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. :)

Watcher

First WNW model - the new Camel - and I'm scared!

Recommended Posts

I'm a reasonably competent maker of 1:48 WW2 subjects but I've dived in and ordered my first Wing Nut Wings model - the new Camel. I've downloaded the instructions and read through them a few times. Frankly I'm slightly perturbed; it all looks very complicated!

 

I've checked through the guidance on the WNW web site and am busily scouring the 'web and YouTube. I'd welcome any suggested guidance that experienced WNW modellers can point me at.

 

TIA

 

Matthew

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Matthew,

 

Totally recommend you join up here http://forum.ww1aircraftmodels.com/

 

The site is mainly about 1/32 WNW models, of course other WW1 aircraft are included.  Just read through some of the topics and you'll get a lot of guidance. If you decide you need help on a particular topic then just ask, you're sure to get plenty of help!

 

Good luck

 

P

Edited by PDH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew.

 

The kits are generally a great overall fit but with (very) tight fit tolerances so every surface to be joined must be free of any excess paint or glue etc. The main experience I found as a newbie to the WW1 genre (not a 'problem) is learning to do rigging and personally I would not attempt the Camel with its 'double wires' system as a first kit. As an aside and having just completed the Se5a, don't try that one as a 'first' either!

 

Personally, I think the Pfalz DIIIa for overall fit, ease of construction and as simple a rigging system as they come would be a great place to start. Indeed, that's where I started my WNW 'adventure' and I am glad I did so as had I done something more complex like the Se5a, then it may have put me off WW1 modelling for good.

 

Another tip is to ensure the undercarriage units are well braced with monofilament or fine steel wire as being in scale, they can bend or 'rock' a bit whilst moving the model about.

 

Other than that, well just imagine if Tamiya did WW1 biplanes....well they would still not be better than these WNW kits as they really are that good!

 

HTH

Gary

 

p.s still get a Camel but save it until you have  a couple of easier ones under the belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew , for a simple first build with minimum rigging I suggest the Sopwith Triplane . Don`t be put off by the three decks of wings ,

it`s all straight forward and makes a lovely little model .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Don 149 above says, the WNW Sopwith Triplane is also a simple rigging option for an RFC machine however that one is now O.O.P. and quite hard (and expensive!) to find at the moment.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only build 1:32 scale WW1 aircraft and have built 7 thus far with 40 plus in my stash.

I'm currently building the Sopwith Triplane and am updating a build log regularly.

It's an Adobe PDF log, so can be viewed or downloaded for reading.

It might be of some use.

 

http://www.thatoneplease.co/logs.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently working on the Sopwith Snipe and this is my first Wingnut Wings build although I have built plenty of 1/48 biplanes and a few Roden 1/32 biplanes and I can wholeheartedly agree with Gary (redcap) on the tolerances. Don't jump in and glue anything together until you are sure you know exactly where it is meant to sit and that parts will close up. Think ahead.... A cockpit assembly may fit between the two fuselage halves but the front of the fuselage might be sitting too open at the front for the engine cowling to fit neatly etc. If this happens think carefully and study all the aspects. With the Snipe it looked like the two fuselage sides were closing up perfectly but the front end was too wide for the top deck and cowling to sit correctly and so I had to study it until I discovered a little mold seem at the wing root that was stopping it closing properly there and then that a port side cockpit frame part was sitting just a little too far out. Once these two points were sorted and I had made sure that all the mating surfaces were clean the whole shebang closes up perfectly.

 

Compared to Rodens kits these Wingnut Kits are perfectly sized to fit beautifully and so care needs to be taken that you haven't put mating surfaces out of tolerance but as long as that is done I would say these are probably the easiest most well engineered kits to start on.

 

If you are still worried and are determined to start with the Camel then Ray Rimmell has said on his website that there will be a Windsock Special 'Building the Wingnut Wings Sopwith Camels' released soon which would be a good thing to have in hand and will take you step by step through the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, redcap said:

As Don 149 above says, the WNW Sopwith Triplane is also a simple rigging option for an RFC machine however that one is now O.O.P. and quite hard (and expensive!) to find at the moment.

Gary

Oooh Redcap! I ve been led to believe that the Tripe was exclusive to the Navy. Naval 8 and Naval 10 made hay with them for months, many Canadian and Australian pilots among them. 

Got a feeling Australia's top ace, my namesake, used a Tripe to get his tally up and running before moving on to Camels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rob Lyttle said:

Oooh Redcap! I ve been led to believe that the Tripe was exclusive to the Navy. Naval 8 and Naval 10 made hay with them for months, many Canadian and Australian pilots among them. 

Got a feeling Australia's top ace, my namesake, used a Tripe to get his tally up and running before moving on to Camels

Rob 'Little' ;),

You're correct - It was intended to be issued to No.65 Squadron, RFC, but as it turned out, they took the Spad 7 instead.

Only the RNAS flew the type although a few went to a French naval Escadrille. One served in the Aegean (No.2 Wing, RNAS) and one was also was sent to Russia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a set of drawings on the web for a triplane, done up in Red Stars. So did it go to the Red army, or did they grab it from the Whites? I know the Whites got a couple of Short 184s off the Admiralty.

😃I am R.A. Lyttle though! But afraid the A is for Andrew, not Alexander. Close, though.

Dyou know, I was well into my forties before I heard of him!? I think I would have noticed the name!... funny how" local"  our historical records become 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rob Lyttle said:

Oooh Redcap! I ve been led to believe that the Tripe was exclusive to the Navy. Naval 8 and Naval 10 made hay with them for months, many Canadian and Australian pilots among them. 

Got a feeling Australia's top ace, my namesake, used a Tripe to get his tally up and running before moving on to Camels

 

It was the RNAS indeed! My error.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I haven't built any WNW kits, but other 1/32 biplanes - If you're used to building monoplanes there are a few things different.

 

1. Building sequence for biplanes is different, fuselage is painted as are upper surafce of lower wing and undersurface of upper wing.  i always mount the upper wing by eye but this is frustrating - try to find a jigging system for this.

 

2. much more paint is used on biplanes than monoplanes, in 1/32 scale moreso.

 

3. Rigging - go slowly  with patience - there a re a number of methods and materials that can be used - lots of tutorials on the interweb. 

 

4. clearcoat with semi- gloss.

 

5.  re PC 10 – you'll find a lot of opinions about what this looks like.  Don't worry too much about getting the 'exact' colour.  Just not too green, not too bright, not too dark, not too brown (that would be straying into PC 12 territory, such as used on Sopwith Triplanes.)

 

enjoy, don't sweat it.  Happy landings.  😎

 

 

Edited by Richard B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what research I have done, PC10 is a matter of choice for your subject. I gather PC10 was mixed at point of use and so could vary somewhat from olive to brown.

 

Apparently this is the recipe that was used:

 

For 100 gallons of PC10 dope

260 pounds nitro Cellulose syrup
74 pounds of pigments in the following proportions
40 pounds yellow ochre
30 pounds umber
2 pounds 8 ounces Red Ochre
1 pound 8 ounces Chinese Blue.

Once that lot was assembled it was added to
20 gallons Acetone or Methyl ethyl ketone
15 gallons Amyl Acetate
15 Gallons benzol
15 gallons Methylated spirit

You can see there are four different pigments that would have been in the mix and you can bet that, at different times, the amount of each would be varied somewhat. The more Chinese Blue used the more greenish the resulting dope would have been.

 

I am not sure exactly what the pigment they called Chinese blue contained but, if it was an ultramarine type paint it would fade pretty quickly in conjunction with the other pigments and result in the colour turning dark brown over a relatively short period of time given it's exposure to sunlight on an aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Beardie said:

From what research I have done, PC10 is a matter of choice for your subject.

 

I've read that PC also faded from the original dark brown towards a green tinted brown fairly quickly when exposed to the elements.  Although I've not built any WNW kits i've been thinking of doing the RFC planes in a dark chocolate brown then putting a thinned coat of tamiya's clear green over the top to try and give it that green tint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that most WW1 aircraft lived outside, in all elements, were especially if rotary powered, usually covered in a fine ( or not so fine!)  mist of castor oil, were worked hard, and were painted in chemical formulations that were not likely to be very stable colour wise- my view has always been that you'd have to prove someone wrong if they went for a greeny-brown-khaki or a khaki-browny-green in any one of about a gazillion shades.

 

I'd say that dirt, oil and the elements were more responsible for most colour variations on these machines - they simply didn't last long enough, in the main, to "fade" or "weather" as we might comprehend those terms in relation to more modern paint finishes

 

Jonners -  PS Chinese blue seems to be more of a cobalt blue based pigment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jon said above, I would not get too hung up on a "correct" shade of any PC or other military colour as the fact is, the vast majority of these aircraft lasted (probably) only double digit combat hours over a period of maybe weeks or a few months at most; sometimes just days. In the Northern European climate, that's hardly long enough for the 'sun bleaching' or U/V discolouration effects people often quote when almost fading paint away on models. Also, they used to say that the average life expectancy of an RFC pilot on the Western Front was "X number of hours" -  well clearly if he was killed in that short a space of time then surely the machine went down with him.

 

Without wishing to get into any sort of argument or 'flame war' on this topic, I see some fabulous models (not only WW1 but other theatres as well) where airframes and camo paint are 'weathered' beyond any semblance of reality. Very artistic and good platforms demonstrating some outstanding airbrush techniques and abilities etc.....but "realistic"?

 

As long as you are in the general area of correct colours and given these were mixed by people of varying ability, conscientiousness or even availability of time to source or mix precise ratios etc - the 'right' colour being fairly low on an RFC crew chief's priority list to keep it in the air I would suspect -  then to suggest they all looked like 'X' is just fanciful. After all, buy paint or wallpaper today 100 years later from the local DIY and if don't get all of it from the exact same batch (all computer mixed by factory), slap it up and then stand back, you (will) get an obvious if even slight variation in colour tone.

 

Better still, look at the vast number of F-16's all with the same (hi-tech) FS paint colours and try and spot any two in a Squadron or even a Fighter Wing line up with (exactly) the same tone of 'correct' colours. THAT's 'weathering' over many (years) of flying and maintenance with people crawling all over them - not caused over days or weeks!

 

Others of course may disagree.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/01/2017 at 5:12 PM, rob Lyttle said:

I found a set of drawings on the web for a triplane, done up in Red Stars. So did it go to the Red army, or did they grab it from the Whites? I know the Whites got a couple of Short 184s off the Admiralty.

😃I am R.A. Lyttle though! But afraid the A is for Andrew, not Alexander. Close, though.

Dyou know, I was well into my forties before I heard of him!? I think I would have noticed the name!... funny how" local"  our historical records become 

 

Hi Rob,

N5486 was transferred to the Russion Government and issued to the White City Depot on May 4th, 1917. It was subsequently fitted with skis.  After the revolution it was marked with the red stars.  It still remains in the museum of the Air Force Gagarin Acadamy at Monino, although for some reason it's been painted blue!!

 

Snap8_zps6oxvkdyz.jpg
Snap7_zpsrc7cbtpt.jpg

Edited by Sandbagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent photos sandbagger. Bet somebody on here has built one with skis.

Funny where individual planes end up. I just been reading up on a short Belfast in Cairnes Australia . Suppose they gotta land somewhere!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, the kit should go together fine.  Just don't let the skills of some other builders intimidate you, either.  This is supposed to be a hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rob Lyttle said:

Excellent photos sandbagger. Bet somebody on here has built one with skis.

Funny where individual planes end up. I just been reading up on a short Belfast in Cairnes Australia . Suppose they gotta land somewhere!

 

Hi Rob,

I worked on the Belfast when I served my first tour in the early 70's at RAF at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.  Also the 'Whispering Giant' Britannia and the VC 10.

Last I heard the Belfast's were taken over by 'Heavy Lift'.  There were only ever 10 built - ironic that in later years the RAF had to 'hire' some of them as they didn't have anything with that cargo capacity!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese Blue, or  BaCuSi4O10, or Effenbergerite, in its naturally occurring form, (IIRC, mineralogy days are well behind me now...:clif:... ) is known to be both chemically and thermally stable. Therefore I do not think that there would be any tonal/hue/colour change of the P.C. 10 based on degradation of this pigment.

 

I would go with with what Jonners and Andy have stated above and not be too penchant on an exact colour match.

 

Enjoy!

 

Christian, exiled to africa 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Christian, thanks for the input, I thought it would be barium copper sillicate or 'Han' blue but was not sure as it is not a colour that is used nowadays as there are much cheaper options. Interestingly I gather that it actually darkens and turns more purple as it ages which might explain why there are references to PC10 almost becoming a chocolate kind of colour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×