1/48 - Curtiss P-40B Warhawk & Tomahawk Mk.II by Airfix - released - new Tomahawk Mk.II boxing in June 2024

[Tbolt]

To be fair to Hornby I don't think there's any colour in the current range that would be a good match for the (in)famous Sky Type S Grey without some mixing, which they seem to try to avoid if possible. Having said that, and assuming that they wanted to differentiate the colour from their "standard" Sky maybe 247 RLM76 would have been a better compromise than 28 which is supposed to match FS595 36622, the underside grey of the Vietnam-era 2 greens and tan scheme.

Elsewhere on these boards I suggested to Sovereign Hobbies that they might like to investigate this shade as part of their range, and they didn't say no...

John

I don't think they are that worried about that close a match, aren't they still quoting 30 for RAF Dark green?

Personally I use Humbrol 90 for Sky, though like a lot of colours it hard to tell if it's close.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

To be fair to Hornby I don't think there's any colour in the current range that would be a good match for the (in)famous Sky Type S Grey without some mixing, which they seem to try to avoid if possible. Having said that, and assuming that they wanted to differentiate the colour from their "standard" Sky maybe 247 RLM76 would have been a better compromise than 28 which is supposed to match FS595 36622, the underside grey of the Vietnam-era 2 greens and tan scheme.

Elsewhere on these boards I suggested to Sovereign Hobbies that they might like to investigate this shade as part of their range, and they didn't say no...

John

Working on it John ...

[HBBates]

On the subject of the Tomahawk underside color...I've posted this before but late last year I got to go over a large collection of recover Tomahawk parts

The photos below are of different underside color samples (of many different parts) I got to look at

==========================

In the first photo..

The color in person was almost a white gray..

HOWEVER.. the paint was so broken down and highly oxidized the color literally came off on my pants like chalk... ..I really do not think its a valid sample of the original color especially in context of the large numbers samples I got to look at at the same time

I bring this up because there was a few posts on Hyperscale contending a white or light gray based on some other small samples the person had... the really is, I belive, this paint breaks down to white or light gray over time and environmental exposure

Bottom line IMO a white or light gray is NOT CORRECT..it what the paint breaks down to over time

=================

In the second and third photo..

The color in person did have the Green/Grey color of the Dupont 71-021 chips..it was a good match... and the large major of parts in underside camo seem to match this color

So IMO Dupont 71-021 is the correct color for the Tomahawk .. and no matter what the name is (Sky-Type S Grey) it has a Green/Grey tint to it

Edited July 21, 2016 by HBBates

[Wez]

Colour aside these photos are interesting because they show large areas of the airframe was flush riveted, yes there are a couple of depressions but these are where rivets have pulled and are the exception not the norm (airframe repairs required in these areas). It also shows the use of other raised fasteners.

For the flush riveting, in 1/1 scale it translates to a smooth surface, in 1/48th scale it should translate to an extremely smooth finish, yet there will be those asking for plans with rivet patterns so they can run a pounce wheel along them to recreate an effect and criticising Airfix for not reproducing a feature which would not be observable. I know it's their model and they can do what they like, but often people go to great lengths to ensure accuracy and then they go and make it look like an overstressed airframe.

I remember the days when Airfix were criticised for employing the "Mad Riveter", yet for the raised fasteners, this would be correct.

Just my two penneth worth and thanks to HB for posting the pictures.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Wez

[HBBates]

Yes it is an extremely smooth finish and flush riveted and even though it's lapped joint skin.. as you can see by the photo it's actually jogged so effectively it's flush and you don't see the lap joint

Edited July 22, 2016 by HBBates

[Tbolt]

Colour aside these photos are interesting because they show large areas of the airframe was flush riveted, yes there are a couple of depressions but these are where rivets have pulled and are the exception not the norm (airframe repairs required in these areas). It also shows the use of other raised fasteners.

For the flush riveting, in 1/1 scale it translates to a smooth surface, in 1/48th scale it should translate to an extremely smooth finish, yet there will be those asking for plans with rivet patterns so they can run a pounce wheel along them to recreate an effect and criticising Airfix for not reproducing a feature which would not be observable. I know it's their model and they can do what they like, but often people go to great lengths to ensure accuracy and then they go and make it look like an overstressed airframe.

I remember the days when Airfix were criticised for employing the "Mad Riveter", yet for the raised fasteners, this would be correct.

Just my two penneth worth and thanks to HB for posting the pictures.

Agree. But there is a trend for people to make a model look more "interesting" than the real thing - look at the way people over highlight and weather inappropriately and these rivets help them out. I prefer accuracy myself but like you say if people want rivet on their model that's fine, I just wish manufacture wouldn't added them to there models.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Tbolt

[Tbolt]

Yes it is an extremely smooth finish and flush riveted and even though it's lapped joint skin.. as you can see by the photo it's actually jogged so effectively it's flush and you don't see the lap joint

Thanks for those pictures. Interesting blue primer there, was that used in many places on the P-40?

[mhaselden]

Yep...quite a lot:

[Tbolt]

Yep...quite a lot:

Thanks, I remember seeing that picture before now!

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I agree that discreet flush rivets would be very hard to see, but would argue that it's no more "realistic" not to have them in terms of overall effect.

The surface is anything but smooth in the way our model kits are moulded. It's ripply and wavy and scatters reflection and shadow in all sorts of ways. Without that scatter, the model skin looks toy-like. Some modellers highlight panel lines and like rivet detail because whilst not perfect, it's something to break up the expanse. The only aircraft which are genuinely featureless surfaces are of moulded skin type construction.

One light coat of primer and a brush over with 800 grit wet and dry will make modern Eduard rivets disappear. I honestly don't see the problem. They're much quicker and easier to get rid of than to put on.

Would I prefer to see realistic ripply skin moulded in to kits rather than holes for rivets? Yes I would. Is there anyone doing that at this time? No there isn't.

[Tbolt]

I agree that discreet flush rivets would be very hard to see, but would argue that it's no more "realistic" not to have them in terms of overall effect.

The surface is anything but smooth in the way our model kits are moulded. It's ripply and wavy and scatters reflection and shadow in all sorts of ways. Without that scatter, the model skin looks toy-like. Some modellers highlight panel lines and like rivet detail because whilst not perfect, it's something to break up the expanse. The only aircraft which are genuinely featureless surfaces are of moulded skin type construction.

One light coat of primer and a brush over with 800 grit wet and dry will make modern Eduard rivets disappear. I honestly don't see the problem. They're much quicker and easier to get rid of than to put on.

Would I prefer to see realistic ripply skin moulded in to kits rather than holes for rivets? Yes I would. Is there anyone doing that at this time? No there isn't.

Well there is - the Airfix Meteor has a stressed skin effect in a few places (needs a bit more adding, I'm up for the challenge!) and when I've seen people add the stressed skin effect to their models it looks fantastic, much better to spend time doing that than adding rivets. But I think doing a good job filling rivets is going to take as long if not longer than adding them.

Which one of these looks closer the the real thing in terms of surface detail to you?

Edited July 22, 2016 by Tbolt

[HBBates]

I would say that I would not use a restorative or rebuild example for a template of skin finish... effectively a restored or rebuilt example is a hand built aircraft ...

Look to original photos of original production examples when there a new coming off the line the quality of finish is usually superior...

And im basing that opinion on conversations with actual rebuilders in the warbird community..

[Tbolt]

There's nothing wrong with adding highlighting to break up a single colour on a model and make it look less uniform, but there's just some poeple like to over do highlights in my opinion.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Tbolt

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I don't think our preferences are far apart to be honest. I'm not a fan of black washed panel lines on engine cowlings and wingtips alike! I don't cover my own in rivets either, but the surfaces do need some subtle work. That lower Spitfire is very nicely done - just my sort of taste

[DIO]

I think there is nothing standard there. Each builds mainly for his own joy and collection.

So can be anything from no wash at all, to dark, even black wash across all the airframe.

[k5054nz]

I only build models of restored/museum aircraft

When it comes to this P-40, I'm planning on doing the same again. I'm a little disappointed it's a September release now...my birthday's in a week and a half and this kit was on my list!

[Stephen]

In stock at Wonderland

https://www.wonderlandmodels.com/products/airfix-148-curtiss-p-40b-model-kit/

[Ali62]

In stock at Wonderland

https://www.wonderlandmodels.com/products/airfix-148-curtiss-p-40b-model-kit/

Stephen

I am not sure that it is in stock as yet, as it is still pre-order at Airfix, wonderland like to do this sort of thing I have noticed.

cheers Ali

[John]

The expected date of arrival at Airfix HQ seems to have been put back to 16-9-16.

John

[48-Alone-Is-Great]

I'll definitely get one, and paint it white and grey with red stars.

However, they call it a P-40B, but it has the wing guns of the P-40C and the nose guns of the P-40. Minor issues, especially if you want a P-40C.

Cheers.

[HBBates]

On 9/14/2016 at 7:11 AM, 48-Alone-Is-Great said:

I'll definitely get one, and paint it white and grey with red stars.

However, they call it a P-40B, but it has the wing guns of the P-40C and the nose guns of the P-40. Minor issues, especially if you want a P-40C.

Cheers.

There is no diffrence between the B C wing guns

The P40...had one .30 gun per wing.. the P40B & C had two .30 guns per wing

 

As for the nose gun ..it long blast tube and short blast tubes... the kit has both ... the length of the blast tube do not have anything directly to do with what model it was

The blast originally were long.. then early in service s problem was found with the long blast tubes barrel oscillating at the end and being damaged by .50 caliber rounds exiting... so a field service order went out for the blast tube to be cut down to the shorter length

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by HBBates

[John Thompson]

On 2016-07-22 at 11:58 AM, SovereignHobbies said:

Would I prefer to see realistic ripply skin moulded in to kits rather than holes for rivets? Yes I would. Is there anyone doing that at this time? No there isn't.

 

FWIW, and because I never miss an opportunity to boost Amodel, they did an extremely nice job of it on their 1/72 Yak-9U, Yak-9P, and Yak-3/VK-107A kits a few years ago.

 

John

[48-Alone-Is-Great]

20 hours ago, HBBates said:

There is no diffrence between the B C wing guns

The P40...had one .30 gun per wing.. the P40B & C had two .30 guns per wing

 

As for the nose gun ..it long blast tube and short blast tubes... the kit has both ... the length of the blast tube do not have anything directly to do with what model it was

The blast originally were long.. then early in service s problem was found with the long blast tubes barrel oscillating at the end and being damaged by .50 caliber rounds exiting... so a field service order went out for the blast tube to be cut down to the shorter length

 

 

Ah, thanks for the blast tubes kit info.

So the interesting thing is that some books say the B had two wing guns, and others say it had four (it doesn't help that these latter show pics of no- and two-gunned wings and state those are Bs). The empty weight difference between the B and C I found (220 pounds) seems exessive if the C's only difference was self sealing tanks and a different radio set, but makes sense if it had two extra .30 guns. There's also a possible (pre-B) -CU version with two wing guns, and the French ordered P-40s with four guns ... all very confusing. I couldn't find info about the panel differences between the 2- and 4 gun wings, which is what really matters to us. Then again, in the end this is only about a letter on the box.

 

Cheers

[John]

Wonderland have revised their expected delivery date to 13th October 2016.

 

John

[HBBates]

The defining characteristic of the P40 and P40 G  vs the P40B,C and export Tomahawk is the fuselage fuel points

 

The first model..the P40cu was only use by the US.. and what's unique is the fueling points ( no through the glass fuel point) and also unique in having one wing gun

 

All model after, P40 B,C and export H81Tomahawks.. had through the glass fuel ports and two gun wing

 

The P40 G was a P40cu fuselage retrofitted with a two gun wing

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by HBBates