Ngantek

Lovely work on this, it looks very sharp. Worth the care you took to get the wing fold just right. Really it depends upon how much you notice! Have a look at some builds of this or the CH kit on the boards and decide if you notice shape issues. As pointed out, the whole nose and forward fuselage is just 'off'. The radome isn't curved enough, which can only cured so far, as it's associated with the shape errors further back at the cockpit. The canopy is another one that can stand out, since it features a pronounced 'kink' where forward part meets the rear. For my part, I thought it looks plenty the sea vixen on the box art, but as you spend time with the kit, you notice it more and more; and the shape issues would require a complete reshaping of the forward fuselage to properly address. It's an odd kit. It builds very nicely, and offers a lot of quite esoteric options (RAT emergency turbine; separate flaps, Air brake, 2 part canopy) without any of them being particularly viable (gaping holes beneath if you leave flaps or airbrake open; canopy has locating pins lining up closed only). The flaps only fit closed for instance. But there's not great options otherwise. I know one of our esteemed colleagues @TheBaron made a lovely 3d kit, whether that would still be available https://www.scalemates.com/kits/anbarun-models-ab001-havilland-sea-vixen-faw1--1504063 but in styrene, most have issues. Building the Revell, if you have it, comfortably out of box as a stop gap is not a bad option as suggested. Enjoy the decent fit and build experience, rather than get too bogged down making it right. Andy

Interesting... Where there ever two stage naval variants considered? Might it suggest range for single stage variants in the future (odd choice given tamiya) Andy

Released, along with beaching set: Source: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1188638039802736&id=100059696543808&ref=embed_post https://www.sbsmodel.com/model/SBS-7041/supermarine-s.4--schneider-trophy-1925- https://www.sbsmodel.com/model/SBS-72088/supermarine-s.4-beaching-gear-for-sbs-model-kit

Hi, welcome Josh! Your thinking sounds well informed and sensible all round. The reality of paint reactions is that while one can follow certain rules on types over other types, it's not always that clear cut. Often you can get away with stuff you probably shouldn't if you're careful with application, and ensure layers below have been given ample time to properly cure. Likewise you might find a reaction where one might not expect it; certainly there are times where two paints of the same brand and type react differently, and you'll just come to learn that that particular colour is finicky. The best result, as I'm sure you know, is to try interactions on a mule or test piece. While I often forget, it's always a good idea to spray a spare piece with exactly the same paints as the model, so you can try each interaction before risking the model. That said, there's a lot to be said for 'just getting on with it' and treating each model as a learning prototype. Particularly if you're quite new to the hobby, getting a good result will never happen first time, and it's worth accepting that no matter how careful you are, you'll probably deem your first chunk of models as 'a bit rough, I'd do it better if I were to do it again'. Clear coats, particularly gloss, are almost never trivial, and it's normal to take experimentation and practice to get it right, and get used to the particular product you're using. I like X-22 a lot and it certainly can produce decent gloss coats. As you say, MLT would help smoothness, but the interaction with the water acrylic is suspect; a good situation for that test piece we always forget to do. About roughness, I certainly fell into the trap of thinking that a sufficiently thick clear coat would level out roughness. It doesn't and won't! if you want a smooth clear coat, you need to apply it onto a smooth surface. That can go back to the original surface preparation before you applied paint; you could have at the paintwork with some very fine sandpaper, bit it's very easy to go through the layer, certainly on raised and edge detail. I've in the past found water acrylics to be very dodgy under sanding as well, they can peel and whatnot. It might be better in this circumstance therefore, to apply a decent protective clear coat, and sand that back. I usually do this anyway to remove decal bumps, and X-22 sands nicely when cured. If you're going for a gloss final finish, getting it right at the start matters rather more than if you're just going for a 'utility layer' gloss, for decals or weathering or sealing a layer, where roughness is less important and can be dealt with later. As your colour coats get thinner and smoother, it'll have knock on effects, such as making your clear coats better, your panel washes easier, etcetc. As for application, there are many good guides and youtube videos, but yes, generally you'll need a wet layer for the levelling to kick in and to get a good gloss sheen. It's just as easy to overdo it and flood the piece, hence gloss layers are really something that just need practice. If X-22 interactions are a problem, yes you could use a water based acrylic instead; a klear/future derivative will work, I quite like alclad aquagloss as well, which is very similar; I can't personally speak to any others. HTH Andy

Looks great! I particularly love the leading edges. I'm really not skilled enough to say much about weathering; but I do also find all-over EDSG to be quite difficult. I think adding wear in the base layer, you generally need to overdo it, as everything that comes after will reduce the effect. For whatever reason, these feels doubly true with EDSG for me; many times I've put in shade variations only to see them completely disappear by the end model. But I think if you use 333 and add different tones, one can still get a more 'real' effect, just bringing out some natural variation for a relatively clean aircaft; starting with something lighter might just suggest more fading of the colour, and EDSG certainly seems to fade a lot. IIRC Special Hobby's seafire calls out C328 for 'faded' EDSG, which is a full on vivid blue to my eye, I think going a bit too far. Likewise you often see a near- medium sea grey tone used, which I tend to think looks a bit weird, with such a minimal shade difference with the sky, but not a heavily faded patchy look; it gives you less room to work with maybe. Anyway this is all just taste.

Just to add, yes C/H333 for EDSG is good, it tends to work better for a dark/freshly applied look, some people like to use lighter and/or bluer shades to suggest wear. (331 for example). For sky typeS, your options are, as mentioned, C026/H074 which is on the vivid/bright/yellower end of the spectrum (I've seen suggestions that post war FAA sky was brighter??). I tend to prefer C368, which is a little darker and less saturated, perhaps just slightly muddy, but not nearly so much as tamiya's x-21. I think this is the same paint, C368 = "flat 75% sky BS381C/210" , perhaps a typo? Earlier aircraft used temperate sea scheme, that is the uppers were camouflaged with EDSG as above and dark slate grey; this latter one is a bit fiddly and I'm yet to come up with a good solution in the mr color range (anyone have any suggestions?). Since you're using mr colour. XF73 is probably the best I've found in Tamiya, which has a lacquer equivalent LP-26, though I've not tried it. Andy

Ahh that explains. Thanks No, but I think it's good to see innovation, even if unsuccessful.

Interesting that it seems to have entirely conventional part design. Feels a little disappointing given the novel approach they took with the 1/48th scale kit.

A lovely seascape again; the details really bring it to life. Would that we all do the kit this level of justice! Andy

I've been wondering about these too recently, prompted by reading Ditcham's memoirs of his time on Scorpion, tied with Starling Models' release of the S classes. This flotilla broadly seemed to carry the same scheme shape (if not the colours). Just as you can see from your collection above, photos seem to vary from large shade difference between the inner and bow/stern colour (Scorpion just before North Cape for instance IWM A21124) to barely any at all (Stord A21207 to A21209 , say or Serapis FL9431, A30814). I don't know to what extent this is some combination of wear lighting, film; or a real difference. I did notice Jamie's build from a while back which looks at this question with no little expertise and detail, well worth a read if you've yet to stumble upon it. I think he settled on G10, B30, G45 without being able to tell for sure. The range of similar schemes with different colours suggested by the various Admiralty Fleet Orders @beefy66 mentions above no doubt introduces the possibility or indeed probably that the colours could vary with the same scheme; perhaps you are way ahead of me and know that the U/Vs differ from the S's in this regard? As you say, I've seen a range of colours mentioned for this scheme, ranging from quite dark G10/B15/G45, to all blue B15/B30/B55. Andy

Also on that FB thread:

helpful detail by airfix. I agree it's always a pain having the undercarriage installed early, probably because I get tempted to use it as a croc clip target and inevitably snap them off as a result. Hope you can get it fitted in situ. Andy

Yikes what a lot of detail. Looks very good so far. I don't think I've seen blue filler before...

Looks fun. I've been really impressed with how MRP paints behave generally.

Yikes! better you than me! Great to see another sea mossie. Andy