1/72 AZ Spitfire IIB - 303 Sqn

[James Venables]

I love Spits, I really like AZ kits, and I am really enjoying this thread. But I'm not convinced that the two-tone colouring technique has really added anything positive to the model. Maybe the photos are not doing it justice, but I cannot help thinking the contrast is a little too extreme for a Spit in the European theatre for that period. I am no expert but I would have expected that Spitfires would have been steadfastly maintained at that period of the war and harsh weathering would not appear.

Please don't think I am trying to denigrate your work. It is turning out to be a great little model. I have a bunch of AZ Spitfires very near the top of my "to do" pile and your build is inspiring me to get the current P-47 and P-51 projects off the bench so I can get started on the Spits. It's just that weathering technique which doesn't look right to my eye... maybe it's a tad too harsh for the scale...? I note that a lot of other modellers here have commented favourably on the effect so I accept that perhaps I am just not appreciating it for what it is.

Regardless, it is a fascinating technique and one that I will try. I think it would look great on models representing AFVs or aircraft in the North African or Pacific theatre where harsh conditions and basic maintenance facilities allowed weathering/fading to be more pronounced.

Cheers.

[giemme]

But I'm not convinced that the two-tone colouring technique has really added anything positive to the model. Maybe the photos are not doing it justice, but I cannot help thinking the contrast is a little too extreme for a Spit in the European theatre for that period. I am no expert but I would have expected that Spitfires would have been steadfastly maintained at that period of the war and harsh weathering would not appear.

Not trying to "defend" Cooken choice, nor to start a flame, but since I'm also building a Spitfire (here), when looking for some pics of the real subject I came across this:

This specific AC has seen only European service, AFAIC, still looks well battered and discolored (in places). Now, how to represent this in 1/72 scale, it's something we can debate (luckily, I'm building mine in 1/48 ). I agree with you that some pics of Cooken's model with a better lighting would help judging the "two tones" effect.

Well, just my anyway

Ciao

[modelglue]

It all comes down to style and preference. We all see things differently, it is humanly impossible to see exactly what others see in a biological sense. We just perceive things the way our visual style allows us to. Same goes with modelling, with our own styles and choices. No rights or wrongs unless you have a time machine and can acquire fresh paint from the factory line to apply to your model. But then, would it be scale accurate?

[Cookenbacher]

James - No offence taken whatsoever, and thanks for your comment as I think it will lead to some interesting conversations on the subject. This is my first attempt at this technique and it's definitely not perfect. I have to say this is the closest I've come to replicating the worn paint effect seen in reference pics of this subject (P8385) - the best coming from Vol 1 of Wing Leader/Red Kite's excellent 303 Sqn history. The books have lots of pics and the weathering levels seem to vary greatly, but I was struck by how 'beat up' the 303 aircraft often looked. That being said, I definitely need more practice with it. Another technique that I need to learn is to vary the paint with an airbrush, as reference pics often show a sort of 'blended' fading in each of the top coat colors, rather than the 'patchy' tones I've tried to capture on P8385.

I'm currently working on a pair of Mustang III's and am still debating whether or not to use this technique on the one that will be in the Day Fighter Scheme. The pics I've seen show a lot more chipping than I expected, but the 'blended' fading seems more prevalent than the 'patchy' fading. My guess is that the blended fading is due more to sun and weather, and the 'patchy' fading is due more to dirt and grime, at least in this theater.

I'll try and get some pics in the sun light or figure out better settings on my old point-and-shoot camera so you all can judge better for yourselves!

[James Venables]

That photo posted by "giemme" clearly shows that my assumption was incorrect and that the effect you have achieved is indeed representative of the period & theatre. I can't comment on the actual aircraft as the only photos I have seen on P8385 are a few very grainy online pics in which it is impossible to see any detail of the finish, but it sounds like you have a much better reference source, so your interpretation of the scheme is obviously much more educated than my assumptions. Well done.

As "modelglue" correctly stated, model making (of all genres) is very much an matter of style and preference. I have always considered model making to be an art, and as such, artistic licence and interpretation can be applied freely. What one person sees as correct and appropriate can easily be completely at odds with the opinion of another.

As a personal example, I resisted the temptation for pre-shading for many years, because whilst I could see that it offered a visually more interesting model, I felt the effect was very unrealistic. A few years ago however, I had an epiphany of sorts when I realised that over the years, I had squandered far too much modelling enjoyment by agonising over the detail and accuracy of such things like outline, panel lines, cockpit instrumentation and controls, correct tyre treads, scale colour, positioning of markings, etc, etc. Far too many models had been pushed aside and placed into "the drawer of doom" because I lost interest in the project as a result of my detail paranoia! I decided to change tack completely, begin building out of the box (corrections made and details added only where they were patently incorrect or lacking), stop fretting about the scale colour of the pilot's underpants and just enjoy my modelling by attempting to achieve a visually pleasing model. I began to experiment with "new" techniques including pre-shading and I discovered a new "wow factor" in my models, though admittedly, I prefer a more subdued effect than many other modellers.

I'm looking forward to seeing our finished Spit and trying that technique on a model myself. Cheers.

[Cookenbacher]

I've avoided pre-shading mainly because my airbrush skills are not up to it yet! I agree that it may not lead to a strictly realistic result, but it is a way to make a model look more like a full sized aircraft in a 'forced perspective' kind of way, and I always enjoy seeing the result. I like that there are many schools of thought in our little hobby.

Right now, my strategy is to find a reference pic that I like and then do my best to copy it with what skills I have. The 'patchy' effect on this Spitfire was something I was looking to do for a while but had no idea how, and then I saw Wolwe's P-40 build and had my answer. I still need more practice, but it is exactly the effect I was looking for.

Thanks for the encouragement and thoughtful comments James, MG and Giemme.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Cookenbacher

[Cookenbacher]

The rear-view mirror and antenna mast in the AZ kit are included as PE parts. I'm just not a big fan of PE, so I scratched the post and mirror out of plastic card.

The landing gear was touch and go, but I got it attached OK, and added the prop and IFF antennae.

Here it is next to its 303 Sqn Mk IIA stablemate:

And here are a few close-ups of the finish, so James and Giemme can investigate and critique as necessary.

Once again, please forgive my photography (lack of) skills.

I'll try and get this up in RFI soon.

Thanks for looking and for the great discussion everyone.

[modelglue]

...and seeing your posts are in fact encouraging in return. Don't sell yourself short on your photos!

[giemme]

Cooken, to me you just nailed that worn out look! Brilliant! (also for the tiny parts scratchbuilding)

Ciao

[nimrod54]

Nice result Cookie and neat work on scratching the mirror and post. Well done bud, looks good alongside her stable mate, just one more now for a Section.

[rob85]

That looks brilliant, love the weathering you have done so +1 on giemme's comment.

Look forward to the RIF

Rob

[SoftScience]

Hi.

How did you approach the small gaps beneath the windscreen. AZ suggest putty, but I wonder if plastic inserts will work better.

I'm just starting my AZ Mk Ib, so its nice to see how one of these kits looks all built up. Thanks for sharing

[Cookenbacher]

Hi SoftScience - that gap is really annoying isn't it? I used putty, but your idea of an insert is brilliant. I think that would end up looking much nicer, and wish that I had the forethought to have tried it. I ended up using Micro Crystal Clear, but my canopy masking ripped much of it away when I removed it. I like that product, but it seems to remain sticky for a long time and it can't really ever be sanded, and is the reason for my rather unclean canopy/fuselage juncture. So the gaps are now filled with Perfect Plastic Putty. It's water based, so I didn't have to worry about it fogging or otherwise 'chemically' interacting with the clear canopy.

Giemme also reminded me that I hadn't included a link to the RFI for this one. Whoops! Thank you sir.

Thanks for looking.

[giemme]

Ciao