.
  11. More on Airfix 2017

    The angle of both photos is very slightly different, but if you look closely you will see that it is definitely the same plane. There seems to be some covering over the top of the canopy in Airfix photo, as it is brown in colour, which is not there in the museum photo. Also, the second crew member is a touch lower because Airfix photo was taken from a slightly closer distance or a little lower. Compare the frames on the outside of the canopy and the ones above pilots and you will see they are the same. Also - compare the pilot itself - it would be very unlikely to have an identical figure in an identical pose in two different planes. Look at the pose of the hand, it is identical. The mask and the straps that hold it are also identical (which would be unlikely if it was a different figure in a different plane).
  12. More on Airfix 2017

    The photo from today's (December 3) Advent Calendar is B-25 in Overloon Museum: The horizontal bar on the forward top part of the canopy gave the impression of a steeply raked canopy frame line. Another clue that it is not Skua or Roc is the side by side seating (you can see another crew member to the side just below the Airfix Magazine the pilot is holding.
  13. One thing I never saw mentioned is that Z-M F-4 has the correct shape of the windshield frame, which is incorrect on all F-4 models except Tamiya 1/32 F-4. Hasegawa has the frame nearly correct, but too thin and only the flat (inside) portion of the frame is engraved, but there is nothing on the curved (outside) sides. The frame cross section has a kink and covers both flat and curved portion. Everyone else makes the frame as a continuous curve, while the original has two long straight almost parallel sections, two converging straight sections below (blending smoothly into the above straight sections), and a semi-circular section on top. There is another set of straight sections at the bottom on the metal bit below the centre glass panel, yet again blending into the above straight sections. Making the entire frame a continuous curve makes it too wide in the middle (at the widest point) and usually too narrow at the bottom of the glass centre panel. Monogram is the worst offender here, with centre flat glass section actually having a little bit of the curved edge where it spills over the curved section. If one looks at the F-4 windshield, it is quite obvious that the shape is not a simple curve, and the look is quite distinctive. So far, only Tamiya and Z-M did that correctly, and I am surprised that no after market manufacturers stepped in with replacement windshield that has correct framing. This photo shows the shape of the windshield frame well: Another view: On the Airfix stand I mentioned this to Airfix people, as their F-4 as displayed also has a continuous curve instead of the correct shape of the frame. I hope they will correct the shape of the frame, as it would not be complicated to do, and it would improve the look of the canopy.
  14. Italeri News 2016 now official

    Harriers, Phantoms and A-7 Corsairs are very similar between Fujimi and ESCI, as they were apparently tooled by the same tooling company, with just enough differences to not be a straight copy. Corsairs have slightly different intake, as Fujimi has half-length trunking and intake halves that are separate from fuselage, and ESCI has a blanking plate about 5 mm behind the intake lip and just intake lips as separate parts. Fujimi also has correct wheels for Navy vs Air Force versions, while ESCI has Navy wheels only for both versions. Harriers are a similar story, being even more alike, but apparently ESCI fits slightly better. Phantoms are just like Corsairs, with Fujimi having some version specific parts unlike ESCI which has Air Force fuselage (refueling port on spine and no engraving for Navy probe, Air Force cockpit, Navy wheels, lower wing with catapult hook detail).
  15. Spitfire MK XII - Airfix 1/48

    This is a wonderful build. Weathering is just right - not too stark, but not invisibe either. I love it. There is one very minor correction that you may want to make—Spitfire Mk.XII did not have wing tip lights. The wing tip covers were just wooden pieces that covered the exposed rib after removal of standard oval wing tips. Other clipped wing Spitfire marks did have wing tip lights, but not Mk.XII. The profile on the top of your post also has this error. It should not be too difficult to repaint the wing tips if you can be bothered to do this.
×