Jump to content

Airfix 1/24th Fw-190


Bonkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

On the subject of German paints, as the war progressed the supply of paint pigments became a problem with the result that whilst specific paints, such as RLM 02, became somewhat variable in colour. Further, pigment density was reduced, so undersurface colours ghosted through. 

 

The evolution of German RLM paint codes and their association with the RAL codes is described here:

 

https://emmasplanes.com/index.php/paints/rlm-colors/

 

As can be seen from the earliest paint swatches RLM 02, Grey, has a definite green tinge, which is why it was known as "grey green" for many years. 

 

There is a cross reference list showing RLM, RAL, FS and many of the main model colours, but not Humbrol. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice 'pit. The Airscale panels have come out a treat.

 

I've just uploaded a file to the DropBox folder with an image (Bbri109-0729) that shows what the oxygen demand unit looked like. The pilot could press the central button with elbow to increase flow of oxygen. 

 

Cheers

 

Matt

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/11/2022 at 15:40, 224 Peter said:

As can be seen from the earliest paint swatches RLM 02, Grey, has a definite green tinge, which is why it was known as "grey green" for many years. 

IIRC there was a description of the pigments, black white and yellow ochre, which gives an olive grey, which looks greenish,  @Casey may recall more.

RLM 02 was a frequently used colour in Imperial Germany as well.

On 30/11/2022 at 15:40, 224 Peter said:

There is a cross reference list showing RLM, RAL, FS and many of the main model colours, but not Humbrol.

The RAL are of use, as some are the same colour. 

 

FS595 "matches" should have the note of how close it is, giving FS595 as  match can, and does cause lots of confusion, even with American WW2 colors, as many of those do not have direct FS595 matches, example is US Navy sea blues..

 

The link does have a good background on German colours standards evolution though.

HTH

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

black white and yellow ochre, which gives an olive grey, which looks greenish

I checked the above Vallejo mix and it turns out too green, feeling more like green zinc chromate.

 

4880539d621b3d5838b13eadafd7ba57.jpg

 

Left: 70:30 mix of 71.010 and 71.050

Right: Vallejo 71.044 RLM 02

 

70:30 mix under spectrophotometer suggests it does contain green pigment and has 5.30DE color difference. (using CIEDE2000 color difference - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_difference#CIEDE2000)

Vallejo 71.044 is bit closer and has 3.11DE color difference

 

For sake of completeness, here is a simple mix of Golden Fluid Acrylics: Yellow Oxide: 4, Titanium White: 8, Carbon Black: 1 (parts by mass) and results has 1.25DE difference from the target color.

97f3f8fc0b391480f6e132ebfd3955da.jpg

 

The other two colors are my attempts of RLM66 and RLM70. And no RLM70 does not need green pigment neither. If you are curious my recipes are:

 

RLM 66: Carbon Black: 3, Titanium White: 4, Burnt Sienna: 4 (by mass) - with difference of 0.94DE from the target

RLM 70: Carbon Black: 4, Yellow Oxide: 3,  Titanium White: 2, Benzimidazolone Yellow Medium: 1 (by mass) - with difference of 1.16DE

 

I have a large collection of RLM samples, and they do differ a bit (I just kind of arbitrary pick my reference as Merrick&Kiroff color sample pictured above) but none of them go into 'contains green pigment' range - there was a great post from @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies about how the olive range is made without using any green pigments and how much chromatic pigment is needed to make it 'more green'.

 

 

 

Edited by Casey
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/11/2022 at 15:40, 224 Peter said:

On the subject of German paints, as the war progressed the supply of paint pigments became a problem with the result that whilst specific paints, such as RLM 02, became somewhat variable in colour. Further, pigment density was reduced, so undersurface colours ghosted through. 

 

The evolution of German RLM paint codes and their association with the RAL codes is described here:

 

https://emmasplanes.com/index.php/paints/rlm-colors/

 

As can be seen from the earliest paint swatches RLM 02, Grey, has a definite green tinge, which is why it was known as "grey green" for many years. 

 

There is a cross reference list showing RLM, RAL, FS and many of the main model colours, but not Humbrol. 

Useful link. Thanks Peter. It is my intention to vary tone in various parts - which may reflect what you are saying.

 

On 30/11/2022 at 20:36, Mattlow said:

Very nice 'pit. The Airscale panels have come out a treat.

 

I've just uploaded a file to the DropBox folder with an image (Bbri109-0729) that shows what the oxygen demand unit looked like. The pilot could press the central button with elbow to increase flow of oxygen. 

 

Cheers

 

Matt

Cheers. Matt. I took a look at that picture but to be honest I wasn't sure what I was looking at. Without having access to a 190 cockpit directly I used DCS to get an idea of how it should look. You can see from the picture below that there isn't an awful lot to it (in their model at least). Knowing that it won't really be seen I just used a bit of artistic license in my build.

DCS%20Cockpit%2010.png

 

On 02/12/2022 at 14:15, Troy Smith said:

IIRC there was a description of the pigments, black white and yellow ochre, which gives an olive grey, which looks greenish,  @Casey may recall more.

RLM 02 was a frequently used colour in Imperial Germany as well.

The RAL are of use, as some are the same colour. 

 

FS595 "matches" should have the note of how close it is, giving FS595 as  match can, and does cause lots of confusion, even with American WW2 colors, as many of those do not have direct FS595 matches, example is US Navy sea blues..

 

The link does have a good background on German colours standards evolution though.

HTH

 

Ever helpful. Thanks Troy.

 

On 02/12/2022 at 19:31, Casey said:

I checked the above Vallejo mix and it turns out too green, feeling more like green zinc chromate...

 

... The other two colors are my attempts of RLM66 and RLM70. And no RLM70 does not need green pigment neither. If you are curious my recipes are:

 

RLM 66: Carbon Black: 3, Titanium White: 4, Burnt Sienna: 4 (by mass) - with difference of 0.94DE from the target

RLM 70: Carbon Black: 4, Yellow Oxide: 3,  Titanium White: 2, Benzimidazolone Yellow Medium: 1 (by mass) - with difference of 1.16DE

 

I have a large collection of RLM samples, and they do differ a bit (I just kind of arbitrary pick my reference as Merrick&Kiroff color sample pictured above) but none of them go into 'contains green pigment' range - there was a great post from @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies about how the olive range is made without using any green pigments and how much chromatic pigment is needed to make it 'more green'.

 

My goodness. Wow. See there was me just mixing something up that I thought looked sort of right - and then I get support from fellow BM's that actually know stuff and are willing to help out. Thank you Casey - this is very useful.

 

So... I sprayed up some other bits this time using Vallejo 71.044 and can most definitely agree that these look sooo much better. Below is the comparison - top and bottom parts in 71.044, middle part in my (incorrect) mix.

 

20221203_124153.jpg

 

And here is the wing - also sprayed with 71.044. You can see that I cut out the flaps (still haven't decided whether they should be up or down - there seem to be only museum pictures where they are shown down), but what the picture does illustrate is that the colours do vary a lot depending on the ambient light conditions and the camera settings.

20221203_155548.jpg

 

Thanks for looking.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Progress is slow... but tis the season for merriment and today I've finished work for the year so I have very good reason to be merry :penguin:. I'm hoping this will also mean some time at the bench to continue working on this build.

 

I have been wondering whether my approach on this build was right. I spent a fair bit of time finishing off the cockpit with levers and other twiddly bits but most of these came off when I had to use some considerable force to fit the cockpit tub and instrument panel into the right position. In hindsight I think it would have been better to have glued the fuselage together with these parts already fitted. On the plus side, you can't really see much of the cockpit detail anyway - so it would be difficult to spot if levers were even there anyway. I may come back to it later and have another go.

 

In order to get some dihedral going I created a wing with plasticard and clamped this in place. I did ponder on the approach to this and I still don't know if it will work as I hope. I fear it may need some metal rod bonded in as well. I calculated the angle on each side to be 6 degrees... and if I can't get the wing angle right when it comes to fitting the top sides then I will probably try a different approach.

20221204_142005.jpg

 

The finished spar... which only afterwards did I realise was going to be too high...
20221204_173920.jpg

 

... but there is the start of a dihedral.
20221204_174043.jpg

 

I glued the wing in at the back first - attaching the spar to the square rods I had earlier glued into the fuselage. Note in this picture the front end isn't glued in.
20221205_215526.jpg

 

Close up of the spar - showing that it needs to be reduced for top surface to fit.
20221218_140855.jpg

 

Once the back end of the wing was fully dry I glued and clamped the front... each side at a time.
20221206_191904.jpg

 

And then finally I fitted the firewall with ammunition box piece. My hope is that the front spars (where the oleo legs connect) will also support some dihedral.
20221218_140810.jpg

 

... and then the gun base and flaps. The tail is a tight fit and only pushed in at the moment.
20221218_164837.jpg

 

I'm now at the point where I'm wondering how on earth to get the oleo legs to fit correctly. They seem to be out of alignment in all directions - and the wheels themselves should I believe be vertical to the ground:

oleleg.jpg

 

There are going to be several challenges all in one with these and there is no alternative after market metal part (unless I could make the Scale Aircraft Conversions ones for the Trumpeter 190D somehow fit) :facepalm: .

 

As ever, thanks for looking.

Edited by Bonkin
Typo correction
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bonkin said:

I'm now at the point where I'm wondering how on earth to get the oleo legs to fit correctly. They seem to be out of alignment in all directions

Perhaps place some kind of mounting block behind the plastic rear UC well wall, drilled to take a metal pin. 

Then work on getting the front rake of the UC leg right, and drill through the top of the leg at the right angle.

You may need to drill in from the front of the wing, but that would give a really solid top pin and set the front/back angle, which a lot of FW 190 models get wrong.

the leg can pivot on this, and allow the side angle to then be set.  It would also allow the pin to be put in at a later stage of construction,  just needing a small hole to be made good in the leading edge

 

For the wheel to leg I'd again look at pinning.  You may want to consider doing like the above, and utilising the UC door for strength and pin through the doort.

This a real armchair stuff,  as I have not owned the kit...

 

2 hours ago, Bonkin said:

(unless I could make the Scale Aircraft Conversions ones for the Trumpeter 190D somehow fit

the SAC parts from what I have read are basically a scam,  as they are soft white metal, and often copies of the kit parts. 

HTH

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done, you have a challenge. The FW 190 U/C legs are at what seems to be an odd angle, both from the front and side aspect. 

 

Some of the earlier Airfix 1/24th kits are a challenge. I have the Mk 1 Spitfire to build and I hope that the Mx IX will give me inspiration and guidance. Most of the inner wing parts for the IX are on one spru and I plan to ask Airfix if they can sell me that spru so I can build the wheel wells, which are simply a void on the Mk 1. Comparing the engines will be interesting, although the Mk1 will have the cowlings buttoned up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'd build a simple jig to set the u/c angles.

 

In my mind's eye, if you set the correct distance apart (looking from the front) and the correct distance between main leg and tail leg it should all work out (shouldn't it?). That's assuming the kit is correct in placement of those parts and general dimensions.

 

In theory the gear of the D-9 is the same as that for any of the later 190 As. Could be a difference between the way Airfix and Trumpy legs attach which might make life interesting...  However, I tend to agree with Troy in that the metal used appear pretty soft and I have heard stories of these legs starting to bow over time... which rather defeats their purpose. In terms of detail, some of their legs do have added detail, many are just copies of the original plastic parts.

 

One thing to check with the main gear is to assess whether the oleos have been depicted at maximum extension - i.e. as they would appear with no weight upon them (after take off). This seems to be a pretty common error on 190 legs.

 

EDIT: Useful short discussion + drawings on LSP  LSP 190 u/c question

 

Also these on Hyperscale:

 

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190landinggear_1.htm

 

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190landinggear_2.htm

 

Matt

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/12/2022 at 20:18, Keeff said:

The build looks good and seems to be progressing well.   Nice to see I'm not alone with the issues of an old Airfix kit!  🤣

Thanks Keeff. Although I'm enjoying the challenge, I am looking forward to moving onto one of the newer kits in my stash - like the Tiffie, Hellcat or Trumpeter kits, i.e. one that I'm expecting can be built to an acceptable standard pretty much out of the box. I will finish this one before I do though.

 

On 20/12/2022 at 22:13, Troy Smith said:

Perhaps place some kind of mounting block behind the plastic rear UC well wall, drilled to take a metal pin. 

Then work on getting the front rake of the UC leg right...

This a real armchair stuff,  as I have not owned the kit...

The SAC parts from what I have read are basically a scam,  as they are soft white metal, and often copies of the kit parts. 

Seems like it could be a good idea actually and I've been looking at how I could do this. With regards to the SAC parts - I did find with the 109 build that being able to bend them slightly was an advantage. This is why I was thinking they may be advantageous for this build. You are right about them being copies of the kit parts - they were for the 109.

 

On 21/12/2022 at 11:24, 224 Peter said:

Some of the earlier Airfix 1/24th kits are a challenge. I have the Mk 1 Spitfire to build and I hope that the Mx IX will give me inspiration and guidance. Most of the inner wing parts for the IX are on one spru and I plan to ask Airfix if they can sell me that spru so I can build the wheel wells, which are simply a void on the Mk 1. Comparing the engines will be interesting, although the Mk1 will have the cowlings buttoned up. 

I've got the Mk Vb in my stash... and was thinking of maybe building this alongside the new Mk IV so that I could make a better job of it. Hadn't considered getting hold of a new spru to mix the kits myself. That actually may be harder to do than just using plasticard.

 

On 21/12/2022 at 12:05, Mattlow said:

I think I'd build a simple jig to set the u/c angles...

... I tend to agree with Troy in that the metal used appear pretty soft and I have heard stories of these legs starting to bow over time... which rather defeats their purpose. In terms of detail, some of their legs do have added detail, many are just copies of the original plastic parts.

 

One thing to check with the main gear is to assess whether the oleos have been depicted at maximum extension - i.e. as they would appear with no weight upon them (after take off). This seems to be a pretty common error on 190 legs.

Building a jig would definitely be a good idea - although I'm not sure I'd have the patience :laugh:.

 

That is a bit worrying about the SAC legs bowing over time. I really hope that is not the case as I was planning to use metal replacements in as many of my kits as I have in my stash - and have already purchased a few.

 

Aye - the compression needs to be looked at. If I go with the F model then there will be a whacking great big bomb on the centre line - which must compress the legs a bit. I'll see how it goes... I've already glued the forward spars in (without the ole legs) so I am now committed to going off-piste.

 

 

On 21/12/2022 at 12:05, Mattlow said:

Useful short discussion + drawings on LSP  LSP 190 u/c question

 

Also these on Hyperscale:

 

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190landinggear_1.htm

 

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190landinggear_2.htm

 

Matt

Good links - thanks :like:.

Edited by Bonkin
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I'm paranoid about this build is the wing dihedral. I taped on the top surfaces in order to figure out if I can fit the ole legs after they are glued up. Good news is that I can - but I'm not sure if I've got the dihedral right. Sometimes I think it looks ok and other times I'm sure the port wing is slightly down. Any error will become obvious once I get the undercarriage fitted - so if it is wrong then I need to try and do something about it before fitting the top wing surfaces.

20221223_173151.jpg

 

Luckily for me I've found that by enlarging the ole strut hole in the spar, the undercarriage leg has a lot of flexibility - both for-and-aft and side-to-side. Hopefully then I can use a jig of some sort to get the angles right.
20221223_172719.jpg

 

Somewhat surprisingly the wheel wells fitted absolutely fine. They were a bit fiddly to get in, but from previous build threads I've read I was expecting a lot of sanding and trimming.
20221228_153438.jpg


20221228_153502.jpg

 

I've also worked on the wing canons. I've opted for the F variant so I've only got the inboard pair to fit. As you can see from the picture, I've also added some support at the rear and side - since I don't want them shifting when I fit the barrels later (currently they are only push fitted). For info, these are from Albion Alloys and are part of the SFT8 slide fit brass tubing set... I just chose a diameter to match the plastic part of the barrel I removed.
20221228_181109.jpg


20221228_181129.jpg

 

Finally a test fit of the MG cover... which fits fine with no sanding required. That said... this may all change when I fit the guns :think:
20221228_164041.jpg

 

As always, thanks for looking.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...