1/48 TSR-2 XR219 - Airfix

[Tomjw]

3 minutes ago, TeaWeasel said:

 

Cheers, I had a proper look at the decals (until now they were neatly wrapped in tissue) and a lot of the stencils I thought were missing were actually there, so some of the dry decal sheet may be a bit unnecessary. Will still be good to use the clear roundels though and this means I've got spares to practice dry decal-ing on beforehand.

 

Excellent, I'm looking forward to seeing how the dry transfers go on. I've never tried them myself.

 

Cheers,

 

Tom

[TeaWeasel]

Spent an hour or so on some of the little details, finally got round to filling in the camera ports now I've decided not to use XR220.

 

Simple process, just filled it in with Vallejo Plastic Putty then sanded it down with wet/dry. 

 

 

 

The Vallejo putty is rather excellent for stuff like this, not necessarily anything load-bearing but if you want a nice clean surface afterwards I recommend this stuff.

 

I also went back and painted the rear canopy. I'm guessing the black areas are anti-glare panels. I've seen some done black, others dark metallic so just decided to stick with the black for now.

 

 

 

This is where it gets a bit awkward; the Eduard masks I bought didn't include any for the inside, so I may have to make my own. I might use the remaining tape as a negative and cut out some masks using that, fingers crossed it'll work however.

 

Thanks,

Joe

 

 

 

[Gondor44]

You do realise that how the aircraft is shown at Cosford is will all the wheel bay doors open which whould not be the case normally.

 

Gondor

[Tomjw]

4 hours ago, Gondor44 said:

You do realise that how the aircraft is shown at Cosford is will all the wheel bay doors open which whould not be the case normally.

 

Gondor

 

Not necessarily...

 

 

Photos credited to TSR2 Aeroplane Specials, Aeroplane Monthly

Edited July 3, 2022 by Tomjw

[TeaWeasel]

On 03/07/2022 at 16:15, Gondor44 said:

You do realise that how the aircraft is shown at Cosford is will all the wheel bay doors open which whould not be the case normally.

 

Gondor

 

On 03/07/2022 at 20:20, Tomjw said:

 

Not necessarily...

 

 

Photos credited to TSR2 Aeroplane Specials, Aeroplane Monthly

 

After all the hassle I had with the CMK doors I'm just glad they're attached, not fussed if they're not 100% correct. 

[TeaWeasel]

I think we're at the point now where I can start painting the thing, but before that I added the last landing gear strut. For some reason I had never got round to attaching this one until now. 

 

 

The leg didn't fit 100% correctly, I suspect as it's attaching to the CMK set and not the original Airfix part. I had to cut around 3mm from the single strut and angle it for a flush connection with the gear leg. Gave it a decent application of Ultra Glue so hopefully it won't be going anywhere. 

 

As I mentioned previously I've been looking at producing some form of mask for the inside of the canopies. With the centre canopy I was just able to reuse the external masks, albeit with a bit of trimming where needed. For the front and rear ones, I had to use something else, as the masks on the front need to remain until it's finished, and I had already thrown away the used ones for the rear set. Overall however I was able to make some more using the leftover backing sheet as a negative. 

 

 

 

The black marks are just from the pen to mark out the mask. The interior of the canopies was then sprayed with P3 Frostbite.

 

 

It's not the most accurate shade based on real-life examples but it's the best commercially-available paint that matches the Eduard cockpit upgrades.

 

 

Cheers,

Joe

 

[TeaWeasel]

I'm still alive and the TSR's still being a pain in the bottom.

 

The final parts have been attached. For the remaining doors I decided to just use the kit parts. They're actually better condition in some areas than the CMK ones and they won't be that visible anyway.

 

But here's where it goes south when I started painting the thing. I bought a mag a while ago in Hannants, by Ammo. I say bought, it was more pushed into my hands by the guy there who probably has a stake in Ammo, seems to always try the hard-sell with their products. 

 

 

To give them credit the mag is pretty informative, and this particular one does have a TSR-2.

 

It became clear though that these techniques are for beyond-expert modellers, IMO. The scheme recommended in the mag called for a white primer coat, then a coat of off-white, then another coat of white, then a very thin coat of white, then a coat of gloss before applying the decals. Through various issues, mainly the primer used (wouldn't recommend Ammo's One-Coat), the finish was pretty thick in my opinion. It wasn't the end of the world, but when I tried a pin wash it was obvious; some areas were filling in perfectly, others were just leading vague smears where the line would be.

 

Out came the Biostrip...

 

 

 

The scale of the problem became clear here, the gunk on the wings required 3 coats of stripper before getting down to the bare plastic. It's messy, and I've knocked a couple of the resin doors off (which I'll probably just replace with the kit ones) in the process but I think going with a simpler anti-flash white method would yield better results. 

 

One silver lining though, is I'm now much more interested in Ammo's products. Have tried the Oilbrushers, PLW and other various bits and pieces and I'm very, very impressed. Might even give the One-Coat Primer another go. 

 

Cheers, tips and advice appreciated. 

Joe

 

 

[Johnson]

1 hour ago, TeaWeasel said:

tips and advice appreciated

Don't do it like the photo in the mag. (well,you did ask )

 

Photos show a lovely clean white plane. only a few panel lines showing.

 

 

The TRS-2 weathering depicted in the Ammo mag isn't realistic IMO.

 

1 hour ago, TeaWeasel said:

going with a simpler anti-flash white method would yield better results

 

👍👍👍

[amos brierley]

4 hours ago, Johnson said:

Photos show a lovely clean white plane. only a few panel lines showing

That’s because it’s a BRAND NEW aircraft, try looking at photos of XR219 after 24 flights. XR220 at Cosford look’s actually realistically finished in it’s original paint, where as XR222 quite possibly finished in Halfords Appliance White looks pretty much ……. Well bad. 🤨

[tomprobert]

I agree with @Johnson - the one pictured in the Ammo mag bears no resemblance, whatsoever, to the real thing.
 

Real aeroplanes simply don’t weather that way - I’ve never seen that patchwork quilt effect on any aircraft. It’s great for ‘artistic effect’ but that’s all.

 

I often wonder what references they’ve used as models finished like this simply appear to be a figment of the builder’s imagination - which is fine if that floats your boat but it certainly isn’t a realistic representation of the real thing. 

[TeaWeasel]

5 hours ago, Johnson said:

Don't do it like the photo in the mag. (well,you did ask )

 

Photos show a lovely clean white plane. only a few panel lines showing.

 

 

The TRS-2 weathering depicted in the Ammo mag isn't realistic IMO.

 

 

👍👍👍

 

It really is surprising the difference between the two. What concerned me originally was how to break up the white a bit, but I've seen similar finishes on Vulcans and Valiants in anti-flash and it doesn't actually look too bad once the decals break it up a bit. 

 

24 minutes ago, tomprobert said:

I agree with @Johnson - the one pictured in the Ammo mag bears no resemblance, whatsoever, to the real thing.
 

Real aeroplanes simply don’t weather that way - I’ve never seen that patchwork quilt effect on any aircraft. It’s great for ‘artistic effect’ but that’s all.

 

I often wonder what references they’ve used as models finished like this simply appear to be a figment of the builder’s imagination - which is fine if that floats your boat but it certainly isn’t a realistic representation of the real thing. 

 

The patchwork effect is because the guy in the mag has very heavily riveted it. I agree, it's not a great look.

 

[Tomjw]

Whilst I agree that the weathering of the models in the magazine are beyond a work of fiction, XR219 did become a dirty girl as these photos from Aeroplane Special TSR2 Magazine shows...

 

 

 

The bottom line is it's your model and you can depict her anything from a factory fresh paint scheme to the above level of weathering. 

 

For me, I'm pleased to see yours coming along and hope you sort out your paint woes.

 

Cheers,

 

Tom

[224 Peter]

Given how little time 219 spent in the air and was kept in a hangar at Boscombe Down I find the grimy photos suspicious. 

They are poor resolution and my suspicion is that the "dirt" is a consequence of attempts to sharpen the image using photo editing software! 

 

Even the V Bombers, most of the time kept outside, didn't get that grimy. 

 

 

 

 

[TallBlondJohn]

9 minutes ago, 224 Peter said:

Given how little time 219 spent in the air and was kept in a hangar at Boscombe Down I find the grimy photos suspicious. 

They are poor resolution and my suspicion is that the "dirt" is a consequence of attempts to sharpen the image using photo editing software! 

 

Even the V Bombers, most of the time kept outside, didn't get that grimy. 

 

 

 

 

Agree completely - that photo definitely has extra contrast (possibly the original film).

 

219 may have been dirty, but that ammo mag model isn't "dirty" - it has very ordered shading along the panels and rivets. Such things do have black lines, but they are invisible from any difference. And sure planes have oil leaks and grime, but not so neatly arranged all over - I mean look at that tail.

 

I guess this is not the place to debate the merits of pre-shading, but that Ammo mag model is, IMHO, a disaster. The modeller had exceptional technical skill, but his powers of observation are suspect and it's a very bad example to others.

 

[224 Peter]

I've long held the view that the weathering and joint enhancement applied to vehicle and figures has no place on an aircraft. 

 

AT the Boscombe Down Aircraft Collection we have aircraft from the 60s to the 80s and once you stand more than 20 ft away most joint lines are invisible. 

This is HS Hawk XX154, the first production aircraft. Six thousand flying hours since 1974 and the last 20 years at Boscombe Down. It is clean, some rivet lines are visible and access panels: the sort of shading and line detailing in Ammo Magazine has no place on a model of a modern fast jet. Dirt causes drag, degrading performance, which is the aircraft are kept clean and polished. 

 

 

[Tomjw]

4 hours ago, 224 Peter said:

Given how little time 219 spent in the air and was kept in a hangar at Boscombe Down I find the grimy photos suspicious. 

They are poor resolution and my suspicion is that the "dirt" is a consequence of attempts to sharpen the image using photo editing software! 

 

Even the V Bombers, most of the time kept outside, didn't get that grimy. 

 

 

 

 

219 performed 24 flights and spent far longer on the ground performing engine runs and taxi trials. Yes, she was kept in a hanger when not in use, but she really did get dirty. 

 

People are often advised to check their references and that particular publication is loaded with pictures of 219 in various states of cleanliness throughout her short life.

 

That said, I still agree that the paint job in the ammo mag is wildly unrealistic

[TallBlondJohn]

6 hours ago, 224 Peter said:

I've long held the view that the weathering and joint enhancement applied to vehicle and figures has no place on an aircraft. 

 

AT the Boscombe Down Aircraft Collection we have aircraft from the 60s to the 80s and once you stand more than 20 ft away most joint lines are invisible. 

This is HS Hawk XX154, the first production aircraft. Six thousand flying hours since 1974 and the last 20 years at Boscombe Down. It is clean, some rivet lines are visible and access panels: the sort of shading and line detailing in Ammo Magazine has no place on a model of a modern fast jet. Dirt causes drag, degrading performance, which is the aircraft are kept clean and polished.

 

 

Totally agree. Or on a WWII aircraft that is probably less than a year from its factory paint. The only time I have seen "joint enhancement" (good term) is on USN aircraft (something to do with sealant perhaps) and aircraft that have stood outside at a museum for years on end. And in the latter case its fading of the paint, not darkening, and the unfaded areas are not necessarily along panel lines. But now we get pre-shaded battleships!

 

Anyway musn't hijack the thread. Lovely TSR-2 so far, its not an easy build. I've got one on the Shelf of Doom, my paint job was a disaster so I'll probably whif it and start over.

[Robertjon5]

May i ask what are the measurements/dimensions of these. Looking at getting one, but not sure if it would fit on shelf. 

 

cheers. 

[stever219]

11 minutes ago, Robertjon5 said:

May i ask what are the measurements/dimensions of these. Looking at getting one, but not sure if it would fit on shelf. 

 

cheers. 

Length 22.25 inches, span 9.25 inches, height 8 inches.  Other measuring systems/scales are available.

[Robertjon5]

Big thanks Steve. 👍

[TeaWeasel]

Bloody hell, was it really August that I last updated this?

 

Been a difficult few months, moved flat, became a dad, also became disillusioned with a lot of stuff, this TSR2 being one of them.

 

It seemed a bit of "one step forward, two back" with this. I fill in the rivet marks I made, the paint stripper just destroys my effort. Then the paint stripper itself wouldn't strip, just turn into a sticky, oily gunk. Honestly if this was any other kit I would have probably chucked it or scrapped it for parts.

 

It's been sitting my cabinet looking rather sorry for itself so I had a burst of energy in trying to get this somewhat complete.

 

The good news

• The Biostrip seems to be behaving itself at last. I have no idea why it decided to just gunk up the model, but over the last few days I've managed to strip most of the troublesome areas. 
• Rescribing the panel lines hasn't been too difficult. I wouldn't say it's fully scribing them, just carving out the excess stripper and primer.
• I decided to give Mr Surfacer a go, picked up a jar of 1500 and a rattle can of 1000. The 1500 seems to work better than the can; for some reason the sprayed stuff is just forming puddles on the model, much like a very dilute paint. Does this stuff need to be shaken more than regular spray paint?

The bad news

• Some detail will inevitably be lost. The model got knocked about a little while moving (one downside of having to do all the moving by yourself while the pregnant other half makes the tea), and there are a few scuffs here and there. Nothing too drastic, the biggest bit was the engine nozzles fell out, which actually makes it easier to paint them separately so silver linings and all that.
• There is some damage to the landing gear. The white metal gear was a lot looser fit than I expected so they've worked themselves loose after a while. Will have to rebalance and glue the whole thing.
• I've given up on the WE.177s. I wasn't happy with the final result and one of them lost a couple of fins in the move. I think I'll just go back to the Blue Danube included it the kit. However, if someone, anyone knows how to get their hands on this, I'll be very grateful. I saw one on French eBay a while ago but the seller just flat outright refused to sell it to me, even when I offered twice what they were asking.

 

 

So not much in terms of photo updates I'm afraid, more just proof that the project is still somewhat alive. It'll be a long stint of spray and sand for a while, then the plan is to just preshade with a darker grey, then a nice coat of Mr Hobby white, which I think is the closest I'll get to proper anti-flash.

 

Thanks for the comments since the last update, much appreciated.

Joe

 

[kev67]

That’s shame you have lost interest in the build, but this does happen to all of use 

[Martian]

You are doing fine with this build. Yes, the kit can be a bit of a drag at times but it is worth persevering with as a beautiful model does emerge in the end; get the tee shirt etc.

 

Supportive of Mars 👽

[Dave Wilko]

Might one also add Sir,sterling work so far.

Having seen '220 at Cosford many times,she never fails to impress,she was to be the weapons drop test airframe,hence the camera fairings on the intakes' flanks,though they must also have been fitted to '219 at one stage in order to assimilate the main undercarriage's "shimmy"problems as recalled by Roland Beamont.

The story was with her was that she was due to be flown on the same day that the "axe" fell on the project.

The aircrew(believed to be Jimmy Dell as the pilot)were allegedly having lunch when the cancellation order was heard on the BBC radio,they raced back to the aircraft ready to take off only to find it under guard with orders issued that no one was to go near it......

 A sad day indeed in British aviation history.

By the way,'220 at Cosford is supposed to be the most complete of the two in "captivity"(XR220 & 222).

The tale is that much of the instrumentation and test equipment had had the wiring cut or simply ripped out.

Legend has it that a number of boxes turned up at Cosford out of storage(possibly Hendon)simply marked up

as "TSR.2".

They apparently contained the bulk of the missing instrumentation and equipment that hence has been carefully

fitted back into the aircraft by Cosford's restoration teams.

The only major parts missing are it's two Olympus 22R engines.

One is on display beside the aircraft(having been sectioned for internals to be seen)on it's transport cradle.

An ex-RAF ex-work colleague maintains that the aircraft was kept outdoors at Hendon on grass for some years

and had simply sunk upto it's axles.

Once the decision was made to take it to Cosford,it was lifted clear of the grass on airbags,dragged to the

hardstanding and de-erected ready for road transport to The Midlands.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Dave Wilko