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. :)

Ray_W

Gold Member
  • Content Count

    1,223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,461 Excellent

About Ray_W

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Military history, target shooting, this hobby.

Recent Profile Visitors

876 profile views
  1. Ray_W

    Which paints to use?

    In my experience I do not see a whole lot of difference for wash applications. Most of my early modelling experience with oils was with cheap brands and I had no complaints. If you are right into oils for things such as figure painting then the decision process will be more tricky - colour, blending, drying time. This is another case where it gets down to personal preference. I have come to prefer Abteilung oil paints as they tend to not be as oily as artist's brands. This is very noticeable when you put the oil paint onto some paper towel, or what ever you use, to wick away the oil base and dry the pigment to a level more suitable for modelling purposes. I think another consideration is what thinners to use. If I want a slower drying time I'll use odourless thinners. Quick naptha (lighter fluid). Ray
  2. I think one of the best reviews I have seen with a very honest summary is done here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf_6EjQyDq8 For figure painting probably worthy of serious consideration. In my builds painting is 95% airbrush and happy with what I use and smell exhausting is not a problem. Ray
  3. Peter, Absolutely wonderful build and I am jealous. I was planning to build a 1/48 RAAF Canberra B2 Mk.20 out of Phan Rang AB in the early 1970's, but it is just too darn big to get home to Australia. If I can get home before the end of the year I will start, although this is not looking too positive with the Australian COVID travel restrictions. The gallery images look fantastic. Great choice of subject. Ray
  4. A lovely kit and and you are really doing it justice. The interior detail is very nice. Love the back office door. I always get drawn to the Hampden builds. It is the one aircraft I would like to see in a 1/48 new tool. Ray
  5. Mark, looks like you're doing a fine job with this build. I've come to appreciate just how attractive an aircraft the Dornier is. Ray
  6. And one of my favourites the Spitfire Mk IXb actually a normal "C" wing, but used to designate the LF Merlin 66 equipped Mk IX.
  7. Yes Charlie ( @Johnson ) and I discussed this on an earlier thread. I thought it showed the tank although with a better image I had to agree with Charlie that I could not see it and it is just the skyline. I will be ordering a copy of the Wingleader book on the Mk. I if you go here you will see some images with and without the tank. https://www.wingleader.co.uk/shop/spitfire-mk1-wpa1 The images look of excellent quality and are new to me. Should be very useful. Ray
  8. I was under the impression that the "a" designation was just to simply differentiate from the "b" cannon version of the Mk. I introduced in June 1940, which would also be prior to the commencement of the Battle of Britain period. Of course this timing would also work well with the more widespread use of the motor driven hydraulics. If you have access to the serial numbers it would be great to clear this up. What about these 3 builds in the "The Few" boxing - P9443 first flew (FF) 1/4/40, X4382 FF 6/9/40 and X4425 FF 13/9/40 all are kitted with the hand pump? Do you believe this is right or wrong? Ray
  9. Yes I get a lot of fun out of discussing and modelling these matters. Rarely do I get them totally right, but I do enjoy the journey. In this case, what I found interesting was Eduard's strong conviction that it was "highly probable" all Battle of Britain (BoB) Spitfire's had the hand pump, which is going against the view of the historians, references and modeller's for some time. Eduard may be correct, based on the latest research. So, I started searching for BoB aircraft with the motor driven pump U/C operation and this quickly became evident. For example, in the pre-BoB Spitfire maintenance film and the lack of evidence of the hand pump hydraulic tank (usually associated with hand pump installation and visible behind the pilot) in Mk I images. So Eduard's claim seems to not be correct. I trust it was not just as an excuse for not including the U/C selector, which is mandatory for any Mk II or Mk V they wish to issue - a blooper as it has been called. For simple accurate modelling, do an Eduard Mk I with reflector sight prior to June 1940 and you can go with the Eduard interior without trouble. For example a Dunkirk version. Once you get into BoB era then look at the age of the airframe and if it is a recent airframe then I am yet to be convinced a motor driven pump U/C selector is not more appropriate. There is a lot of variables in Spitfire manufacture so good photographic evidence of your chosen subject is always best. None of this detracts from what is a brilliant kit and most enjoyable build. Ray
  10. Here is the very early version with manually pumped undercarriage operation. The prominent lever with a knob on the right hand side of the cockpit is what Eduard provide for all their Mk I versions. Here is another view of a slightly later Mk I still with hand pumped undercarriage operation and reflector gunsight. Again you can see the dominate lever with black knob on that right hand side. I show this as the control column lock is in place locking the control surfaces. Here is an image of what we are talking about. Now with undercarriage selector coming off a motor driven pump replacing the hand pump. It became the Spitfire standard for all variants introduced on the Mk I. The debate is when. It also had the control column lock in place. You can also see the remote contactor for IFF mounted high on the side wall with the dial face. Here's my Eduard mods. Scratchbuilt U/C Selector. Spare globes and the Indicator Light Morse Key relocated into that top section under the windscreen with piping for the pilot oxygen supply and the remote contactor put in place. Painted: Ray
  11. I am now at point to commit to undercarriage and wheel well colours for an X4*** series aircraft and I am going Sky. I have read many of the forum posts on this popular subject. For example this recent post with good input from some of our regular contributors @Troy Smith and @gingerbob: In the end this image influenced my decision. Wheel well and inside gear door look the same colour as the radiator housing. Oleo strut and wheel hub do not look, to my eye, sufficiently different to justify going to an aluminium finish. So I will finish all in Sky. Being an X417* series aircraft it is Eastleigh supply, first flying mid-August 1940 and I expect factory applied underside and U/C gear paint job. Pat's X4009 was a late July 1940 first flight so I'll go with the same scheme. There is still some time for a counter view. Surface prep and black undercoat first. Another comment on another subject from viewing the above image, the sun is coming from the right direction and the image is reasonably clear and I can see no evidence of the top of the U/C hand pump hydraulic tank in the rear perspex suggesting motor driven pump and selector installed. This is what I am always looking for, the top of the hand pump hydraulic tank: Sadly, K5054 fatal, clearly shows the tank. Ray
  12. Thanks Bob @Retired Bob, yes you are correct. I will remove them on mine and will scribe the small square for the vent on the starboard side (there is no need to scribe it as it is there already). I also removed the small pips on the outer tailplane leading edge which are the attachment points for the IFF Mk 1 "cheese cutter" aerial wires as not fitted to my subject.
  13. I struggle to remember the first but I recall three when I was very young - bf-109 E (light blue plastic), F4U (dark blue plastic), and P-47 (dark green and the hardest plastic imaginable). I think all were Fujimi with the best memory starter imaginable included in the packet, the smell of that small tube of cement. All were never painted - glue and decals. No hobby knife in sight just twist off and glue. My mother used to buy them for me when she had her first florist shop back in 1967. I also know how my interest was originally kindled - my father building the Empress of Australia on the kitchen table and my uncle's Airfix 1/72 Spitfire Mk IX in light blue plastic with a very glue crazed canopy. I thought the Spitfire was the most amazing thing I had ever seen. My view on the Spitfire has never changed in all these years. Ray
  14. Well, maybe, maybe not. Does it drop quick enough to the spinner backplate? I'll leave that to those who wish to compare. It does appear different to their Mk. IX keeping in mind it is a different construction process with the Mk I cowl being part of the fuselage halves rather than a drop in piece. Easy to sand a little off if you wish to eliminate the hump if you believe it is exaggerated. It still looks very much like the Mk I to me. Here are some photos compared to my Eduard Mk IX. You can be the judge. Note props are just pushed in so the Mk IX prop is hanging down a little. Just noticed when I published the photos. Edit: Here is one more comparison photo I have added; my Airfix Vb to Vc conversion. So what do you think? I am very satisfied. Hope this helps. Ray
  15. I now have the major items together. Another Spitfire showing its heritage, clearly out of the Eduard stable. Already my favourite 1/48 Mk I without doubt, having now built a few Airfix new tool and the recent Tamiya offering. It also comes with the same foibles as Eduard's Mk IX and VIII. More about this soon. That yellow tape on the rudder is a cardboard protector for the aerial wire connection on the top of the fin. A sure item to get caught and flung off into the nether regions. In this case I am referring to far-flung regions rather than parts of personal anatomy. Mind you, it still applies. The grey regions is where I have hit it with some undercoat to check the joins in the usual danger zones - fuselage joins, front cowling and leading edge. I also have a coat of undercoat rubbed back continuing to reduce the pronounced rivetting ahead of the main spar - foible 1. The cowling closed up nicely. I did use a little CA on the joint when set and then smoothed and feathered in to prevent any likelihood of a ghost seam appearing. Just standard practice on all my builds. I dropped the elevator to make the build more typical of a Spitfire parked with no control column lock. A very easy mod with the Eduard kit. Slightly bend the pins that insert into the tail plane, push in and glue in place. There is a square box section between the port and starboard elevator halves that only needs a slight chamfer on the outer most edge to allow the retainers, parts P40 and P41, to slip into the correct position. Yes, I know, I did not push the control column forward far enough in the cockpit. I'll tell no one if you don't. I still have not decided on the wheel well colour - silver or sky, silver or sky, silver or sky? It is well reported, but there is an error in the instructions to note when assembling the wheel well wall. Parts R18 and R19 need to be reversed. I find on all the Eduard Spitfires that I need to remove some material in the lower cowl at the wing leading edge to get it to engage properly and not slightly protrude at the spinner. As the join surface is tapered, it is a simple matter of removing the inside surfaces rather than altering the external visible surfaces. Also the air intake needs some material removed to sit in flush. Not a big deal, normal modelling technique for a good fit. Foible 2. Foible 3 and an annoying one this time that I have hopefully corrected. Eduard do a beautiful rendition of the ailerons. This results in one engagement tab into the body of the wing and a very weak outer join coupled with a knife edge butt join which is easy to over glue. The result is you end up with an aileron that gets snapped off usually at the most inopportune time. I decided to pin the outer position by gluing in some copper wire into the aileron and drilling and gluing it into a mating hole in the wing. I did get a bit energetic while drilling (pin vise) and thankfully did not break though the aileron but ended up with a blemish in the inspection port. I'll fix that. Now it is a much more robust connection without excessive glue. With the fuselage halves joined you just have to say that it is always worthwhile doing extra in Spitfire cockpits. Bye for now. Ray
×
×
  • Create New...