Hunters..again! Lower colour musing's!

[Tim]

Museums do tend to vary in terms of attention to such details! For example, the folks at Southend know that Vulcan XL426 looks a bit silly in the wierd paint scheme it currently has, but as they rightly say, it protects the airframe and it's better than leaving it exposed to the elements, and the paint was free!

Newark seem very unpredictable - on the one hand they've done a lovely job on restoring the Varsity but they do some odd things, like having a rare Canberra T19 in 7 Squadron markings - they proceed to paint over the lovely tail badge and slap-on 85 Squadron markings, but don't bother replacing the dayglow stripes. Then they stick-on tip tanks which the T19 didn't even carry! Then there's the former French T-33 tarted-up in Thunderbirds colours - I mean, why?!

Still, I guess one has to be grateful that any aircraft survives the scrap man and makes-it to a museum. Not that this is any guarantee of safety though with people like Cosford (who dispose of the sole Vulcan B1 when they can't be bothered to restore it), Duxford (who chop-up a unique Varsity because "they have another one") and of course Hendon, who can't be bothered preserving one of only two Beverly transports and would rather have a plastic Spitfire and Hurricane. Sometimes these muppets make a complete mockery of the whole concept of Museums and preservation!

Edited January 30, 2008 by Tim

[keefr22]

(who chop-up a unique Varsity because "they have another one")

So, how was it 'unique' if they have another one??

Keef

[Tim]

...because it was a former MRF aircraft - the other Varsity being a run-of-the-mill CFS machine.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Tim

[keefr22]

...because it was a former MRF aircraft - the other Varsity being a run-of-the-mill CFS machine.

MRF ?? Whats that, The acronym escapes me....

[Nev]

I dunno about that Nev., Painting models in accurate colours (or as accurate as possible!) is a massive industry, and in my mind, is as important as getting the wing shape or fuselage shape right!

So..paint the underside of your Hunter any colour you like, you say? Okay, what next? An authentic coloured Spitfire in say Snot Green/Vermin Brown and Scorpion Green? Would that be worth getting your knickers in a knot?

Er, Bill, you me and Edgar all agree here I think. ie that in reality HSS and LAG cannot be told apart. It may be CALLED silver, but it LOOKS grey.

Keep fighting, or the philistines will win.

Ahh, that's what I love about this hobby. The open-mindedness, the friendlyness, the willingness to embrace all philosophies of model building.

Nev the phillistine (I'm a kit assembler too ).

[AnonymousAA72]

Er, Bill, you me and Edgar all agree here I think. ie that in reality HSS and LAG cannot be told apart. It may be CALLED silver, but it LOOKS grey.

Ahh, that's what I love about this hobby. The open-mindedness, the friendlyness, the willingness to embrace all philosophies of model building.

Nev the phillistine (I'm a kit assembler too ).

But Nev., here's your quote...." I'm no expert, or acu-freak like most in this thread, but I gotta be honest - when I look at colour photos of Hunters from the 50s and 60s, the undersides look clearly, unmistakably, GREY! So I get a bit when modellers get their knickers in a twist on this issue."

I'm not here for a bun fight or owt, but I think being accused of being an "Acu-freak" (well, I assume I was one of the "like most on this thread" seeing as I started it!!), and then getting me cack's in a twist(!) because I'm after some answers on a puzzling issue (to me anyway) is a bit.........erm puzzling, thats all.

[John B (Sc)]

MRF - Was that Met Research Flight perhaps?

This discussion on Hunter undercolours is intriguing - it's long been a puzzle to me. I've long assumed that the uppersurface 'wrapover' on the wing LE was roughly coincident with the change to grey. Now I realise I probably wasn;t looking carefully enough.

(The FAA used to wrap the upper surface colours over the LE routinely didn't they? I'm sure I have seen photos of Wyverns & Gannets with that - but on the other hand my memory of Seahawks is of no wrap around - hmm, another area to check on.)

I'm rather pleased with the comment that it was hard to tell the difference in practice - because in exasperation a few years ago I mixed up a tin of light grey & aluminium paint for Hunter undersides. (Silver always looked wrong in model scale to me)

It looked good - a slightly shiny grey or dull worn silver effect, which I could vary with a little buffing. I liked the effect - it made the machines look used -and maybe that wasn't as far off as I thought ! I've used it on early and late Hunters - the earlies got more buffing to bring out the metallic appearance.

[Giorgio N]

A very interesting discussion ! I just wonder if wrapping the camouflage pattern over the LE has anything to do with the role ? While Hunters in the '50s don't show this, pictures of the Swift FR.5 show it. Although Venoms don't...

Giorgio

[dahut]

Very interesting discussion and I am always amazed how you guys can ferret out a bit of information, collectively.

I'm in two minds:

One side tends to side with NEV, the Outcast, as I dont want to be arsed excessively worrying over minutae. When I dont know for certain, a good educated guess must suffice. WHat else is there, after all?

The synopsis of types and paint schemes in the first thread page (StephenMG) goes straight to that end, - -

These are my basic valid combinations then...

F.1 - F.5

- HSS undersides/Type D roundel only

F.6

- HSS undersides - Type D roundel (most likely)

- LAG undersides - Type D roundel (just about valid)

F.6A, FGA.9 & FR.10

- HSS undersides - Type D roundel

- LAG undersides - Type D or Lo-Viz roundel (most likely)

These, I would argue, are the most common combinations. There are, as ever, exceptions to the rules to consider but if you stick to that then you will be accurate in the vast majority of cases.

On the other hand, I like pictures to work off of... so I end up on the fence. If I have good photos of a particular subject, then that serves as the answer for me. I'm on the side of fidelity when possible; just slopping on the 'random green' and 'turd brown' paints really doesn't cut it. I reckon some more effort should be expended after you went to all the trouble to build the thing.* That's when a snapshot is usually the trick.

In the case of grey vs. silver on the Hunters, well, it IS hard to tell in the old fotos, but you guys have made it easier.

Isn't there some official documentation on this that lays it to rest?

*This is where whiffery ("Whats-If's") gets under my skin. To each his own, I know, but random selection just isn't what scale modeling strikes at. Lets bother and build a prefectly good model - - - - and then finish it in some weird, outlandish scheme? Nope.

I shouldn't be so anal about it, I suppose...

Edited February 4, 2008 by dahut

[chek]

It's quite a while since I did one, but to me 50's RAF jets have to have the HSS undersides.

The last one I tackled (back in the 80's - yikes!) was a Javelin and from memory I used a gloss black and matt white, mixed until tonally similar to medium sea grey (but without the blue component) then added that at about 1 part gray to 8 parts Humbrol silver.

I was using a Peter Cook style enamel mix of 2 parts paint to 1 part gloss varnish with about 4 parts cellulose thinners.

Due to the transparency, it took quite a few coats, but they could be applied fairly continuously due to the rapid surface drying.

Anyroadup, the end result was an even, grain-free, semi-gloss silver, slightly darker, that didn't look like it was attempting to imitate natural metal

which looked the part, at least to me.

I should have mixed up a jam jar full, but it would probably have dried out by now as I still haven't got round to converting an Academy Hunter into an F2 yet.

[AnonymousAA72]

It's quite a while since I did one, but to me 50's RAF jets have to have the HSS undersides.

The last one I tackled (back in the 80's - yikes!) was a Javelin and from memory I used a gloss black and matt white, mixed until tonally similar to medium sea grey (but without the blue component) then added that at about 1 part gray to 8 parts Humbrol silver.

I was using a Peter Cook style enamel mix of 2 parts paint to 1 part gloss varnish with about 4 parts cellulose thinners.

Due to the transparency, it took quite a few coats, but they could be applied fairly continuously due to the rapid surface drying.

Anyroadup, the end result was an even, grain-free, semi-gloss silver, slightly darker, that didn't look like it was attempting to imitate natural metal

which looked the part, at least to me.

I should have mixed up a jam jar full, but it would probably have dried out by now as I still haven't got round to converting an Academy Hunter into an F2 yet.

An interesting concoction Chek!

It reminds me of a very old Plastic Model Constructor (Is that the right title) magazine many years ago with a "Gilding the Lily" type of article on building Airfix's Jet Provost 3/4 by a well known (I should know his name!!) modeller who used Woolworth's Silver household enamel - I tried it - can't remember on what aircraft - but it could have been a Hunter......and it brush painted on to a lovely matt finish

[chek]

An interesting concoction Chek!

It reminds me of a very old Plastic Model Constructor (Is that the right title) magazine many years ago with a "Gilding the Lily" type of article on building Airfix's Jet Provost 3/4 by a well known (I should know his name!!) modeller who used Woolworth's Silver household enamel - I tried it - can't remember on what aircraft - but it could have been a Hunter......and it brush painted on to a lovely matt finish

Indeed Bill but despite a bit of adaptation, the basic formula I use was invented by Peter Cook as told in a Scale Models back in the 70's when

he had an article about building his 1/24 Spitfire XIVc. Having seen it in the flesh, the quality of the finish was very subtle and impressive - never mind the model conversion itself!

Despite using an airbrush for a few years at the time, I always seemed to end up with a sandpaper texture somewhere when using matt paints - usually in areas which were difficult to polish out. Using Peter's suggestion of adding gloss polyurethane to the basic paint colour (with no thought of a mask!), it apparently formed a shrink coat and helped the paint stay smooth and semi-gloss. A dullcoat top finish could be applied to matt it down further if needed.

I do remember Woolie's Silver being recommended around that time though, but I never tried it myself.

It might have been due to a traumatic recall of my prized Fireball XL5 (free with Lyon's Maid ice cream tokens I believe)

disastrously crazing and melting when I smothered it with Valspar paint from Woolies when I was a nipper.

[AnonymousAA72]

Indeed Bill but despite a bit of adaptation, the basic formula I use was invented by Peter Cook as told in a Scale Models back in the 70's when

he had an article about building his 1/24 Spitfire XIVc. Having seen it in the flesh, the quality of the finish was very subtle and impressive - never mind the model conversion itself!

Despite using an airbrush for a few years at the time, I always seemed to end up with a sandpaper texture somewhere when using matt paints - usually in areas which were difficult to polish out. Using Peter's suggestion of adding gloss polyurethane to the basic paint colour (with no thought of a mask!), it apparently formed a shrink coat and helped the paint stay smooth and semi-gloss. A dullcoat top finish could be applied to matt it down further if needed.

I do remember Woolie's Silver being recommended around that time though, but I never tried it myself.

It might have been due to a traumatic recall of my prized Fireball XL5 (free with Lyon's Maid ice cream tokens I believe)

disastrously crazing and melting when I smothered it with Valspar paint from Woolies when I was a nipper.

Yes I remember his Spitfire - I think he did a PRXIX as well? I'd never heard of this resin stuff until then (and couldn't get me head around how - or why!!- he did it - its all clear now!!).

Shame about your Fireball XL5, that would be worth a fortune now! I had a catapult launched XL5, that was suposed to descend by parachute! It had two Fireball Juniors made of soft yellow plastic! These were detachable and interchangeable, one had the four fins the other had none- I supose one was more aerodynamic than the other!!!!! I'd guess it was around 1/100th scale or smaller - I'd love to still have it - and use it as the base of a half decent modelling project!

I did have the Lyons Maid Stingray though .....

[Nev]

*This is where whiffery ("Whats-If's") gets under my skin. To each his own, I know, but random selection just isn't what scale modeling strikes at for me. Lets bother and build a prefectly good model - - - - and then finish it in some weird, outlandish scheme?

Fixed. For you, modelling may be about creating a scale replice, but it certainly isn't for everyone. I don't model because I want to create an accurate replica, I model because I enjoy the process of building a model.

I firmly believe that modelling is art and therefore in my mind to criticise a what if modeler is akin to criticising an author who writes a work of fiction

*we now return you to Bill's thread*

[keefr22]

*we now return you to Bill's thread*

Which one - the one about Hunters or the Fireball XL5 one???!!!

I do like your point about 'what-if's'. Simple observation, but I'd never thought about it that way before!

Keef

[dahut]

Fixed. For you, modelling may be about creating a scale replice, but it certainly isn't for everyone. I don't model because I want to create an accurate replica, I model because I enjoy the process of building a model.

I firmly believe that modelling is art and therefore in my mind to criticise a what if modeler is akin to criticising an author who writes a work of fiction

*we now return you to Bill's thread*

I agree with you - models are blank canvas, awaiting the artist to ply his craft. If that means paisley print on a Corsiar, well, do what makes you happy. But if you DO, expect that two things will happen eventually....

1. Someone will see it askance

2. They'll likely comment on it.

As you noted, I DID say to each his own, and FOR ME. I wasn't criticizing anyone, even if I personally consider some efforts silly and outlandish... hey, I am at least polite, right? I wouldn't be harsh and hurtful, even if I WAS offering a critique. Have I exercised criticism so far? - naaaaaaww.

Now, for your perusal, I offer this next bit. This is some serious criticism:

'Man that thing looks as lame as a three legged dog. What were you smoking, when you put those goofy colors and all those paisley prints on a Corsair??! If I didnt know better, I'd think you were dropped on your head at birth!'

See the difference? The one is an opinion, which like bungholes, we each have at least one of. In my case, it was stated inoffensively, merely on my own behalf. The other comment, though, hurts - POW! straight to the heart.

Again, I was only baring my own bunghole, er... opinion. No harm done among friends..

[chek]

Yes I remember his Spitfire - I think he did a PRXIX as well? I'd never heard of this resin stuff until then (and couldn't get me head around how - or why!!- he did it - its all clear now!!).

Yes he did, and as far as I recall he did a series of them, along with a Tempest and a Sea Fury. Although he disappeared from occasional pieces for Scale Models, I did see some of his further work years later in Aeroplane magazine in the 90's - a Spitfire IX, a Mosquito FBIV and - get this - a Lancaster, all to 1/24 scale.

Last I saw was an article in SAM a few years back, where he'd figured out that the Hurricane canopy rails had to be bowed to lock the hood.

No previous scale plans showed that detail, and a apparently a couple of full size restorations had followed the incorrect model plans - and presumably had vibration problems with their unstressed hoods.

His Hurricane master was in preparation at the time, but I've never seen anything since. Definitely a very talented guy.

There is a book he co-authored, but I've not been able to lay hands on it yet.

http://largescaleplanes.com/reviews/Books/...ratchBuilt.html

Shame about your Fireball XL5, that would be worth a fortune now! I had a catapult launched XL5, that was suposed to descend by parachute! It had two Fireball Juniors made of soft yellow plastic! These were detachable and interchangeable, one had the four fins the other had none- I supose one was more aerodynamic than the other!!!!! I'd guess it was around 1/100th scale or smaller - I'd love to still have it - and use it as the base of a half decent modelling project!

I did have the Lyons Maid Stingray though .....

Now I think I'm the one who's envious...

[John]

I remember the Woolies aluminium paint. It came in about a pint can and was actually a very good matt aluminium enamel. I used one tin for years! I also had a can of Woolies Silver spray paint, which destroyed my Matchbox Spitfire 22 by giving it a skin finish like cheap synthetic leather!

John

[AnonymousAA72]

I remember the Woolies aluminium paint. It came in about a pint can and was actually a very good matt aluminium enamel. I used one tin for years! I also had a can of Woolies Silver spray paint, which destroyed my Matchbox Spitfire 22 by giving it a skin finish like cheap synthetic leather!

John

Ah!!! Happy days! We were very resourceful then weren't we!! We don't know how luck we are nowadays - with the plethora of "authentic" paints...

[Edgar]

Peter Cooke has retired, though not, thankfully, as a member of my club. As well as finding out about the Hurricane's canopy, he found that, because of that difference, all drawings (even Arthur Bentley's) were incorrect, in the area of the spine, and depth of the rear fuselage, just in front of the fin. Because of his research, Arthur has redrawn his set of drawings.

Peter still has a Lancaster, after a customer had to cancel, due to an expensive divorce; if you want to buy a 1/24th "S for Sugar," negotiations start at £7,000.

Edgar

[chek]

Peter Cooke has retired, though not, thankfully, as a member of my club. As well as finding out about the Hurricane's canopy, he found that, because of that difference, all drawings (even Arthur Bentley's) were incorrect, in the area of the spine, and depth of the rear fuselage, just in front of the fin. Because of his research, Arthur has redrawn his set of drawings.

Peter still has a Lancaster, after a customer had to cancel, due to an expensive divorce; if you want to buy a 1/24th "S for Sugar," negotiations start at £7,000.

Edgar

I'd imagine that must be some club Edgar. Reminds of when Epping IPMS was going strong and Ray Rimmel and Geoff Prentice were

regulars when I lived in east London. I only met Peter once at the Model Engineer show in Wembley way back last century, but he was

certainly an inspiration to me, both then and now. His method is the only way I use enamels to this day.

Regarding S for Sugar, if I wasn't already, I think a 7 grand Lanc. would probably have seen me divorced too

[JosephLalor]

An interesting concoction Chek!

It reminds me of a very old Plastic Model Constructor (Is that the right title) magazine many years ago with a "Gilding the Lily" type of article on building Airfix's Jet Provost 3/4 by a well known (I should know his name!!) modeller who used Woolworth's Silver household enamel - I tried it - can't remember on what aircraft - but it could have been a Hunter......and it brush painted on to a lovely matt finish

Hi Bill,

I remember 'Gilding the Lily'. I think it was written by Dennis Teague and that the magazine was PAM News (for Plastic Aircraft Modell[ing/er], way back in the 1970s. Anyways, back to the subject!

Joseph

[AnonymousAA72]

Hi Bill,

I remember 'Gilding the Lily'. I think it was written by Dennis Teague and that the magazine was PAM News (for Plastic Aircraft Modell[ing/er], way back in the 1970s. Anyways, back to the subject!

Joseph

Thanks for that Joseph.....the name Dennis Teague certainly rings a bell - as does PAM! I may have a few of these magazines knocking about in the loft somewhere...

[Test Graham]

Woolies (Winfield?) silver - I used that as well. Good results, at least by my standards.