Dornier 17z Airfix (1/72)

[Roy vd M.]

Teaser

[Gremlin56]

Teaser

Sheer madness Roy, but bloody brilliant all the same :worthy:

Mind boggling how you got the frames lined up.

[jrlx]

Looks impressive, Roy! Great work!

[Roy vd M.]

Thanks guys... this indeed was not easy. Mainly due to a very disturbing mistake in Eduard's instructions + non-fitting photo etch. I'll make a step-by-step for this landing gear bay, making it not exactly a piece of cake but quite a bit less difficult.

[Ascoteer]

With vacforming canopies I find that the best thing to do is to support the kit part with a plug of Milliput and use Pet-G as the medium.

This is one I did for my Beaufighter build:

That was about the 3rd (or 4th?) attempt.

The original canopy is still perfectly intact and still perfectly useable as a master.

[Roy vd M.]

Nice canopy! Makes the internal detail really stand out.

And beautiful subject, by the way.

Pet-G was shipped yesterday so I hope it will be here in two weeks.

[Roy vd M.]

Eduard's instructions are incorrect, it's fiddly work, it doesn't fit as designed, there are barely any reference points, no slots for the ribs exist, any slight bend of a rib implies the risk of breaking it off and eventually all of this cannot be seen unless the plane is built belly up....

but when it does stick together, it looks nice I think!

Edited October 10, 2015 by Roy vd M.

[Roy vd M.]

A few times in this thread I complimented Airfix for the great fit in this kit, and Eduard for the great photo etch (although errors in the instructions and sometimes misfitting parts can't guarantee easy results); now I shot a short vid in which both are shown. It's almost like building a Tamiya kit, it fits that well!

1 minute video:

https://flic.kr/p/zmkGEW

[Martian]

That is beautiful work on those nacelles!

Matin

[Roy vd M.]

Matin, saying that must mean that you are aware of those nacelles being about the only truly misfitting parts in the Airfix kit??

I have read two build reports regarding this kit and both builders complained about the nacelles being way too tight to hold the engines. They were right, but a simple grinder in a power tool thinned them down quickly. Not only the nacelle walles need to be thinned, also the front cover.

[Roy vd M.]

Or is the nacelle where all the photo etch is at? my technical English isn't always up to standards..

In which case, thank you for the compliment.

[Kiwikitbasher]

Great work Roy,

I wish I had your skill and patience; very impressive workmanship. I'll be saving and data-basing this build when your done, thanks for all the info and photos on your approach to it.

[Roy vd M.]

Attention! Long post... grab a beer

Thanks Kiwikitbasher! Good to know this build report will be bookmarked for further use

The nacelles

121. I recently learned (see above) that the bays I'm working on are actually called 'nacelles'. The bays for the landing gear are situated directly behind the Bramo engines. Dryfitting the aft bulkhead, it appears that Airfix' part needs sanding.

122. Photo etched metal in place, sanding.

123. Using Gator Glue for attachment.

124. Picking up most glue with my finger, until a layer of 'stickiness' remains.

125. Positioning.

126. And pressing. I don't feel like pushing my finger against those parts, so I use the following very professional method:

127. Eduard's photo etch for the nacelles is difficult to handle. To make my life easier, I used a piece of Evergreen Angle .080" (#292) to glue one piece 'side to side'.

128. Like this.

129. First the PE-part needed filing because it doesn't fit: it's too long. File off approximately half a millimeter or maybe even more. Keep dryfitting. After filing, it still doesn't fit 100% but that doesn't matter much, it won't be visible (or barely). But it's confusing nevertheless.

After an elaborate dryfit-session I decided how to place the part. Then I thinly applied Gator Glue and I removed most with my finger.

130. This is the final position. Mind the gap, below to the right; this is unavoidable. If one decided to file the PE-part, it couldn't be positioned straight anymore. Design flaw by Eduard that, fortunately, eventually won't give any problems because it will not (or barely) be visible. As mentioned, it's still confusing when building.

131. Other side, I couldn't use an L-piece because there the ribs are visible. First I placed the vertical section.

132. The nacelles' side walls need to be de-ribbed...

133. ... and dredged, to remove the shockingly hideous ejector pin marks (as well as thinning the walls. Check a random reference picture and notice the great difference).

After grinding, sanding flat with coarse sanding paper -> medium sanding paper -> fine sanding paper.

134. Here's a gap as well, front side, and also this one will be invisible or barely noticeable in the end.

135. Airfix' instructions indicate that the side walls first have to be glued together and thereafter fixed into place. Taken into account Eduard's photo etch I thought it wiser to first position the first wall...

136. ... and then to fix the rib-holding strip of PE. According to Eduard's instructions this strip needs to be fixed to the top edge, however that would lead to a wide gap between the ribs and the 'photo etch box'. So don't follow Eduard's instructions here. It's a matter of dryfitting... if you don't use Gator Glue or Gator's Grip but, for instance, CA glue, please do so using the slowest-drying CA glue you can find. Glue the part in situ, check very carefully if the ribs just touch the 'box' and let dry. The art lies in doing this with all four ribs without them exploding or breaking off. So don't bend/flip them too often.

Here they are still unattached:

137. Here they are in their final positions. There are no slots for the ribs, so a bit of pioneering is involved. The strip was later more firmly connected using CA glue.

138. Setting the photo etch on the wall between landing gear bay and engine.

139. The other nacelle-side wall is put on hold for a bit. Dryfit with engine.

140. I read that the engine caps were way too thick and couldn't be fitted around the engine. That's right! But after some grinding this problem is easily solved.

141. Now it fits

142. Full dryfit of the port nacelle.

143. The fifth PE-rib needs to be attached to a plastic rib.

144. Other side there's approximately the same rib situation: no slots, be careful, dryfit! Eduard's instructions are correct on this side.

Applying the Gator Glue is done by means of a sanding paper. It's stiff and thin, and easily reaches within the nacelle.

145. After the Gator Glue had dried, I flowed a bit of thin CA-glue onto the connecting points between 'box' and ribs, to add sturdiness. Thin CA glue surplus can be sucked up with a tissue.

Here everything is in place:

146. Landing gear. This part cost at least 15 minutes to 'clean'.

147. Aftermarket resin-wheel candidly sawn off its holding block without using water or dust mask. I promise I won't do that again

148. Splendid construction. Kudos to Airfix!

149. Today on a modelling show I bought a spare kit. Nice, new canopy

150. For sure, this over-the-top dryfit is NOT perfectly useless and REALLY necessary to learn things about fit and such... ehm..

Total spent time: 70 hours.

[CedB]

Wow, you certainly beat that PE into submission... What an amazing result Roy, it seems a pity to paint it, but you'll have the pictures

"This part cost at least 15 minutes to 'clean'." Have you seen the Molding Flash Sanders from Hobby Elements? Video here:

They're a great tool - I use them with a Dremel flexi-drive and they really do perform as in the video, 'magically' removing the flash without sanding the part. Recommended!

[Roy vd M.]

Wow that looks great! Do you have to apply force? If so, this undercarriage would be too fragile for that solution. The rods are very thin...

Still, putting that tool on my wishlist!

[CedB]

No force required, in fact discouraged. I'd recommend these to anyone... Vincent the inventor is a fellow modeller and you need to 'encourage' him to ship to you via Facebook and PayPal but it's worth the effort IMHO. They are amazing - the video shows 'true life' in my experience.

[Reserve_22]

Hi your work with Pe parts is fantastic but I understand this-you buy Pe parts,books and others and you dont use wash-dry brush?Cockpit looks like toy.I think in 21 century isnt this good way.Sorry I know people write here ,,oh perfect ...." but critics are good for move forward.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Reserve_22

[Roy vd M.]

No force required, in fact discouraged. I'd recommend these to anyone... Vincent the inventor is a fellow modeller and you need to 'encourage' him to ship to you via Facebook and PayPal but it's worth the effort IMHO. They are amazing - the video shows 'true life' in my experience.

Thanks, I'll definitely look into it!

Hi your work with Pe parts is fantastic but I understand this-you buy Pe parts,books and others and you dont use wash-dry brush?Cockpit looks like toy.I think in 21 century isnt this good way.Sorry I know people write here ,,oh perfect ...." but critics are good for move forward.

Thank you for your critical note, which is much appreciated.

Actually I used some drybrushing here and there. And I also used a wash on the starboard side front. But I certainly understand what you mean.

Now here's my theory.

Shadowing

Normally with 1/32 planes I'd use washes and a whole array of weathering methods. In my view, washes are meant to depict shadows. In this cockpit I did a very modest bit of color modulation.

Shadows in this small scale are, I think, not to be exaggerated. I actually gave this issue quite a bit of thought and I'm still thinking about adding a bit of washes to the cockpit area. The problem I see is that they would not be in scale. I think the current shadowing is, naturally, in scale. This means that if there's a horizontal rib, below that there's approximately the right amount of shadowing.

There are many plane modelers who use a wash both above and below, for example, a rib. That would be incorrect however, because the shadow is mainly underneath the rib. The so-called Spanish school are very productive in that field. For example, Villalba. See here:

(Copyright J.M. Villalba, educational purposes only, picture will be deleted upon first request)

You can see that the hose has shadows surrounding it. I don't think shadows work like that. It's a method of painting that I don't prefer, as it doesn't look realistic to my eyes. Trust me that I have given the phenomenon of shadowing a lot of thought.

So what I could do is to put shadows beneath ribs etc. As said, I think the natural shadowing of such a small plane takes care of that shadowing. The theory to back that up is the fact that the smaller an object, the darker it will appear because the less light it reflects.

My conclusion, after a lot of thought, was therefore that (pin)washes are not necessary. Again, in my view pinwashes are only for shadowing purposes. For weathering I use different methods.

Weathering

As mentioned somewhere in this thread, weathering on this plane would be kept to a minimum, if it were an almost brand new plane. Take into account that this plane is depicted on the 1st of September, 1939: the start of the war between Poland and Germany. WWII didn't even exist yet.

A new layer of paint would still have its color differentiation, especially due to different lighting effects and sun fading etc. I used different oil paints to try to reproduce those effects ('dot technique'). Further weathering was done using drybrushing and graphite.

If the cockpit looks like a toy to you, that's a shame but there's not much more that I can do to change that without leaving my beliefs about what a 1/72 cockpit should look like. Be assured that I don't leave out the washes because I don't want to take that trouble... it's a well considered choice. Still, I will put some more work in finishing the cockpit before the canopy will be fitted. I noticed some paint flaws, and maybe here and there a little drybrush could be added as well. But don't expect any grand changes.

[Roy vd M.]

By the way, I actually like weathering very much, and it's one of the things I'll dearly miss when finishing this small-scale plane. Of course, some streaking will be done and even this newborn Dornier will probably have a bit of oil incontinence. But still... relatively little weathering to do.

To show you how I'd normally use washes for shadowing, and use quite a few other weathering techniques, see here the (dryfitted) engine of a Krupp Titan. That's 1/24 scale, so washes were very welcome.

Please don't mind that some parts or lines are not fully straight, it's just a dryfit. Also don't mind the copper paint on the radiator front, those parts will be blocked from view once installed.

[Reserve_22]

I know reality is differend but I think that this method give this adds depth.In 21 century is scale modelling like art and i go this way You have realy clever hands and I think whan you give preshading postshading wash draybrush your models would be 50% better-its only my view Im watching this build

Ps :engine looks fantastic-this is the art way for me!When you do this on planes I read your build in AK ace hight magazine

Edited October 12, 2015 by Reserve_22

[Roy vd M.]

I know reality is differend but I think that this method give this adds depth.In 21 century is scale modelling like art and i go this way You have realy clever hands and I think whan you give preshading postshading wash draybrush your models would be 50% better-its only my view Im watching this build

Ps :engine looks fantastic-this is the art way for me!

I agree that it would add depth. And I also would agree that it's very defendable that modeling is sometimes about emphasizing a bit more than reality would ask for. It's just not the way I feel happy with.

Preshading and postshading... if you want I'll give you my full thoughts about those; but in my view those techniques are very, very overrated in any scale. I could write a full-scale book about that, let's not do that now

Thanks for the compliments

[Roy vd M.]

Here to show what I mean... the engine next to the Dornier.

(By the way... wow that engine has become dusty... need a dust-free environment here )

It's very difficult to make the same shadows I made on the engine (1/24) on the plane (1/72), as I would have to correct a LOT. A simple wash would have to be taken away for about two-thirds of its height. I'm not sure I can do that consistently to maintain quality. Next to that, as described above, the scale-effect would cater for its own shadow-enhancements thus making artificial shadowing abundant.

Again, it's just my theory and each to his or her own

[Reserve_22]

Here is my work. preshade postshade wash drybrush scratches chipping and dust pigment on the flor

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234977998-bf109e4-yellow-10-148-eduard/#entry1919315

[Roy vd M.]

That is some beautiful work Reserve_22, I appreciate that you didn't overdo those shading effects. Gentle does the trick.

To be perfectly clear: all of what I wrote above does not mean I can't thoroughly enjoy builds that are based on other philosophies.

[jrlx]

Roy,

The Dornier is really shaping up impressively!

I also enjoyed yours and Reserve_22's opinions on weathering (by the way Reserve_22's Bf 109 build is quite impressive). I always like to read about each modeller's opinions regarding different weathering techniques. I'm still finding my style, though my objective is to be as realistic as possible. I tend to use simpler techniques, but these include washes, pre- and post-shading, some chipping and pigments. I'm not a follower of the Spanish school of weathering because it seems to produce "over the top-ish" results in my opinion (also it is extremely elaborate for my current abilities). However, I read their build logs and technique descriptions because there's always some useful techniques and tips to be learnt and I certainly admire their craftsmanship.

Cheers

Jaime