British Tomahawk Mk. 1A Paint guide

[ush1000]

Hi everyone, hope you are all keeping safe.

 

My winter project is a Vintage Fighter Series 1/24th Tomahawk Mk. 1A   I have only ever built Airfix and Revell kits over the years so have been spoilt with detailed instructions including paint guides for each part. This kit is very basic in this department, not even sure what colour to paint the engine block! (assume satin black as a safe bet). I can probably work out the Dark Earth, Middlestone? and Azure Blue camo but am wondering if there is a full colour guide out there somewhere? And re the aircraft green interior, assume that is US colour not British? Should keep me busy for a few weeks..............Forgot to say I use Humbrol Enamels (just like my Dad back in the sixties)

 

Many thanks

Andrew

 

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by ush1000

[dogsbody]

This might be of use: http://www.ratomodeling.com.br/articles/AVG_cammo/

 

 

 

 

Chris

[fishplanebeer]

I recently raised a similar question re' my 72nd scale Special Hobby Kittyhawk 1a that I'm in the middle of painting and in the end, being an enamel user like yourself, I finally opted for the following:

 

Azure Blue - Humbrol 157 (matt)

Dark Earth - Humbrol 29 (matt)

Mid Sone - Xtracolor x009 (gloss/satin) or Humbrol 94 (matt): I went for the Xtracolor simply because I already had it in my paint stash

 

For the purists these may not be the most accurate in terms of the actual paints used during WW2 but IMHO they give/create the desired overall effect.

 

The interior green referred to is indeed the American version and Xtracolor also do this in a matt finish (x117) but not sure what the Humbrol equivalent would be.

 

Hope this helps. 

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. the Xtracolor paint range is sold by Hannants

[LDSModeller]

10 hours ago, ush1000 said:

Hi everyone, hope you are all keeping safe.

 

My winter project is a Vintage Fighter Series 1/24th Tomahawk Mk. 1A   I have only ever built Airfix and Revell kits over the years so have been spoilt with detailed instructions including paint guides for each part. This kit is very basic in this department, not even sure what colour to paint the engine block! (assume satin black as a safe bet). I can probably work out the Dark Earth, Middlestone? and Azure Blue camo but am wondering if there is a full colour guide out there somewhere? And re the aircraft green interior, assume that is US colour not British? Should keep me busy for a few weeks..............Forgot to say I use Humbrol Enamels (just like my Dad back in the sixties)

 

Many thanks

Andrew

 

 

Hi Andrew,

 

Given that these aircraft were British Purchased rather than Lend Lease,

I would opt for the following paints albeit in US manufactured colours.

 

Engine

US Engine grey (perhaps with black rocker colours) as this photo link below

P 40 Engine colour

 

Engine bay//bearers

I would opt for Aluminium Painted similar to the RAF Buffalo in this photo link

RAF Buffalo Engine colour

 

Cockpit

I would go for a colour similar to this Hudson Interior (blue green) probably could mix Hu 90/HU23 50/50 mix

square topped Aluminum seat/Sutton Harness

(Photo used permission NR Mines)

The well wells, rudder post etc I would go with a Curtiss mix as in this life Magazine colour photo

 

Now you might ask how did I arrive at these colours?

The Buffalo photo is self explanatory, as is the photo of the wheel well etc.

Engine bay/cockpit?

Earlier this year I had the amazing honour of seeing for the first time US manufactured colours painted on

an ex RNZAF P40E-1 (stored away for many decades)

The Engine bearers/firewall were Aluminium

The Cockpit and fuselage section behind cockpit were a Blue/green colour, very similar to the Hudson interior photo

above, though certain areas were also the Curtiss Interior colour (such as Fuel tank supports) the fuselage tank

was Apple Green.

 

Hope this is of some help?

 

Regards

 

Alan

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by LDSModeller
Update Photo link

[dogsbody]

Alan, your first link just gives a Forbidden 403.

 

 

 

 

Chris

[MDriskill]

(Withdrawn)

 

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by MDriskill

[Dana Bell]

I have to disagree about Boxart Den.  Any site that publishes copyrighted material without the author's/publisher's permission should be banned forever.  Don't ask me why I feel that way...

 

Cheers,

 

 

Dana

[LDSModeller]

5 hours ago, dogsbody said:

Alan, your first link just gives a Forbidden 403.

 

 

 

 

Chris

Hi Chris,

 

Edited, so hopefully will work now

 

Regards

 

Alan

Edited November 24, 2020 by LDSModeller

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

9 hours ago, Dana Bell said:

I have to disagree about Boxart Den.  Any site that publishes copyrighted material without the author's/publisher's permission should be banned forever.  Don't ask me why I feel that way...

 

Cheers,

 

 

Dana

 

Modellers love to think of themselves as wholesome beings. Many act shocked to discover that their ranks contain many common thieves. Some steal from each other trading kits on eBay and either not sending or buying but claiming the item didn't turn up and opening Paypal disputes to get their money back to go with the kit they're stealing. Sometimes they steal items from traders at shows, justifying to themselves that the items are small and that fat-cat business owners are all driving Rolls Royces from the millions they make with their rip-off profit margins. Others just see no harm in piracy and theft of copyright - whether that's recasting knock-off resin figures or stealing books, again justifying in their own minds that if the item was free in the first place they wouldn't need to steal it.

 

Some modellers consider it an affront to their mother and their first-born child that anyone should charge any money at all for stuff they need want for their hobby.

[ckw]

An interesting resource. In trying to find out more about it, I went looking through their Google Group and found this

 

https://groups.google.com/g/box-art/c/H3sLhud-wao

 

Which perhaps explains their intentions.  They claim to operate under the 'fair use' (fair dealing) exceptions of copyright law. In the UK 'fair use' is contingent on the following

 

• Has the use of the work impacted negatively on the market for the original work? If the creator or owner has lost potential revenue through the re-use of their work, it is not likely to be fair.
• Was it reasonable and necessary to use the amount of work that was taken?

I think it is a difficult judgement as to whether or not this site falls under fair use - some parts probably do, some don't. To my mind part of the problem has been copyright law not keeping pace with technological developments. One could argue that only by a voluntary, collaborative effort could such an archive be created and that the 'public good' of such an archive outweighs any technical copyright infringement. Would it be better if boxart were lost forever? I think it is clear that the operators of the site do not gain any financial benefit which may need to be shared with the copyright holders. 

 

The articles are perhaps a step too far - they draw an analogy to libraries, but it is a false analogy as libraries do pay subscriptions and indeed (in the UK at least) authors are paid royalties based on book loans.

 

45 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Modellers love to think of themselves as wholesome beings.

 

Keep in mind the statistic the 1% of the general population are psychopaths. Which means that 270 Britmodellers fall into that category - and of course its open to discussion as to how modellers compare to the general population😁

[72modeler]

5 hours ago, ckw said:

Keep in mind the statistic the 1% of the general population are psychopaths. Which means that 270 Britmodellers fall into that category

Which is why you have to be nominated to reside in the Naughty Corner!                😷 (Note the six scale foot social distancing!)

Mike

[MDriskill]

Many interesting points, thanks for that. It certainly was not my intention to be naughty or cause offense by posting the link, and have withdrawn the post.

 

I've seen it cited many times in the past by others without comment - so I naively assumed that any copyright issues that might be remaining, had been resolved. My wife being an attorney, I should know that ignorance is not a defense...!

Edited November 24, 2020 by MDriskill

[Dana Bell]

Hi MDriskill,

 

Sorry if I seemed upset with you - I wasn't, though my note wasn't clear about that.  I'm just not happy with the sites that think they can reproduce what they wish for the greater good.  I've had books turn up on those sites less that a month after the release date - certainly not my greater good!

 

Best to you and yours for a happy Thanksgiving!

 

Cheers,

 

 

Dana

[MDriskill]

Thank you Dana,

 

Lessons learned, and no offense taken, LOL! Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours too - and looking forward to your next tome!

[Mr T]

Some of the Boxartden material will be out of copyright or it will have lapsed as the copyright owners are no longer in existence and the copyright has not been assigned. 

Copyright law as quite complicated when it stretches across borders. In the EU it is fairly unified and UK law is broadly in line (UK intellectual property law was a bit of an eye opener to our European cousins and quite a lot of it made it into the EU directive). Do not know much about US copyright law, but if anything like Data Protection legislation it is best avoided. 

[Tom R]

Leaving aside copyright law, to my mind, the moral judgement is at least in two parts - 1. are you doing the author any harm by re-publishing here? In the case of boxartden, in general you are not as the authors are either deceased and their estate is not entitled to anything or they have been paid for their work and further publication does not entitle them to more. 2. is the material available anywhere else? For most thigs there, the answer is no - or maybe at highly inflated prices on Ebay. (Just as despicable as copyright infringement, morally speaking).

[Graham Boak]

In British law, and I believe European, US and Commonwealth, a person's rights are passed on to his estate: they have every bit as much entitlement.  When rights are signed over to a publication, then they belong to the publisher and those who take over his business.  Therefore the answer is yes to both your suggestions, not no as you state.

 

What is the relevance of "available elsewhere"?  Under someone else's copyright, or someone who has paid their dues to the copyright holder, or to someone who has pirated the matter?

 

Is asking a high price morally unjustifiable in a free market?  In that case, what defines a high price?  More than you or I are prepared to pay isn't enough.

[Work In Progress]

On 11/24/2020 at 9:57 PM, Graham Boak said:

In British law, and I believe European, US and Commonwealth, a person's rights are passed on to his estate: they have every bit as much entitlement.  When rights are signed over to a publication, then they belong to the publisher and those who take over his business.  T

 

On 11/24/2020 at 8:47 PM, Tom R said:

In the case of boxartden, in general you are not as the authors are either deceased and their estate is not entitled to anything or they have been paid for their work and further publication does not entitle them to more.

 

The notion that 

On 11/24/2020 at 7:24 PM, Mr T said:

Some of the Boxartden material will be out of copyright or it will have lapsed as the copyright owners are no longer in existence and the copyright has not been assigned. 

is in general, untrue and unhelpful.

 

Copyright is amongst the most complex suites of legislation going but for our purposes. Massively simplifying (as I could easily do 20 pages on UK copyright alone) the main criteria to bear in mind in relation to books published in the EU or USA, which is probably most of what we deal with here, are as follows:

- Copyright in EU and USA expires 70 years AFTER the death of the author. It does not die with the author. This still applies after works are sold to publishers, or copyrights are inherited by literary heirs.

-  "Works for hire", i.e. things you wrote in the course of your employment, while a salaried employee., are different. For these, along with anonymous works and pseudonymous works, the copyright endures for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first. 

 

Most works are however written by authors outside an employment contract and then sold to a publisher. This applies even if the work is written at the publisher's request - "Hey, Chris, write a book about Tempest undercarriage door variations and we'll publish it" - providing the author is not an employee of the publishing company.

 

- "Crown copyright" in the UK mostly expires either 50 years or 125 years after creation of the work, mostly dependent on whether it's been published or not.

- In the EU you cannot sell your moral rights i.e. your right to be identified as the author of the work

- In the EU it is also common not to sell your copyright at all, but merely to licence certain publication rights for certain territories, media and time periods.

- An edition may also have its own copyright, which may embrace and protect the work required to turn it from a manuscript to a finished book.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Work In Progress

[Work In Progress]

As to the question of "are you doing the author any harm by re-publishing here?", that has absolutely zero bearing on the legality of an unauthorised republication. It does however have a bearing on what damages the rights holder might expect. So in practice people sometimes take a commercial view that they can afford to settle out of court if anyone objects following a breach of copyright. If the copyright work is, for example, an Airfix instruction sheet which was never sold separately, Airfix cannot easily claim a loss of potential revenue from someone putting it up free on a website, and would be very unlikely to take action. If it were, however, a high resolution image of a piece of commercial art such as a Roy Cross or Shigeo or more recently an Adam Tooby, the artists do earn commercial revenue from sale of those works in various forms and they would find it quite easy to demonstrate a loss of potential revenue.

 

"Highly inflated prices" are impossibl to achieve on eBay. You can advertise things at all sorts of unrealistic fixed prices, but if the price is inflated over and above the true nmarket value then it won;t sell, simple as that.

 

If you auction it and it sells at a high price, that is proof that at least two buyers thought it was worth a lot of money. Their judgement that the highest and next-highest bids were a fair price to pay outweighs the judgement of someone else who incorrectly thought the item was worth less.

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Work In Progress

[alt-92]

Strictly speaking, the same goes for many photos posted. 
Morally speaking, the retroactive extension of copyright from 50 to 95 years doesn't sit well with everyone.

[Mr T]

On reading my comments were not quite I intended. Some of the Boxartden books may come into the category of what are termed 'orphan works' where a copyright holder cannot be traced. US law in this area seems not to be fully settled, there is the case of Authors Guild et al v Google from 2014, but this does not fully answer the issue. I would assume that the copyright on anything published by  Midland Counties was passed on to Ian Allan. As Ian Allan seemed to have passed most of their book stuff to Crecy, the copyright would have passed on to them as near as I can make out. 

If the copyright holder has died, the copyright forms part of the estate and the normal rules apply, which presumably means that where there is no heir to the estate it falls to the Crown. 

The 'orphan works' issue seems to have caused problems in a lot of jurisdictions. 

Never did much copyright law in my first life as it is a very specialist area and by the time I got round to teaching, consent, negligence, professional regulation and other bits of healthcare law took my time up. 

[Work In Progress]

27 minutes ago, Mr T said:

I would assume that the copyright on anything published by  Midland Counties was passed on to Ian Allan. As Ian Allan seemed to have passed most of their book stuff to Crecy, the copyright would have passed on to them as near as I can make out. 

 

Nope. The copyrights remain with the authors unless these were works-for-hire, i.e. written by salaried employees of Midland County, which I have no reason to think they were.  British authors, and freelance writers for newspapers and magazines, DO NOT SELL THEIR COPYRIGHT. They could sell it - it's legally possible to do so - but it would be regarded as aberrant and irrational practice, and occurences are so rare as to be practically negligible.  Authors retain copyright, but license publishers to publish the books for negotiated combinations of territory, medium and time period.  If the MC -> IA and IA -> Crecy sales were standard-looking deals then what passed from company to company was not the copyright to book X, but the licence to reproduce the work and market it on the terms set out in the licence.

 

So if someone makes an unauthorised publication of book X, then the author or literary heir (usually family, but can be anyone) is the one with the breach of copyright case, and the publisher in general has a commercial interest in backing the author's legal action, which may be laid out in the publishing contract in terms of warranties.

[Mr T]

Thank you for clarifying the point, I understand what you mean now, I am confusing copyright holders with licence to print.