Sprogg

Thanks again everyone, some really interesting information here! And wow, they really did do some interesting colour schemes for it, reminds me a little of WW1 "Flying Circus" patterns (albeit a bit less extreme). On a more fantastical sidenote, it reminds me a little of the sort of colour schemes and embellishments that Orks in earlier editions of 40K would paint on their vehicles (including planes). I wouldn't be surprised at all if these were direct inspirations for GW at the time in fact...

Thanks very much for the information! I hadn't thought of them being identification markings, which makes perfect sense and has me feeling a bit silly in retrospect for not thinking of it...

(This is more a historical question than anything else- I would like to try my hand at the old Butcher Bird but my backlog at the moment is a little non-conducive to such things...) I've always had something of a fondness for the Focke-Wulf FW 190. Even aside from its formidable pedigree it's a rather handsome warbird, and in part this is helped by the interesting liveries I often see it festooned in. Some of these are relatively "tame" usually consisting of the fairly normal mottled camo in various shades of green, grey and brown, but with the distinctive spiral pattern on the prop spinner... I'm assuming the nose spinner was done this way simply as an embellishment, as fairly obviously the last thing the enemy is going to be trying to do in a dogfight is try and work out the colours of your plane's nose. However I also came across this rather wacky example... Whilst mostly feasible (mottled drab camo again) that checkerboard pattern on the engine cowling, whilst very nice to look at, seems a bit of an odd choice. From my limited understanding of the finer points of aircraft camo, it seems to scream "I'm an engine shroud! I protect vulnerable stuff! Shoot me!" which doesn't seem terribly wise. Is this a rather fanciful postwar addition, or did actual FW-190s actually take to the skies with this sort of slightly nutty scheme? And if it was real, did it serve any purpose (successfully or otherwise) beyond mere decoration?

I see! Thanks very much, that's good to know. I had heard about the "English Workmen" name, didn't know about them not really being Vickers tanks though, very interesting! I had seen the one at Bovington last time I visited (which was a while ago) and I seem to recall it used the same tracks as the Aussie example pictured. Also from what I saw I recall it being surprisingly spacious for a tank, especially of its era. Probably not hugely pleasant to operate of course...

A while ago I was in a model shop and came very close to buying a Hobbyboss Vickers Medium Mk. II, as I do have rather a thing for interwar armour. As it happened I didn't buy the kit, but I am considering getting one at some point, should my Backlog of Shametm reduce somewhat. However, there is one thing I'm wondering about- the tracks. The kit comes with workable plastic tracks IIRC, which look perfectly serviceable, but I was wondering- are there any aftermarket metal tracks available for it? A cursory search on eBay showed nothing. The tracks look very similar to those used by the Matilda II, but I'm not sure if that's my inexperience showing or if they actually used the same type of tracks (and thus should I acquire the kit, would just need to buy Matilda II tracks from Friul or Masterclub or the like). Just to illustrate what I mean:

Thanks! That definitely sounds like a plan, then. I'll try using the default tracks and see how they come out- if I just can't get them to behave I might go for a set of replacements (probably more affordable ones though!).

To the best of my knowledge, Robogear was something along the lines of a blend between TakaraTomy's Zoids and Games Workshop's Warhammer 40'000; that is to say, easy to assemble plastic robots that could be used in a tabletop game. Sadly it never really took off but I think the molds are still produced by someone, and some parts are beloved by sci-fi and wargaming kitbashers, as the details are rather nice and they're relatively good value (or certainly were at any rate). They're certainly interesting!

A while back I picked up from a model shop a Tamiya Panzer II (Ausf. F or G depending on how you build it, though from my limited knowledge the G was substantially different from the F in ways the kit does not represent) for the rather reasonable price of £9.99. I later discovered the tooling itself was actually from 1971, though I have to say for its age the molding is remarkably crisp and overall it looks very nice indeed for the time. I've had it sitting in my stash for a while now and have started to build it; not much progress has occurred, or at least any that would be interesting enough photograph, and before long it got put back onto the back burner. However, with a house move imminent and the necessary packing that has ensued, I remembered the poor thing existed and got thinking about it. I was planning on doing it up as the example of the type located at Bovington, due to the fetching colour scheme and the extant nature of the tank making reference material easier to acquire, with the tank portrayed as it would have been in service rather than as it is now for the sake of both some artistic license and also so the poor thing could have both guns. However, it then occurred to me that whilst the kit certainly looks nice, especially for its age, I have no idea if it has any glaring inaccuracies, and if so whether they are easily remedied or would require so much work that one might as well buy a well just buy a more modern kit. Certainly it has some rather irritating hollow bits under the tread guards (easily fixed) and the tracks are not very good, being rather taut (to the point I couldn't even "test fit" them on the wheels!). There are some very nice tracks available as replacements, though given the high cost I wonder if it might make more sense to invest in a modern kit to pair them with rather than putting some beautiful but expensive £25 Masterclub tracks on a £10 kit from the 70s. So to cut a long story short: Is there any point in attempting to build this as an accurate Panzer II or should I just tart up the more noticeably off bits and paint it to the best of my ability as a practice piece, or possibly fodder for some ridiculous kitbash sci-fi thing? And if it is worth doing as a "proper" model, what in particular needs fixing? I'm something of a novice modeller and am not massively familiar with the Panzer II (any good reference/guide books on it?), and as much as I love tanks I'm not as familiar with them as I am, say, aircraft. Thanks!

Thanks for the replies! I'll definitely try some experiments with spoons/scrap plastic, I've found that it airbrushes very well (definitely worth trying, busnproplinerfan, just be sure to thin it a little) but I haven't tried clearcoating it yet. You're probably on the money that it would look a bit toylike over the entire model, Space Ranger- bare metal aircraft (from my research/experience) tend to have differing finishes/colours on different parts of the aircraft, with some being very, very shiny and others being more dull, so it would make sense to only use it for the most reflective parts of the aircraft. I imagine that pin-washes and other subtle weathering/shading effects would ameliorate the toyishness somewhat, though obviously you'd have to be careful not to overdo it. In any event, I'll do some tests when I next get the chance.

So one of my absolute favourite discoveries in modelling is the rather wonderful stuff known as Molotow's "Liquid Chrome". It comes in both paint markers and (rather expensive) refill tubes, the latter of which are very easy to squeeze a bit into an airbrush and with a bit of lacquer thinner (I use Mr. Levelling Thinner) makes for an absolutely superb, borderline factory-quality chrome effect which can be sprayed over any finish in one or two coats at about 15-20 PSI. Anyway, it occurred to me that by using this stuff you could theoretically achieve the almost mirror-finish that parts of some bare/natural metal finished jets had when fresh off the factory, and potentially using filters/very fine clear coats to dull it down if depending on the desired effect. However, whilst in my head it sounds like a good idea, I also wonder if it might be a bit too shiny without coating to the point it might be easier to just use, say, Alclad's aluminium range. I volunteer at a museum with an English Electric Lightning and thus see the thing on a regular basis, and even at its age it's still surprisingly shiny; presumably when new it would have been even more reflective. But would using something as absurdly reflective as Molotow produce an out-of-scale result?

I'm a nerd from West Sussex who cannot stop buying plastic things to put together. I started out many years ago as a young'un building Warhammer models (and still do as it happens) but have gradually become attracted to other forms of modelling, particularly scale modelling. I'm still getting the hang of airbrushing, and am new to a lot of the techniques that scale modelling in particular requires, but I'm hoping that once I've got a better setup for my airbrush than a leaky shed I should be able to get some models made. Whilst I'll pretty much build anything that comes in pieces and requires paint (miniatures, military, mecha, you name it I'll build it) in terms of my specific interest areas with real-life subjects, I'm a big fan of military aircraft, especially Cold War jets. I also find interwar biplanes oddly fascinating, though I have a sneaking suspicion they might be a bit outside my skill level at the moment. I'm also a fan of armour subjects. My scale stash is actually relatively small at the moment, consisting of a Tamiya (well, reboxed Italeri) 1/72 "Panzerknacker" Stuka, GWH 1/72 Strike Eagle, a very old Airfix 1/72 Mosquito (noticing a theme here?) and an also rather old Tamiya 1/35 Panzer II. I've got countless ideas for things I want to build too, so I'm sure my currently modest stash will be expanding... Anyway, I look forward to posting here!