1:72 Douglas Boston Mk.III 'Intruder' *FINISHED*

[Dunny]

2 minutes ago, Hook said:

You're obviously a refined gentleman with impeccable taste.

 

Pulling up a chair!, I have some of these in the stash as well. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

Welcome aboard Andre!

[bigbadbadge]

16 minutes ago, Dunny said:

Thanks Chris,

 

The airframe has actually gone together without an issue, and the glazing fits perfectly - it's a miracle! I've seen others add the raft and it will surely add a bit of interest,

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

The raft definitely adds interest to it,  if I recall the kit went together quite well , it just a case of doing as you are doing and dry fit to test.

You are doing a great job fella 

Chris

 

[bigbadbadge]

Just remembered Roger, it was the nose glazing that presented the challenge on the kit so will be worth test fitting prior to glueing the fuselage together to check and make any adjustments .

Chris

[Dunny]

Just now, bigbadbadge said:

Just remembered Roger, it was the nose glazing that presented the challenge on the kit so will be worth test fitting prior to glueing the fuselage together to check and make any adjustments .

Chris

Done & dusted with no issues, my friend 😉

[bigbadbadge]

1 minute ago, Dunny said:

Done & dusted with no issues, my friend 😉

Phew  that's great to hear fella.  

Chris

[Dunny]

Hi All,

 

I made a little progress on the Boston today. I'd applied the nose glazing last week, but realised that the cockpit floor was sitting at a strange angle (apologies for the poor quality photo but you get my meaning):

 

 

I removed the glazing and on further investigation it became clear that the front cockpit floor is too wide to fit the glazing. I therefore fettled the front of the cockpit floor down so it was a snug fit, and sitting at the correct angle. Here's another shot showing the nose back in place along with the cockpit:

 

 

I decided to Krystal Kleer the top canopy in place, rather than trying to mask the cockpit (the top canopy will eventually be posed open). I've since noticed that I've glued the nose in place slight wonky, so I'll have a 3rd go at getting it right 😔. Next I turned my attention to the undercarriage - although it looks horrible it appears to be holding up ok, although despite adding further lead weight to the front nacelles she is a resolute tail sitter. 

 

 

The u/c is an SH special, so you can see the lashings of CA I've used to hold it together - will have to mask and respray the u/c as a result. Here's a final shot with the nacelles and engines in place:

 

 

Definitely looking like a Boston!

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Roger

[Hook]

1 minute ago, Dunny said:

Definitely looking like a Boston!

I'd say! Nice progress, and good save on that bombardiers' floor!

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[bigbadbadge]

Great progress Roger,  definitely looking like a Boston now.  Glazing all looking good and good to see it standing on it's undercarriage. 

I had the same issue with mine tail sitting despite what I thought was lots of weight behind the cockpit and in nacelles. It now sits on a grass base with a piece of brass rod set into the front wheel at an angle  which goes into a hole in the base , works well.

Great work on your Boston fella

Chris

[AdrianMF]

Thanks for pointing out all the gotchas in this build Roger - you seem to be on top of it!

 

(I’ve got the MPM version and the Airfix one in my stash, so I can choose between ease of build or accuracy!)

 

Regards,

Adrian

[Dunny]

1 hour ago, bigbadbadge said:

Great progress Roger,  definitely looking like a Boston now.  Glazing all looking good and good to see it standing on it's undercarriage. 

I had the same issue with mine tail sitting despite what I thought was lots of weight behind the cockpit and in nacelles. It now sits on a grass base with a piece of brass rod set into the front wheel at an angle  which goes into a hole in the base , works well.

Great work on your Boston fella

Chris

Cheers Chris - I must have put 25g in lead weight in there. Never mind, bradd rod it is!

[Dunny]

7 minutes ago, AdrianMF said:

Thanks for pointing out all the gotchas in this build Roger - you seem to be on top of it!

 

(I’ve got the MPM version and the Airfix one in my stash, so I can choose between ease of build or accuracy!)

 

Regards,

Adrian

Thanks Adrian - it really isn't that bad. Fit seems to be ok and despite the usual SH foibles it seems to be shaping up pretty well. He said...

[Hook]

2 hours ago, Dunny said:

it seems to be shaping up pretty well. He said...

Uh-oh. Now you've gone and jinxed it.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[TheyJammedKenny!]

This is looking superb!  It's good to see that aside from the interior details, there are no major fit issues, particularly with the clear parts.  In my experience cockpit interiors and bulkheads can often be tricky to work with, even on "mainstream" kits.

[Gordon Parker]

I have one of these in  my stash as well so am following your build with great interest. Special Hobby kits get a lot of unwarranted flak (my opinion of course) because you actually have to use modelling skills. I still have lots of Aeroclub, Pegasus Rareplanes and others to build and they are going to be a lot more work than any SH kit.

If Tamiya manufactured kits of everything we want it would be a wonderful plastic world but let's face it, even Tamiya make mistakes.

Your Boston is looking great!

Cheers,

Gord

[Dunny]

7 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

This is looking superb!  It's good to see that aside from the interior details, there are no major fit issues, particularly with the clear parts.  In my experience cockpit interiors and bulkheads can often be tricky to work with, even on "mainstream" kits.

Thanks for the kind words - much appreciated!

6 hours ago, Gordon Parker said:

I have one of these in  my stash as well so am following your build with great interest. Special Hobby kits get a lot of unwarranted flak (my opinion of course) because you actually have to use modelling skills. I still have lots of Aeroclub, Pegasus Rareplanes and others to build and they are going to be a lot more work than any SH kit.

If Tamiya manufactured kits of everything we want it would be a wonderful plastic world but let's face it, even Tamiya make mistakes.

Your Boston is looking great!

Cheers,

Gord

Thanks Gord - much appreciated! I agree with your sentiment on SH - they can be tricky but are generally pretty accurate,

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[Dunny]

Afternoon One and All! Some good progress on the Boston today. First order of business once I'd done a final cleanup was to spray the glazed areas with interior green:

 

 

You can see already that the nose glazing needs some remedial work (which I didn't notice until a little later - doh!) Here's the first coat of primer applied:

 

 

The nose line really became noticeable, so I spent a bit of time fettling and cleaning up, which got us here after second squirt of primer:

 

 

I then pre-shaded using Nato Black (given that the undersurfaces were to be sprayed with the same colour, there was little point in pre-shading there 😞

 

 

Here's the Ocean Grey applied, followed with a slightly lightened mist coat:

 

 

I think that looks rather spiffing! Once a semi-decent length of time had passed, the masks for the Dark Green were applied:

 

 

The Tamiya DG was then applied (which as ever, sprayed beautifully):

 

 

There were a couple of small areas of overspray (you can see one at the trailing edge of the port wing), which were easily corrected. I then masked up to spray the undersurfaces:

 

 

The eagle-eyed amongst you may notice that I've added the ventral gun pack. I'd ummmed and aahhed about this, but @Scott Hemsley reliably informed me that AL468 was indeed fitted with the pack. Scott was also a very generous contributor of many other detailed Boston photos - thank you sir, I salute you!!

 

Here's the Nato Black applied, along with a lightening coat mixed with interior grey green (still loving that tip @bigbadbadge - the gift that keeps on giving 🤩)

 

 

I then eagerly removed the masking after an indecently short drying period. Here's a couple of shots:

 

 

 

Not displeased with that, although you can see that the masking tape has lifted a couple of patches 🤬. Never mind, soon fixed:

 

 

No-one will ever know 🤣

 

Here's a final couple of shots with a gloss coat applied, ready for decals tomorrow:

 

 

 

I have to admit that I am LOVING the Boston in this scheme! More to come tomorrow,

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Roger

[Hook]

That looks rather fetching indeed! 

[Dunny]

6 minutes ago, Hook said:

That looks rather fetching indeed! 

Thanks Andre - glad you like it!

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[bigbadbadge]

Oh yes this does look splendid Roger, it is a cracking scheme, thanks for the mention fella too.

Great job on this. 

Chris

[John_W]

Very nice.

I have a Revell boxing of a SH Boston III/D in the stash. Your build has provided some useful pointers.

[Dunny]

4 minutes ago, John_W said:

Very nice.

I have a Revell boxing of a SH Boston III/D in the stash. Your build has provided some useful pointers.

Thanks John - glad to be of assistance! So far it's been an enjoyable build, albeit with the usual SH foibles and oddities,

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Looks great so far!  The fit of the nose transparency worries me going forward, but it appears controllable.  You made quick work of the paintwork, including gloss-coat.  May I ask whether you were using lacquer- or water-based Tamiya acrylics?  If water-based, I would have been more conservative in the time I allowed between coats, but I understand your excitement, which is justified...!

[Scott Hemsley]

I see this everytime the MPM/SH Boston is raised as a topic.  If one thinks about it instead of assuming a "shake n' bake" kit, the cause and the solution to the issue of fit between the nose and the fuselage becomes a non-issue.  I don't have experience with this specific kit, but I did build the original MPM release of the Boston III and quite enjoyed it, contrary to all the negative posts the kit got. It got to the point where I wondered if they even tried building the kit?  I've downloaded the SH instructions, so I'll be referring to them.

 

So, as a suggestion and assuming the basic plastic is identical between the MPM and SH kits (I see by the parts layout, the SH release has additional parts)

 

-a) do not dry-fit the nose (part K1) to the fuselage with just the bare halves taped together!   All you'll see to the 'horrid' step Dunny alluded to, earlier.  Most of the posts re the MPM Boston III reached the conclusion that it was 'unbuildable' because of that 'step'.  Instead....

 

- assemble the 'foundations' for the cockpit interior (parts  A16, A18 and D21) and at the same time dry-fit the cockpit sidewalls (parts A19 and A20). 

 

- thin parts A19/A20 thickness if necessary and glue them in place (might as well, eh?)

 

- now, dry-fit the assembled cockpit 'foundations' into the taped fuselage halves.  As Dunny found out, the fit of the nose is much improved once the interior is fitted.  I found out that a thin shim between A18 and the cockpit was required to widen the fuselage a tad to match the width of the cockpit transparency (part K6).  That shim also proved to aid in the eventual fit of the nose piece.

 

- upon examining the plastic nose glazing (part K6), one realizes it's rather flexible due to the thickness of the plastic.  Left to it's own natural shape, the nose does indeed appear to be mis-matched to the fuselage, but if slight pressure is applied to the top and the bottom of the nose, essentially aligning those edges with the fuselage, one notices that the sides also slightly bulge out, thus bringing them into alignment with the fuselage sides.

 

- again drawing from experience with the MPM issue of the Boston III, I fashioned a 360 degree 'lip' of thin styrene strip (10-thou?) to the inside of the fuselage (I can't recall if I sanded part A18 down a bit or that it wasn't the tightest fit to begin with), then when it came time to mate the nose and the fuselage, there was a nice lip to not only assist in mating the nose piece to the fuselage, but also result in it retaining the correct x-section for a good fit to the fuselage.

 

Hope that helps with any concerns about the fit of the nose.

 

Some other points to consider:  

 

If one wants to do TH-O (W8268) in the earlier overall black cam ('cam-b' in the instructions), profile in-flight photos of the starboard side of TH-O show conclusively that the "Ottawa Ontario" script was carried on both sides.  Naming their aircraft after Canadian Cities (depending in the individual code letter) with the script on both sides was the norm and in the absence of photos of the second TH-O (AL468), I wouldn't have any reason to doubt that they didn't retain the practice of repeating the script on both sides, given they went through the trouble of restoring it to the port-side after the repaint.

 

One other point .... if one chooses to model the original TH-O (W8268) in its overall black night intruder cam, note that it NEVER carried the belly gun-pack.  W8268 was lost on ops prior to the squadron undertaking trials with the belly pack - that according to the publication "418 Squadron History" (my copy's inaccessible in storage so I can't furnish publication details, sorry).  The presence of the belly-pack as 'seen' in an in-flight PR photo of W8268 has been shown that the 'belly-pack' is actually the lower portion of the nacelle, given the angle of the photo. That one statement from the 418 publication,  makes any reference/profile drawing or whatever, showing the belly pack fitted - incorrect. 

 

OTOH, the gun-pack was a standard fit for the squadron's Boston's by the time the second TH-O (AL468) arrived on the scene.  Dunny was correct to include it in his build.

 

Adding nose-weight as Dunny did, behind the cockpit - is the most logical place for it.  I seem to recall that I added up to 1oz. (about 28+ grams), with the result that it's not a tail-sitter and there was never a need to add an external support under the tail. 

 

Finally, when fitting the tail light (K4) to the fuselage, keep in mind that it is molded to the contours of the fuselage.  If when dry-fitting it, it doesn't appear to line up, just twist it around until it does.

 

Scott

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by Scott Hemsley

[Dunny]

8 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Looks great so far!  The fit of the nose transparency worries me going forward, but it appears controllable.  You made quick work of the paintwork, including gloss-coat.  May I ask whether you were using lacquer- or water-based Tamiya acrylics?  If water-based, I would have been more conservative in the time I allowed between coats, but I understand your excitement, which is justified...!

Thanks TJK! The paints were:

 

Ocean Grey Mig Jimenez BS629

Dark Green Tamiya XF81

Nato Black Vallejo 71.251

 

All aqueous acrylics. I do tend to be more conservative in drying time allowances, but this was the first time I've had patches lift like that! There's a lesson there...

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[Dunny]

Hi All,

 

Ok - full disclosure. This thread has been dormant for a long while, for very good reason. The decals for this kit did not play nicely, and several of the decals key to the scheme disintegrated on application. As there were no other decals for this unusual camo scheme, and as I'd had a bad day, I spat the dummy and threw the kit in the bin - not my finest hour. Over time this became an itch that needed scratching, so I duly purchased another kit. So, dear reader, I am going to build exactly the same scheme from the second kit - the very definition of madness? (Hopefully I will not make the same mistakes, and have learned a little of how to make the build work more smoothly!)

 

On the plus side, it looks as if SH have updated said decals. Here's the originals:

 

 

You can see quite clearly that the roundels and fin flashes have a different red to the aircraft codes.  Here's the newbies:

 

 

All appear to be more consistent in colour, which bodes well! So, I may pop the occasional post up here until I get to the same point in the build. Here we go again!

 

Thanks for looking,

 

Roger