Iron Modeler

Category: The Plastic Addiction

  • Welcome to the new digs!

    Howdy, everybody!

    For those not in the know, the former host of the Iron Modeler blog, TypePad, shut down at the end of September.  I had a choice–shut down the blog entirely or migrate the content to a new host.  Since I had experience working in WordPress, and since I know someone who had some bandwidth, I decided to migrate over.

    The good news?  The URL is the same, so you can’t get lost.

    The bad news?  Most of the images didn’t make the trip.  In time, I’ll upload some of the photos to a gallery.  Will I re-embed them into the blog articles?  Stay tuned.

    Wait, did he say “gallery”?  Blogs don’t have galleries, do they?

    That’s the other bit of news.  This blog is now part of a website.  Which is good.

    Why, you ask?  Because I can do more within the structure of a website than I can with a simple blog.

    I’m still cleaning things up from the move, but I have some ideas.
    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    As far as actual hacking of plastic goes, I finished the 1/72nd scale F-16/101 using the 1976-vintage Revell kit and Caracal Models’ wonderful “F-16 Viper – The Early Years” decals and the exhaust nozzle from a Tamiya Block 50 kit.  It goes nicely with the Revell 1/72nd scale F-15A model (from the original 1974 issue) likewise decorated as an early aircraft during flight tests (and again using a Caracal Models decal sheet).

    I also finished a first-issue Kinetic 1/48th scale EA-6B Prowler.  The kit came to me from a friend at work, with the only constraint that I use the kit-supplied decals for VAQ-140.  It was a fun project, and a challenging project at times.  But isn’t that part and parcel of model building?
    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    So,what’s next, you ask…

    As discussed once or twice, I was born within an hour’s drive from where the USS New Jersey (Geek Stuff: Iowa-Class battleship, BB-62) was built at the Philadelphia Navy Ship Yard and where she sits in her retirement in Camden, NJ.  I have had plans for a series of models of the ship as she appeared between her launching in 1942 and her retirement in 1990.  At one time, I figured six models would do a good job of visually telling the story of the ship’s history.  Well, I’m doing this in 1/350th scale, and in order to maintain my sanity and have sufficient space to display the models, I’ve pared it down to three–one as she appeared during most of World War Two using Tamiya’s 1985 WWII-era USS Missouri kit with a Tom’s Modelworks enclosed round nav bridge, one as she appeared off the coast of Vietnam in 1968 from a combination of parts from the Tamiya Missouri and New Jersey kits, and one as she appeared a year or so after her final modernization and recommissioning in 1983.

    I’ve started on the later fit first, using the venerable Tamiya kit from 1984.  I’ve also procured an Eduard photoetch set and a Pontos Detail Up set.  I’ve removed parts from the trees and cleaned them up, and now I’m at the “eating an elephant” phase–assembly by assembly, I’m removing molded-in details that will be replaced by photoetched, resin, or wood parts from the detail sets.  So far, so good…
    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    In the meantime, we’ve also been adopted by another cat.  This one turned up under the hood of my wife’s car in August.  She kept hanging around the house, so we contacted one of the local Trap-Neuter-Release organizations and scheduled a trap date.  In the meantime, she began to warm up to us.  Oh, yeah, and one of her friends showed up.  Her friend is still kind of spicy–feral cats do that–but the original cat really started hanging close to the house.  In order to get them into a routine for the trap date, we’d put food out.  Every morning, as we fed the first cat, she would come closer to us and watch.  By the end of October, my wife said, “I bet if we left the door open, she would walk right in.”  And, on October 26th, we did just that–we left the screen door open, and she walked right in.

    The funny part of the whole thing is that Smokey, the self-proclaimed Mountain Lion, melts when he sees the new cat.  Gilda isn’t so enamored of the idea of a little sister–yet, but we’re sure she’ll warm up in time.

    The new kitty is named Tabitha.  When I was in college, my parents adopted a black tabby that we named Samantha, after Samantha Stephens from the TV show Bewitched.  Later in the series, they had a baby daughter that they named Tabitha.  At the time, I thought it was a shame that she couldn’t have kittens.  Well, 40 years later, we have Tabitha.  I’ll post some pictures of her at some point, you can be sure of that…
    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    That’s all I have for now.  Thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

  • Superseding Kits, and The Power of Words

    Hi, all!

    (Fair warning: I started writing this piece 9 or 10 months ago. I’m busy at work—as always. Well, maybe busier—our Senior Technical Writer retired early last year, making me “it” when it comes to dealing with our largest customer…)

    I’ve been busy at the real job of late, but I’ve almost managed to dig myself out of the workload. I have an article just about ready for Prime Time on Paco Four Zero, so look for that to hit the interwebs shortly.

    Meanwhile, I’ve still managed to keep some hobby-related work going…

    Back in the mid 1980’s, FineScale Modeler ran an article by Ron Lowry on scratchbuilding a Pilatus PC-6 Turbo-Porter. At the same time, I had discovered an offshoot of Project Gunship called Credible Chase.

    Credible Chase was started to explore the use of armed light utility short takeoff and landing aircraft in Southeast Asia. The program was designed to add mobility and firepower to the South Vietnamese Republic of Vietnam Air Force (RVNAF) in a relatively short time within a small budget. The United States Air Force settled on two aircraft: The Pilatus PC-6 Turbo-Porter and the Helio HST-550 Stallion. Several examples of each aircraft were leased and entered into a trial program called PAVE COIN. The Pilatus aircraft was designated AU-23A and the Stallion was the AU-24A.

    The AU-23A was based on the Fairchild-built PC-6/C2-H2. Powered by a Garrett/AirResearch TPE 331-101F turboprop engine, the aircraft was modified with four hardpoints under the wings to carry stores such as rocket pods, bombs of varying size, SUU-11 gun pods, napalm canisters, or propaganda pods. The cabin could be fitted with a pedestal mounted, manually aimed General Electric side-firing 20mm 3-barreled M197 electric cannon – the same cannon used in the later AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters. An XM93 Minigun mount was also tested. In short, it was envisaged as a “mini-gunship”.

    PAVE COIN revealed problems that should have been evident from the start. The aircraft was susceptible to damage from even small arms, had a slow operating speed and low operating altitude, and lack of crew protection. Despite that, 14 AU-23A’s were ordered for further testing. The final aircraft from the initial order was delivered in July 1972. By that time, the situation in Vietnam had changed. President Nixon’s “Vietnamization” plans meant U.S. troops were being sent home. Instability withing the South Vietnamese government put their military in a shambles. As a result, the surviving AU-23A’s, still in the United States, were put into storage until it was decided to sell them to Thailand for their border police. An additional 20 aircraft were ordered, and delivered by 1976. Of the 34 aircraft delivered, 14 of them are still in use in Thailand.

    So, with the research done, I decided that I “needed” an AU-23A in the collection. This was back in my strictly 1/48th scale days, and of course there was no kit of any type in existence. As I read the FSM article, I realized that I could scratchbuild a model. I made several copies of the included plans (which were published in 1/48th scale—Ron’s model was in 1/24th scale) and began my quest. I managed to get as far as having a nearly complete wing and fuselage before several moves made me shut the project down and put it away. I will always remember the advice I received from John Alcorn at the 1999 IPMS/USA National Convention as we were chatting about our current projects. Knowing it was my first fully scratchbuilt models, he was full of advice. He asked about my progress, and I described my attempts at making the wing. “How many tries did it take?”, he asked. “Three”, was my answer. “You’re just about on schedule, then”, he said with a grin. At the time, his second book, The Master Scratchbuilders, and just come out, where he detailed how many attempts he made before he arrived an an acceptable wing for his DH.9 project…if memory serves, third time was the charm for him, too…

    Just when you think you’ll be resigned to scratchbuilding or using a crude limited run kit, every now and again the modeling Gods smile upon you.  That was the case with 1/48th scale Turbo-Porters when, in 2009, the Ukrainian company Roden Models announced a series of 1/48th scale Pilatus Porters. The kits hit the store shelves in 2010, and I bought not only the AU-23A kit (actually, two, but one was later donated to a show raffle), but also the Air America PC-6/C2-H2 and a PC-6/B2-H2 kits as well—another interest in Southeast Asian air operations happened to be Air America and the other small airlines associated with the U.S. Government (in this case, Continental Air Services, Inc., or CASI). And, in a state of delerium after finishing Paco Four Zero, I started building all three kits. Concurrently.

    All three are complete now, which means an article on them is also in the works.

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

    Fast forward to the present: there is another project already in work: a trio of 1/48th scale P-51D Mustangs. I had a pair of the new (well, they were new back in 2017 when I bought them) Airfix kits on the pile, and after watching Jen Wright at Jenesis Designs and Modelcraft build the kit for her YouTube series “More Modeling for Beginners” (and which I had intended to build along with Jen, but the Turbo-Porters got in the way), I decided to have a go. One will be Don Strait’s “Jersey Jerk”, and the other will be “Miss Miami” (which is often said to have been the mount of Ernest “Feeb” Fiebelkorn, but was actually assigned to Carp. R.D. Jones).

    And, in a weekend session of spring cleaning, I came across a first-issue Tamiya P-51D from 1995. I bought it new when it came into the shop along with the also new Kendall Model Company (KMC) Merlin Engine. I had initially intended to build it out of the box using thre kit decals for Col. Leonard “Kit” Carson’s “Nooky Booky IV” and place the Merlin on a stand next to the airplane. In the 30 (!) interceding years, that plan has changed. I’m still going to put the Merlin on a stand, but the airplane will be one of the P-51D’s assigned to the Florida National Guard in 1947.

    I’ll build “Nooky Booky IV” in the near future with Part 2 (or maybe Part 3) of “Mustang Madness”—I have two P-51B’s to build (Howard’s “Ding Hao!” and Don Lopez’s “Lope’s Hope), and an F-6 (“Li’l Margaret, maybe) and a P-51K—you guessed it, the P-51K will be “Nooky Booky IV”. It will replace an Otaki kit I built in 1984 using Microscale sheet 48-39 back in the day. Yeah, it had accuracy issues, but back in the day many modelers “in the know” either didn’t know or didn’t care—I certainly didn’t. Anyway, Eduard’s P-51K has the markings in the box, I’ll probably use them if they behave…

    And I have one of the initial release “Chattanooga Choo-Choo” kits that I’d like to build, too…

    So yeah, by the time “Mustang Madness” is over, I should have seven or eight Mustangs done in short order. Stay tuned.

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

    I’ve been keeping up with the hobby on YouTube, too. There are a lot of talented folks out there producing content, and I manage to look at quite a bit of it. And, of course, there are some things I like, and some I cringe at…

    • Using a big word where a small word works better
    • Using the wrong word or nomenclature
    • Not understanding what you are speaking about.

    The worst example of the first two points is the use of the word fitment where the presenter means fit. From Mr. Webster’s book:

    • fitment (noun): furnishing, fixture, cabinetry
    • fit (noun): the degree of closeness between surfaces in an assembly of parts.

    So, when describing how well the parts go together (or how badly they don’t), the word is fit.

    And yes, I understand that some folks who use this don’t count English as their first language, but it seems to come most often from folks in the UK—and the definition for fitment listed above even noted it was “chiefly British”…

    Another violation of the second point (and the third point entirely) is calling something a “thingie” because you can’t be bothered to try and learn at least a little bit about your subject matter. That “little bent thingie” under the wing is a pitot (pronounced PEE-toh, not PIT-ot) tube, and it is part of the aircraft’s air data system that provides altitude, airspeed, and rate of climb information to the pilots. It’s no secret, the answer is out there—just take a few minutes and find it. This grates with me because ask any scale modeler and they’ll tell you that they are the most detail oriented people on the planet.

    An offshoot of this? “I attached the tail wings”, or “I installed the front nose landing gear”. Unless you are dealing with a canard-type aircraft, “tail wings” do not exist—and even at that, they’re still simply “wings”. And unless you have the goofiest airplane in the world, the nose is *always* at the front of the airplane.

    Oh, and there is a difference between a canopy and a windscreen, too…

    Incorrect nomenclature? There is a huge difference between an F4F, an F4-F, and an F-4F. One is the Grumman Wildcat, one is nonsense, the other is a variant of the McDonnell Douglas Phantom. I covered this topic a while back in an article for the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Newsflash.

    What brought this on? My second career as a Technical Writer. I write aerospace maintenance manuals where each and every detail—no matter how large or small—is important. Leave out a critical detail, and the technician using the manual might find the job is more difficult, if not impossible. Leave a step out of a test procedure, or incorrectly identify something in the results, and we will hear from the user. So we strive to get it correct the first time, every time. And as I said, scale modelers claim to be the most detail-oriented people on the planet—we should make sure we live up to that claim, shouldn’t we?

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

    That’s all for now.  I will make an honest effort to drag out the photographic equipment and get photos of all the projects from last year ready for posting in the next few weeks.  Stay tuned…

    Thanks for reading. Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace…

  • Paint for Scale Models – The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly…

    Hi, all! Welcome to the latest edition of “There’s another paint fail…”

    I’ve documented my recent searches for a good model paint.

    In my model building years, I started (as did most modelers in the 1970’s) with either Testors PLA Enamels or the Pactra equivalent. I stuck with Testors, since it was what I could find at most of the local places that sold models and supplies for them.

    When I discovered modeling magazines and dedicated hobby shops in the late 1970’s, I also discovered the Pactra Authentic International Colors. I used them in 1981 to paint an Otaki F6F Hellcat, and I was smitten. I found that when thinned with Aerogloss Dope Thinner, the paint laid down very thin, dried very quickly, and gave an almost eggshell finish. Of course, that meant that the paint was on its way out—indeed, Pactra had discontinued the line. No matter, a change was coming…

    When I went off to college and resumed my model building activities during my second semester, I decided to give my dorm neighbors a break and switch to something more friendly. At the time, there was only one acrylic paint for models, that being the OG of modeling acrylics, Polly-S. I continued to use Polly-S (with one exception) until that line, too, began to be phased out. Polly-S was a strange paint—it was a latex paint that could be brushed without leaving brush marks, but it was tricky to airbrush. You could thin it with water or alcohol, but it took some trial and error to see which one and how much would do the job. It seemed to me that no two bottles were the same, so I got used to making changes on the fly. In hindsight, it was merely okay, nothing stellar, but I had decided to be kind to my neighbors, so I was stuck with that decision…

    For those of you who just “gotsta know”, the exception was in 1983, when I built the then-new Monogram 1/48th scale F-105G. Since the Polly-S representations of the SEA colors weren’t available to me at the time, and because I wanted to see what the fuss was all about, I used the new Testors Model Master paints. I used them also on a Monogram 1/48th scale F-100D and a kitbashed ESCI/Monogram A-7D. They worked really well, but they came with all of the issues of a solvent-based paint—namely, how do you dispose of the thinners used to clean out the airbrush (I used an empty thinner can) and what to do with the thinned paint (not a good idea to return it to the bottle, as it would cause the paint to jell more times than not)…

    In the meantime, two new acrylics came into view—Tamiya Acrylics and the then-Gunze-Sangyo (now GSI/Creos) Aqueous Color Range. The paints were similar in chemical composition, and early on I could get them to work quite well. But back in the day, there were frequent changes in the paint chemistry for the Tamiya paints, and accordingly I had to learn how to use it all over again with each change. In the case of the GSI Aqueous paint, I liked the way it sprayed, but it seemed to take a lot of paint to cover, and that a jar didn’t seem to go far.

    I took a side trip into the 1992-era Floquil Enamels for about six months, then Floquil/Polly-S graced the world with a new acrylic paint: PollyScale. I loved this stuff, and couldn’t (still can’t) understand the negativity surrounding the paint. It thinned with distilled water (it said so on the jar AND in the literature available for the paint), sprayed nicely, and dried to a tight layer of color. It feathered out well, too, and I could mask it with no peeling/lifting issues whatsoever. I have a feeling that those who had problems with the paint were busy playing home chemist and using some strange concoction to thin the paint, which caused all the problems mentioned. Hint: Windshield washer fluid is good for removing dirt and bugs from glass. I doubt it was designed to thin paint. As I said in previous paint discussions, use the thinner recommended by the manufacturer—in this case, that thinner was distilled water, period. I was reminded of this sometime later, when I would add Future to the paint and thin with either alcohol or the Testors Acryl Thinner—the paint would give me fits. Once I went back to plain old distilled water added to just the paint, those issues went away.

    Of course, in time RPM International (the parent company to Testors, Floquil/Polly-S, Bondo, Zinsser, and a handful of other companies) killed off both the Floquil enamels and PollyScale lines (and the Aeromaster Warbird Colors and Acrylic Warbirt Colors, which were checmically identical and manufactured by Floquil/Polly-S).

    In response, Testors introduced a new acrylic line that was supposed to combine the best features of PollyScale and the Pactra Acrylic line (that was also fairly nice paint—I only used it once or twice, and I don’t recall any issues). This new line was called the Testor Model Master Acrylic line, and it was the Shop Vac of suck. The pigment settled hard at the bottom of the jar, so it took a powered stirrer and a good deal of shaking to mix the paint. It would clog the airbrush at the drop of a hat, it didn’t cover well, and when you could get it to spray, it would dry with a rough, chalky finish.

    Another pair of new acrylics that popped onto the scene briefly were the Niche Paints (they had two lines, one featured WWII Luftwaffe colors and the other was a line of modern Soviet colors) and the Monogram ProModeler paints.

    The Niche paints were rumored to be custom shades of regular eggshell finish interior house paints. I’ve only used it a few times, but I can almost buy the rumor. It wasn’t around long…

    The ProModeler paints came along in 1999-2000, and were touted as the first hobby paints to be certified Non-Toxic by some US government entity. I used it once. The paint took forever to dry—if it dried at all. Again, they didn’t last long…

    Anyway, I had to find another go-to paint line in the early 2000’s. Since PollyScale went away, I have tried the following:

    • Testors Acryl
    • Vallejo Model Air
    • Lifecolor
    • Hataka Orange Line
    • Mission Models Paint
    • AK Real Color
    • ICM Acrylics

    In addition, I have renewed my acquaintance with the chemically similar GSI/Creos Aqueous and Tamiya Acrylic line.

    So, what did I experience?

    Testors Acryl

    When I first used it, I wasn’t too thrilled—PollyScale, back in the day, was a superb acrylic paint that could be thinned with distilled water, airbrushed well, hand brushed well, and had good adhesion. As I started to switch from PollyScale to Acryl (the writing was on the wall—RPM was discontinuing PollyScale), I learned to work with it, as I have done with every single brand of model paint I’ve used since way back in the early 1970’s. After a while, I reached a point where I was comfortable in how the paint behaved. It became my go-to paint brand for several years, until RPM once again decided to cut back on their product line and killed the Acryl line off.

    Verdict: It is a shame that RPM killed it off, since it was head-and-shoulders better than the previous Model Master Acrylics. The color fidelity was good, and the paint performance was good and predictable.

    Vallejo Model Air

    With the demise of the Acryl line, my next stop was Vallejo. The learning curve was steeper, since it really didn’t like to spray to my liking. Once I learned to use their thinner, things went better. I wasn’t thrilled about using a paint that required a primer—and I did use it without primer many times—but my bigger gripes were with color accuracy and shelf life.

    Vallejo’s idea of color accuracy is to get it somewhere within city limits; i.e. FS36622 gray will be gray. Whether it comes close to FS36622 or not is a matter of personal choice, but usually it did not. Which is okay, I can mix colors. But when I use a small amount from a bottle and close the bottle tightly, I don’t expect the remaining paint to turn to thick goo in a month. Also, they almost always required a primer, and the “hotter”, the better, which sort of defeats the purpose of using an acrylic paint, no?

    Verdict: Not a full fail, and their Metal Color paints are still my go-to for bare metal finishes. And I’ll still use it for hand brushing. But for airbrushing camouflage schemes, nope, this ain’t it. And their shelf life is still hit/miss.

    Lifecolor

    I used Lifecolor for the orange patches on the Sea King I built several years ago, and I was impressed. It laid down smoothly, with no orange peel or other issues. I was so impressed that I bought their ship colors and their version of Air Superiority Blue for when I get around to building my original-issue Revell 1/72nd scale F-15 as one of the prototypes. It does require you to use their thinner, but I’m good with that. See my take on PollyScale above…

    Verdict: I like this based on one use. We’ll see how other colors behave, but I’m optimistic.

    Hataka

    My experience with the Hataka acrylics was not good. They clogged the airbrush, no matter what I did. I used their thinner alone. I added some flow aid and retarder to the mix. It would still clog the airbrush. I wound up using the colors I had to paint terrain, where I could use a brush.

    Verdict: Fail.

    Mission Models Paint (MMP)

    This stuff was being pimped as the greatest paint ever* (*IF you use their primer, their reducer, their poly-mix, and strictly follow their application procedure to the letter). I painted two 1/72nd scale F-16s with it, following their instructions to a ‘T’. And when I went to apply the decals, as soon as I put a wet decal on the surface of the model, the paint began to run like watercolors.

    I ran some further tests on styrene card. No matter what I did, the result was the same—a fragile paint that would run when a little water was placed on top of the paint.

    Verdict: Fail. Big fail, given the advertising hype. And yes, I know people who have been able to make it work. The bigger point here is that I shouldn’t have to go through a Graduate-Level course on how to use their paint and get it to yield a permanent, durable finish…

    AK Real Colors (AKRC)

    I was reluctant to use this product for two reasons—one, nobody could tell me whether it was miscible with AK’s acrylic thinner as well as their “High Compatibility Thinner”; and two, AK has, in the past, stepped on their ding-dongs with golf shoes in their advertisement department—promoting the Holocaust and other forms of forced slavery to sell books and then, when getting called on it, brushing it off as it was not a big deal.

    But when I needed paint for my Hasegawa 1/72nd scale A-10A, I decided to give it a try. I had, by this time, been thinning Tamiya acrylics with lacquer thinner, so the first issue was mooted. I still wasn’t thrilled with their advertising gaffes, but I figured I was buying the paint from someone who had already paid AKI.

    From a performance standpoint, thinned with either Tamiya lacquer thinner or Mr. Color Leveling Thinner, the paint sprayed very nicely, laid down smoothly, and dried quickly.

    From a color accuracy standpoint, there were issues. Their idea of what 34102 and 34092 looked like weren’t in line with what was indicated in the FS595a fan deck I keep handy. It wasn’t close to something I had painted earlier with the PollyScale acrylics. The 34012 was too brown and not olive enough, the 34092 was almost turquoise rather than a deep green with a blueish cast. The 36081 gray was also too light—even if you subscribe to the scale color theory (which I do), it was still far too light.

    Verdict: Fail. Not a hard fail, because they performed well. But they failed where it matters most—the paint should be close to what the label says. Talking with friends, this is a hit/miss thing with AK. Some colors are spot on, others are not correct.

    ICM Acrylics

    I’m building the “Ghost of Kyiv” release of ICM’s 1/72nd scale MiG-29 Fulcrum C. It was given to me as a gift along with the ICM paint set specifically intended for this kit. The kit gives you the gray “pixel” camouflage as decals, but I scanned the sheet and created masks on my Cameo 4.

    As I began to paint the airplane, I noted that the paint said when airbrushing, thin “with water or thinner”, the thinner being unspecified. I’ve read a few accounts of folks using X-20A. I also noted that it said to use a primer. So, I primed the model with a coat of Tamiya X-18 Semigloss Black and allowed it to dry for a few days.

    I began with the lightest of the gray colors. I used distilled water to thin the paint, and it seemed to go down fairly nicely. I did note that the surface was a bit chalky, but nothing that couldn’t be buffed out when the paint was dry with a microfiber towel.

    I let that color dry for a few nights. I then airbrushed the next darker shade of gray on the underside. This time, I used Tamiya X-20A thinner. Again, it laid down okay, but with a chalky finish. Again, it was allowed to dry overnight.

    When I resumed painting, I noted some dust that wouldn’t simply wipe off, so I dampened a Q-Tip with a wee bit of distilled water—the swab was barely moist. As I tried to wash the dust off, I noted that the paint was dissolving—almost like a watercolor. As I continued, the paint wiped off the model. I did the same thing in several other locations on the model to make sure it wasn’t a localized issue. Nope, the paint—whether it had been thinned with water or X-20A—dissolved and wiped off of the surface.

    The final confirmation was when it took a little over 10 minutes’ scrubbing with a toothbrush under the faucet. The paint simply wiped off.

    Verdict: I hate to say this, because I think ICM is hitting it out of the park with their kit releases over the past few years, but the paint gets a Hard Fail. I will do some more tests with the paint I have left to see if it wasn’t a “me problem”, so stay tuned. But for the MiG, the paint got stripped and the model will be painted with Tamiya Acrylics, thinned with lacquer thinner. That combination has not let me down for as long as I’ve been using it.

    Which brings us to the GSI Aqueous and Tamiya Acrylics.

    As mentioned earlier, I used both when they first arrived in the scene. As other paints were available that worked better for me, I didn’t use them that much. But was the other acrylic lines died off, I took another look.

    The initial impetus to revisit them was a pair of 1/72nd scale Phantoms in British colors I built, Academy’s F-4J as a 74 Sqn F-4J(UK) and the Fujimi FG.1. British Standard colors are hard to come by in acrylic paints, and I had already stockpiled some of the required colors, so I gave them another go. This time, I used X-20A thinner (this predated my use of Mr. Leveling Thinner buy a few months), and found they worked much better than my previous efforts. The only issue I had was with the decal application on the FG.1, which did weird things to the paint. I blame this not on the paint, but the decal adhesive, as the same paint/clear coat combination worked with no issues on the F-4J(UK). I imagine the paint would work even better with the use of that magic elixir known as Mr. Leveling Thinner, MLT, or simply “Unicorn Tears”…

    And so my search ended at the Tamiya Acrylics. I guess I learned that the paint could be thinned with lacquer thinner in the late 1990’s. At the time, I was trying to remain as “hot solvent free” as I could (the exception was using Testors Metalizer Sealer as a clear coat before decals and weathering, as it was nearly bulletproof), so I steered clear. However, as the acrylic lines continued to shrink, I saw what some of my AMPS club buddies were achieving with this combination. So, I bit the bullet and tried it. As far as the fumes were concerned, I crack a window and wear a respirator. I use alcohol to clean the airbrush. So far, the results have been good—and they are repeatable. I’ve painted an Airfix 1/72nd scale Bristol Blenheim I and the Hasegawa 1/72nd scale A-10A (after I abandoned the AK Real Colors paints) with them. I painted all three of the Vermont ANG F-16’s using this mix. I had no surprises down the road when the decals went on.

    I’m convinced, and it will take something Earth-shaking to change that opinion.

    For those who want to know about the Andrea, Ammo by Mig, Citadel, Games Workshop, or the AK Interactive acrylics, I can only speak on the Citadel paints—I use them for detail painting only. Like the Vallejo Model Air and Model Color, they brush on well and I have no complaints. I had pondered using the AKI 3rd Gen acrylics, but the other factor on paints, for me, is local availability. If I run out of a color, I’d like to be reasonably sure that I can buy a new jar/bottle locally and not have to put together a larger order with one of the online shops (I almost used the phrase “Mail Order”–kids, ask your parents). And in my area, I can get Tamiya Acrylics at several shops. So why would I want to venture too far away from that?

    And yes, I said I also liked the Lifecolor paints. But I believe their use will be in limited, specific scenarios such as the Air Superiority Blue for the early F-15A, or the ship colors (unless I mix those, too, from Tamiya colors) because these too will need to be ordered online.

    A final word on the GSI/Creos Aqueous line. I’d use them more IF I could find the H3XX and H4XX colors anywhere—these are the colors matched to AN/ANA, FS, RAL, and BSC paint specifications. I’ve scoured the various online shops, and all of them show stock on colors up to the H9X numbers. I contacted GSI/Creos, they say the colors in question are still being made (good thing, since most Hasegawa and Fujimi kits use their color call-outs). Knowing that, I would figure that Hobby Link Japan would have them, but recent searches have come up empty. If anyone can tell me what’s up here, I would appreciate it. And yes, I know I can use the Mr. Color lacquers (or the Tamiya Lacquer Paints, for that matter)—but their smell is much sharper, and lingers much longer, than that of either the Aqueous or Tamiya Acrylics thinned with MLT or lacquer thinner does.

    As for the new breed of acrylic lacquers (MRP, SMS, etc.), I have not tried them for the reasons listed above. Some friends have used them, and they think they’re the best thing since bottled beer, sliced bread, apple pie, and Mom. Getting them can be an issue, which defeats the “locally stocked” availability question.

    Postscript. A few weeks ago, Ammo by Mig announced a new acrylic line called “ATOM”. They are supposed to combine the best features of an acrylic paint with the best features of a lacquer. Several online shops are showing them as preorders. Just for giggles, I may have to try the line to see whether its performance is that much better than my current Tamiya/MLT mix. I don’t envision any of the local shops rushing out to start stocking ATOM, so it will have to be that much better than my current go-to to make me switch.

    This opens another can of worms, one that some friends and I discussed several years ago, when MMP became available and folks were flocking to it. At the time, it seemed there was a new paint line announced every month, and modelers were flocking to them the way the 5-year olds playing soccer all follow the ball rather than playing their position. They never stick with one product long enough to become competent with it, before they run to the next shiny new paint line. I suppose you could say that I did the same thing during my recent search for a replacement for PollyScale and Acryl. I don’t think I fall into the same category, since my go-to lines were going away and I was trying to find a line that worked for me.

    The other player at work are the manufacturers themselves. They change the formulations of their paint so often that a user doesn’t really have time to become properly attuned to them before they are gone, replaced by this year’s new darling.

    And this is yet another reason I came to the conclusion I did—Tamiya Acrylics have been around since 1983 or 1984, and I don’t seem them going anywhere any time soon…

    I have friends who still wish they could go buy some good, old, Dio-Sol/Xylene-laden Floquil paint. Sorry, gang, those days are long gone. With the recent demise of the Model Master paint, the same laments can be seen far and wide on the various modeling boards. Yeah, you can pine for them all you like, but they ain’t comin’ back…

    There you go, my take on the State of Hobby Paints.

    As always, thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and I bid you Peace.

  • 87,600 Hours

    Howdy, all!

    “That’s an interesting title”, you say. “What does it mean? Is it a countdown to something?”

    Allow me to explain…

    Many years ago, a friend and I were discussing models. It was in the early 2000’s, right when the Monogram ProModeler 1/48th scale F-86D arrived at hobby shops. At the time, it was a much welcomed release, since nobody to that point had released an accurate, state of the art kit of the Dog Sabre. Of course, it didn’t take long for the online community to bring up several items to note. If memory serves, they were (in no particular order):

    • It was based on an early Block number airframe (Block 5, IIRC) at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force that had been used for flight testing, therefore had the early tail without the drag chute compartment and an additional rudder trim tab;
    • It had the early instrument panel layout;
    • And, after a bit of math, it was determined that the wing sweep was too steep by 3.2°.

    Of course, Revell AG later released the later configuration of the fuselage with the drag chute, but kept the instrument panel and wing from the earlier ProModeler issue of the kit. But for all the carrying on, the issues were minor.

    One thing I said then (and still say it now) is that 99.9% of the people who even see the completed model on my display shelf wouldn’t know the difference between an early and late Dog Sabre instrument panel—even if they were die-hard fans of the F-86. I told one of the guys making a lot of noise over it that I was sure that Eduard or Airwaves (remember Airwaves?) would more than likely make a photoetch set with the proper layout that could easily fix that problem.  And, lacking that, a reference photo, a bit of Evergreen sheet, a set of punches or drills, and about an hour’s work could fix the problem.

    As for the wing, Jennings says it in his article—unless you had the Revell Dog Sabre placed next to a Hasegawa or Academy Sabre with a gridded shelf under them and could view them from directly above, it wouldn’t be noticeable. And, for those intrepid types who couldn’t live with the 3.2° error, they could always do the work and fix it.

    I added that unless I put them in the case at the shop (I was still in Florida at the time, and several of my models were in the cases at Warrick Custom Hobbies) or took them to a show, most of my models never got seen by anyone else for more than a few hours—and on a display shelf, nobody ever got close enough to inspect the model to make sure it was “nuts-bolts-rivets” accurate anyway.  Plus, if you build models so you can do the contest thing, AMPS or IPMS contest judges are instructed not to evaluate accuracy, anyway. So unless you get so hot and bothered over a half-inch long bit of plastic…

    That prompted us to do some math to figure out just how much time our models were being looked at by other people.

    The logic worked out something like this:

    We estimated an average 10-year life span for a completed model. It seemed like a good starting place.

    10 years X 365 days/year X 24 hours/day equals 87,600 hours.

    Next, we estimated a few more things.

    • You build a model, and take it to the club meeting. The average club meeting clocks in at 2 hours.
    • You take it to a contest. The average one day contest is about six or eight hours. To be fair, we’ll call it eight.
    • You might take it to the local hobby shop (if such a thing still exists in your area) to show it off for an hour.

    So, total that up. We’re at 11 hours. Add on an hour or two for when friends come to visit—you *do* have friends, don’t you? Anyway…

    Let’s just say 15 hours. Do some cipherin’…naught from naught…carry the two…and we have 0.017%. If we round it, 15 hours is 0.02 percent of 87,600. Other people look at your model for a total of 0.02% of the model’s life span, using 10 years as the average life span. If the model “lives” longer, the percentage gets even lower.

    Maybe you take it to a local, “regional”, and “national” show, the latter being a three-day affair. That comes to 30 hours at shows, plus the other time. Let’s just triple the initial estimate from 15 to 45 hours. What the hell, let’s say 50 hours. That computes to a whopping 0.06% of it’s life span.

    Want to stretch it to 100 hours? Okay…that works out to 0.11%. Still less than 1%.

    You can split hairs all you want, but on average a completed model that goes from workbench to your personal display shelf will only be looked at by other people for a very small sliver of the total lifespan. Otherwise, your peepers are the only ones to view your work.

    So again, *who* do you build your models for?
    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
    Work on the A-10A’s continues slowly. The pylon depressions on the 1/48th scale model are filled and ready to have the ResKit pylons (for the Hobby Boss kit, explaining why the depression on the Tamiya wing had to be filled), and some color has been applied to the 1/72nd scale model. I want to try and complete the 1/72nd scale model in the next few weeks.
    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
    In the meantime, I’ve bought some stuff.

    I’ve wanted to get a set of quick disconnects for the airbrushes for a few years, and figured I might as well buy a MAC valve, too. I still need to play with the valve and test things out, but the big benefit is being able to switch airbrushes quickly.

    I also bought some wax pencils. Back a long time ago, a modeling friend used them to position small parts. I had forgotten about them until a FineScale Modeler video reminded me how handy they were. And they’re dirt cheap—I bought 10 and some sorting trays on Amazon for less than $8 American…
    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
    Along with the tools, of course I bought some kits.

    Back in 1996, I used the KMC resin conversion kit to build an FM-2 Wildcat from the Tamiya kit. The model turned out pretty nice, but it always nagged me that the conversion was about as superficial as it could get. All KMC really gave you was a copy of the kit cowl, a casting of an extended kit rudder, and some very sketchy instructions (later versions of the conversion also offered an engine). So imagine my glee when Eduard introduced their FM-2 kit at the IPMS/USA National Convention. I was so happy, I bought two. I’m tempted to push the A-10’s to the side…

    At about the same time, my order from Ukraine arrived. Once again, I have to commend Plastic Models Store in Kyiv for their superb service. If you want kits made in Ukraine, give them a whirl.
    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
    I was discussing the A-10 project with someone at work. He wasn’t too versed on the whys and wherefores of the ThunderHog. I gave him a few places to read up on it, and told him if he really wanted some fun, he should look at all the various postwar agreements made between and among the various branches of the U.S. military. As I refreshed my own memory, I thought it might be a good idea to write it all down in capsule form and post it here as a companion to my piece on “The McNamara Effect” that I wrote a few years ago. Stay tuned, sports fans…

    That’s all I have for this installment.  Thanks for reading. Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

  • More on older model kits…

    Howdy, all…

    The other night, I recalled that the Monogram 1/48th scale kit of the F-106A turned 40 years old this year, having hit the hobby shop shelves in 1983.  I recall this specifically because a college friend was geeked to the max over the kit and bought it as soon as he could get his paws on a copy.  We were both attending the summer term at Embry-Riddle that year, and he kept showing me the progress he was making.  He dropped one of the missile launch rails and detailed the cockpit with the pilot in the seat.

    That model was a constant during the Fall semester.  He kept futzing over it incessantly until we finally told him to “finish the damn thing already!”  The way the rooms were in that particular dorm was such that they had a small “common” room that connected two rooms into a suite.  Well, he occupied that common room as his personal living space.  I recall when he painted the model–he closed the doors after supper on Friday night, and emerged in the morning–when he opened the doors, the unmistakable scent of Model Master enamel and thinner rolled out with him.  He did a great job, to be sure, but I still wonder how many brain cells he killed during that all-nighter paint session…

    Anyway, back to the point…

    It was a great time for modelers.  Monogram released the F-105G in 1982, the F-106A in 1983, a 1/72nd scale F-105G and EF-111A and a 1/48th scale F-84F in 1984.  The 1/48th scale F-101B followed in 1985.  And this was just Monogram.  Revell released their 1/48th scale B-1B and 1/32nd scale F-14A around the same time, Airfix had their 1/48th scale EA-6B, and Hasegawa released their 1/48th scale F-4, F-15, and F-16 families in 1/48th scale with 1/72nd scale versions to follow in the next several years.

    At the same time, we had the 1/72 scale aircraft and armor from ESCI, Hasegawa’s 1/72 scale line continued to expand, and Tamiya added to their line of aircraft kits with the 1/48th scale A-10A and F-15A and the 1/32nd scale F-14A.

    And this was just in the realm of aircraft models.  The scene was similar in armor, ships, and autos.  Life was good…

    As the years have passed, it is interesting to read the modern takes on these kits.  New modelers have become enamored of recessed panel lines and tight, precise fit.  Anything less makes the kit undesirable or “unbuildable”.  A lot of these kits are dismissed out of hand because there are more modern kits available with the aforementioned recessed panel details.  I’ve seen the Tamiya A-10A dismissed as “garbage” and the Hasegawa Phantoms reduced to shelf-sitters due to their age.

    As I said last time out, “New and Improved” does not always equate to “Better”.  Since I’m building one right now, let’s look at the Tamiya 1/48th scale A-10A.  It is a product of its time when it was released in 1977.  It best represents a preproduction airframe–it features the ESCAPAC seat, extended flap guides, and lacks the chaff/flare dispensers in the initial run (the latter were added in the 1991 reissue).  So, these days, it gets dismissed as being “not a good kit” simply because of what it is.

    It has the dreaded “raised panel line” disease on the wings, tail, and aft fuselage.  If you think about it, back in the day that may have been the easiest way for a mold maker to simulate the raised rivet heads that are prevalent on those areas of the A-10A.  The forward fuselage has nicely engraved panel lines, so it proves that Tamiya did have the technology to mold them.

    Back in the old Usenet days and the rec.models.scale group, the question “What is the best kit of a A-10?”  My answer was always the same–What era are you wanting to model?  To me, someone wanting an early 1/48th scale A-10A was set with the Tamiya or original Revell kit.  For a production Hawg through the Desert Storm period, Monogram’s was the best–fit issues, warts, and all.  But some modelers don’t see it that way–they believe that they need to start with the “best” kit and backdate or update as needed.  To me, that’s akin to performing a tonsillectomy through the rectum–you create a lot more work and have the potential to cause a lot more problems that you solve instead of starting with an older, but potentially better, kit.

    In the years since, a gaggle of new A-10 kits have come down the pike, and, with one exception, they all fall short.  The exception?  The new Academy 1/48th scale A-10C.  And yeah, being a definite fan of the A-10, I bought one.  Rumor has it that it may be joined by an A-10A at some point.  Me, I hope they decide to shrink it down to 1/72nd scale–both an A-10A and A-10C.  Otherwise, I stick with the Tamiya and Monogram kits in 1/48th scale and the Hasegawa 1/72nd scale Hawg kits, thanks…

    In the case of the Monogram 1/48th scale Century Series kits, they all (with the exception of the F-104) still stand above the more modern kits.  Trumpeter, Kitty Hawk, and Hobby Boss have tried to do the F-100, F-101, F-105, and F-106, but they all fall short.  The Trumpeter Hun has an odd inlet shape and vertical tail proportion errors.  Kitty Hawk’s Voodoos have a rack full of issues, not least of which is being an over-engineered nightmare.  Hobby Boss tried, but missed the mark with their F-105’s, as did Trumpeter with their F-106.  Of all the modern kits, I suppose the best of the lot are the Trumpeter F-106’s, but any modeler who sticks with the Monogram kits won’t be disappointed.

    The F-104, incidentally, is covered quite nicely with the Hasegawa and Kinetic offerings in 1/48th scale…

    I guess a lot of this comes from what we had back in the day.  Before the Monogram Century Series, we had nothing in 1/48th scale.  We did have the F-100, RF-101, F-102, F-105, and F-106 from Hasegawa in 1/72nd scale.  And outside that, there were F-104 kits available, executed in various degrees of success.

    When I downsized my jets (the first time, 1986), I collected the Hasegawa kits for later construction.  They were basically good kits–the shapes were there, the kit out of the box was adequate, and there was room for additional work for those who wished to go the extra mile.  The kit cockpits were nowhere near as detailed as we would start to see with the late 1970’s Monogram kits, but with closed canopies (and the kits almost always were designed to be built with the canopy closed), they were fine with maybe a few tape or paper seat belts added.

    Back in the day, modelers who wanted detailed cockpits and the like expected to do that additional work, including vacuum-forming a new canopy to be posed open to show off that extra work.  I recall making a comment to a friend about the Hasegawa cockpit tubs–a generic, three-sided affair with narrow “consoles” that had humps at the forward end.  He said they used to vacuum-form copies of those cockpit tubs to use on kits that had no cockpit tub…

    And yeah, this is another aspect of the hobby that does reflect when we joined it.  These days, new modelers experience such kits as the Tamiya 1/48th scale F-14A or F-4B, or the Eduard Wildcats and Zeros, and anything less leaves them disappointed because they had to do more work.  I get it.  And as much as I love kits that fall together, they always leave me a little empty, as if I missed something by not having to do even a little bit of problem solving during the process.  I guess it is why I’m actually enjoying the ride with the Tamiya A-10A (and the Hasegawa 1/72nd scale A-10A I’m building at the same time).

    Once again, there are as many ways to enjoy the hobby as there are people enjoying it.  I don’t necessarily knock the new breed of modelers when they dis a kit for its age, but I do wish they would see those kits in the context of when they were produced and what they meant to modelers at the time.  And maybe, just maybe, they can take one of those older kits and find out what we “old guys” already know…
    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    Something I also notice–apparently modelers are still unaware of this thing called Scalemates when they cite kit information.  For instance, I’ve seen the Monogram 1/48th scale B-26 Marauder dated to “sometime in the mid-1980’s” on one of the YouTube channels–the actual release date was 1978 (I know this because I got one back then when I was out of school with bronchitis).  It takes literally a minute to check things like this.  Hey, if you hold yourself out as a authority, you need to be accurate with your data…
    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    I’m expecting an order from Plastic Models Store any time now.  If you want kits from the Ukrainian manufacturers at good prices (and don’t mind waiting a few weeks), give these guys a try.  I’ve had nothing but great service from them–and they send a little bag of yummy Ukrainian candy with the order!  In my last order, I got the Dora Wings 1/48th scale Vengeance, the new ICM 1/72nd scale OV-10, and one of the ClearProp 1/72nd scale Seasprites.  This time, I got an early Seasprite, a Modelsvit 1/48th scale F-51H for the FANG collection, and the X-Scale 1/144th scale DC-8-32.  Kit prices were some 30-35% better than I could get through the domestic distributors, and I make sure to make the order large enough to qualify for free shipping.
    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    That’s all I have for you tonight.  Thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

  • To Quote the Rossington-Collins Band…

    Howdy, again!

    I’ve heard from some people about my latest post:

    “Why are you so against new kits”?

    “If we didn’t get new kits, we’d still be building wood models!”

    Don’t misunderstand me.  I love seeing new kits–from any manufacturer, of any subject, in any scale–whether it falls into my wheelhouse or not.  I hope they sell boatloads of them.  Why, if a new kit isn’t my cup of tea, do I care?

    Let’s use the new 1/48th scale Airfix Westland Sea King as an example.  It looks to be a neat kit, but being a 1/48th scale kit, it doesn’t fit in my rotary wing collection–I build helicopters in 1/72nd scale.  But my take is this–if the kit sells well, it puts money in the bank for Airfix.  With that money, they can later produce other kits.  At some point in time, they will produce something I will want to buy and build.  Its as simple as that.  It goes for any manufacturer–keep producing kits that sell well, so you can invest the money in even more new kits.  Sooner or later, there will be something I’m interested in.

    Another comment–“I don’t like to wrestle with ancient kits, I’d rather build a State-of-the-Art model!”

    What makes you think I find wrestling with a rough kit fun?  I know where this person is coming from–they’re “kit replacers”.  For example, they had several Otaki P-51’s in their stash when the Hasegawa kits came out in 1991.  So, they sold off their Otaki kits and replaced them with Hasegawa kits.  A few years later, they repeated the exercise when Tamiya’s P-51 came out in 1995.  The scenario was repeated again with the Meng kit, the Airfix kit, and, most recently, with the Eduard kit.  And look, I’m cool with that–your model, do what you want.

    I still have at least one each of the Hasegawa and Tamiya kits hanging around here, but that did not stop me from buying a couple of the Airfix kits and the “Chattanooga Choo-Choo” version of the Eduard kit.  And I’ll probably buy more, as the need arises.  But at some point, I’ll probably still drag out a Hasegawa or Tamiya kit and build it.  Why?  I have it in my possession–I don’t need to spend more money to get a decent Mustang model.  Same goes for the Grumman Wildcats and Focke-Wulf 190’s (a few Tamiya and Tri-Master/Dragon kits rest in the stash, but I have one or two of the Eduard kits, too) and Mitsubishi Zero (Hasegawa, sure, but I also have the new-ish Tamiya kits.  An Eduard version isn’t outside the realm of possibility, either…)…

    Quite honestly, a new kit doesn’t always make an older kit obsolete.  I give you the Trumpeter F-105’s in 1/72nd and 1/48th scale.  They may not fill a magazine rack, but they still have issues.  Frankly, I still find the 1/72nd Revell and Monogram kits (I divested myself of all my 1/48th scale Thuds) to be better in all aspects than the Trumpeter kits–raised panel lines and all.  And again, here we are–yo’ pays yo’ money, yo’ takes yo’ choice.  Some people will do anything to avoid a kit with raised panel lines, and will opt for Trumpeter, warts and all.  And again, that’s cool.  As I’ve said before, there are as many different ways to enjoy the hobby as there are people enjoying it…

    Whether a newer kit is “better” than the “ancient” kits of the same subject is a personal matter.  I say the same thing about modelers who brand people “rivet counters”.  Without the “rivet counters” (and I loathe that term, by the way), we wouldn’t be seeing these wonderful new kits.  Whether or not you personally buy and build them, or stick to the older kits is your choice.  Whatever you do, enjoy the ride.

    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    If you’ve paid attention, the 2023 IPMS/USA National Convention was held in San Marcos, Texas last week.  Two items of note:

    1.  Apparently, there has been a rash of Covid infections amongst the attendees.  While I hope everybody affected gets well soon (I am just over a very mild case, myself), I have some heartburn here.  We all saw the same thing play out after last year’s Convention–no sooner did people get home, reports of Covid infections started to hit the forii.  This year, as the photos from San Marcos started to roll in, I noticed that there was nary a mask in sight.  Didn’t we collectively learn anything from the Vegas show?  C’mon, guys and gals…

    2.  “Cell Phone Guy” has probably become a popular meme.  In case you missed it, a photo of a judge holding an armor model over his head while examining the underside using his cell phone light is making the rounds.  It has spawned bushels of debate.  So…

    I get it–the IPMS/USA Competition Handbook says clearly that judges will be allowed to pick up a model.  However, Cell Phone Guy had to do some fancy juggling to get the model in the position shown in the photo.  Plus, he was bare-handing the model–no gloves, just his naked meathooks.  I don’t think this meets the “greatest care” clause in the CH.  Apparently, this guy was also absent from the Judges’ Meeting.  Why he was allowed to judge is a mystery.  Why no other judges called him out is even more curious.

    In all the comments, it has been also brought to the world’s attention that several (I’ve seen as many as a dozen or more) models were damaged during judging.  One had a prop sheared off when a judge dropped his flashlight.  One figure fell off the base when the judge decided to see if the modeler painted the underside of something.  A few aircraft had landing gear or landing gear doors sheared off.

    If I were a modeler walking in to the display room on Saturday and found my model damaged with a Post-It note that only says, “Sorry”, I would be livid.

    All of this could be avoided by two changes:

    1.  Contest staff members do not touch the models.  At all.  Ever.
    2.  Judge the model as presented by the modeler, i.e., as it sits on the table.

    There is no reason at all for any judge at any model show to touch a model.  None whatsoever.  Never.  Ever.

    You can try to debate me on that all you want, but you will be wrong.

    “But we’re trying to find that one thing that separates 1st from 2nd…”

    Of course, this stems from the IPMS/USA “triage, 1-2-3” judging system.  The judges have to compare the models to each other, and if they can’t find anything on the readily visible areas of the model, they have to dig.  Upturning models, sticking those million candlepower TactiCool flashlights up exhausts and down inlets, using 20X magnifiers, measuring wingtips with a caliper–that’s why these stupid methods are employed.  Heaven forbid there ever be a tie in the IPMS squared circle…

    This is yet again being used as an argument for juried exhibition style shows.  But the IPMS Purity Posse won’t budge:

    “It says ‘Contest’, what part of that don’t you get?”  I dunno, I don’t understand the bloodlust some modelers have to get some trinket that proclaims that they are Number One on that day for something they do as a hobby.

    “We’ve always enjoyed this healthy competition!”  Healthy?  I’ve told this story before, but when a modeler threatens to beat six shades of s*** from a contest judge because “My model shoulda won!”, that’s “healthy”?

    I like the Shep Paine approach.  “Wanna compete? Go play tennis…”

    At our show–a juried exhibition–judges are reminded that if a model needs to be moved, we will find the modeler and let them move their own model.  We do not pick models up during judging.  We allow flashlights to illuminate the visible areas of the model–face it, most venue lighting is piss poor.  We do our best to judge the undersides and hidden areas, but the mantra is “if you can’t see it, leave it be”.  We do not allow magnifiers (reading glasses, yes, if the judge requires them), we don’t allow judges to measure anything–either with a measuring gauge of some sort or the old “finger ruler” or “pen gauge”.  Why?  Because we don’t see the need.

    All participants are reminded to be careful of camera straps, hanging jewelry, and hats.  We don’t use lanyards for ID badges.  All that dangly stuff can wreak havoc on a table full of models in a nanosecond.  We also remind judges not to hold lights or pointers (we prefer laser pointers or bamboo skewers) directly over a model–if they drop is, it has less chance of becoming a missile.

    I can tell you this–I’ve been judging model shows (of all types) since 1989.  In that time, I have never picked a model up, turned a model over, or damaged a model. Why?  There’s simply no need to do so.  If you don’t touch the model, the chances that you’ll break something are minimized.  There’s never a 100% guarantee, because stuff happens, but the  danger is minimized.

    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    As I said above, we’re getting over a few mild cases of Covid at the house.  My wife got the fever, headache, sort throat, and cough.  I got the mental fog and lack of energy.  I’m just now, two weeks later, starting to regain a little spring in my step.

    I shudder to think what it would have been like had we not boosted our immunity via vaccines…

    Covid is still with us, and a new variant is making the rounds.  Please be careful.  It might not be as deadly as it was in 2020, but it’ll still knock you in the dirt.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like being sick.

    Thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

     

  • Turning Corners and “From the Mouths of Babes”

    Howdy, all!

    Do you remember the projects you completed where you thought you had “turned a corner”—that is, you finally put a group of skills together into one project and brought it to completion?

    Given that this blog is centered on scale models, I can think of a few projects that fill the bill.  I consider these the first real fruits of my labors after discovering  Scale Modeler (and later, FineScale Modeler) magazine, Solvaset, and Squadron Green Putty, and after acquiring an airbrush.

    1979-ish, Monogram 1/48th scale Hawker Typhoon.  It was the first model where filled seams and painted with an airbrush.  It turned out fairly well, all things considered.  I think I was still using Propel cans, and the limitations with them didn’t help the project.  I seem to recall that shortly afterwards, I got a compressor for the airbrush.  For the life of me, I have no recollection of what became of the finished model.

    Around the same time, I built a Guillows’ 1/16th scale stick-and-tissue Spitfire model, just to show Dad that I could…

    1980, Revell 1/32nd scale F4U-1 Corsair.  I was inspired by Sheperd Paine’s “Pilots, Man Your Planes” article in one of the “Special” issues of Challenge Publications’ Scale Modeler.  He had done his usual superdetail job on the model.  I tried to duplicate some of what he did to his model.  I used masking tape to make seatbelts, I made the landing gear springs from wire, and I cut and dropped the flaps.  I left the wings unfolded, and didn’t do a whole lot to the rest of the model.  Like the Typhoon, I was still using the little square bottles of Testors Flat Enamels, so the colors were a little bit weird.  I also went my own way with the markings—I built the model as Tommy Blackburn’s “Big Hog”.  I painted the letters freehand, and rather than seek alternate markings with the red surround (not that I could have afforded such a luxury), I used a 3/0 brush and Testors Flat Red to “convert” the kit insignia to the pre-September 1943 version.  Again, I was rather pleased with the end result.  The model went to a friend and I never saw it again.  I have a strange feeling that it became an air rifle target…

    1981, Otaki 1/48th scale F6F-3 Hellcat.  This one put everything I had learned to that point  together.  The model was built, the seams were filled, and the scheme was airbrushed.  I applied the decals with Solvaset, and I did a little “toning down” and “weathering” with some washes.  I added some paint chips, and I was really happy when I finished the model.

    1984, Nichimo 1/48th scale Ki.43 “Oscar”.  This was a further extension to the process started with the Hellcat.  In this case, I did more paint chipping using an alternate method—I used a silver Tamiya paint marker on certain areas of the airplane before I added the camouflage colors.  I had switched to Polly-S acrylics, and I “chipped” them with a tight roll of masking tape right after the paint had started to dry.  I added more chips to the markings once the decals were on using the paint marker again.

    1985, Monogram 1/48th scale P-51B converted to an Allison-engined P-51 with the Koster Aero Enterprises vacuum-formed conversion kit.  This was my first vacuum formed kit.  Also, using the knowledge I gained from reading Bob Steinbrunn’s cockpit detailing article in FineScale Modeler, I did a lot of scratch detailing in the cockpit.  I really started to learn how to use alternate materials—the injection molded cannon barrels from the Koster kit were rather softly detailed, so I removed the various details and replaced them—I used vinyl tape for the bands and fine wire for the recoil springs.

    From this point on, I coasted on my abilities.  I was back in college, so my model building time was a bit limited.  It didn’t stop me from scratchbuilding a seat or adding plumbing to landing gear, but those were the exception rather than the rule.

    After college, I started hanging out in the hobby shop.  And I started learning more.  One of the locals brought some models in that had a really convincing finish—the camouflage colors weren’t “solid”—the upper surface olive drab was actually many different shades of olive drab, and the panel lines were highlighted.  In a sense, it was probably what “The Spanish School” was originally devised to be.  This was in 1988, and it was about the time Verlinden was really making inroads into the American modeling scene, but the guy told me he had been doing it for years.  He said all you have to do is vary the colors and make the whole thing look good.

    Undeterred, I took a Tamiya 1/48th scale F2A Buffalo from the shelf and refinished it.  I removed the decals and smoothed the paint, much as I did on a Monogram B-17 in 1984.  This time, when I painted it, I thought about those other models I saw, and tried to emulate the procedure.  It worked.  The result was rather nice, if I do say so…

    1989, Monogram 1/48th scale B-29.  This was the first model I totally rescribed.  It was an eye-opener, for sure.  I used a lot of filler to cover my mistakes, of which there were many.  In the end, I was happy with the result.  The model was sent to the Valiant Air Command museum.  I have no idea if it still survives…

    1990, Revell 1/72nd scale F-89.  My first really successful bare metal finish was achieved with Floquil silvers.  Since then, I have tried several methods.  My go-to these days are the Vallejo Metal Colors, but for a while I used a highly thinned mix of Isopropyl Alcohol, Future, and Tamiya X32 Titanium Silver over a gray primer base.  The impediment to continue using this method is the fact that SC Johnson discontinued Future, and I’m not convinced any of the alternatives folks are using would work.  With the Vallejo stuff available, there really is no need to look elsewhere.

    1999/2000, Hobbycraft 1/48th scale P-26A.  I had rigged models before, but none was really that good.  This time, fresh off a trip to the IPMS National Convention and armed with some nifty stainless steel orthodontic wire, I set out to change that.  The Hobbycraft Peashooter is a fabulous kit, and I did little additional work on the kit.  When it came time to rig it, I cut lengths of the aforementioned wire and glued it in place with small drops of white glue.  The model still sits in the display case, although it has developed a twist in the aft fuselage over the y
    ears.  I should probably build another one of these gems soon…

    The next big leap came only a few years ago, when I remembered that “This is just a plastic model, there isn’t a lot I could do to screw it up.”  The model was the 1/48th scale Special Hobby Macchi C.200 that I’ve shared previously.  I took the time and effort to detail things a bit more.  I added the landing gear trunnions to make the main landing gear more authentic.  And I added more and more of those little details to the model.

    What I learned on the Peashooter and Macchi was put to use on the Aeroclub 1/48th scale Gloster Gamecock I finished last year.  It was a vacuum-formed kit of a biplane with a scratchbuilt cockpit, wing struts, a lot of little details, and it was rigged.  The rigging was different, though–I used Davis’ Invisible thread looped through tiny “rigging blocks” and “turnbuckles” made from stretched Evergreen styrene tubing, secured with CA.  It featured a metallic finish (aluminum dope), and most of the markings were painted on.

    I used the latter skill to also paint the huge checkerboard patterns on a 1/72nd scale Fujimi Phantom FG.1,  I like the method so much that I bought a Cameo Silhouette with the intention of cutting masks for my paint schemes instead of using decals.  I’m not living under the illusion that I’ll never use decals, but knowing how to do this frees me of the limitations of decals, namely being able to do subjects that are never covered by any of the aftermarket decal sheets.

    To add to the story, today I bought some UV cure resin and a UV light to make my own lenses.  With MV Products lenses being difficult to obtain, this will allow me to “roll my own” when I need them.  Another tool in the toolbox, another skill in the portfolio…

    What is the moral to the story?  Keep exercising your skills, whatever your craft or hobby might be.  You might not realize it right away, but these skills build upon each other through the years, and one day you complete a model that puts it all in play.  And you’ll wonder—for a minute, maybe—how could you have done such work?  Then you recollect all the projects that came before and led up to this latest effort…

    It goes back to what I said a while ago on these very pages—it only takes an investment of time and a little effort to do good work.  Keep on trying…
    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    Something I’ve touched on before has risen again on the various forii.  I always get a kick out of the comments that come from the under-30’s in the hobby.  You know, the kids, the noobs, the folks who have only recently discovered the hobby.

    I saw someone speak in glowing terms of the yet-to-be-released Magic Factory 1/48th scale F4U-2 Corsair, and how it is “head and shoulders better than the ancient Tamiya kit!”

    Ancient?  Tamiya’s kits arrived on the scene in 1996.  They fit like a glove and exhibit Tamiya’s standard of excellence.  I won’t rush out to buy the Magic Factory kits just yet…

    Recall, too, that before the Tamiya kits made their debut, the options for a 1/48th scale Corsair were the 1996 Hobbycraft kits (which, had Tamiya not produced their kit, could have been a contender had there not been some unfortunate issues with the fit), the 1980 Mania/Hasegawa F4U-4 (still the standard for the -4 after all these years), the 1977 AMT F4U-1, the 1976 release by Otaki (still a fine kit, as I demonstrated a few years ago), the 1973 Monogram F4U-4, and the 1956 Lindberg F4U-5.

    After the Tamiya kits came the questionable Academy/ Minicraft “reworking” of the Hasegawa -4 (that somehow acquired a bloated fuselage), the absolutely awful Minicraft F4U-5/5N, and the superb Hasegawa F4U-5/-7, and AU-1 kits, followed by what I can only determine to be the hit-or-miss Hobby Boss kits.

    My point?  Be careful when you call a kit “ancient”.  By the same standard, the Accurate Miniatures 1/48th scale TBF/TBM and SBD kits are also “ancient”, but back in the day they were seen as absolute wonders.  Before they came along, you built the Monogram kits (or Nichimo knockoffs) and either did DIY detailing or, after they appeared, used the Medallion Models resin sets.

    Bottom line: these kits might be ancient to you, young pups, but to those of us who made do with the early 1950’s kits for years, they were—and still are—wonderful kits.

    That’s all I have for now.  Until next time, be good to one another.  As always, I bid you Peace.

  • New Year, New Stuff

    New Year, New Stuff

    Howdy, all! I trust you all had a safe, healthy, and happy holiday.

    We’re looking forward to the New Year. With a New Year comes new promise, new adventures, and new things to get done.

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

    Speaking of getting things done, I am on the closing stretch on the trio of Vermont ANG F-16C’s. The paint is done, the decals are on, and I’ve begin final assembly. I still need to do the bases, and the in-flight model will take a little more work than normal since I have configured the landing gear to be shown in-transit. It should be a cool display…

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

    On the “New Toy” front, I finally pulled the trigger and bought a Silhouette Cameo 4 at the beginning of December. I should have some time soon to get the beast set up and running. The intended purpose of the machine is to cut paint masks and stencils, but it can do so much more–creating styrene parts (one reason I opted for the Cameo over the Portrait), making vinyl stickers for displays, etc. Stay tuned…

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
    Speaking of New Stuff, here’s something I’ve been meaning to share for a while. Once the F-16’s are done, I’ll be starting a new project, and I thought it would be fun if I shared how I plan my projects. Not all of them go into this depth of research, but this should give you an idea how I do things (note, this is how I do things—your mileage may vary). Without further fanfare, here’s the dope…

    Subject: A-10A, S/N 73-1669, C/N A10-0006
    Time/Date: 8 June 1978
    Place: Edwards AFB

    The project will be to replicate the ejection of then-MAJ Francis C. “Rusty” Gideon, Jr. from the sixth preproduction A-10A when a gun propellant test caused a double engine flameout after a secondary gun gas ignition event robbed them of oxygen.

    I want to show the airplane in flight, the canopy jettisoned, and the seat just starting to come out of the cockpit. So, that means that I won’t have to worry about detailing the landing gear wells or the cockpit.

    So, where would you start?

    I usually begin with the subject and drill down into the data. The basics usually result in the brief summation I started with above—What, Where, and When, and what configuration I want to display.

    Next, I start to drill down into the available references. What are the particulars of the subject? Is this something I can do with an existing kit or kits, or will I need to do some scratchbuilding? If it can be done from a kit, which kit best fills the need? What modifications do I need to make to show it in the configuration I want to display? What about additional details? What do I need to know about the colors and markings?

    Let’s look at these one at a time. We’ll start with the particulars…

    First, you should note that several well-traveled internet sites refer to the preproduction A-10A’s (serial numbers 73-1663 through 73-1669) as a YA-10’s. This is incorrect—there were only two YA-10’s built, 71-1369 and 71-1370. These were the two airplanes that were in the “fly-off” for the A-X contract against the Northrop (note spelling—there’s no “u” in that word!) YA-9’s. These two also participated in the later “fly-off’ between the A-7 and the A-10. The two YA-10’s were quite a bit different from both the preproduction and production A-10A’s.

    Here are the key things to consider:

    • Ejection Seat: The A-10 was originally built with the Douglas 1E9 ESCAPAC ejection seat. Incidentally, events such as this one hastened the conversion from ESCAPAC to ACES II across the A-10 fleet.
    • Leading edge slats, Ventral Strakes, and Trailing Edge Fairing: The YA-10’s had some issues with wing buffeting at high angles of attack (AoA, or “alpha”), particularly when the gun was fired. To combat this, leading edge slats were installed on the inboard section of the wings between the fuselage and landing gear sponsons, ventral strakes were added to the fuselage where the wing joined the fuselage, and a wing-to-fuselage fairing at the trailing edge junction. All the preproduction airplanes were so fitted.
    • Flap guides: The original design for the YA-10 allowed the flaps to extend 40 degrees. The flap travel was later limited to 30 degrees on the preproduction ships, and finally limited to a maximum of 20 degrees on the production aircraft. The flap guides—those rails on the underside of the wings at the ends of the flaps—were altered accordingly. 73-1669, being a preproduction aircraft, was limited to 30 degrees.
    • Gun: The YA-10’s were initially fitted with an M61 20mm Vulcan cannon because the GAU-8/A Avenger was still being developed. All the preproduction airframes had the Avenger from the outset, with the perforated sleeve at the muzzle end. The aft facing scoops covering the gun gas purge slots and fan were not present on the preproduction airplanes.
    • Chaff/Flare dispensers: Chaff and flare dispensers were not initially fitted to the preproduction or early production airframes (think early DM or MB A-10’s in the various camouflage schemes before Euro I was standardized), they used pods instead. The production aircraft were fitted with streamlined boxes under the wingtip turndowns and the underside of the aft end of the landing gear sponsons. 73-1669 did not have the dispensers at the time of the incident.

    The first thing most modelers consider are “which kit?” and “what scale?” Seems logical, right? In order to do this, let’s look at the data. We know we want to build a preproduction A-10A. Are there any kits out there that fill this bill?

    The answer is yes: Monogram and Hasegawa in 1/72nd scale, and Tamiya and Revell in 1/48th scale.

    They’re all older kits. Monogram’s dates back to 1977, as does Tamiya’s kit. Revell’s kit originated in 1979, and was later “retired” in favor of Monogram’s plastic (circa 1986) when Revell and Monogram merged. The easy way to tell them apart is to look at the box top—if the box top shows a photograph of a built-up model, it is the original Revell plastic. If it shows box art, it is Monogram plastic.

    Hasegawa’s is the youngest of the quartet, arriving in 1982.

    The pros and cons: In 1/72nd scale, Monogram’s kit is nicely done except for the engine nacelles—they’re egg-shaped. You can fix them, graft nacelles from another kit onto the Monogram fuselage, or built it as is and be happy. The pilot figure in Monogram’s kit is superb. While we’re speaking of such things, it appears that Gideon was wearing the blaze orange CWU-1/P or K-2B flight suit, as opposed to the sage green standard issue suits of the day.

    The initial issue of Hasegawa’s 1/72nd scale kit did not feature the chaff and flare boxes under the wingtips and sponsons, but all subsequent reissues had them. Removing them is a rather easy task, so don’t sweat it. Hasegawa kits issued in 2014 or later have started to add the additional bits (or modified parts) to depict the LASTE and more modern configurations, so these are more bits you will have to delete.

    In 1/48th scale, both Tamiya and Revell’s kits are great kits for their time. The nose of the landing gear sponsons on the Tamiya kit are a little square. Also, in subsequent reissues, Tamiya added the chaff and flare dispensers, so if you get a later issue of the kit you’ll need to remove these.

    The engine fans on the Revell kit sit too close to the inlet and the compressor blades turn the wrong way. I would think that any of the available resin fan sets would be a good start—they probably won’t be an exact fit, so you’ll have to exercise your modeling skills. Frankly, I wouldn’t worry about it…

    If you don’t like “ancient plastic”, you certainly could backdate any of the currently available kits—any production A-10 kit can be backdated to preproduction configuration, if you want to do the work. Depending on the kit, you may need to remove the LASTE humps and bumps, use an ESCAPAC seat, and delete the scoops over the gun purge slots, delete the modern antenna fits, and installing the earlier pattern bits.

    If you work in 1/32nd scale, you have one choice: Trumpeter’s 2001-vintage kit, and it will need to be backdated.

    Now, let’s look at some photos. The entire ejection sequence was caught on film by the chase aircraft, so we can determine a lot from stills taken from the recordings. As with all A-10’s, the aileron trim tabs were deflected a bit (both the fixed and adjustable tabs), so a little cutting and repositioning will be in order. Also, the flaps seem to be extended to some extent, so again, you’ll need to break out the razor saw and cut the flaps loose. Unfortunately, I know of no aftermarket flap sets for the A-10 in any scale. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong on this point.

    As mentioned earlier, there is really no need to go hog wild on detailing the cockpit or gear wells. So save those photoetched and resin doo-dads for a project where they will be seen.

    Ordnance, too, is no concern, as the airplane wasn’t carrying any. The wing pylons on Stations 1 through 4 and 8 through 11 were fitted, but I have yet to see a good photo of the underside of the fuselage, so I’ll assume the pylons were fitted to Stations 5, 6, and 7 as well. The PAVE PENNY pylon was not installed, the photos and videos clearly show this.

    Colors and markings are interesting. This was one of the early experimental paint schemes that featured a black undercoat with varying numbers of coats of white paint on top. As the white paint eroded, it resulted in a mottled gray finish. The rudders and wingtips were red.

    When it comes to decals, there are a few options. In 1/48th scale, the Tamiya kit features the basic markings for 73-1669, but the camouflage color notes are vague. Microscale (the OLD Microscale) offered sheet 48-69 back in the day that featured 73-1669 and most of the other preproduction airframes.

    In 1/72nd scale, Microscale’s sheet 72-313 will take care of you. You’re on your own in 1/32nd scale…

    As far as goes a good guide to the interesting minefield that is early A-10A camouflage, I can’t recommend a better reference than Dana Bell’s Colors and Markings of the A-10 Warthog (C&M Vol. 24) from the folks at Detail and Scale (ISBN 0890242247). A real good photo of 1669 appears on page 7, showing how the scheme looked before the white was allowed to erode, exposing more of the black undercoat.

    Likewise, Dana’s A-10 Warthog In Detail and Scale (D&S Vol. 19, ISBN 0816850305) is a good source for information.

    The last consideration that needs to be made concerns the display itself. How will the airplane be suspended “in flight”? For the VTANG F-16C, I plan to use a length of acrylic rod inserted into the tailpipe of the jet and plugged into a hole in a display base. Given the airplane was depicted just taking off, this was an easy choice. But the A-10 was at 2,000 feet AGL when MAJ Gideon pulled the handles, so the acrylic rod plugged into the base might not work. I’m still in the “thinking” phase on this one.

    That’s where I am on the project to date. I don’t plan to start this project until the VTANG F-16’s are complete, but I thought it would be interesting if I shared some of my methods with you.

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

    That’s all I have at the moment. Take care of yourselves, and be good to one another. As always, I bid you Peace.

  • “I Can’t”

    Howdy, all!

    I’m going to discuss something I have noticed more and more over the past few years.  My discussion (as usual) will pertain to the hobby of scale modeling, but I see it elsewhere, too.

    It usually begins like this—someone displays their model at a club meeting, online, or at a show.  As people file by and look at the work, I hear the comments: “I could never do that.”

    Why is that?  What is preventing anyone from doing similar work?

    For the tl;dr crowd, my reaction towards this attitude can be summed up thusly:  When you say “I can’t”, it usually translates to “I won’t”.

    Let’s get back to the discussion.  In many cases, the answer comes down to curiosity, time, budget, and the desire to do what it takes.

    Lets look at several categories:

    “I do not have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do that.”  There’s no crime in this.  Take the time you need to learn the techniques and skills to “do that”, whatever “that” is.  Learn basic scratchbuilding.  Take time to perfect your assembly skills.  Practice using the airbrush wherever you can.  Be curious.  Be willing to try new stuff.

    “I don’t want to spend the time it takes to do that.”  Fair enough.  I know a good many modelers who simply do not want to fool around with advanced techniques, and most of them are happy to knock kits together in a few nights, apply basic paint jobs, and use the kit decals.  That’s fine.  The issue I have comes when someone verbalizes their desire to make their models better but refuses to acknowledge that it does take additional time, both practicing the technique and applying it to the model.

    “I don’t want to spend the money to do that.”  Again, this is a fair comment.  Some modelers lack the financial wherewithal to go and buy ready-made detail sets.  However, there’s always a way.  When I started adding details to my models, the materials came from stuff lying around the house.  My mother’s sewing box provided thread and other “soft” materials.  Dad’s workbench provided scraps of wood and metal.  Packaging provided thin plastic sheet.  When the Bell South guys did work on the lines, we could usually talk them out of scrap wire.  Add to these paper clips, staples, foil pie pans, and other stuff that was usually thrown away, and you have a trove of stuff to make details from.  The garden provided dirt and gravel for groundwork (for as often as I did groundwork—which was almost never).  So, you don’t have to dump a ton of dough on special stuff—look around.

    When it comes to assembly materials, instead of buying dedicated “hobby” putty, there are alternatives.  I learned early that I could use Hot Stuff (our standby CA back in the day) and baking soda as filler.  In fact, I still use CA—but not the baking soda.  Instead of forking over a few bucks for a 2 oz tube of Squadron Green Putty, for a few dollars more I could buy a tube of automotive scratch filler that was twice the size for a buck more.  I could buy those little tubes of Krazy Glue for a buck, and it worked the same as Hot Stuff.

    The two areas I didn’t skimp on were paint and cement.  I would be wise in what I bought–$2 for a 2oz bottle of Plastic Weld vs. $1.98 for 1oz of Micro Weld—and I would do my best to make sure it didn’t get wasted.

    Oh yeah—if I wanted something, I’d save my money.  I knew that there was no such thing as instant gratification.  My parents would chip in from time to time, but only to an extent.  So, yeah, I learned to plan and budget.

    “I don’t want to be criticized/shown up/embarrassed.”  Aha!  Now we’re getting closer to the truth.

    I have only once in 45 years witnessed someone belittling someone else’s work.  Modelers are generally helpful people.  Ask a dozen modelers a question; you are likely to receive a dozen equally valid answers to that question.  We all want to be told we’ve done a good job.  We all want acceptance.  But with that territory comes being counseled.  Most modelers I know want to help you, and my best advice is to listen.  If you ask a question, listen, then take the advice to heart and try the techniques you’ve been taught.  That’s how we learn.  Making mistakes is part and parcel of everything we do…how we deal with those mistakes is what can encourage or discourage.

    “I don’t want to.”  The truth for a lot of this is that some folks simply do not want to vary their routine or get out of their personal rut.  They love looking at the results of these techniques on other people’s models, but they don’t want to make the investment in time, practice, and learning to apply it to theirs.  Which is fine—again, there are as many ways to enjoy the hobby as there are people enjoying it.

    Notice I said “investment”—that’s what one needs to make in any endeavor.  Decide what it is you want to do, take some time to learn and practice until you get where you want to be.  As you achieve each goal, find new goals.  They need not be huge goals—in fact, small steps are more desirable than major goals.  Write them down.  And know this—some of these goals will take some time to achieve and may stretch over several projects.

    Perhaps the one goal I cannot stress enough—Finish the model you are working on.  Don’t worry that there are issues with it.  Why?  Finishing a project is a goal in and of itself.  And honestly, many of the issues you know exists on the model will probably not be seen by most other modelers.  I’ve seen several instances of someone going back and forth on one model for years, reworking minor issues so many times that they become large issues.  Do your best, and move on.  Do better on the next project.

    By all means, if (more like “when”—I make mistakes on my models all the time) you make a mistake, take some time to analyze what went wrong, what you need to do to fix it, and make an attempt at rectifying the problem.  Tossing a model into the wastebasket teaches you nothing.  Yes, there are times when the solution to the problem is to bin the model and start fresh.  But don’t automatically think that is the solution.  Set the model aside.  Let it sit for a week.  Then take a look at the model.  You might be surprised at how easy the fix is.

    As I tell folks in Model Building 101, there isn’t a whole lot you can mess up that cannot be fixed.  You simply need to be willing to be patient and spend the time it takes to do the job.  There are no secrets—most techniques you will learn are out there in the world, in magazines, books, online articles, YouTube videos, at the local hobby shop (if you are fortunate enough to have a good one), and at club meetings.

    Most of what we do—in any endeavor—is fairly simple.  It just takes a little curiosity, small investments in time and money, and the desire to make it happen.

    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    Work continues on the F-16’s.  I’ve spent the last few weeks working on the 1/32nd Hasegawa kit.  It has some issues—most of them stem from the fact that the basic molds date back to 1978.  The cockpit tub is probably the worst example of the kit’s problems—the consoles are way too short, and short of replacing the cockpit, you have to deal with what you get.  Going back to what I said earlier, I used scrap plastic to fix things to the best of my availability without having to resort to a complete re-build.

    I also cut out the trailing edge flaps so they can be shown in the lowered position, and cut the leading edge flaps to show them in the +2° position as shown in F-16’s on the ground.

    Some of the small bits were missing, and some weren’t provided.  I scratchbuilt the beer can antennas on the leading edge of the wing and the two antenna fairings on the nose from scraps of Evergreen styrene.  I also reconfigured the gun covers to better match photos.  I also had to revise the way the gun barrels got installed—revising the covers required the rework.  I think I got everything looking good…

    The kit canopy was missing the aft fixed portion, and someone had thrown in a spare Tamiya canopy (at least I think it is Tamiya).  I did a little work to revise the hinge area and fit the Tamiya parts to the Hasegawa kit.  The result will be a lot better than the original kit canopy.  It is another one of those areas Hasegawa didn’t quite get right back in the late 1970’s.

    Next up will be revising the bomb’s fuses.  The kit parts look like they have the transport suspension plugs installed.  I think some Evergreen rod and sheet will fill that bill.  Photos are out there, and I think I can do a creditable job.

    The two 1/48th scale F-16’s are ready for paint, and the 1/32nd scale kit will be to that point soon.

    I’m still trying to figure out if the decals I have for the 1/32nd scale kit will be viable, or if I should finally pull the trigger on a plotter/cutter and design paint masks.

    Stay tuned.

    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~

    The shadows and the sun’s angle in the sky are changing.  The temperatures are starting to moderate.  I believe autumn has arrived.  I’ve always loved this time of year.  I can’t explain why—maybe the change of temperature, I dunno.  But I’m enjoying it.

    That’s all I have this time.  Thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

  • Dispelling the Myths of Scale Modeling–My Take

    Howdy, all…

    After I’m through working for the day, I have found myself watching some of the online scale model channels on YouTube.  This is a bonus benefit of finally having high-speed fiber optic internet service—that’s right, no more HughesNet dish in the front yard!

    Some are better than others—the channels that bring good model building content (educational content as opposed to ASMR artistry) are the ones I enjoy the most.  However, I see some of the channels still repeat a lot of those modeling myths and misconceptions that have been part of the hobby for many years.  In an effort to dispel some of them, allow me to take a few moments and comment.

    Myth #1:  You need great artistic talent to build models.

    If this were the case, I’d never get anything completed.  All you really need is time and repetition.

    What is talent, anyway?  Merriam and Webster define it as “a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude”, insinuating that it must be innate, part of a being’s personality.  I understand that different people excel in different things, but to ascribe it completely to luck of the draw in the genetic lottery doesn’t sit well with me.

    I think of it in the same vein as TV artist Bob Ross thought of it: “Talent is a pursued interest.”  You are interested in something, and as you pursue that interest your skills and knowledge increase with time.

    In the Spring 1982 “Test” issue of FineScale Modeler, ship modeler Les Wilkins outlined a few concepts he used to use to produce great models.  They were:

    • Start simple
    • Work methodically
    • Standardize techniques
    • Display effectively

    Notice that Les never said that you must be artistically inclined or a master craftsman in order to build models.  Shep Paine, Bob Steinbrunn, Paul Budzik, and many other long-time modelers will tell you—time and practice is all you need.

    Myth #2:  In order to produce quality models, you need a workshop full of fancy machinery and precision tools.

    For most of my modeling career, I have used nothing more than a #1 handle with a #11 blade, a razor saw, a set of drills and a pin vise, some tweezers, sanding sticks and files, a handful of paint brushes, and  an airbrush.  Oh, I own a motor tool (a Foredom flexible shaft model), but rarely use it.

    This is not to say that those who do possess these tools don’t get great results from them, it just stands that they are not a requirement to building a quality model.  Simple hand tools will get you to the same destination, it just might take longer.

    As for the need for expensive “specialized” tools, Master leather carver Jim Linnell said this:  “How much you spend on the tool in your hand doesn’t affect the work you do as much as the amount of experience the hand has using that tool.”

    The next few myths have been floating around for decades, yet they still get trotted out as fact.

    Myth #3: All acrylic model paints are water-based.
    Myth #3a:  All acrylic paints are non-toxic.

    There have been volumes written about paint chemistry.  The tl;dr version is this:  There are water-borne acrylics, acrylic enamels, and acrylic lacquers.  Some are soluble in water, alcohol, and lacquer thinner, others are not.  The best bet:  Use the thinner suggested by the paint manufacturer.

    I still find it curious that a modeler would spend a lot of money on kits, aftermarket parts, specialized paint, and decals only to then play Home Chemist with the paint thinners.

    As for the toxicity of paint, all paints, when sprayed, produce droplets.  Paints contain resins, hardeners, and plasticizers that are designed to create a durable coating.  When those materials enter your lungs, it is no different than when they coat a surface and cure.  Protect your lungs with a respirator (NOT a simple dust mask!) with organic vapor filters and use an exhaust fan, regardless of what you’re spraying.

    Myth #4:  Alpha Cyanoacrylate Adhesives (aka CA, ACC, or superglue) give off toxic fumes (cyanide gas) as it cures.

    Nope.

    If it did, we would all be dead.  Cyanide is not a cumulative poison like arsenic—exposure to cyanide creates an immediate (and usually lethal) reaction from the human body.

    While it is not toxic, it can be an irritant.  Work in a well-ventilated space, and use a respirator if the fumes bother you.

    Myth #5:  Resin dust is carcinogenic.

    Sanding and grinding cured resin creates a fine dust.  However, studies have shown that polyurethane or epoxy resin dust does not necessarily possess any inherent carcinogenic properties.  In some studies, it is classified as a “nuisance irritant”.

    However, think about this—if you inhale the dust, and it gets deep into your lungs, what problems can it cause?  It is an irritant, yes, and there really haven’t been studies to see what the effect of breathing these dusts has caused over time.  So whether or not it is carcinogenic is still open to debate, but as with the acrylic paint situation, it is best to protect yourself—in this case, with a properly fitted N95 or KN95 dust mask.

    Myth #6:  You need to smear putty over every seam and gap.

    Nope.  You certainly can do that, but you would be wasting time and money.

    I see this often—rather than sanding the seams when the glue dries, I see folks immediately reach for the tube of putty.  What I do is sand first—get everything dressed and level.  Then, if you see gaps and steps, take some time to figure out what to fill them with.  In some cases, a few more minutes with sandpaper will take care of things.  In other cases, a small chip of Evergreen strip will fill the gap with little work.

    When I need filler “putty”, my tools of choice are epoxy putty (Apoxie Clay or Apoxie Sculpt), Evergreen styrene, Vallejo plastic putty, or CA (aka superglue).  I don’t use any other fillers—I have a half-used tube of the old (original formula) Squadron White Putty on the workbench that I haven’t checked on—it is probably as hard as stone by now.  My tube of Perfect Plastic Putty is likewise starting to solidify.

    Oh, and I’d use a dust mask if you sand these fillers dry, too.

    Myth #7:  You need to use a primer under all acrylic paint.

    For years, I would paint on to the bare plastic with all types of acrylics and never had an issue.  I never had paint peel, lift, or misbehave.  I would do a good job of cleaning the surface before I painted—a good wipe with Isopropyl Alcohol is all it takes.

    These days, I prime more as part of the entire finishing process and use it as much to add depth and tone the finish as I do to unify the surface.

    Use of a primer is optional.  One thing that is not optional is having a clean surface.  Before you apply any paint, you need to make sure the surface is clean and free from oils and other contaminants that can affect paint adhesion.  As I said, wipe the model down with alcohol right before you paint, and all should be good.

    Myth #8: Future floor finish is garbage and shouldn’t be used.

    I hear this a lot, yet over the years many modelers have used this product with no problems.  I have used it for years with only one disappointment that I can ascribe more to the decals than the Future.  However, this argument appears to be moot, since it appears that SC Johnson might be discontinuing the product.

    Myth #9:  You don’t need a clear gloss under decals.

    Now, there is actually some truth to this.

    All decals really need is a smooth surface, and most of the modern paints—even those labeled “Matte” or “Flat”—do a great job of laying down a smooth finish.  Apply the decals with a good solvent/setting agent, and they should lie down and look like they were painted on.

    Back in the day, though, flat paints yielded a very rough surface, even to the naked eye.  So, you needed to take one of the following routes to a smooth surface:  use gloss paint, which back in the day was rather thick or took forever to fully cure; polish the surface; or apply a coat of a clear gloss (it was reasoned that a coat of clear gloss was better than multiple coats of glossy paint). The clear gloss was the option many modelers took, and still take, to get decals to behave.

    These days, one of the best arguments out there for using clear gloss over the paint concerns the finish enhancement techniques (“weathering”) modelers use.  What happens when you apply decals to a painted finish, and then use an oil wash over it?  I’ll tell you what happens—the oil wash will stain the paint slightly, but the paint under the decal film is protected, and therefore won’t “take” the wash, and stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.  By protecting the entire surface with the clear gloss, you ensure the wash is absorbed (or repelled) from the paint surface equally.

    If you want to forego the clear coat, then do your enhancements (“weathering”) before you apply the decals, and once the decals have dried overnight, go back and apply the same techniques to the decals and you’ll be set.

    Myth #10:  Contest judges are (insert your complaint here).

    I find it interesting how many times a contest judge is slammed for some reason or other, especially by people who never bother to help judge a contest.

    When you go to a contest, why not step up and volunteer to judge?  You might find that you’ll learn a thing or two, and possibly might get more enjoyment out of the show!

    *****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

    As last year seemed to be The Year of the Phantom, this year is shaping up to be The Year of the Viper…

    It started when I pulled the two 1/72nd scale Hasegawa F-16’s out of the rescue pile.  There are the last two of the kits my friend Rick gave me in 2006 that had been started that were still complete and could be completed.  They’re nothing fancy—the same Hasegawa F-16’s we’ve all known and loved since the mid-1980’s.  I scrounged some decals from the decal stash to build the F-16A as a Block 10 jet from the South Carolina Air National Guard, and the F-16C was built to depict a jet that was based at Shaw AFB and deployed for Operation Desert Storm.

    I also tried a new paint.  When Testors began to drop colors from the Acryl range, I started using Vallejo.  Now, Vallejo is good paint, both for airbrush and hairy stick, but I have found that the shelf life isn’t all it is cracked up to be.  And even though I’m no color purist, I’d at least like to start with a color that’s in the ballpark—on some of my last projects with Vallejo, I found I had to do more color tinkering than I am used to just to get the color close to the standard.  I’ll still keep some colors around for the brush work, but decided to search for a new paint line to match the camouflage colors.

    I’ll probably tell the story another time, but I tired the soup-to-nuts Mission Models paint line—primer, color, and clears.  I have mixed feelings, but before I make a final decision I need to try it a few more times to make sure it was actually the product and not my technique.  As the TV shows used to say, “Stay Tuned for More”…

    The next batch of F-16’s are all F-16C’s—two in 1/48th scale (using the sublime Tamiya kit, of course!) and one 1/32nd scale kit from Hasegawa’s veteran release.  Two of the three are for a friend (who also provided the 1/32nd scale kit) who worked with the Vermont ANG.  His 1/48th scale model will be shown just after takeoff with the gear in transit.  I have two thirds of the landing gear work complete, and it will be a cool display—if I don’t say so myself…

    The other 1/48th scale model will be added to my collection, also wearing VT ANG colors.  After the two smaller ones are done, I’ll finish the 1/32nd scale kit in decals my friend provided to build “Lethal Lady” (a Block 25 F-16C).  The actual airframe had over 7,200 hours on the clock when it was retired as a gate guard at Burlington ANGB.  Plans are for the airplane to eventually be handed to the National Air and Space Museum.  Memorializing it in polystyrene is a fair tribute to the airplane, don’t you think?

    That’s all I have for now.  As always, be good to one another.  I bid you Peace.