Missouri Armada P-51D Mustang: documents and partial scratch from the Tamiya 1/48 kit

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, thammond65 said:

I think dark green is the way to go, and it is far more likely there was dark green around. But that's not logic, just an assessment of what's likely. But if there was extra dark sea green around, surely any RAF stores master would leave that behind before leaving dark green behind? And if some annoying Yank came along and asked me for green paint, I would give him the stuff I knew I wouldn't be using - extra dark sea green rather than dark green. The military in war-time and in peace is usually very reluctant to part with stuff that might be needed, particularly stuff that senior officers might require to spruce up things before even more senior officers visit. So IF there was a green around that wasn't dark green, wouldn't that be the one left behind or handed out? You wouldn't use limited space on a lorry fir paint you don't need and leave behind paint you will need if you are moving airfield. 

 

And if extra dark sea green was produced but little used, there might be a fair but around?

 

Yes I follow your argument. If I had both, I'd leave behind the useless stuff too.

 

I guess I lean on the side of "why would there even be Extra Dark Sea Green in any quantity there?"

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Laurent,

you posted this pic last february, 10. Do you have the full pic of this P-51 underbody? If yes, it would be great if you could post it.

 

Merci d'avance

 

Olivier

 

[antonio argudo]

Hi Olivier,

I have  these  views

cheers

 

 

 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Thanks a lot, Antonio! However, I can't see very well the lower cowling panel Fencer-1 showed above. Would someone have a pic showing this lower cowling panel on an earlier P-51D??

[silberpferd]

11 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

Laurent,

you posted this pic last february, 10. Do you have the full pic of this P-51 underbody? If yes, it would be great if you could post it.

 

Merci d'avance

 

Olivier

 

 

Bonjour Olivier,

 

There you go

 

 

courtesy of Mark Allen M.

 

Are you after something specific?

 

Laurent

[silberpferd]

Some more

 

 

P-51d 44-13357, 361st F.G.

 

 

another P-51D from the 361st F.G.

 

Laurent

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Un grand merci Laurent! Great pics, showing the lower cowling panel and also traces on the underbody!

All the best

Olivier

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Here is below the lower panel Fencer-1 mentioned above and the Laurent enlargement pic in the concerned area. Thanks a lot for this info Fencer-1 and welcome in the thread, I hope you will bring other great docs like that!

 

Cheers

 

Olivier

 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Reading in the Juan Manuel FAQ again (my Bible) the pages 127-128 (how to paint a cannon or machinegun?), an idea came to me. Why not apply first a coat of alu (Tamiya enamel XF-16) on my Missouri?

I applied such a coat on my Fiat 806, before the bright red coat, and thus I got a very nice and realistic metal look. For the OOB version I made of this car, I applied the red directly on the plastic and I can tell you that the result is not the same at all.

On this XF-16, I would apply the RAF Dark Green and the Medium Sea Grey, thinned generously with alcohol, getting so a very thin coat allowing, by using a flat clean brush, enhancing metal on reliefs through the dark green.

Of course, trials will be necessary, especially to see if doing so, I don't lose my rivets... And of course, other complementary weathering techniques would be applied over the green and grey...

 

 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

The thread has turned very quiet and I feel a bit alone... Unfortunately, some of my questions above have remained without answer...

Myself, I won't write anything in the next 24 hours, as I will be traveling to go back home after nice holidays far from this awful weather actually happening in France and Europe...

But be sure my motivation is intact.

The next posts - at my return - should concern more the build than the research aspects, unless some of you come forward.

[thammond65]

On ‎26‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 10:14 AM, Olivier de St Raph said:

I think I have understood something about the mirror effect: look at these Old Crow pics, taken the same day:

 

 

What I mean is:

a satin surface facing another one = a glossy surface! (satin + satin = gloss) creating an optical illusion... This completing the excellent Antonio's demo in the post#592, using C. Baltrinic model.

I go on thinking however that the Missouri was bit more glossy than the Frenesi (see my post#613 above), and I will use the great Frenesi pics we have (thanks John!) as a reference taking that in account...

Hi Olivier, great build and really interesting thread. Not sure about your conclusions on these photos though. In the top one it is difficult to work out where the sun is and the position of the aircraft but it seems that the sun is behind and to the left of the photographer. The aircraft seems to be banked slightly to starboard and pointing slightly towards the sun. That means the fuselage at and behind the cockpit and the inner port wing is getting direct sun and the outer half of the port wing is not - from the point of view of the observer. The bright spot on the canopy suggests that too. You can't add satin and satin to get gloss, as gloss is the ability of a paint to produce specular reflection. Thus gloss can only look gloss if light is shining directly on a surface AND the observer is in the right position to see the specular reflection. 

A gloss surface can look glossy only in parts very easily - indeed unless the surface is evenly illuminated AND the observer gets specular refection from the entire surface it will not look glossy over the entire surface. On an aircraft with complex curved shapes that reflect light in all sorts of directions you should expect to see gloss, satin and matt in a photo even if it is fact all in gloss paint.

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Dear Hammond65,

thank you very much for your kind comments about my build and about the thread.

I can see you are not convinced by my equation S/S= G 

Personally, I remain convinced I am right on that point, because we have exactly the same effect on the Old Crow we have on the Missouri (doc 20). In both cases, coincidentally, we have a glossy mirror effect on the wing area reflecting the fuselage. And on the 2nd Old Crow pic, the same glossy area we had on the first one is now satin, imho just because not reflecting the fuselage. 

I personally don’t think this is due to the sun but it would be good to find other examples to convince you.

As a consequence, I should apply a satin varnish on my model.

P.S: did you notice how the Missouri is worn on the crew pic? (much more than on the other ones). It would br great to be able to get dates of these pics. Was the crew pic taken before the others, suggesting that the aicraft has been at least partially repainted? Or was it done much later, just before the end of England’s tour and his return back home?

Maybe Lt Columbo (alias Antonio) will find the answer to that question... 

[Rumblestripe]

Hi Olivier, enjoying catching up on your build as I hope to do a 1/48 P51D in the future (though probably the new Airfix kit)

 

Just a quick point on painting red. Red paints are translucent and the final colour you get on a model (or indeed in the full scale world) is very dependent on the primer/undercoat you use. So painting red over silver should give a good bright red colour.

 

On the subject of final finish. I have never seen a model look good in a gloss finish it tends to look "toy like", regardless of the glossiness of the original satin is the only way to go.

 

Looking forward to seeing your progress

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Hi Rumblestripe,

you are 100% right about the red and when I built the Fiat, I could experiment how the result depends on the primer coat, as you mention.

The question is: will I get a metal look applying the Dark Green over a silver or alu primer?

It is a very good question and the only way to know is to do trials, what I intend to do soon.

But, aware that the Dark Green covers much more than red, I intend to apply a light coat thinned a lot with alcohol (what I explained above in the post#634).

About the finish, I have abandoned the idea of getting a quite glossy surface, and I should apply a satin one...

Thanks for following and for the kind comments...

Olivier

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Hello to all,

I am back home, and about to remove the wrong rivets on about 40% of the wings (see above). But I have a doubt about the last portion, with contradictory docs:  

 

 

This portion gets the putty on the left pic, showing a P-51 being restored, while the right pic is a period one. On the latter, the same portion is remained uncovered with the putty.

I have ever mentioned above this contradiction, without getting an answer. 

If the best experts could bring the light, I would appreciate a lot.

 

Olivier

[Garry c]

 Olivier, the restoration photo is the top of the wing, the period photo is the bottom. Air flow over the top of the wing is much more critical than the bottom.

Both the restoration and the period photo agree with this diagram discussed earlier in post #313.

 

 

Hope this helps,

 

Garry c

 

 

 

 

 

[Biggles87]

Hi Olivier,, if you look in the O'Leary book you will find  photos showing that the putty/filler extended further back on the upper wing surface than below,  so the above diagram is correct in my opinion.

 

Welcome home, hope the snow has gone.

 

John

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Thanks a lot to both of you, Garry and John, for your help.

Garry, I understand what you say about the up and low surfaces, with this diagram showing the different treatments between both but:

- John Terrell also brought us the up side of the wing, and it is imho totally contradictory with the diagram 154. I suppose the guys who made the restoration of this P-51 knew what they did, applying the putty on the same 40% up and bottom:

 

- there is imho a contradiction on the bottom external portion between this doc 154 and the period pic in the doc 151 above

 

- many of our period pics contradict too this diagram with a nearly 90% of the up side puttied. So??

 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Waiting for certainties about the upper surfaces, I ever did this, that we can take for granted:

[Totally Mad Olivier]

4 hours ago, Biggles87 said:

Hi Olivier,, if you look in the O'Leary book you will find  photos showing that the putty/filler extended further back on the upper wing surface than below,  so the above diagram is correct in my opinion.

Hi John,

what photos do you mean?

Let us see again this one I posted above:

This one, imho, contradicts also at least partially the diagram 154 and is in coherence with the docs 152 and 153, except for the external portion. It is in total adequation with the doc 151 above, while this is up and 151 was bottom. 

I am not an expert, but there are imho 3 areas: 

- one, front, really smooth (light blue on the diagram)

- one, intermediate, with an Alclad coat, not as smooth as the first one, contradicting the diagram 154

- and one with no surface treatment at all.

 

 

 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

7 hours ago, Biggles87 said:

Welcome home, hope the snow has gone.

Thanks, yes, the snow has gone, we were lucky yesterday, we could come-back under the sun. But today is rainy...

Some docs contradicting also partially the diagram:

 

My today personal conclusion after long debates and documentation on the rivets question is that:

1) there were 3 areas on wings: the most frontal one (nearly the same up as bottom contrarly to what the diagram 154 shows) was really smooth, with no rivets visible, an intermediate on which a more simple treatment was applied, on which rivets could be visible (especially on the field after several missions, on a quite worn aircraft as the Missouri in January of 1945) and a third one on which the rivets were very visible, even when leaving the factory, as no treatment was applied on the concerned panels. The latter concerned among others the ailerons and the elevators.

2) there is though a remaining doubt in my mind (still the same than expressed in my post#640), concerning the most external part of the wings. The restoration pics 152 and 153 suggest that this area was covered and smooth, with invisible rivets, while the period pics 145 and 151 suggest that these areas were intermediate, with possibly visible rivets. Up to now (and in the lack of new info, I will stay on this option), I have not removed my rivets on these panels, trusting more the period pics than the restored aircraft (we could see many small errors on these restored P-51, as mentioned John Terrell, only a few of them being really very accurate). But I could change my mind on this precise point, if some expert brings new infos... 

 

All the best

 

Olivier

 

[John Terrell]

Yes, the drawing/illustration that has been posted here is full of errors and is really quite far off the mark. It is too bad that that illustration is so widely seen/recognized and believed. Some areas pointed out in the illustration as having been left unpainted were actually in-fact painted, and as mentioned already, it shows way too much of the wing as being filled. (Furthermore, within the same illustration, the data about the fabric vs. metal elevators is wrong too - they were fabric all the way through P-51D-20-NA production and didn't change to metal, from the factory, until P-51D-25-NA production.)

The photos I posted from the restoration, showing the wing being filled and sanded, are of the "Sierra Sue II" restoration, the most authentically-restored P-51D to-date. Everything about that restoration was done to original North American Aviation guidelines and factory photos. As John (Biggles87) has commented above, the filler on the bottom of the wing didn't typically extend quite as far back on the outer wingtip extensions as was applied on the upper surface, and would match the blue area of the bottom of the wing in the drawing/illustration. The objective of the filler on the wings was to get all of the panel lines and any "irregularities" covered over, from the leading edge back to and just over the panel line(s) that the main wing spar followed. This panel line stopped at the joint between the main wing section and the outer wing "extensions". At this point, the putty could be carried over just as far back as the rest of the wing and blended into the wing tip, as common on the top surface, or, and as was commonly done on the lower surfaces, it came to an end at the wing extension and the putty was extended back only as far as the first panel line back from the leading edge out to the wingtip.

Here are some photos showing what the completed wing looks like on "Sierra Sue II", which had the first 40% of the wing filled and sanded smooth, according to NAA guidelines and period factory photos (even the silver lacquer paint was made to match what was used originally).

 

 

 

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/001368847L.html

 

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/001150604L.html

(Note the extra bolts and stencils on the ammo bay doors of "Sierra Sue II" - this is in compliance with a Technical Order from the spring of 1945, to help secure the earlier ammo bay doors from deforming & detaching in-flight (later production D's, starting with the P-51D-25-NA, had a more rigid ammo bay door design than the earlier versions).)

The P-51D "Upupa Epops" restoration, which is very much on-par with "Sierra Sue II", also had the wings filled, sanded and painted in the same manner (note how, on this upper surface, again the putty is extend straight out from the main wing spar panel line, and then blended back into the wing tip):

 

 

Not a "D" wing, but showing the same process at the NAA factory (this one is actually a very early wing):

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by John Terrell

[antonio argudo]

Hi Olivier, nice to see you back in action,Great info and pics John again!!                                                                                                                             

when you mention Alclad coat above, not sure what you mean, maybe Alclad coated? Alclad is not a treatment for the wings, is  the name of the aluminium sheet itself.

we should not think about rivets the same way as just holes in the wings,  Mustangs had flushed rivets, see this cool vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDbTUt3OG9s                                                                                                                                                                                                         what you see in pictures like pic 155 is just the depresion and stressed effect made by the rivet on the Alclad sheet, on the other hand dirt and mud from the pilot and crew's boots  can fill this depresion making it more visible. pic157

 

 

cheers

Edited March 3, 2018 by antonio argudo

[antonio argudo]

some references

[antonio argudo]

11 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

Hello to all,

I am back home, and about to remove the wrong rivets on about 40% of the wings (see above). But I have a doubt about the last portion, with contradictory docs:  

 

 

This portion gets the putty on the left pic, showing a P-51 being restored, while the right pic is a period one. On the latter, the same portion is remained uncovered with the putty.

I have ever mentioned above this contradiction, without getting an answer. 

If the best experts could bring the light, I would appreciate a lot.

 

Olivier

I think the wing on the right B&W picture is from an early Mustang model posibly B or C , it has the position light on the wing rather than on the wing tip, maybe the development  technique was slightly different back then, just my thought!

cheers

Edited March 3, 2018 by antonio argudo