discussion What really quality model next

[Guest]

And so. I started modeling in October last. Bought mostly Revell. Hurricane Spitfire Me 109. Airfix Typoon. All of those completed. Two of my family bought me 2 Lancasters 1/72 (Airfix) for Christmas with one under way & which seems to me awful but it will be finished. I also have a Revell Lysander 1/32, seems Ok & a Revell Mosquito 1/48 waiting.

I kept to the easy & mundane as I did not want to find I was trying to achieve more than would be sensible & practicable & then loose interest. Reasonably satisfied with the results so far in that there is improvement in every model completed. But I have built up a little experience & a small amount of expertise in all the above & need to have a "go" at something of quality. For instance the Lancaster I am building at the moment is very basic & lacking in detail.

To get to the question. What models do you all suggest I have a go at remembering my lack of experience. Seen so many names other than Revell & Airfix but frankly they mean nothing to me. That is other than viewing pictures of completed models which seem so superior in detail to those I have completed.

Laurie

 

[stona]

The best quality models are the new mold Tamiya kits but Hasegawa and even Trumpeter (hit and miss) have some very good kits as well. Some of the new Airfix kits are also very good. Try and find a few reviews of a potential "victim" online but remember some reviews are not entirely unbiased. I built the 1/32 Revell Ju88 which is a good kit but not as easy as the reviews I had read would have had me believe.

Be aware that many companies either rebox old kits previously released under different names or re-pop kits from old molds which they have acquired.

The best kit I've built in the last couple of years is the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire but the "new" Hasegawa Fw190D-9 and the Trumpeter Me262 both gave it a run for its money.

More specialist,older or limited run kits usually need a lot more work and some are frankly very difficult.

Cheers

Steve

 

[AlanG]

If you could give us an idea of what aircraft and scale you'd like to build then we could try and point you in the general direction of which kit to have a look at.

 

[Guest]

I like Hasegawa aircraft kits, not sure why but I always start with more confidence of a decent result with their stuff

Eduard kits have some fantastic detail and can look incredible but their instructions are sometimes a bit vague

 

[Guest]

If you could give us an idea of what aircraft and scale you'd like to build then we could try and point you in the general direction of which kit to have a look at.

Yes I decided not to add that info when I wrote the article to get a wide view but see it would be best if I want more detailed info to be more specific.

WW11 as you will see from my present finished squadron ! Think probably 1/48 a step up from all those I have completed. Got to say that I thought when I started that 1/72 would be tame but found they are not & have really appreciated the scale. So yes 1/48 as something different.

Thought of 1/32 but realised in practical terms from the 1/72 Lancaster I am building that they need to live somewhere on completion.

Laurie

Laurie

 

[Guest]

I'd recommend the Tamiya Spitfires in 1:48 I built a Mk1 recently and have a Vb in my stash waiting to go...

 

[Guest]

Yes, the new Airfix Spitfires are very nice:score:

 

[AlanG]

1/48 Tamiya FW190 aircraft are great to put together as are their Bf109E kits. 1/48 Tamiya (both versions) or Revell (bomber version) are good for the Mosquito. For 1/72 lancaster i would recommend the new Revell kit and likewise the new Revell kit for the B-17G.

As written by others above the Tamiya or Airfix Spitfires are nice. But don't discount on using the ICM kit for the Spitfire IX. Very nice too

 

[Guest]

Notice that some models have very indistinct panel lines which is very disappointing.

In this respect are any manufacturers better than others. The Lancaster I am building has only rivets which virtually disappear with a coat of primer. To be fair to Airfix I now suspect that this is a very early model of theirs.

Laurie

 

[AlanG]

Avro Lancaster Mk.I/III Review by Brett Green (Revell 1/72)

 

[Guest]

How about the new-tool Revell B-17 in 1/72? Gets very good reviews in the magazines!

 

[Vaughan]

Hi there Laurie

I personally like the 1/32 scale models find them easier to work with(maybe it's my eye sight). I started with Revells Bf109F and then the Hurricane MK1 as these were both half price at Modelzone and my first builds for 33 years. I didn't want to spend too much money in case things went drastically wrong. Both are from very old molds dating back to the 70's but do stand the test of time the details not too bad. I've just bought the JU88 by Revell this a 2008 mould and is very highly detailed. Revells plastic is quite hard which makes life a bit easier. I'm building a BF109G6 by Trumpeter the plastics quite soft so you have to be careful when sanding. It generally goes the more you spend on a kit the better the detail and quality of the molds but also the difficulty can increase. By the way where did you buy the Lysander, I presume you mean Westland in 1/32 scale as I thought it was discontinued. Anyway I hope the info helps.

Vaughan

 

[Guest]

Hi Vaughan

I bought the Lysander in Jersey. Possibly old stock as I cannot find it in the Revell stock list.

It is a very nice model to look at & hope it is the same to build. Started in October last & it was the first model I bought but then decided I might mess it up being my first & as it is so nice decided to postpone until I have the experience to make a good job of it.

Thanks to you & all those who have responded to my request. You have all given me a lot to think about.

Laurie

 

[stona]

Notice that some models have very indistinct panel lines which is very disappointing. Laurie

So do a lot of real aircraft......but that's another can o' worms. Many were deliberately smoothed out,here's the system used on the P-51 wing as an example.

"The first 40% of the wing was shot with zinc chromate primer. This was followed by enough coats of Acme Gray Surfacer No. 53N5 to cover all irregularities. Skin butt joints were then filled with Acme Red Vellunite glazing putty No. 58485. The entire surface was then sanded down and sprayed with one coat of camouflage enamel. When camouflage was deleted, the forward portion of the wing (and sometimes the entire wing) was sprayed with aluminum."

The front portion of a Spitfire wing recieved a treatment with fillers and sanding to give a smooth finish.Many German aircraft had joints in crucial areas,or even the entire airframe (most often late war types),puttied and sanded before painting.

There were also different construction methods with skins butted up,let in or overlapped. Often different methods were used in different areas of the same airframe (a Spitfire serves as a good example of this too). Given the actual thickness of the skins and size of the gaps or overlaps I think it would be impossible to mold these accurately,in scale,in plastic or resin. This is where the art rather than the science kicks in!

Cheers

Steve

 

[Guest]

Vaughan regarding the Lysander.

Tracked one down if you are interested & at a good price. They have an online shop & it was available when I looked this afternoon.

Shuttleworth Collection, Online retail Click on models & it comes up.

Laurie

 

[Guest]

Thanks Steve for that information.

Interesting thing about the Spitfire is that Mitchell insisted that every rivet was countersunk which I think was the first time this had been achieved on aircraft & there were many difficulties to overcome to achieve it. It also made production more expensive & also lengthened the time to produce the Spitfire. It also made replacement of a damaged panel on the airfield virtually impossible whereas the hurricane was just stuck together by the airfitters on the the airfield. Must also make it impossible to achieve on a plastic model whereas a raised rivet is not.

Laurie

 

[Vaughan]

Hi there Laurie

Thanks for the link have just placed an order so should be with me shortly, just got to break the news to the wife another model!!!

On the plus side I do have all the Modelair paints I need.

Vaughan

 

[stona]

Thanks Steve for that information.Interesting thing about the Spitfire is that Mitchell insisted that every rivet was countersunk which I think was the first time this had been achieved on aircraft & there were many difficulties to overcome to achieve it.

Laurie

Mitchell may have intended that and,for all I know the prototype may have been built that way but I'm pretty sure that production Spitfires weren't. Flush rivetting was used in areas where it was deemed essential for performance but in other areas where the performance penalty was more negligible flush rivetting was not used. I'm not very knowledgeable about Spitfire construction but it should be possible to find out how the various marks were constructed fairly easily. I think I read somewhere that later Marks were indeed flush rivetted throughout but I'm not sure.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Guest]

Rivetting stuff. This info from various sources gives some light on the situation Steve.

The matter of manufacturing brought up another question. K5054 had been put together entirely with flush riveting, so that the surface was completely smooth. This method was more expensive than dome-headed rivets, however. To test where the cheaper rivets could be used without significant losses in performance, the company glued split peas to the flush rivets in various locations, then tested the resulting change in speed. As a result of these tests, rounded rivets were used “in fore and aft rows attaching the fuselage plates.”

.No detail was too small to consider, even the

humble rivet. Mitchell had designed an absolutely smooth surface for

the metal skin of his fighter. This meant that every single rivet hole

had to be countersunk to take the flat-headed flush rivets. But were

they all essential? With tens of thousands of holes to make on every

single aircraft, much time and labour (and cost) could be avoided

during production by the use of conventional dome-headed rivets. To

establish what drag would be created by domed heads, the design

team went out shopping. Several bags of dried split-peas were bought

from a local grocer and one was glued to the head of every single rivet,

creating the effect of a domed head. Flight testing revealed a loss of 22

mph on the top speed. By progressively scraping off row after row of

peas, the lost speed was regained, while the critical areas that needed

flush riveting were identified: the rest could stay dome-headed.

According to an old MAP publication I own, from MK XII onward all rivets were of the flush type. Wing leading edge rivets back to the rear of the "D" section were also filled and sanded smooth as this area was found to have a pronounced effect on top speed.

Generally speaking, flush rivets were progressivly introduced with each subsequent mark of Spitfire. The MK IX is a difficult one as some were actually conversions of MK V Spitfires. All the pictures I have of current restorations appear to indicate flush riveting as far aft as the rear glazing. The remainder of the fuselage uses domed rivets. It's also interesting to note that the bottom horizontal stabilizer skins were attached with wood screws.

Apart from the fuselage, from the cockpit aft, which had domed rivets, the entire airframe was flush rivetted, and, if a rivet has a diameter of 1/4" or 6.35mm (and some were less) this equates to .0005" or .13mm in 1/48, and the domed height is even less. Put a couple of coats of paint over them, and they're gone, so why make all that effort? The same thing applies to the overlapping panels (and they did.) By the time you bring it down to scale thickness, it's thinner than tissue paper.

 

[stona]

Excellent stuff,thanks for that. My old memory isn't as bad as I thought it was!

Cheers

Steve