Jump to content

P_Budzik

Members
  • Posts

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by P_Budzik

  1. You should also check the seat for the nozzle (the surface in the airbrush body into which the nozzle fits). Any ding or scratch here will cause an air leak. If this gets mucked up, the airbrush is pretty much done. According to my friend at Iwata, it's more common than you think. Paul
  2. This is the Revell PT 578/588 kit backdated to represent PT 489 The full build was done in video format here: Removed Paul
  3. It's not that the pigment in the Acrylics is larger. All opaque pigments are large when compared to the pigment in transparent paint, which is what the fine .2 nozzles are designed for. It's the characteristic of the binder. Acrylic paints polymerize. The polymerization is very rapid and builds up on the tip of the needle and then into the nozzle ... it's called "tip dry." Your enamels cure (dry) through oxidative cross-linking, like oil paints ... so they stay fluid when they come off the needle tip, making them more user friendly. True lacquers aren't a great choice because they work through solvent evaporation. As far as I know, no "lacquer" model paint used today is a pure old school lacquer. The all have an acrylic component. If you want to understand paint types and how they relate to an airbrush, you might find it helpful to take a cruise through my airbrush web pages: https://paulbudzik.com/tools-techniques/Airbrushing/airbrushing_for_modelers.html . Paul
  4. I'm with Ray, I use a tank air supply that feeds a manifold. Each air outlet has it's own pressure regulator and it's located at my fingertips of where I'm painting. The only thing about the MAC valve versus the pressure regulator is that the MAC valve is more instantaneous because you don't have to let the air bleed out of the hose. That said, I have several airbrushes with a MAC valve and I've yet to ever use it. As far as stippling, I'd rather use something more predictable, that was designed for the task, like a Paasche AB. And actually the Paasche H does stippling better than an internal mix. If you don't need it, it's just one more thing to clean around and another valve in the air supply. Paul
  5. Thanks WIP, Interesting bit about the "monkey chain". I was wondering if something like that was used. It does explain the grotesque cartoon. Paul
  6. Thank you Syd ... I have all the Phil Mead images, but there are a lot of gaps in the series ... the images only cover so much. The construction of the seat allows for swiveling, but it is too far back to allow the gunner to function. I just received these images and they confirm exactly what I suspected. He could sit, but for full field of fire, he would have to stand. And I have read an account of an A-20 gunner falling out ... so this makes sense ... Douglas aircraft also had documented concern about moral issues when the gunner was completely isolated from the pilot ... Paul
  7. Did the gunner stand or remain seated when operating the upper guns in the early A-20's ? Paul
  8. Actually, since I just photographed the real deal, there should not be a panel line there at all. The bulge fits in from the back of the cutout ... so it should actually be slightly lower and the main cover forms a lap joint over it .. the joint is barely visible .. you really have to go looking for it. Certainly would not be visible in 1/48 scale. I think Aifix molded it this way because it was easier and less costly. If you look at the PR XIX, you can see the mold lines ... it was a more intricate design and I think it involved a third piece to accommodate the undercut. Paul
  9. As I pointed out in my initial reply, I think your approach is the way I would go if I was using the PR XIX kit ... rather than using an ICM wing as some advocate ... and that's who my comments about the PR XIX were aimed at ... the kitbashers who claim the PR/ICM combo is the best. So best of luck! Paul
  10. I can't get into it too deep because I'm on my cell, but I'll lead off with "I NEVER get in a dispute over drawing", i have been drafting for half a century and there is only so much you can draw ... and scanning is not perfect either, so you just pick your poison and go for it. With that, I'll say that I think the new Airfix xiv is pretty good dimensionally ... it lines up well with their mkv and the Eduard Spits. Now put the xix half against the new xiv half and tell me what you see. The cockpit and wing location are further forward, the fuel/oil tank covers are different, the rear of rocker bulge is off a foot (not just a bit), and all this makes the fuselage longer. The XIX fuselage is wider than the xiv in the straight area behind the rocker cover yet the spinner is undersize. So given the fact that the new xiv linesup spot-on with some other respectable models and the xix has some boobs .. I'm going with the new Spit for dimensions. You might not like the separate rocker covers, I know I don't, and I think the molding and fit are not up to par with Tamiya or Eduard, but I think they got the dimensions pretty close ... plus the conversion with the Eduard kit was so easy, it was a kick, I might just do another. Hendon was good ... the Tempest V is back on the ground ... now if they would just put it back in a proper camo. Paul
  11. I did that and I have two previous videos on how I fabricated the blisters. I think that approach makes the most sense if you're using the PR XIX kit. It is interesting to note how far off the PR XIX fuselage is though ... and I plan on showing that in the final bit when I wrap up this adventure. Heading to Hendon today and maybe gathering a little first hand info. But I have no idea of what is on display and how accessible it will be.
  12. You are correct about the wing mods. If I were doing an "E" wing Mk XIV, I would stick with the Airfix kit all the way and just add the spine. I think the Eduard approach gets the best "C" wing. Paul
  13. I did the Eduard Spit VIII conversion as just an experiment, but as I sit with it, I think it might be the best detailed version we're going to get for awhile. Even if Airfix comes up with a new fuselage, the surface detail still won't be up to the Eduard Kit. So unless Airfix has a complete epiphany and does an entirely new, more sophisticated kit, the only benefit will be that it's easier than the conversion. I haven't heard anything about Eduard planning on a Mk XIVc, although now that I've fiddled with the conversion, I can see that they have a fair amount already done. Tamiya ... I don't think so. Just some thoughts ... and even if someone does, I'm glad I've given it a go.
  14. I like this approach the best of what I've seen and what I've tried ... Paul
  15. If you're using acrylic paints ... I think you'll find it challenging ... The spray pattern for the HS .2mm is shown at 18:20 Removed Paul
  16. This is the way I do it ... the manifold is just made up from easily available parts ...
×
×
  • Create New...