amblypygid Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 With a few hours to go before the starting gun, time to start my thread. This is Revell's retread of the Matchbox Twin Otter kit, of 1983 vintage. Box art: That rather attractive scheme is not going to be the subject, what with those odd round things hanging off the bottom. The kit's second decal option is for a West Coast Air Twotter in blue and white, an example of which one can see on Airliners.net: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycp7deeq From what I can see, West Coast kept their aircraft very clean. Sprue shots; Revell haven't gone for the lurid Matchbox colours, so it's all in glossy grey. Revell provide a most bizarre double-ended paintbrush. One end is splayed to oblivion, the other appears to have been dipped in varnish before being sent out. Waiting for tomorrow to kick off! 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrlx Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Hi Chris, Welcome to the GB. Beautiful choice of scheme, I must say Looking forward to seeing it taking shape. Cheers Jaime 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 1, 2017 Author Share Posted September 1, 2017 Thanks, Jaime. I think the Canadian yellow/red rescue livery is pretty nice, too, but even setting aside the wheel/float question, I'm keen to have a civil aircraft in my cabinet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stuart Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 That Otter looks good, with a very smart scheme. 1 hour ago, amblypygid said: Revell provide a most bizarre double-ended paintbrush. One end is splayed to oblivion, the other appears to have been dipped in varnish before being sent out. I don't know what Revell are doing, but good quality artists' brushes are often shipped with their hairs glued together. This should be washed out with water, and, maybe a little soap. 'course, those usually have only one end. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexN Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Yummo! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CedB Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 I'm in too Chris, not usually my thing but it's a pretty plane and, as it's you... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 2, 2017 Author Share Posted September 2, 2017 Ah, pressure's on now! I do like the DHC designs, they all have a certain attractiveness (maybe not the Chipmunk). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Happy Twotting with this Chris. It might amuse you to know that autocorrect on the tablet currently insists that I refer to you as Christ. Bless this thread and all in it... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob G Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Another one to watch. I'll be taking notes and learning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 4, 2017 Author Share Posted September 4, 2017 On 9/2/2017 at 9:57 PM, TheBaron said: Bless this thread and all in it Divine assistance may be needed, certainly helpful, unlikely to be acknowledged as such! On 9/2/2017 at 11:20 PM, Rob G said: Another one to watch. I'll be taking notes and learning. I hope it's of use, Rob! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 4, 2017 Author Share Posted September 4, 2017 OK, kit started in the trad fashion. Being Matchbox, the interior is sparse, though I recall reading somewhere that Revell went crazy and enhanced the IP with raised dials and a decal. It's barely visible even before the cockpit goes in. Two seats (with memory foam cushions), a double yoke, an IP and a bulkhead. That's the interior detail (oh, wait, there's a floor as well). Here's the fuselage: Moving on to the glasswork... Those windows are just a bit too wide to do with Micro Krystal Klear, but all fifteen kit windows went in well enough. The windscreen doesn't quite fit, and can't be put in properly until the fuselage is sealed up. That is irritating, as it renders it vulnerable to being pushed in. The nose also doesn't quite match the fuselage lines, so some filler will be needed there. The gaps in the fuselage are pretty small, but I'll need to do some smoothing on the join. I've packed the nose with fishing weights; I doubt that it gets to the 20g that the instructions suggest, but there's only so much space. Perhaps some more in the front of the floats... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob G Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 33 minutes ago, amblypygid said: I hope it's of use, Rob! I'm sure it will be. As for the IP - when I get home from work in 10 days or so, I'll check my Matchbox version and see if there's a difference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrlx Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 Hi Chris, Good start! At this rate you'll finish it in no time Cheers Jaime 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg in OK Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 Looking good! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 Yep. You're up and running and looking good Chris! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share Posted September 7, 2017 Well, my inexperience with civil aircraft has shown. Those windows are not at all secure; apart from a couple, they can all be pushed in on one side (so they're hinging inwards). So far none have fallen into the fuselage, but I wouldn't be surprised if one did. My plan is to try to add more glue to the frames; since some are well glued, I conclude that I was too sparing with the original application. I'll then try to use some masking tape to pull them back into place. Does this sound viable or am I overestimating the effectiveness of Krystal Klear? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 Finally got to this about 10pm yesterday. I was able to secure all but one of the windows easily; the Micro Krystal Klear effectively pulled them back into place, presumably through the power of surface tension. Then I remembered that I meant to mask them before they went in; they're an inconvenient shape and I don't really want to try trimming the masking tape on the model, as a sharp blade will go through the Krystal Klear. So most are going to be re-masked with too much, and I'll have to touch up around the windows by hand. That could be interesting in the confined space beneath the wing... Last thing last night was to attach the port wing. The wing struts go into a sort of curved lump that also supports the floats; these parts are interestingly shaped, have some gigantic ejector pin columns that have to be removed to get them to go anywhere near the fuselage, and even then don't fit at all well. Plans of the Twotter tell me that the float version has no dihedral on the wings (not that the other versions have much), so that makes attaching the wings a little easier. Here's the topside; filler will be needed at the wing roots and on the engine nacelles. The filler beneath needs some tidying; I thought I'd done a reasonable job with a damp fingertip, but it looks rather messier in the light of day. The central fuselage also needs some filler; I keep forgetting that. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrlx Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Looks like an aircraft already I know how infuriating seam filling can be... That's one of the tasks in modelling I like the least. Cheers Jaime 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 It's getting there; one good things about Matchbox is that they kept things simple; each wing is just two pieces, no faffing about with separate control surfaces. I wouldn't mind filling & sanding so much if I were better at it. Most of the time I either feel I've made no difference, or I've made the situation worse. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrlx Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, amblypygid said: I wouldn't mind filling & sanding so much if I were better at it. Most of the time I either feel I've made no difference, or I've made the situation worse. I feel much the same... The process seems very hit or miss. I've tried Squadron's white putty and now am using Perfect Plastic Putty but the ejection marks and seams always seem to reappear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 6 hours ago, amblypygid said: It's getting there; one good things about Matchbox is that they kept things simple; each wing is just two pieces, no faffing about with separate control surfaces. There's a very particular 'no-nonense' aesthetic to Matchbox mouldings that makes them unmistakable isn't there Chris? That's coming along most engagingly - what a pleasant aircraft that is to look at. Really looking forwards to seeing what it looks like with the canoes on... Tony 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexN Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Looking nice already, Chris . Regarding masking the winows, have you considered using a liquid masking agent - e.g., Humbrol's Maskol (Gunze do one too, off the top of my head) - that can be applied with a paint brush (altough not, I suspect, the kit-supplied one ). Any over-painting can be wiped off with a suitable wiper before the masking fluid dries. I'm quite surprised that BMers don't seem to use the ver much, which leaves me scratching my head somewhat. No doubt someone will chime in immediately as to why one should never, never use a liquid mask... Cheers, Alex. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 Hmm. That's an idea. I've got some Vallejo liquid mask (I think) somewhere in a dusty recess. Worth a test! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amblypygid Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 The contents are interesting, and going nowhere near any model that isn't headed straight for the bin... Nice idea, Alex, but back to the tape it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexN Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 That's a shame. My previous bottle of Maskol met a similar fate, only more so: a congealed blob o' purple rubber. It was such a nice bottle, however, that I extracted The Thing1 with a pair of sturdy pliers and I now use said bottle to hold a small amount of xylene for various solvent purposes. Maybe next time, Chris - if you ever get a new batch... Cheers, Alex. 1 Possibly from the Planet Zog 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now