USAAF 4th Fighter Group Spitfire (Tamiya 1/48 Mk Vb) * FINISHED 30 NOV (+ few extra photo’s)*

[Fritag]

Done all the chipping I think I’ll do.  As Johnny warned, given that the paint over the chipping fluid had been there a few days, it it took a bit of scrubbing.  But I’ll take it as a first attempt.

 

I’ve tried not to overdo it; this ain’t no P38 Lightning, and aimed as far as possible to copy photo references.  

 

A thing I noticed for example was that the paint often wore away around the bullet proof centre windscreen.

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve also given it a protective clear coat.

 

The plan now is to let the clear coat harden good and proper, and then set about rectifying the various imperfections in the painting that I have mostly tried not to reveal in these photos  

 

The I’ll take stock and decide what’s next.

[Terry1954]

6 hours ago, Fritag said:

 I don’t like handling it too much without a clear coat. (p’raps this one is my paranoia Terry?)

 

A very justified application of paranoia I would say. I seem to have become paranoid on most issues relating to masking and painting these days!

 

The chipping/general wear and tear is looking pretty neat from here. Nice one.

 

Terry

[Biggles87]

So while you're letting the clear coat harden "good and proper" you'll have time for another little jaunt then? 😜

I agree with @Terry1954 on the general wear and tear, very effective.

 

John

[The Spadgent]

Looking good. 😇It is a pain to use this stuff with other effects too like preshading etc.  I have found that a good method is to do post shading on the metal and even a little pre shading too for the paint above before the chipping fluid. Light coats of black shade on metallic always looks a bit metal anyway.  Then it’s just the top coat you have to worry about doing quickly.

At the end of the day it’s whatever works and you have made it work wonderfully. Deffo have a go with a mule though to see how easy it is just after the paint is dry. It was a real eye opener to me. To be fair I wish I could paint, paint chips on. You see people do it and it’s like magic!! A small sponge then rusty chips. Jeez it’s like they’re channeling Bob Ross.  Looking forward to more of your brilliant build.

 

Johnny 

[81-er]

Looking pretty fine to me as well. Definitely taking notes from all the advice (from multiple parties) in this thread.

 

James

[Fritag]

Thanks for the tips Johnny.  I did the spinner straight after the acrylic top coat dried and that was easy.  Almost too easy even, in the sense that restraint took a positive effort! 

 

As I understand it, on transfer of the Eagle squadrons to the USAAF, the RAF wing roundels on both wings were oversprayed and the USAAF star the applied to the port upper and starboard lower wing.

 

So another discrete task is to replicate the oversprayed roundels.

 

The upper wing star was smaller than the RAF roundel and so I need to do both wings, whereas the lower wing star is the same size and completely covered the RAF roundel, so I only need to do one wing.

 

Anyways, sneaked off work (as in sneaking out the study and into the hobby room) to do the wings.

 

 

 

I want some contrast between the circles and the rest of the wing to signify different generations of paint; but I might tone it down a little from this on the underside.  Although it is growing on me.....even if for reasons of aesthetics rather than realism...

 

Back to work…..

 

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Fritag
Typo

[Brandy]

22 hours ago, Fritag said:

 I don’t like handling it too much without a clear coat

Since our Ced @CedB is not here.....ooh err missus!

Lovely looking paintwork though Steve, although I agree there seem to be a few overly light patches on the grey along the joins with the green. I'm sure they will be fairly simple to take care of.

Chipping looks great!

 

Ian

[Terry1954]

On 10/25/2021 at 8:52 AM, The Spadgent said:

To be fair I wish I could paint, paint chips on. You see people do it and it’s like magic!! A small sponge then rusty chips. J

 

I've never yet done the chipping fluid "stuff" but will try I'm sure, however I have done the "paint on" chip on AFV's - It's a technique used more on model AFV's  I think?

 

Here is my fairly recent (last year) 1/135 AMX-13 Light Tank - That's a target in your world Steve!

 

 

 

Every bit of wear and tear, chip or just plain stain, is painted on, rather tha rubbed off from any underlying prep.

 

Either way works I reckon, although I would say the while chipping fluid thing is probably more subtle and much better suited to aircraft, that have had airflow, run over any painted surface at high speed - after all that's what planes do!

 

Apologies for contaminating your thread with a tank!

 

Terry

 

 

[Galligraphics]

On 10/26/2021 at 8:06 PM, Terry1954 said:

Here is my fairly recent (last year) 1/135 AMX-13 Light Tank

Terry that is very effective - believable and realistic. Was that done with the "sponge in tweezers" method?

 

Nigel

[Fritag]

 

On 10/26/2021 at 8:06 PM, Terry1954 said:

Every bit of wear and tear, chip or just plain stain, is painted on, rather tha rubbed off from any underlying prep.

….

Apologies for contaminating your thread with a tank!

 

I agree with Nigel; very nice target Terry.

 

On 10/26/2021 at 8:06 PM, Terry1954 said:

Either way works I reckon, although I would say the while chipping fluid thing is probably more subtle and much better suited to aircraft, that have had airflow, run over any painted surface at high speed - after all that's what planes do!

 

Having now had (albeit limited) experience of using the chipping fluid it seems to me the that it is excellent for worn areas (like the wing walkways) where quite large areas of the underneath are exposed.

 

I say this because you’re exposing a nice smooth airbrushed undercoat of alclad (or whatever) that actually look something like metal.   I think it’d be a struggle to get as good a  ‘large area worn’ look by applying paint over the top not least because (for a muppet like me) it’s bloomin’ hard to apply metallic paint with a brush and get anything other than a brushed-on look.

 

It’s also easy to do because you’re recreating the look of paint worn through - by wearing through paint! - which only takes a modicum of practice and skill.

 

When you get to wear and tear on hatches, edges, corners etc.  I think the benefits probably reduce - if not disappear - and the alternatives of brush/sponge/graphite pencil etc. come heavily into play and may be more controllable.

 

Anyways.

 

Started to apply the stickers, beginning with the star insignia on the upper and lower wings.  They have to settle over some quite pronounced lumps and bumps and we’re currently having a big fight involving copious applications of micro sol aiming to break down stubborn resistance.

 

I’m on the train to London at the mo’ back home tomorrow evening; so I’ll know how the fight is going when I get back 🤞

 

In the meantime, here’s were we are for the pre-sticker present.  The only real update is that I nearly forgot to represent the over-painting of the RAF fin flash  - so had to belatedly mask off and paint that with fresh-looking ocean grey..

 

I’ve also just popped the prop on to have a gratuitous look-see of her with a pointy nose 

 

 

BTW.  I’ve just realised that the photo shows I’ve got 5 rolls of Tamiya masking tape on the go at once.  Does that strike you as excessive?  I prefer to think it’s prudent - and in mitigation there are 3 different widths of tape there…. Might be a bit of duplication in other bits and bobs as well 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Fritag

[Terry1954]

12 hours ago, Galligraphics said:

Terry that is very effective - believable and realistic.

 

1 hour ago, Fritag said:

I agree with Nigel; very nice target Terry.

 

Thanks both!

 

12 hours ago, Galligraphics said:

Was that done with the "sponge in tweezers" method?

 

It was a combination of very fine brushwork and the sponge method. AFV's lend themselves to this approach far more than aircraft IMHO. As Steve has described, on an aircraft there is a lot of wear and tear on flat surfaces that get a lot of exposure to friction whether it be from fast airflow or aircrew/ground crew boots, so the chipping approach to expose shiny metal is definitely the way to go.

 

Steve's pictures are proof of the merits of the chipping approach beyond doubt. I suppose I could have alluded to "beyond reasonable doubt" and added something about "resting my case", but I'm no lawyer although we do have one in the family, so perhaps that "could be taken into consideration"? 🤔

 

The prop on, pointy nose look gives us a taste of things to come. Very nice indeed. This one is certainly going to be a looker!

 

As for excessive use of Tamiya masking tape ....................... I can only see five rolls? 😂

 

Terry

[perdu]

Oh dear whatever have we done to the lad.

 

Doubting himself over a paucity of masking tapes, tisskk tissskkk.

 

Enough is all it takes, if enough for you is five or sixteen makes no odds out here in modelling hell.

 

Spitty looks, well, very promising, very very promising.

[giemme]

6 hours ago, Fritag said:

I’ve also just popped the prop on to have a gratuitous look-see of her with a pointy nose 

She looks so cool!  

 

6 hours ago, Fritag said:

I say this because you’re exposing a nice smooth airbrushed undercoat of alclad (or whatever) that actually look something like metal.   I think it’d be a struggle to get as good a  ‘large area worn’ look by applying paint over the top

Totally agree with that.  On the other hand, @Terry1954's tank looks the biz, so horses for courses, I'd say. 

 

Ciao

[Brandy]

7 hours ago, Fritag said:

the photo shows I’ve got 5 rolls of Tamiya masking tape on the go at once.

But no rubber gloves or glasses? What's going on with the world???

 

Ian

[Fritag]

Back from London.

 

Time to commit to a decision on the particular 4th FG spit that spittie will be.

 

She’s gonna be BM510  XR-A of the 334th Fighter Squadron (which had been 71 Squadron RAF, one of the 3 Eagle Squadrons).

 

Not the least of the reasons I chose her is because she isn’t one of the ones that is depicted on any of the decal sheets I’ve seen.  Contrary of me eh?

 

Also, there are a couple of photographs of her on the IWM ‘American Air Museum’ web pages and her history on the web pages records her as having been flown by Maj Gregory ‘Gus’ Daymond the first boss of the 334th, who had shot down 7 aircraft and earned the DFC and bar flying with the RAF on 71 Squadron.

 

Edit:  Gus Daymond is recorded on the IWM website as having destroyed a Fw190 in XR-A on 27 August 1942.

 

He’s mentioned  frequently in the book ‘War Eagles - the story of the Eagle Squadron’ by James Saxon Childers, first published in 1943.

 

So it’s nice to know a bit of history of the pilot and aircraft.

 

Here he is as an RAF Squadron Leader, before the transfer to the USAAF:

 

 

And here’s a piccie of XR-A in service with the 334th, with 2nd Lt Robert L 'Junior' Priser (also ex 71 Eagle Sqn) standing by her.

 

 

 

Both photos copright IWM.

 

Edit:  Some more history of BM510 from the IWM website:  She was built at Castle Bromwich in April 1942, transferred to 71 Squadron on 3 August 1942 and transferred to the 334th on 1 October 1942.  She went back to the RAF in June 1943, to 602 Squadron, after the 334th converted to the P47.

 

She may be BM510, but having seen some photo’s of her it seems that she carried no serial number on the fuselage.  This seems to be the case with a few of the USAAF Spitfire Vb’s - and others have the serial number part overpainted by the fuselage band, and yet others have the serial in very small numerals on top of the fuselage band.  Curious.

 

Anyways.  I managed to cobble together the decals from a mixture of sheets from AeroMaster and Aviaeology and the small white ‘A’ under the nose came from one of my sheets of serial numbers.

 

After looking at quite a few contemporaneous photos of Eagle Squadron and 4th FG Spitfires, it’s quite striking how variable the size and  positioning of the code letters was; even within the same squadron.  It’s also fair to say that few of the coloured plates and decal instructions I’ve seen seem to exactly accord with the actual aircraft represented,  It does at least give one some licence! 

 

I’ve picked the positioning for the squadron codes that seems quite typical and isn’t contradicted by what I can make out on the photos of XR-A I’ve seen.

 

Progress:

 

 

 

 

There’s been a bit of decal splitting - and I had to slit the underwing star in a few places to get it to conform over the rather extreme bumps so a but of touching up will be required there -  but generally I’ve won the battle.

 

The fuselage band is still wrinkled with micro sol here:

 

 

In the photos I’ve seen of the 4th FG aircraft I’ve not seen any wing walkway markings, trestle stencils etc.  So in the absence of fuselage serials that’s just about it for the markings!

 

Hopefully the fuselage band will dry out unwrinkled.  Then another gloss coat I can have a play with weathering her.

 

Oh - and I need to paint the yellow leading edge markings some time n’all….  Mustn’t forget (I have so far)…. Edit - or maybe I don’t, see Bill’s post below.

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Fritag
Bit more history

[Terry1954]

She's looking rather splendid at this point Steve. The decal stage always lifts a model and brings it to life. A very well researched and interesting back story as well.

 

Good luck with the yellow leading edge masking!

 

Terry

[perdu]

Yellow leading edge masking?

 

What yellow leading edge masking?

 

Yellow ring around the staroundelagram, nothing even tonally close on either wing here.

 

Caution called for methinks...

 

And the Spitfingy looking awesome Steve.

 

Nice.

[Fritag]

2 hours ago, perdu said:

Yellow leading edge masking?

 

What yellow leading edge masking?

 

…….

 

Yellow ring around the staroundelagram, nothing even tonally close on either wing here.

 

Caution called for methinks...

.

Hmm.  You’ve articulated summat I had wondered at with that photo, Bill but basically ignored.

 

Now seeing as you think it shows what it seems to show (as it were) I’ll have to ponder it a bit.

 

As I understand it all Fighter Command Spitfires would have had yellow leading edges as from August 1941.  See this thread:

 

There’s folks on there as usually know what they’re talking about.

 

So it’s probably a necessary inference that BM510 had yellow leading edges when she was with 71 Squadron.

 

But seeing as all Fighter Command Spitfires had RAF Roundels and Fin Flashes as well - and seeing as BM510 no longer had those when she was a USAAF mount; I guess the Fighter Command practice is no longer quite so determinative.  Although I can’t really see why the 334th would have over painted the yellow leading edge.

 

It’s fair to say that the colour profile of XR-A I've seen shows a yellow wing leading edge - but I don’t regard colour profiles as definitive of individual aircraft idiosyncrasies.

 

It’s also fair to say that there are contemporaneous photos of 4th FG aircraft that certainly do seem to show a yellow leading edge, eg:

 

 

(interestingly - again no fuselage serial number visible).

 

So, I conclude…. I dunno.

 

The default position has to be yellow wing leading edges.  So the real question is whether that photo of BM510/XR-A (which is a cracking photo) is good enough evidence to displace the default evidence.  And I dunno….

 

If I could find any other photo that seemed to show a 4th FG Spitfire (or frankly any European theatre Spitfire in 1942/1943) without the yellow leading edge I’d take that as serious corroboration.

 

Edit: BTW.  The fuselage band decal is refusing to play nicely and is gonna need as slit or two to get rid of stubborn wrinkles.  Bloomin’ typical innit.

 

I’ll probably be able to disguise any imperfections with slivers of spare squadron code letter decals in the same colour (already did that to basically invisible effect on one of the fuselage letters that had an imperfect outline) and/or during the weathering phase.

 

And I don’t really want to have to remove the decal and paint the band, because the sky paint I have is a noticeably different colour to the sky squadron code letters; which is why I didn’t paint it in the first place.

 

It’s not a problem - only an opportunity to demonstrate rectification skills.  Say that again, it’s not a problem - only an opportunity etc etc etc

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Fritag

[giemme]

18 minutes ago, Fritag said:

And I don’t really want to have to remove the decal and paint the band, because the sky paint I have is a noticeably different colour to the sky squadron code letters; which is why I didn’t paint it in the first place

You should have painted them code on  too.... just saying....  

 

Definitely coming to life with stickers on, neat job!  

 

Ciao 

[Fritag]

14 hours ago, perdu said:

What yellow leading edge masking?

 

I think I’ve figured it out Bill, courtesy of a couple of colour (or colourised?) photos.

 

Firstly from Etienne Du Plessis:

 

 

Looks like the photo of XR-A suggesting no yellow leading edge markings.  BUT.  Move further away  out and you might get something like…

 

This from the IWM - looks like a Mk Vb:

 

 

So on some Spits the yellow doesn’t start until outboard of the inner .303.  - and not from outboard of the cannon (as it does on MD-L seen in my previous post).

 

Looking at back at the photo I have of XR-A (credit IWM):

 

 

You can’t see the inner .303 on the port wing, the photo is taken too close in; so the yellow leading edge could easily begin at the inner .303.

 

And the starboard cannon masks most of the starboard wing from view - and I don’t think the bit you can see outboard of the outer .303 is good enough quality to state categorically whether there is or isn’t a yellow leading edge - but there might be.

 

Oh, and just  to muddy the waters further, some Spits had the yellow leading edge starting from a little way inboard of the inner .303.  Another one from Etienne Du Plessis - again looks like a Mk Vb:

 

 

So on balance I think that XR-A probably did have yellow wing leading edges - but starting from at or just inboard of the inner .303.

 

14 hours ago, perdu said:

Caution called for methinks...

 

Caution duly exercised Sir…

 

 

[perdu]

Point taken but

 

 

Picture one, so nicely colourised shows no yellow on the starboard wing and only the metal surround to the red linen port patch with the yellowy/red imagery for the patch.

 

Your IWM picture shows the cannon stopping just inboard and below the light coloured patch on the wall of the building behind to my jaded eyes.

 

I'm not convinced and fear you may be modelling 'the convention' not the airframe.

 

(Why not, if you can get permission, display the photo with the exhibit to stop the potential decriers?)

 

I cannot see any sign of the famous 'yellow leading edge on all British fighters in the war' but I rest my small case.

 

Over there on the bar, will you be joining me there in a couple of weeks?

[Fritag]

Well Bill, this is what we in my trade somewhat archaically call a ‘Jury Question’ (which is definitely archaic when you consider that juryless trials for civil cases were introduced in the mid 1800’s ) - and any finding of fact is only appealably wrong if no jury, properly directed, could’ve come to that conclusion.

 

In this instance I reckon a jury could unappealably decide either way.

 

That said, the Jury is obligated to decide - and after duly retiring, debating at length and flipping a coin, the Jury has found on the balance of probabilities in favour of yellow leading edges starting at the inner .303.  They pray in aid:

 

• All RAF single seat fighters after mid 1941 ought to have had yellow leading edges (and of course BM510 was ex-RAF) - suggesting the burden of proof lays in proving she was an exception to the rule.
• There’s reasonable contemporaneous photographic evidence of a variety of styles of yellow leading edges: starting at the cannons; starting between the cannon and the inner .303 and starting at the .303; and for that matter ending at the wing tip navigation light or ending beyond the nav light further around the wing tip.
• The close up photo of BM510 is probably probative that the yellow did not start at the cannon, suggestive it didn’t start between the cannon and the inner .303, but has little if any evidential value as to whether it started at the inner .303 (FWIW I think the end of the cannon is under the second window in from the right - the end of the starboard cannon has a black looking cover with a lighter colour cap on it - as does the port cannon).  I think this USAAF Spit probably has the same scheme as XR-A:

 

Definitely no yellow leading edge starting at the port cannon; but pretty clearly a change of tone/yellow leading edge on the starboard wing outboard of the inner .303. (oh - and it doesn’t look like the fuselage star has the yellow outer ring - what price standardisation?…)

 

 And more circumstantially:

• All the colour plates and decal packs for Eagle Squadron/4th FG Spits show yellow wing leading edges (variable start points)
• I have yet to find a persuasive contemporaneous photo - colour/colourised or B&W of an operational Spit in 1942/1943 without yellow leading edges.

 

Oh.  And I’m not saying this has anything to do with it 

 

But I’d already done the hard bit of the masking of the wings by the time of your last post 

 

 

 

 

I should say that Tamiya do provide decals for the leading edges - but I don’t think they’d look very good.

 

 

1 hour ago, perdu said:

Over there on the bar, will you be joining me there in a couple of weeks?

 

Perfect pub discussion this   I’ll be an expert (in my own mind) by the 4th pint….

 

Not going to SMW this year.  Driving back from the Scrabster Ferry terminal (near Thurso) to Yorkshire (c. 10 hours) on the Saturday, after a week in the Orkneys, and don’t think I’ll fancy the drive to Telford the next morning 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Terry1954]

2 hours ago, perdu said:

Your IWM picture shows the cannon stopping just inboard and below the light coloured patch on the wall of the building behind to my jaded eyes.

 

Well, FWIW I was about to add that enlarging that image, to my eyes that outer wing L/E could well be yellow........... ? Yellow is an odd colour that in some B/W images exhibits duller tones depending on the original emulsion.

 

 

I'm not definitely disagreeing with Bill but a 50/50 coin toss is very apt!

 

Terry

[Fritag]

30 minutes ago, Terry1954 said:

Well, FWIW I was about to add that enlarging that image

 

I never thought to do that   

[perdu]

End of part one.

 

Your duty to decide, ours to hold to question.

 

Part two.

 

Is that masking too broadly spaced at the l.e?

 

Is this not a tad slimmer?

 

 

Asking for a/some friends...