Jim Kiker

Hi Simon, Regarding markings, I am away from my references just now but the red/blue roundels I used on my FRIX were approximately 40" diameter for the upper wings and 30" for the fuselage. Xtra Decals (and others) used to have a dedicated Type B roundel sheet with various sizes which would work. As for the camera openings, most of the airborne cameras in use had (again, approximately) a 6" diameter lens; on my PR builds,I use a 1/8" tube for the camera lens, and I use a 3/16 drill bit for the clear lens cover on the airframe. That works out to about 9" in real life. I generally start with a smaller bit so I can adjust the opening as I enlarge it if I didn't get it quite centered to begin with. Having done several Spitfire PR conversions without the accessories around today, I will also note that you can sand the inside surfaces of the hole for the two fuselage cameras pointing down, and add clear sheet on the inside of those two holes. This works for me since those two openings are slightly recessed into the lower fuselage to keep the glass clear of oil and dirt from leaking engine fluids. Good luck and I hope we will see pictures in the near future! Cheers, Jim

Hi Marvel and all, Having looked at many a picture of 109's, as many here have done, I have some observations to pass along in the interests of doing authentic-looking models. The basic paint finish used will not fade very much since it is not exposed to direct sunlight most of the time. Also, the undersides generally will not have darkish, soft stains along all of the panel lines. I see this on a lot of airplane models and for the most part it does not reflect reality. What then would you see underneath? A degree of staining caused by leaking oil, which picks up and holds dirt and dust, as seen in the pictures already posted. You will also occasionally see dust, drops of mud, and chips from stones thrown up by the main wheels during takeoffs and landings, especially on the flaps and sometimes on the bottoms of the elevators since they hand down below the undersides of the airplane. You may also see minor chipping of the paint along the panels regularly removed for maintenance, such as that large panel underneath the engine. I commend you on asking about this rather than copying what other modelers are doing, and I look forward to seeing pictures of what you create! HTH, Jim

Hi Angels, You can start a Google image search using this search string: de havilland mosquito cockpit. bunches of interior pics come up, and a few of them do show the pilot's and nav's seats. If you are looking for specific dimensions, more digging would be required. Hope this helps! Cheers, Jim

Hi GP, Really nice work you've done with those side panels. On the second picture you posted in the grey primer series above, I noticed what looks like an open gap at the front end of your detailed side panel, between the front edge of the panel and the edge of the kit opening. Is there something else to be placed there, or is the gap itself correct? I'm not a student of the Falcon so I'm not sure what I'm seeing. In any case, keep up the fine work! Cheers, Jim

Hi SP, If you are in luck, Nick will weigh in at some point; he is an expert in the science of paints and can provide some great technical background. Meantime, the first thing I will do is caution you about following what other modelers do instead of trying to figure out how to do it for yourself. Why? Because some modelers go for current fads rather than attempting to replicate an effect based on pictures of actual aircraft. For example, pre-shading panel lines and then using extremely thin layers of color is very fashionable just now. It's tough to pull off, but looks great when done well. The problem is, when you look at pictures of most aircraft, you will not see darker hazy areas around each and every panel with lighter centers; that sort of effect has its place, but it doesn't occur very often in real life in my experience. "Breaking up the broad surfaces of color" is, in my view, an artistic choice much more often than an attempt to replicate the real world. Others will disagree, and that's fine for them; a lot of what you get out of the attempt to weather a model is based on what you want to get to. The next thing I would recommend is to look at lots of pictures of your chosen subject, being careful to look for pictures of specific aircraft, in specific locations, at specific time frames, for clues about how that plane would have looked. For example, Corsairs in the Pacific theater in 1943 had significantly different fading and wear patterns from an RAF Spitfire based in England in 1944. Despite this, some modelers tend to apply the same weathering techniques to everything they build to the point that every model they complete looks as if it has sat in the tropical sun for six months. Not, in my opinion, very realistic. Third, when you think about weathering you should think about how the whole aircraft weathered; I've seen plenty of models with a heavily weathered airframe, yet the markings appear pristine and the canopy has all the shine of a well-maintained modern warbird. The best effects strive to create a sense of realism, where you can almost smell the gasoline and oil. So, how to get there? To paraphrase the old joke, practice on some scrap model pieces and see what works for you. The joke was: "How do I get to Carnegie Hall (or Royal Albert Hall)?" "Practice!" For example, you might paint a wing in basic paint, add a national marking with a decal, seal that with some gloss clear, and then try using a very thin tan-gray paint mix to lighten the colors and gray them out a bit. The first time you may wind up with a tan-tinted mess, but the next round you will begin to figure out HOW thin an over-covering of paint needs to be for your paints and airbrush in order to make the finish look bleached out. One fairly simple technique is to lay down you base paint and let it cure, then slightly lighten that base color, thin it a bit more than normal, and spray that over the model in streaks. The idea is be somewhat random, so you get areas of lighter and darker color. In general, the top of the fuselage and the upper wings will fade more that the sides of the fuselage, and certainly the lower surface paint will hardly fade at all. This type of streaking should be done from front to back on the wings (due to air flow), which will simulate dust and dirt being blown over the surfaces as well as simple fading. And note that you're trying to make broad strokes, so try this from further back than normal to give you softer edges; this works best then the eye doesn't really see the "edges" between the lighter/darker areas, just that the tone of the paint surface has variations in it. also note that when you airbrush, you can easily get too far from the surface and the paint starts to dry before it lands; so again, some experimentation is required on scrap pieces before trying it on your latest project. This is a complex subject to understand but not really difficult; paint varies from one batch to the next, how well it was applied varies, different pigments will "chalk" (develop a lighter, washed-out appearance) more than others, and aircraft sit and move through different environments. For these reasons a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to weathering rarely produces realistic effects. So experimenting and practice will be your best teachers. Look for models that strike you as really looking the part and ask the builder how he/she did it, and be prepared to listen to a hundred different ways to get to ten different results; it's just the nature of the beast! While most of what I've written is general rather than specific, I hope this helps, and remember your results will vary from almost everybody else's, especially while you are figuring out how to do it with your paint and equipment. Good luck, Jim

Hi Andy, Clean and crisp work as usual here; very nice! Any chance that you might consider modifying the cockpit canopy and add splitter plates to the intakes, to get closer to the original design? Hint, hint... :-) Cheers, Jim

Hi Andy, If anyone asks what that striped handle in the front pit is, just tell them it's the canopy jettison handle; I can't see either seat actually being ejection capable given the front to back arrangement, but that may be too "real world" for sci fi. Take a bad hit? Climb up to perhaps 1,000 ft, unfasten your harness, jettison the canopy, and step over the side (much like the Mustang/Spitfire drivers used to do). You could even add the same style handle in the back and give the GIB (guy in back) the same capability! I really like the maintenance cradle, but for those musing over the landing gear, I had thought at one time that you could have pads/skids on the ends of the wings, but the bottom of the rear end looks like it would scrape. I think that putting fixed skids under the outside front edge of the radiator piece and then having a single short retractable strut at the front end would be the simplest combination. Since the vehicle has repulsor lift, setting down vertically should be handled automatically so there is no problem with scraping the wingtips. This is all made up, but absent any hard data one could fake this. If it were me, I'd add a centerline hump in the front cockpit as well and pretend it provides clearance for the nose gear strut. Just sayin'. Looking forward to more! Cheers, Jim

Hi Andy, I gotta say wow! That cockpit is super sharp, and once you get the canopy on it will look great in the shadows! Cheers, Jim

Hi Andy, I like where you're headed with this kit. I wonder, since you're not using the pilots would you consider selling them off? I can guarantee they would be coming to a good home. Thanks, Jim

Hi all, I take note of what Airfix has been doing in recent years and also how disappointed I was with the Trumpeter P-40B. Putting those two items together, I am really pleased to hear about the new P-40B for next year. I think there are many modelers who crave this kit in 1/48 if done well. +1 to Airfix! Cheers, Jim

Deleted - not the wanted area

Hi all, Just thought I'd let you know, I've put all the good advice to work. I poured some of the paint into a mixing bottle, added the leveling thinner to get the consistency of skim milk, and shot it at 14 psi. Perfect! Many thanks, Jim

Hi Seawinder, You are correct in your description of spidering- cotton candy strings around the edges of what I'm painting. Funny, I should have recognized I had too much pressure, but I bumped it up while encountering the spidering and didn't take it back down after more thinning. One thing I do find is that it's much easier for me to thin the paint in a mixing bottle for airbrushing than mixing it in the cup. When I get the thinning right, I can spray at 12-14 psi and get fine results. Thanks for the input! Cheers, Jim

Hi Pip, I may have confused the names, but this is the solvent version of the Gunze line. Here in the U.S., the aqeous line is very hard to get if at all. The solvent paints can be ordered on-line. When I first started to paint last night, I thinned the paint similarly to other solvents so it would have been not thin enough. When I switched to a much thinner mix, I did not stop to thoroughly clean the airbrush tip, so that may have had an impact. I did run straight lacquer thinner through the airbrush, as usual, but it may not have cleared the tip completely. And for Jack, I use a tip protector made by the manufacturer that is more open than the one the airbrush is sold with. What I did see was a thick build-up on the end of the needle when I started painting. Thanks gents, Jim

Hi A S, I have been using solvent paints for a long time, and I like them because they stick well on plastic. My limited experience with acrylics is that most of them perform best after using a coat or two of primer, which in my experience tends to cover up fine detail rather quickly. In the end, it is a matter of preference I suppose. Meantime, maybe I've got the mix too thin. Thanks for the input! Cheers, Jim

Hi all, I am doing some painting of subassemblies and having a problem. I am learning how to use Mr. Hobby (solvent) paints. I use only the Mr. Leveling Thinner. The paint is very thick from the bottle, so I have started putting thinner in my airbrush cup, up to about half full, then adding drops of the paint until it begins looking like tinted thinner or skim milk in consistency. I run the airbrush at 20 psi for this paint with a .020" needle and tip (my normal equipment with a little more pressure than other solvent based paints). I normally work fairly close to the surface being painted; the problem is, I am getting spider webbing and a gradual build-up of paint on the airbrush tip, with some spitting as well. I cannot seem to get the thinning right. Any ideas on where I'm going wrong? Thanks, Jim P.S. At least this is for an airplane project! :-)

Hi Edgar, Thanks for the update; it's much appreciated! Cheers, Jim

Hi Edgar, Very interesting information, as always and much appreciated. One additional question occurs to me; Would this overcoating with clear gloss varnish extend to later production aircraft, such as the Sea Furies that were flying in the Korean ear, or just to current types at the end of WWII that were being maintained? Thanks, Jim

Graham and Martin, Thank you both for responding. You are correct Graham, I am not referring to the post-war color changes on the Canadian a/c. Interesting to hear that at least some colors from the WWII period were carried into the later standards rather than the other way around. And Martin, I agree with you as well and I do understand that the differences in actual paint ingredients, mixing, application, and indeed the impact of weathering all can and do make significant changes in the appearance of paints. Given this information, I remain curious as to why so many Sea Fury models in the EDSG/Sky combination do not seem to be painted in "Sky" at all! Thanks and cheers, Jim

Hi all, I feel like this subject has been previously discussed at some length, but I've been trawling through the site for some time with no luck. I hope then that I may bring this up again, if only to ask for a "point" to the correct discussion. I have seen many a Korean War-era Sea Fury model done in the common EDSG/Sky scheme, except that the Sky seems quite a bit different from the WWII shade. These differences run towards a lighter, slightly yellower shade. I have seen some debate on whether or not the Korean War era version of Sky was in fact a different shade with partisans on both sides. So the question for me remains, were Korean War-era Sea Furies undersides painted in the same color that we know from WWII, or was a somewhat different official shade with the same name in use? A thousand pardons for stirring this pot, I know it's an old debate for many here; I simply cannot find the thread that puts the question to rest. Help me Obiwan; can you provide me with a "point" to the final discussion/findings? Thanks in advance, Jim

Hi Martin and all, From my own experience in modeling, I find starting with an off-black or very dark gray is the best choice for painting; armed with Nick's knowledge of the paints, I'd also add enough blue to see a slight change in the tone. This will allow you to use straight black as a wash in the panel lines, especially in "major" recesses such as around engine cowlings and control surfaces. If you look at photos of dark airplanes you will see that those major lines around the flight controls and removeable panels show up as being darker than the painted colors. Somewhat lighter shades of dark brown/gray can be used in the "minor" panel lines to show the crud that accumulates there. I also have one caution; many modelers follow other modelers in using very light shades of grey for those minor panel lines in order to accentuate and "break up" the dark gray surfaces. In my view this ruins the effect just as much as using straight black panel lines on light colored surfaces. It's like a negative image, so to speak. You can certainly add some slightly lighter gray streaking, and even heavier weathering to reflect these pictures of the Defiants. But remember, when weathering if you think it could use a bit more; it's usually time to stop! That "I'll just add a little more" usually puts us back in Toyland instead of staying in Reality-land. My two quatloos, Jim

Hi Jenko and all, That's a very well done PR XIX you have there! Some years back I built that particular aircraft out of the 1/48 scale Academy Mk XIV kit. Thanks to my buddy Wally, I got to talk with Ed about that plane and that particular flight. He was a superb airman, and he knew how to set up the aircraft for a high speed dive. By the way, a cabin pressurization warning light is what started the whole chain of events; he had to get down to a much lower altitude and in a hurry. In any event, Ed recovered from the dive rather low over the water and returned to base without so much as a single popped rivet nor any engine issues. I think that is as significant a part of the story as the recorded speeds! It was a real thrill to be able to talk with Ed directly. Cheers, Jim

Hi Stix and all, Regarding the fitting of wings, you probably know that the Tamiya kit has tabs on the lower wing piece and on the fuselage halves that allow the modeler to glue and clean up the wings, then fit them to the fuselage. The tabs interlock and the result is a great fit at that joint with no filling required. I wish more kits in this size class were designed with this simple but elegant feature! HTH, Jim

Hi mate, I've just run across this one. Very clean work so I'm looking forward to more. In the meantime and recognizing this may be coming too late, I had the impression that 109 cockpits went to RLM 66 (a very dark gray) relatively early on (during E production, perhaps?). Do you have information for what looks like the lighter color you have used on your cockpit? Thanks, Jim

A big Thank You to Tony for supplying additional photos; I've saved them off against the day when I build my own kit. It's an odd thing though; there appear to be more issues, though minor, that are cropping up as more modelers tackle this kit. So all together, we need to shim the cowling a bit wider, shim the back edge of the saddle (internal armor), and pinch/rework the width of the saddle to get a proper fit. Very interesting... And for Stix, beware the height of the Tamiya bulkhead just behind the seat. You are justified to be wary of it. Even using a thinner vac rear canopy piece, that bulkhead will sit too high if you glue it into one side of the fuselage and then assemble the two halves. The only solutions are to shorten the top edge, which is not optimum, or glue/tape the fuselage pieces together, tape on the rear cockpit canopy, and glue the seat/bulkead assembly in by sliding it in from below. This will keep you from having it sit too high when you are done. I minor PITA, but a PITA nonetheless. HTH, Jim