Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Olivier de St Raph

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Thanks to Laurent we are now saved a lot of small detail work, except for you of course. I think if you were building a Korean War F-51 ( too late to change? ) it would probably be OK to leave the cover off and expose all your lovely detail as some of the covers might have been lost or removed by then.

 

Cheers

 

John

Edited by Biggles87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear John,

it doesn't matter for the work I did, finally un necessary as I will represent the canvas. I just hope it will be useful for the ones who would not put the canvas... No question for me to change my Missouri for a Korean war version because of this detail. 

 

Cheers

 

Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a Korean F-51 planned so the detail will be useful for me along with many other parts of this superb thread. The question of changing it was said " tongue in cheek " as we British say, meaning not entirely seriously. :D

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0G8Rf3.jpg

 

N.B: looking again closely to our great doc 126 (see my post#900 on last page), I finally don't consider this construction I made will be totally useless. I will indeed have to fix the canvas on something on top, to get a convincing result, as it is on the doc 126. This top stent will be represented by the Evergreen sheet with the 3 holes. But of course, if I had known the canvas would hide all that construction, the latter could have been more simple... Furthermore, I am thinking about the material I will use for the canvas. Maybe some of you remember that, for the joystick bellows, I had used small portions of nitrile single use gloves. Maybe I could do the same for the canvas... But all suggestions on that matter will be welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cW6Ibo.jpg

 

It seems to me that it makes an eternity that I began this build with the radio compartment (it was in last november, 5 months ago). I didn't expect spending so much time to be only there... But I didn’t expect too learning so much about this aircraft, about the 357th FG, with so many consequences for my build. A fascinating one, definitely, thanks to this dream team I had at my side.

My next steps will be naturally the sanding job (with my home made sanding tool ever mentioned above) to make disappear all the joints and then the adding of details inside the cockpit, especially the gunsight.

 

Cheers

 

Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa... after only a year and half and 37 pages, you've got the fuselage together. Momentous!

 

Congratulations

-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Johnny1000 said:

only a year and half

There you exaggerate, Johnny, only 5 little months (up to now...)

But for the 1/12 Italeri Fiat 806, I spent 13 months for the whole partial scratchbuild, and the thread "research and scratchbuild" (that is not yet over with especially Hannes) is now 191 pages!! 

Notice that I had needed only 3 weeks to build the Fiat OOB, that was however a much more complex build than the Missouri Tamiya at 1/48. All depends what you want to get, a fast result or a great satisfaction...

So I am the Leon Tolstoï of model making ;)!

And definitely a completely mad guy, for sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, silberpferd said:

Hi Olivier,

 

Great to see the fuselage finaly closed, one major step toward completion.:yes:

 

Laurent

 

I agree, wings soon? ( more British humour )

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Biggles87 said:

wings soon? ( more British humour )

In about  6 months and 40 more pages ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olivier this is just magnificent...it must feel great now that the fuselage is together....well done!

 

All the Best!

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for your kind messages.

A new little step today: as a joke, I have assembled my wings, but no, John, they are of course not yet glued in place ;) (in fact, the bottom part is temporary ever glued but not the 2 upper ones, just dry fit assembled as I have first to work on the gear bays, what will be my next challenge, helped among others by Squibby's - who I hope will find motivation again to go on with his build, so promising - Matt  and Juan Manuel great jobs on these areas). 

3yWrIO.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I begin the gear bay work. The first thing I decided to do is to take photos of the Tamiya proposition (3 angles of view), to precise the starting point. Looking at these close-up, the Tamiya parts seem to be a good base, definitely. These photos will then be compared with some of our best documents (the harder will be to choose). 

 

ldel4j.jpg

 

q4zT8c.jpg

 

7aU6bD.jpg

 

More soon...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/03/2018 at 18:12, John Terrell said:

On all early to mid production P-51D's, the aluminum skins didn't typically require any coatings of zinc chromate on the interior-facing surfaces, and mostly were always left bare aluminum. It was felt that the Alclad coating of the aluminum was enough protection from corrosion as long as the Alclad finish was not compromised. It wasn't until very late production that it was mandated to treat all interior surfaces with zinc chromate - if I recall correctly, this being true of the P-51D-20-NT and later Dallas production, and not until the P-51D-30-NA in Inglewood production.

 

So we should have a bare alu color  on the interior-facing surfaces, unlike most of our docs above show (but many of them are pics of the Sierra Sue II, a later version compared with the Missouri... So these interior-facing surfaces should have the Alclad stencils, OK?

 

On 05/03/2018 at 18:12, John Terrell said:

The general rule was that all aluminum extrusions, castings and forgings were required to be treated with a single coat of (raw) zinc chromate. Zinc chromate, in its natural raw state, has a yellow color. This meant that for the majority of parts, including the spars, ribs, stringers, longerons and any aluminum-cast brackets were all "yellow" zinc chromate

 

Ok, that's clear.

 

On 05/03/2018 at 18:12, John Terrell said:

The general rule was that all magnesium-based castings and forgings (mostly in the form of brackets) were required to be treated with two coats of zinc chromate for extra added protection. This process was handled by applying a first coat of (raw) "yellow" zinc chromate, followed by a second coat of "green" zinc chromate, which was made by mixing a bit of black pigment with raw zinc chromate. This second coating was purposely pigmented in this manner so that the part could clearly be seen to be covered by two coats of primer.

 

Ok, so some parts (difficult for me to identify precisely which ones even if John T. mentions "castings and forgings") should be painted green ZC... Pics should be helpful on this matter (the seventh pic of John post#671 gives an idea)

 

On 05/03/2018 at 18:12, John Terrell said:

To complicate matters, as has been found on all unrestored Mustangs, prior to restoration or currently preserved, what also tended to happen a lot on the shop floor was that aluminum parts ended up being finished with green zinc chromate as well, in lieu of the availability of yellow zinc chromate. There were two key reasons for this...

 

- a. If a batch of yellow zinc chromate ran out, they weren't going to wait until the next batch came in to spray the parts, they just used the green zinc chromate already available.

 

- b. Many parts (such as ribs and brackets) were coated with zinc chromate by dipping them into massive tubs/containers of zinc chromate. If a batch of aluminum parts were to be dipped in the containers of zinc chromate, and a container of green zinc chromate was available while all of the yellow zinc chromate was being used at the time, well those parts would go into the green instead - any opportunity to at least maintain the required pace of wartime production or speed it up if at all possible.

 

Ok... :huh: in such conditions, we have to deal with uncertainties and just try to suggest something possible...

 

On 05/03/2018 at 18:12, John Terrell said:

To further complicate matters, on all parts that were spot-welded together, such as the landing gear doors, gun bay and ammunition bay doors, cowl panels, etc., none of those parts could be primered prior to assembly, otherwise the spot-welding process would not work well. This is the reason why throughout most all P-51 production, the gear doors were always left bare metal. Also, as a result, while on some Mustangs the gun bay and ammunition bay doors were treated with zinc chromate following assembly, others left the factory with gun bay/ammunition bay doors where the interior surfaces were still bare. There was also a lot of spot welding in other areas around the fuselage and tail cone that had to take place using only non-primered skins, and then assembled without any spraying of zinc chromate afterward.

 

John, do you think I should represent a gear door bare metal or with the ZC partial treatment as we can see below, fe?

db95Rk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, last year I took some photos of the wheel bay of the P-51K in the collection of the Dutch museum of military history at Soesterberg. The aircraft (44-12525) was rebuilt in 1966 using parts of 2 P-51Ds and even a P-51B (the museum site unfortunately does not give any details which aircraft these were and what components were used).

 

The wheel bay of 44-12525 in its current condition does come across as unrestored and I think gives a good impression of what @John Terrell is explaining.

 

Y9fUDsc.jpg

 

oxRBbFC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot elger for these nice and interesting pics. 

On my side, I made the comparison below, to show that, if the Tamiya kit is a good base for the gear bays considering the scale, it is of course far from doing justice to the very complex network of pipes, cables and other details...

GIKNhf.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before going on with the gear bays, and as I checked again my fuselage, I realized that my sanding job was uncomplete, and now that it is better (not yet excellent), I would need a close-up on the real aircraft, in order to be sure the Tamiya kit is right with the small panels and details in this area:

(a merciless close-up...)

3Ca2mU.jpg

 

N.B: take in consideration that the cyano used as a filler has a drawback, it is clear. That's why some joints seem to be still present while they will completely disappear with the painting job...

 

Thanks for your help...

 

Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the Tamiya wheel bay has nicer detail than Airfix, but are you going to address the issue of the rear wall? Tamiya rather infamously has the rear wall of the wheel bay follow the outline of the wheel bays (diagonally) whereas the rear wall is the main spar forming actually a straight line. This creates a hollow area at the back. Airfix does this correctly. Aires has a replacement wheel bay that shows what the shape should be:

 

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Rev8/7401-7500/rev7487-Aires-4613/00.shtm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another comparison below to show:

1) why I would need a close-up of the underbody (see my post# 920 above), this photo (from Laurent) being a good reference for weathering aspects, but not for details on this area... John T., Laurent, Antonio (or anyone else) can you help me please?

2) that the outside walls of the tamiya gear bays are correct. Edger said just above:

8 hours ago, elger said:

Tamiya rather infamously has the rear wall of the wheel bay follow the outline of the wheel bays (diagonally) whereas the rear wall is the main spar forming actually a straight line

I had to have a closer look to understand what he meant, and, of course, he is right. The only solution to improve this is to remove completely this rear wall and to rebuild it, exactly what Squibby did (post# 11 and so on) in his BM thread:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjp9b-wns7aAhVBmxQKHYA9BQYQFghtMA0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britmodeller.com%2Fforums%2Findex.php%3F%2Ftopic%2F235028306-p-51d-daddys-girl-or-how-to-ruin-a-perfectly-good-tamiya-mustang-kit%2F&usg=AOvVaw0n8036X81E-iqst0AC-Air

 

and I will inspire myself of this great job.

 

Thank you elger anyway, despite that I had seen Squibby's job (but not read carefully his text of post#11...), I had not realised this problem with the Tamiya kit... You avoid me a mistake here.

 

a4WpTl.png

 

... and thanks to Squibby for his great tuto...

 

Olivier

 

P.S: thanks elger for the link too, but this aftermarket resin set is not for Tamiya kit, but for the Hobby Boss. That’s why I think I will rather follow Squibby ´s tuto and do this by scratch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a Russian resin set for the Tamiya kit, from the brand Vector. I could finally decide to order it instead of the scratch option... This would allow me to earn time... What do you think of this set?

RHGLKN.png

 

rULMAA.png

 

This 3rd photo below shows that the Vector, like the Aires set, is correct regarding the rear wall:

Ip0ZV4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks good but I don't have any experience with it so I don't know how well it fits - or the quality of the actual casting. Vector's reputation is pretty good though, and I used their correction set for the 1/48 ICM Dornier 215 which was fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you elger for these useful comments. Another comparison between both sets (you will notice that I like comparisons ;)):

 

Aires for Hobby Boss VS Vector for Tamiya:

L3JDlJ.png

 

- the pipes seem to be a little better on the Aires (more pipes and more relief)

- on the other hand, the stringers are imho a bit too thin on the Aires kit, if I refer to our doc (see fe the pic in the post#919 above)

I have decided to order the Vector one, mainly because it is fitted for the Tamiya kit. If the Aires had been fitted also for the Tamiya kit, I would certainly have chosen the latter.

That said, imho, none of these resin sets, as good as they can be, can stand comparison with Squibby scratch result. With scratch, pipes are not molded but real wires.

Having ordered the Vector kit doesn't mean I am sure I renonce definitely to the scratch option.

In the meantime, one more time, waiting to get this set just ordered, I will have to go on with other aspects of my build.

More soon...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×