Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

In Part 1, the focus was all about chipping and fading. In Part 2, things will shift to dirt and grime and oil and grease. Let’s get filthy!

Washes, Filters and Stains, Oh My!

The Corsair was so prone to leaking fluids that one half expects to find a Land Rover badge hidden on it somewhere. Those leaks, combined with the harsh operating environments of South Pacific island airfields, created some of the war’s filthiest aircraft.

Eventually, the crews managed to cut down on the worst leaks by laying down tracks of tape around the main fuel fill and surrounding panel joints. This is what those weird white lines you see ahead of many Corsairs’ windscreens are all about.

The thing is, this trick wasn’t discovered off the bat, and many Birdcages flew without the taped-up panels.

And that meant OMGF stains.

For a while, I was at a loss as far as how to actually represent this. The timely opportunity to build a Bf 109G-10 for The Weathering Magazine gave me a good excuse to procrastinate and mentally chew through the problem.

Ultimately, I opted to use a Dark Brown wash from Mig Jimenez’s new AMMO line. This is an enamel wash, intended for armor and a bit too intense for most aircraft applications. But well-suited to the kind of staining I was after. Thinning the wash about 1:1 with AMMO thinner, I stippled it on with a small brush. As with the salt, the goal was a randomized, diffused pattern – at first.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This was further supplemented by additional, heavier applications around major panel joins, the idea being that the grime would accumulate where it could gain purchase (and where stuff leaked out).

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Fresher fuel stains were also added around the main fuel fill forward of the windscreen. These were done with AMMO Fresh Fuel Stains applied carefully with a small-diameter brush, then refined using a flat brush dampened with thinner as a “blade” to shape the streaking stains. An overall brown filter from Mig Productions was also applied to the rest of the airframe to carry some very subtle dirtying beyond the cowl and forward fuselage.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Panels and Rivets

By this point, the Corsair is really coming along, but it needs just a little something more. All that lovely surface detail Tamiya has provided needs to be shown off a bit more, to create an even more war-weary aircraft.

Enter AMMO Panel Line Washes.

I’ve used various products for picking out panel lines and rivets in the past – from oils to Flory clay-based washes. In my opinion, AMMO beats them all, for two reasons.

First, there are a ton of shades to choose from, and they’re far more sublime than the usual “dark brown” or “dark gray” or “black”. We’re talking Tan Gray, Blue Dirt, Orange Brown. Shades that complement the paint scheme rather than taking it over.

Second, the fact that you can apply these washes, and then just wipe them off. There’s no need to dampen anything with thinner or water. Just…wipe the excess away. I don’t know how it works, but it does, and it’s glorious. It means a lot less lint cleanup on the back end.

Starting with the underside, I used Deep Gray on the cowl and dirtier portions of the forward fuselage, then Tan Gray over the Light Gray, and Blue Dirt over the Blue Gray.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

And after the wipe-off, here are the results:

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The upper surfaces received a similar treatment, with Blue Dirt serving for most of the surface, and Deep Gray providing a slightly richer impression on the cowl and forward fuselage.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

After the panel wash was applied and the excess removed as per usual, the Corsair got a few light coats of Vallejo Matt Varnish. It does a better job of taking the paint flat than most other options I’ve tried, and does so (at least for me) without the dreaded “frosting” that can occur with other flat clears.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
At this point, it’s looking pretty good. Still some minor things to attend to – the various lenses and lights, the aerial rigging…and pigments.

Pigments

Typically, pigments aren’t my favorite thing. They’re temperamental, messy, and all the browns always look way too red-brown to me. But man are they great at one thing – particulate effects. Dust. Exhaust stains. And that’s exactly what I needed them for on the Corsair.

The gun staining on “Tojo Eats Shit” is pretty pronounced on the underside of the wing, extending what looks like all the way back, and at least to the flaps, thanks to the shell ejection ports. This was represented with simple black pigment, lightly sprinkled on and then “swiped” back. I took some pains to avoid it looking too streaky by coming in with some horizontal strokes, some stippling with a larger, soft brush, and so on.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The tires were handled in a not-dissimilar fashion, with AMMO Airfield Dust being the pigment of choice. I took a light hand since the reference pic didn’t scream crazy weathering on the tires. Rather, just enough to give the impression of tires that see plenty of PSP and crushed coral.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The exhaust staining was a bit more challenging. Exhaust stains on US aircraft could be reasonably complicated depending on the aircraft, engine involved, operating conditions and so on. The dark, blackish exhaust stains aren’t really a thing so much as grayish browns and even very light tans.

On the Corsair, I started on the exhaust work back in the oil filtering phase by leaving some heavier oils in the path of the exhausts. This was followed up at the end of the build with some airbrush work of some tan-gray with some deeper browns, and this was followed with a succession of pigments, working from the lightest – Airfield Dust – through European Earth (or Dark Mud…some brown), Russian Earth, Burnt Steel Blue, and finally Black near and in the exhaust tips.

Similar – and moreso – to the gunstains, I tried to avoid “streaking” with the exhaust stains and employed large, soft brushes where I needed to eliminate obvious stroke marks. I also worked perpendicular to the direction of the exhaust, finding counterintuitive, but really pretty effective. Next time you’re tackling exhaust stains, give it a shot!

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
With the exhaust work, the weathering on the Corsair came to an end. Some odds and ends remained, but they’re largely boring things like painting positioning lights and so on. So I won’t bore you with them.

Hopefully you found something of use in this and the previous post on weathering Tamiya’s phenomenal Corsair.

If you want to see how the thing came out in the end, by all means head to the completed Build Page.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

It’s a great time to be a modeler. It seems like every other week, some amazing new kit is announced. But there’s still plenty of ground to cover…so here’s a list of eight dream kits that, if produced, I would buy immediately, no questions asked.

1/32 Eduard MiG-21MF

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Eduard’s 1/48 MiG-21 lineup is not only the best treatment of the Fishbed in any scale, but quite possibly the finest series of 1/48 jet kits ever produced. And while I’ve settled on 1/48 as my scale of choice for jets, I’d gladly make an exception in this case.

1/32 HK Models PBY Catalina

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The PBY is one of my favorite aircraft of World War II, and yes, I know that HPH makes a stellar resin kit of everyone’s beloved seaplane, but 1) I’m not a fan of resin kits and 2) as much as I love the Cat, I’m not paying $800 for one. HK could do a real bang-up job here, and it’d be interesting to see what their imaginative engineering could bring to the table.

1/35 Meng British Challenger 1

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Yes, there’s the old Tamiya kit, which I’m quite fond of for what it is, but this old girl is due for a revisit. Meng already has a proven track record with other late Cold War tanks – see the Leopard 1A3/4 and the AMX-30 – and I’d love to see what they could do with the Chally.

1/35 Meng M270 MLRS

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Meng has already produced what has to be the definitive M2 Bradley, and they’ve already shown the capacity to produce derivative vehicles from their tank kits – including the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (from the Leopard) and AUF-1 (from the AMX-30). Seeing as the MLRS is based on the Bradley chassis, at least a few bits could be reused. Besides, there’s an MLRS-shaped hole out there, with the existing attempts out of production and rather poorly-regarded.

1/48 Kitty Hawk AH-1W Supercobra

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I’m currently enjoying Kitty Hawk’s AH-1Z Viper kit, and the design has a modularity to it that could easily allow for an AH-1W tooling. I know, I know, my “grew up during Desert Storm” is showing.

1/48 Academy F-4G Wild Weasel

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Another Desert Storm-era want. The Hasegawa kit is somewhat lacking, and markings even moreso. If you want to do a Desert Storm F-4G, your only options are to track down a long out-of-print AirDocs decal sheet, or to cobble things together on your own. Whereas a new-tool Wild Weasel would almost certainly result in a new decal sheet or two.

1/32 [Anybody] OS2U Kingfisher

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I have fond memories of the old Monogram kit I built when I was growing up. It was one of the first kits where I actually gave a shit about the finish. Nowadays I find that kit sorely lacking in just about every respect…but I still love the Kingfisher. I’m sure someone will do it justice in 1/32 one day, I just wish that day was known!

1/32 Tamiya P-47 Thunderbolt

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Jug is my favorite aircraft, and Tamiya’s 1/48 P-47 lineup is far and away the best treatment the big lummox of a fighter has ever received. The Trumpeter and Hasegawa 1/32 kits wish they could be half as good as the Tamiya quarter scales. And given how good Tamiya’s Spitfire, Mustang and Corsair have been in 1/32, I can only imagine what they’d do with the Jug. Another bonus – some of the best scheme options of any aircraft that’s ever flown.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This month’s Sprue Cutters’ Union question pokes the perennial hornets’ nest:

“Is scale modeling a dying hobby?”

Groan. It’s one of the most common – and most tiresome – rants one encounters in this hobby. It seems true, therefore is is true, right?

Wrong.

“Modeling is dying” is a fallacy borne out of a tangle of self-reinforcing cognitive biases. It seems true, so therefore it must be true. But it’s just as off-base as “kids these days…” rants. Scale modeling is alive and well, and I would argue, doing better than it ever has before.

I’m not going to muster a full defense of the hobby here – Jon has already done a brilliant job of that and I’m lazy. Instead, I’m going to aim at a few of the main misconceptions…

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

My local hobby shop closed. Clearly modeling is dying.

WRONG. The collapse of brick-and-mortar retail is not unique to modeling. The number of small retailers laid waste by Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble and other big boxes over the last two decades has to stretch into the tens of thousands. The rise of the internet and ecommerce has only made the situation more dire. It’s not just the mom-and-pops, either. National chains are getting taken out left and right. Borders. Circuit City. Linens-n-Things.

Hobby shops are just in a crummy position. Think about it. Modeling (even if you roll in RC stuff and trains and rockets) has always been and will always be a niche hobby. For a given geographic area, there just aren’t going to be that many modelers. Most cities I’m aware of – if they have any left – have one or maybe two decent hobby shops. The market literally cannot bear any more.

Hobby shops also suffer from high inventory demands. There is so much stuff in this hobby. Glues, brushes, so many paints. Kits, decals, masks, PE sets, resin sets. Books. All of that stuff costs money, but may not move for months (if ever). I’m pretty sure there are still kits on the shelves at my LHS that have been there since I first walked in the door nearly five years ago. That’s a crushing burden for a brick-and-mortar retailer. Meanwhile, the online operations can house everything in a warehouse, and negate the market density problem by drawing on a national or even global customer base.

Modeling isn’t dying. It has moved online.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Modelers are old. And we’re all going to die. Clearly modeling is dying, too.

As Genghis Khan once said, “bullshit”.

The way some people grouse, you’d think everyone who put glue to plastic was doing so with one foot in the grave. But that’s simply not the case. Jon at The Combat Workshop conducted an informal poll, and the average age of those who responded was 40. Hardly at death’s door.

What does exist, as evidenced by countless introduction posts on forums, is a modeling gap. A lot of us wander off in our teenage or early adult years and only come back to modeling once we’re well and settled. Which makes total sense. Modeling is a hobby for the settled. It takes a certain amount of space, and a certain amount of routine. Those two things often vanish as we discover girls (or boys), cars, go to college, get careers up and running, get married and start families. I know they did for me.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Kids these days don’t build models because (insert old man gripe).

One common refrain I hear is that kids don’t build models because they’re too busy playing video games. Well, what if I told you it’s possible to do both? I grew up just as video games really hit the mainstream. I had a Nintendo and a Sega Genesis and played Doom on my parents’ PC. And I built models. Hell, I’d say that video games actually got me more interested in models. The best flight sim of all time, Aces of the Pacific, is literally what got me into building World War II aircraft. Today I imagine the same is probably true for kids playing World of Tanks or War Thunder or the countless Battlefield games.

Kids these days do build models…it’s just that modeling is a solitary, secluded and niche hobby.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.Today’s model kits are too complicated for kids.

The hell you say. Look at video games from 1990 and from today. Modern games are exponentially more complicated, and kids take to them like water. Lego sets are infinitely more complicated, and kids figure them out. If you think today’s models are too complicated for kids, you’re seriously underestimating said kids.

Today’s model kits are too expensive for kids. When I was a kid I could buy (insert some old shitty kit) for fifty cents!

Today’s kits are more expensive, but a lot of them aren’t. Revell’s 1/32 Bf 109G-6 can be had for like $25. Plenty of 1/48 and 1/72 kits fall well under that.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.The Hobby is Alright

I honestly don’t get where the doomsaying comes from. It feels like a combination of cognitive biases that screw with our rational thinking.

So, in addition to the refutations above, here are some thoughts on why the hobby is doing better than ever.

The Internet Community – Modeling is a solitary hobby. When I was a kid, I only knew one other kid who build models with any kind of effort. I knew no adults who did. My only regular connection to the larger modeling world was the occasional issue of Fine Scale Modeler. When I came back to modeling in 2010, holy crap. The internet community around this hobby is amazing. The knowledge gained and shared has brought me further, faster, than I’d have ever thought possible. And not just in terms of building techniques, but overall subject knowledge and even purchasing knowledge. This is huge. The modeling community is more connected and engaged now than it ever has been before.

Ecommerce – Hand in hand with community is the ability to buy modeling things online. I love my local hobby shop and they do their damndest, but you can only stock so much product, so the vast bulk of my purchases come from the internet. And the selection is amazing…I can order kits and paints and decals and microtextile seatbelts and god-knows-what from all over the world. I’m no longer constrained by what a few distributors happen to stock, or what my local retail options have room for.

The Knowledge Worker Conundrum – More and more of us do more and more of our work behind desks, at computers. With that comes a well-documented desire for physical, creative hobbies. The desire to do something with our hands. That could be gardening or playing music or woodworking. I have colleagues who restore old guitars or run laser-engraving businesses on the side, or who count wrenching on their motorcycles as a relaxing weekend. Modeling is as much a beneficiary of this innate desire as anything else.

LIDAR and 3D Design – The manufacturers are getting better at designing kits as well. In the past, kits might be designed from photos and best guesses, or maybe from measurements taken of an actual, physical specimen. But nowadays they’re straight-up scanning the things. Airfix recently showed off how their using LIDAR to scan whole aircraft and using those scans to design kits. This is a big deal as it ensures far better accuracy with less room for error. 3D CAD design and improvements in the precision of injection molding also make it possible to design kits with massively improved tolerances, resulting in the near-magical detail and fit of kits from Wingnut Wings, Tamiya and others.

3D Printing – Last but certainly not least is 3D printing. Personally, I don’t think we’ll really ever get to the point where we’re just downloading kit plans and printing them at home. There will probably be a few manufacturers who pursue a “print on demand” type of strategy, but 3D printing remains significantly more expensive than injection molding. Where 3D printing is revolutionizing things, however, is in the design phase. Nowadays, test shots can come off the 3D printer to correct errors before molds are cut. And small aftermarket operators can work off CAD files to create staggeringly accurate masters that can then be reproduced in resin versus having to be carved and sculpted.

3D printing also may well have a niche in providing items that can’t be produced any other way. A great example is this amazing set of 3D-printed, workable Hotchkiss tank tracks. I’m still getting my head around how such a thing is even possible, but one could easily imagine this kind of tech replacing cumbersome indy links on future tank kits.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Modeling is supposed to be a hobby, right? A way to have some fun and relax. But let’s face it, there’s a whole spectrum of fun and relaxing. At one end, there’s swearing horrible seams in prominent-but-hard-to-reach places, swearing at terrible decals, swearing at that tiny piece that just pinged out of your tweezers, bound for parts unknown, swearing at bad instructions, and so on. At the other end is that sort of Platonic ideal of the perfect build. The one that is pure stress relief.

For this month’s Sprue Cutters’ Union topic, The Combat Workshop wants to know:

What subject relaxes you the most?

I find this kind of question maddening. It’s like trying to pare down your favorite movie. I mean, how do you pick between Aliens or Ghostbusters? Citizen Kane or Ben-Hur? I have a ton of movies that I love, often for different reasons. Picking a single favorite just isn’t happening.

Instead of giving a single, straight answer, I’m going to give two.

Subject

In terms of subject, I think the answer is fairly obvious.

World War II single-engine aircraft.

Here’s the thing. When it comes to WWII aircraft, I have the beats of the build down cold.

With jets or helicopters or tanks, I don’t. I feel like there’s a lot more that has to be taken into account during the build. Intakes! Tracks! There’s also a lot more that has to be taken into account after you come out of main painting. With jets, it’s the amount of stores slung off the wings. With tanks, it’s when and how to mount all the damn tools, how to deal with clear parts, when and how to weather. And with helicopters, you’ve not only got weapons, but the rotors.

All of these slow me up and stress me out – and it’s little wonder that the two modern jets I’ve been able to finish didn’t force me to deal overmuch with intakes.

So subject-wise, definitely WWII props.

Build Experience

I count the build experience as a whole different thing entirely. My ideal, stress-free build is one that doesn’t fight me and that was obviously engineered with care and passion. One that goes together and doesn’t force me to “improve” it or fight seams-a-million.

For me, the build is a means to an end. My love is in bringing assemblages of plastic to life through painting and weathering. The most stress-free builds get me to that point and beyond without tripping me up with lazy bullshit.

For the most stress-free builds, I just have to go with Tamiya’s 1/32 props and pretty much anything Wingnut Wings puts in a box. But I try not to build them too often, lest I become spoiled and unable to build anything else!

What about you? What’s your idea of a stress-free build?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Recently, I committed the apparently way over-the-line act of teasing someone who really, really cared quite a bit about the accuracy of a certain upcoming kit. By posting this…

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Well, it kicked off a good old internet argument with lots of huffing and puffing and butthurt.

Then, I went and committed an even bigger transgression. I suggested that, when you step back and look at it, this hobby is ridiculous.

My oldest dog, Sam, when he identifies something to bark at, stands up all straight and the fur on his back poofs up. That’s pretty much exactly the reaction I got.

“Harumph! Have you ever made a living from this hobby? Well I have…”

“I’ll have you know, this hobby has brought me forty years of enjoyment, it’s not ridiculous”

Sigh.

Here’s my take. I love this hobby. I derive a great deal of satisfaction from it. It’s a fantastic decompression tool, it lets me work with my hands, geek out about history, gives my mind something to spin on, and in general keeps me sane.

But it’s still ridiculous. Just like most hobbies. We glue pieces of plastic together, then slather them with pigment suspended in some sort of chemical brew you probably shouldn’t drink. When we’re done, we take a bunch of pictures of them to share with other people doing the same thing. Sometimes, we convene in a location and pay money to put our pigment-slathered plastic assemblages on a table with other plastic assemblages, or just to look at other people’s plastic assemblages. Entire companies make money by making different pieces of plastic, or putting together articles about how to put the pieces of plastic together.

It is ridiculous. It is frivolous. It is silly. And there is nothing wrong with admitting that.

If you can’t step back and look at this hobby and have a chuckle about that, odds are you’re probably not the kind of modeler I want to associate with.

Learning to Let Go

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I used to get pretty worked up about the way people would dismissively label different “types” within this hobby. Your rivet counters or box-shakers or builders vs. assemblers or paint nazis or whatever.

But over time, I realized two things.

First, all (or at least most) of us are all of these things and none of these things and often skate somewhere in between. I’m no rivet counter, but I will get all bent out of shape when certain details are completely flubbed – like the tread pattern on HK’s B-25 tires or the lack of clear seeker heads for the Hellfires in Kitty Hawk’s AH-1Z Viper. I’m no paint nazi – but I will obsess about my paint mix for a certain color until I get it where I want it. I don’t like scratchbuilding, but I don’t know if I’ve built a single aircraft kit without modifying something.

Second, the people who take these to absolutes or use them to disparage others who aren’t like them generally turn out to be assholes. Or at least on the asshole spectrum. Just because somebody doesn’t place as high an importance on accuracy as you do doesn’t mean they don’t care about it at all. Just because somebody doesn’t want to scratchbuild their way out of a shitty old Revell kit doesn’t make them an assembler. Just because somebody really, really cares about getting RLM 02 right doesn’t mean they give two flicks about getting a perfect match for Dark Sea Blue or CARC Green.

These two realizations led me to a third.

The Problem is People Who Take This Too Seriously

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Honestly, this is probably a larger societal problem, but let’s not go there, shall we?

The thing is, when you take something so seriously that you can’t laugh about it, you quickly enter righteousness territory. Because you’re right, damnit, and that other guy is just a dipshit because he won’t realize how right you are.

There are some things that are worth being righteous about. Modeling is not one of them. People aren’t being crucified in Syria because they picked the wrong olive drab or didn’t correct the cowl bulges on their Bf 109G-6.

So the next time you see someone getting all high and might about some aspect of modeling, laugh at them, and encourage them to laugh at themselves as well. Because ultimately, as ridiculous as modeling is, getting all bent out of shape about what someone else thinks about modeling is even moreso.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

With the 1/48 Sukhoi Su-9 Fishpot, Trumpeter adds to the growing list of new-tool Soviet aircraft that have been ignored for too long.

The Su-9 was a heavy, all-weather interceptor designed to counter U.S. and NATO bombers. The Fishpot bears a strong resemblance to the MiG-21 Fishbed, but the two should not be confused – the Su-9 is far larger.

Trumpeter’s Su-9 is a relatively simple kit, comprising just over 110 parts and straightforward engineering that recalls their earlier MiG-21F-13.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Detail is restrained, perhaps too restrained. Panel lines and hatches are refined, with some minor rivet detail in places, although the prominent rivet lines around the nose are absent. Cockpit detail is a bit soft and not up to the standards seen with other recent Trumpeter releases like the A-37 Dragonfly. Aftermarket KM-3 ejection seats and AA-1 Alkali missiles are already available to enhance the kit’s detail, and cockpits, wheels and other items should be coming soon.

The kit decals are spartan, but so are the schemes they represent – both bare metal with red stars and numbers.

Fit is extremely good. Square plugs locate the shock cone and help align the fuselage. The wings and stabilators are push fit and should present no problems. The tail wobbles a bit, but should align nicely once glue is applied.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Overall, the Trumpeter Su-9 should be an easy, stress-free build. What it lacks in some detail it makes up for in simple, no-fuss engineering.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Well, it’s official…ish. Recently, Brett Green spilled the beans all over the interwebs. Tamiya’s next 1/32 kit will be the De Havilland Mosquito FB.VI.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Speculation regarding Tamiya’s next subject has been raging since the Corsair was announced two years ago. I heard it on “good authority” and “on the DL” from those with “an inside line” that the next kit would definitely be a Bf 109. Or a Hawker Hurricane. Or a P-40B Tomahawk. All of them, as it turned out, were wrong.

And so was I, with my fervent hope prediction of a 1/32 P-47 Thunderbolt.

Last time around, the months leading up to the announcement saw speculation solidify into rumors of a Corsair. This time around, the cat was let out of the bag much earlier when pictures of Tamiya’s engineers going over a Mossie were posted to Facebook. Even so, the confirmation still came as a mild surprise – probably given the impending release of HK’s Mosquito B.IV.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

So…the Mosquito FB.VI.

We’re still a few weeks away from seeing the kit in all its glory at Shizuoka Hobby Show, but a few CAD illustrations have found their way online already. Between those and some educated guesses, I figured I’d put together a few thoughts on the Mossie and, yes, start the speculation of the next big Tamiya release!

1 – THE PRICE IS THE REAL SURPRISE

There’s been a lot of handwringing lately over the price of certain new kits – I think notably Wingnut Wings’ Felixstowe and AEG G.IV. Nobody expected a Tamiya 1/32 release to be cheap, but I think most people were expecting a twin-engine like the Mosquito to cross the $200 line with ease.

Not so. The officially listed price? 19,800 yen – which works out to about $166 (as of now you can pre-order it at HLJ for $133). That’s definitely more than the Spitfire, Mustang and Corsair, but not that much more.

2 – WE WILL PROBABLY ONLY SEE ONE OTHER BOXING, IF THAT

Tamiya is notoriously bad about following through on multiple variants of their kits – the Spitfire could have easily been extended into a Mk.Vc and Mk.XIV, at the least, with minor changes and a new engine sprue. A P-51B/C Mustang would have taken more work, but also would have sold gangbusters.

I don’t see any reason for Tamiya to change with the Mosquito. At most, we will see a B.IV bomber variant, and that will be it.

3 – THE F4U-1D IS UP IN THE AIR NOW

Every single modeler has been taking it for granted that Tamiya’s Corsair run would at least include the Birdcage, F4U-1A, and late-war F4U-1D. With the Mosquito arriving, I’m honestly calling that assumption into question.

It may well be that we never get a kit of the “Angel of Okinawa”.

4 – AS USUAL, SHADES OF THE 1/48 KIT

Tamiya’s 1/32 kits are very much their own animals, but if you squint your eyes, you can see how the basic outlines of the engineering draw inspiration from the 1/48 kits that came before.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The same, so far, appears true of the Mosquito. Early CAD illustrations show the integrated cockpit/wing spar that is a prominent feature of the 1/48 Mosquito. This is far from a bad thing – Tamiya’s 1/48 Mosquitos are fantastic – but it is a very different approach than the one HK is taking with it’s B.IV.

5 – EXPECT SOME INTERESTING ENGINEERING

One glimpse of the kit’s tires shows that Tamiya, as usual, is giving as much thought to how the kit goes together as to the details that go into it. Having (thank god) abandoned vinyl tires this time around, Tamiya looks to be taking steps to avoid the dreaded “middle seam” and perhaps even come at realistic bulged tires in a new way. I’ll still be very, very tempted by resin, but these could be very promising.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

6 – ANOTHER FACTOR IN SUBJECT PICKING?

Two years ago, I posited that Tamiya picked their subjects based on two factors:

• Popularity – Developing kits of this magnitude is not cheap, so they need to sell at volume. The Zero, Spitfire, Mustang, Corsair and now Mosquito all fit.
• Competitive Opening – Tamiya doesn’t shy from competition, but they do tend to aim at subjects that nobody has “nailed”. Then they swoop in with the definitive kit.

With the Mosquito, I’d say we can add a third factor – Precedent. That the subject has been tackled before, in 1/48. This makes a ton of sense – these are the subjects Tamiya is interested in. These are the subjects where they already have a sense of the engineering. And where they have a sense of sales and general subject interest.

7 – LET THE SPECULATION BEGIN

Last time around, I predicted Tamiya’s next 1/32 subject would be announced in 2015, and that it would be a P-47 Thunderbolt.

At least I got it half right!

Looking ahead to the next kit – I’m going to make a similar prediction. The next 1/32 subject will be revealed in April 2017, shown at Shizuoka in May, and released in July 2017.

Why? Precedent. Going back to 2009, Tamiya has established something of a release pattern, with new 1/32 subjects dropping in odd-numbered years:

• 2009 – Spitfire
• 2011 – P-51 Mustang
• 2013 – F4U Corsair
• 2015 – Mosquito
• 2017 – ???

So what will we all collectively be freaking out about in 2017?

I’m going to call it now – it will either be a 1/32 P-47 Thunderbolt or a Messerschmitt Me 262.

Let’s look at those three factors again…

Popularity. The P-47 and Me 262 are definitely popular subjects – I would argue moreso than the Mosquito and possibly more than the Corsair. Either one would be guaranteed bank.

Competition. The Jug and 262 both have some rather good offerings in the marketplace. Trumpeter’s Me 262 lineup represents some of their finest kits (although there is still room for improvement). On the Jug side, Hasegawa and Trumpeter both offer what I’d call 75% kits. Good, and buildable, but neither of them is what could be considered a definitive kit.

Precedent. Tamiya has produced both the P-47 and 262 in 1/48 scale, and their kits of both are widely regarded as the best representations in quarter-scale.

Now…the Jug and 262 each have a “wildcard” factor in their favor as well…

• With the P-47, it’s the Pratt & Whitney R-2800. Tamiya created an exquisite one for the Corsair, and they’ve already demonstrated a penchant for extending engines across kits (see Spitfire and Mustang).
• With the Me 262, it’s those black crosses on the wings. Modelers just love them the Luftwaffe, and after five uber-kit releases with nary a German anything in sight, one has to imagine there’s pressure to put out something with a balkenkreuz on it.

Could it be something else entirely? Sure! I’m only guessing and projecting off of precedent here. I think the Jug and 262 are the most likely subjects to get the 1/32 treatment next, but here’s where I think some other contenders stand…

• Bf 109 – Not going to happen. Other companies have swarmed all over the 109, and at prices well below what you see Tamiya’s kits selling for. While I’m sure they could do a much better 109G than Revell or Trumpeter or Hasegawa, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for one.
• Fw 190 – See the 109. Also add in the imminent Focke Wulf flood coming from the likes of Revell and Zoukei-Mura.
• Beaufighter, Japanese twin-engines, Skyray – All of these have precedent and competitive openings on their side, but I question the popularity of all of them – especially up against the Jug or 262.
• Gloster Meteor and Do 335 – Doubt either of these will happen given recent and well-received releases from HK Models as well as an impending 335 from Zoukei-Mura. In fact, I can’t help but wonder if the Mosquito was chosen in part to get ahead of HK…
• Il-2 Sturmovik – Tamiya’s latest 1/48 release would seem like an obvious target for 1/32-ification, but I just don’t know. The Hobby Boss Il-2 is well-regarded but you never see it being built. And even the Tamiya kit – I saw a ton of builds at first, and then it just vanished. I don’t know that the Il-2 is really all that popular. As a modeler I’d far rather see 1/32 kits of pretty much anything else in the VVS.

Left-Field Options

IF Tamiya goes off the reservation and kits something all-new, or do what I’ve heard a few rumors/made-up hopes of, and tackle a new subject in both 1/48 and 1/32, I think it could be one of these:

• P-40B/C Tomahawk – Hasegawa has the later Allison-engined P-40s in hand, but nobody’s really made a good 1/32 (or 1/48) early P-40. And with the Flying Tigers in the mix, it’s a very popular aircraft.
• P-38 Lightning – People have been hoping for Tamiya to tackle the forked-tail devil for years. If there’s one company that could probably crack the engineering, it’s Tamiya.
• F-14 Tomcat – Last year, a flurry of rumors suggested that Tamiya’s next 1/48 kit would be the F-14. I think that may still be an option…and the complicated nature of the design could explain why 2014 came and went with no new 1/48 release. A 1-2 punch in 2016 and 2017 of a 1/32 Tomcat would make a lot of modern jet fans very, very happy.

What about you?

What do you think of Tamiya’s new Mosquito? What do you think they’ll chase it with? Sound off in the comments!

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Combat Workshop asks an interesting question this month:

do you bother with details that won’t necessarily be seen on the finished model?

The short answer? No.

The longer answer? Usually not. It really depends on what “won’t necessarily be seen” means.

Will it be completely and totally invisible even with one of those colonoscopy cameras?

Like, say, the actual bodies of jet engines? Then hell no, I won’t detail it. I’m sorry, but “I know it’s there” is just an excuse for some weird OCD thing. The engine will be encased in plastic. It will never be seen. Why the hell would you waste paint on that? Hell, when it comes to something like that, I assemble only the bare minimum needed structurally and call it a day.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

“Detailing” on Trumpeter’s big A-6E engines

Will it be invisible unless a colonoscopy camera is used?

If something might be visible, but only through some weird, unnatural means, fuck it. Not happening. Case in point – the top runs of tracks on tanks with prominent side skirts. If we’re talking rubber bands, fine. But if we’re talking some of those meticulous maddening indy link getups, why would I bother assembling another three hundred tiny pieces that will never be seen and convey zero benefit?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

But what about the top run that’s so lazy!?!?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Oh…

Will it just be hard to see?

There are a lot of areas on models that might be hard to see but are still visible from various angles. On aircraft, areas like landing gear bays and bomb bays come to mind.

These I will detail as much as makes sense. Take the A-6 Intruder or the F-16 Viper. Their main gear bays are rather more visible “on the ground”, whereas something like the F-5B Freedom Fighter I’m working on now has its bays stuck up in the wings where you basically have to pick the damn thing up to inspect them.

For the former, I will make modest additions with wire and such to busy the place up. For the later, painting and weathering suffice.

The same holds for a lot of cockpit detail. On subjects with huge cockpit apertures – like the A-6 Intruder or P-47 Thunderbolt, I will go to town with detail. But when you’re looking at something like an F4F Wildcat, why bother? Focus on the seat, instrument panel and armored  bulkhead and call it a day.

The only real exception? Wingnut Wings kits. A lot of Great War aircraft have tiny little cockpit apertures, but the WNW kits are so stuffed with detail that it’s hard to draw a line. Though generally anything behind the seat or in front of the instrument panel gets half-assed treatment.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

On Engines

Engines – particularly radial engines – may seem to be an exception here, since I do tend to go to lengths to make them look decent.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Exhibit A: Trumpeter P-47

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Exhibit B: Hasegawa Ki-84

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Exhibit C: Tamiya F4U-1 Corsair

But the thing with radials is that I only pay any real attention to the parts that will be visible – the crankcase, ignition ring and wiring and the forward faces of the cylinders. Unless I’m going to be displaying the engine opened up, I don’t bother with the rest aside from just being consistent with the paint and washes.

Because…why bother? Once the R-2800 is shoved into a cowl, all you’ll see is the front facing portions. So why get bent out of shape about detailing the tops of the cylinders, or all the exhaust snakework behind the cylinders?

So..back to the short answer…no…if it can’t be seen I don’t bother detailing it.

How about you?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Man. Somehow, it’s already late August. 2015 is just about two-thirds of the way done. And what do I have to show for it so far?

Two completed builds. Just two. And one of them was mostly done in 2014…

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Granted. I’m rather happy with both..but still…two stinkin’ completions is pretty weak.

WTF Happened?

So. What’s happened to this year?

First, work has been extremely busy and the frequency with which I’ve had to put in time on nights and weekends has kept me away from the bench for a lot longer that I’d ever anticipated. Like…for a significant chunk of July.

Second, I’ve had a string of false starts – which never got too far but still stole time all the same. There was the Mirage 2000BG, the Mirage 2000-5, the Airfix EE Lightning…a very brief flirtation with a Revell F-15E Strike Eagle, and so on.

Third, I’ve got a fair number of kits “in progress” that have either taken far more work than I’ve anticipated, or that I’ve had to put on hold for various reasons. Such as:

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Takom Leopard C2…on hold because I ran out of steam and still haven’t finished the various tools.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Meng Leopard 1A3…another where I’ve just run out of steam.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The massive 1/32 Trumpeter A-6E Intruder, which had to be mothballed when the spiders started their annual summer “get into everything” festival (the 1/32 tadpole is too big to tuck away in a drawer overnight)

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Hasegawa F-4G Wild Weasel – on hold while I work through a deadline build for a magazine…

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Hobby Boss A-6E Intruder…also on hold for the magazine build

I guess at least I’ve been busy…but I’ve spent a lot less time with the airbrush that I’d really have preferred this year.

Meanwhile…what’s on the plate? Kinetic’s F-5B Freedom Fighter, which I’m building for Model Aircraft magazine.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

So far it has been a…frustrating kit in many ways. But it has a deadline…and now that I’m getting close to paint I’m finding some of my excitement returning. I’ve got an awesome scheme picked out…good chance to have some fun with fading and weathering.

After the F-5B is put to bed, I’m looking forward to getting some of those jets off the back burner, and  to getting something with a propeller or two spun up. It’s been too long since I’ve played with a WWII subject.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.When I came back to modeling in 2010, I initially had a lot of questions about glue. After all, my last experience had been building models as a kid, and the glue situation was pretty much as follows:

• Testors tube cement, which was gooey and didn’t work very well
• Testors liquid cement, which just didn’t work very well
• Superglue with accelerator, which worked really well but fogged the hell out of everything
• White glue, which was for wusses

My questioning period lasted about two weeks, until I discovered the awesome power of modern solvents. But across various forums and groups, I still see glue questions pop up all the time. So here’s a quick primer.

Do you want to glue plastic to plastic?

Use a liquid cement, also known as solvent cement, liquid welder, or other variations and combinations of these words.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This stuff works by literally melting plastic, so that it fuses together and cures as a single piece. It is stunningly effective, and if you choose the right welder and have a good join to work with, the entire process from application to cured takes maybe a minute, tops.

Trickier joins – where the parts are warped or misaligned and need some kind of force applied – may take a bit longer. But there should be zero need to clamp, rubber band, or otherwise force plastic together over extended periods of time with a good solvent welder.

How to Apply

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Method 1 – Touch-n-Flow

The Touch-n-Flow is a marvel of a device. Basically a small glass tube with a syringe glued into one end, it allows you to “draw” the solvent along a join. Use one of those baby snot-sucker things to draw solvent into the tube, then get a good flow going and lightly draw the tip of the syringe over the join. Capillary action will pull the solvent out and it will flow into the join. Just take care to keep your fingers clear, unless you want your fingerprints baked into the plastic!

Method 2 – Microbrush

Scared of the Touch-n-Flow? Try a yellow-handled microbrush. For smaller stuff, or joins along edges (such as the leading and trailing edges of wings), I think the microbrush approach actually works better.

To use the microbrush, hold your parts together loosely, get the microbrush wet with solvent, brush it where it needs to go, and apply light pressure to the parts. Wait a few seconds. And done! Yes, it’s that easy.

Bonus: Clear Parts

Yes! You can glue clear pats with solvent cement! You want to be careful, but it’ll get you a much stronger connection that white glues, and won’t fog the way superglues can.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This Intruder’s windscreen was secured to the fuselage using MEK in a Touch-n-Flow

If you’ve got a windscreen that just doesn’t want to sit right, or needs pressure to do so, by all means consider using solvent on it.

What I Use

My go-to solvent is Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or MEK. You can buy it at any hardware store. It’s “hotter” than a lot of the modeling-oriented stuff, and far cheaper.

Other options:

• Tamiya Extra Thin Cement
• Tenax 7R
• Plast-i-Weld (from the company that makes the Touch-n-Flow)

Drawbacks

Solvents will eat the hell out of paint. So, while you can glue painted parts together, expect a slurry of melted paint and probably a slightly longer curing time. And repainting.

Solvents don’t work with resin, photo-etch or even with different types of plastic. Stryene only. If this is confusing, look up above at how it works.

Do you want to glue other materials to plastic?

What should you use to glue photo-etch, resin, or metal to your build?

It depends! There are generally two go-tos – cyanoacrylate superglue, and PVA (white glue). Each has some distinct benefits and drawbacks.

CA superglue

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

CA is powerful stuff, and honestly it’s a valid choice for almost any “stick stuff to other stuff” need. It doesn’t melt-and-weld the way solvents do. It’s a straight-up adhesive. This means it excels at gluing different substances together. I personally try to limit my use of CA, but here’s a handy guide…

Good for

• Gluing large things to other large things. Resin cockpits, that sort of thing.
• Gluing anything that will be under tension. Biplane rigging. Heavy ordnance hanging off hardpoints. Superglue has excellent tensile strength. A good rule of thumb is…if you’re gluing something by sticking something into some kind of a hole, superglue is probably your best option. This is also true for PE that may have a tendency to lift from the surface it is being glued to.

Not good for

• Clear parts (generally). Most CA glues do a kind of outgassing thing as they cure, and this fogs clear parts badly.
• Fragile parts vulnerable to shearing forces. A shearing force is like your hand, accidentally knocking off a fragile antenna. Superglue doesn’t bend. At all. So a sudden application of shear will lead to small parts getting knocked off.
• Things that require adjustment. If you have wobbly landing gear that require some adjustment to properly dial in…superglue won’t give you that time.

How to apply

Like glue. Apply to surface. Stick surface to other surface. For minute amounts of CA, I often use a toothpick or an old airbrush needle as an applicator.

For extra thin CA, you will want to use some kind of applicator, or else there will be a big mess. You can make one for yourself by twisting some fine wire around an airbrush needle and then snipping off a piece of the “ring” that’s formed. Or you can buy them. Load the applicator with CA and touch it to whatever you’re gluing. Capillary action will do the rest. It’s not quite as easy as that, but it’s not difficult to get the hang of it with a bit of practice.

What I use

• Extra thin CA – brand doesn’t really matter. Whatever the hobby shop stocks. I honestly don’t use it for much beyond rigging work.
• Loctite Ultra Gel Control – Those medium and thick CA glues? Screw ’em. This stuff is the best. It’s controllable, provides a few precious moments to correct alignment if needed, and it’s thick nature makes it easy to only use as much as you need.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Bonus – using CA for canopies

Okay, so I know I just wrote up above that CA is NOT good for canopies. But it can be, as I found out on Kitty Hawk’s AH-1Z Viper. The Viper’s canopy doors hinge off of a central “spine”, if you will, and the kit includes tabs to that effect. But they’re at weird angles. Too much tension for white glue to handle, so in desperation, I tested my trusty Loctite gel on some spare clear parts. And get this – it only fogs where you put it. So a little bit of CA and boom, canopies done.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

PVA Glues

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

PVA glues are basically white glues…on steroids. They will hold better than Elmers, but since they’ve got some elasticity built in, they are not ideal choices for any part that’s under any kind of tension.

In my various bonehead attempts, I’ve had the tension from rigging wire pull eyebolts out of their holes. I’ve had a Bf 109 canopy flop completely over so its sitting flush with the fuselage side. I’ve had stubborn PE lift from its mating surface.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Not a good place to use PVA glue

That said, PVA is excellent for small parts that aren’t under tension. Control sticks, Landing gear and gear door support struts, missile fins, that kind of thing.

PVA glue is also very resistant to shearing forces. Or…not so much resistant as it bounces back easily. The elasticity that makes it suck in tension is a savior if you accidentally knock that antenna askew…it won’t go breaking and flinging off into the void, it’ll just fall over flat, and all you have to do to fix it is stand it back up.

What I use:

• Gator’s Grip. There are a few others out there, but Gator’s Grip performs the best.

You’re gluing two different materials, they’re load-bearing and they have to be tough

Sometimes, you need your shit to hold. Gear struts on a very large aircraft, like HK’s 1/32 B-25 Mitchell.

Enter two-part epoxy.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This epoxy cures over about 15-minutes (you can get various cure times) and is rock solid once it sets. But it’s gooey as hell when you’re working with it, and it stinks like nobody’s business.

But when you really need it, there’s no substitute.

What I use:

Hobbytown USA 15-Minute Epoxy. I bought my set years ago and have maybe used a third of it.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Labor Day weekend. The family out of town. The house to myself. The heat of summer starting to (kind of) relinquish its grip.

The perfect time, in other words, to give the bench a good, deep cleaning. Because over the past few months, it’s become an absolute mess.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

In the process of my cleaning, in between extracting spiderwebs and june bug carcasses, I started coming across what I can only call relics from my modeling past. Paints and tools and materials that I haven’t even touched in a year, two years, maybe more. Alclad’s nice but never-curing enamel-based clears. Anything made by Testors. White tack putty dried as hard as bone. Many different varieties of CA glue.

I was able to chuck a ton of it away, and as a result gained a lot of space for the stuff that I do rely on.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This got me thinking about how much my modeling has changed in the last five years. How many techniques and scales and paints and tools and such I have moved on from. So for kicks, a by no means exhaustive list:

Enamel paints – Staple of my childhood modeling, I now reach for enamel paints for exactly two reasons – I need to drybrush something, or I need to use Model Master Chrome Silver. That’s it. They take too long to cure, don’t spray as well as what Gunze and Tamiya have on offer, and don’t brush as well as Vallejo.

1/48 World War II aircraft – These got me back into the hobby, and sustained me…for a while. But prop jobs just have so much more presence in 1/32 – and aftermarket is there to support them in ways it’s just not for jets.

German armor – I’m sure it will rebound at some point, but I’ve gone completely off German armor. Zero desire to build it or even follow builds of others tackling it.

Superglue – I still love my Loctite ultra control gel CA, but the days of medium and ultra thin CA are behind me. Too much mess. I’ll probably sing a different tune next time I rig a biplane, but for all other work, I no longer see the need.

Water-based putties – They just don’t work. They don’t grip the plastic well enough to withstand sanding. Back to my trusty neverending tube of 3M Acryl Red.

My ancient magnifier lamp – A lamp I’d had since childhood. A lamp that today I realized I haven’t used in years, that was basically just acting as high ground for spiders. Amazing what fluorescent shop lights can do for lighting.

Mixing bottles – I still need a few of these around. Every now and then I need to mix up a specific color and keep it with me for the length of a build. Usually, though, I’ll just mix that one color as a base, then drop it into smaller mixing cups to lighten it, darken it, change up the tone slightly or so on. For everything else, small disposable cups or tattoo ink cups do the trick.

Three-layer blending – Once one of my favorite techniques, it’s fallen by the wayside in favor of black basing, which in my opinion yields better results with less work.

5,387 different clear glosses – My search for good gloss clears has at times felt futile, until I discovered the trick of misting a layer of Gunze lacquer thinner on top of Tamiya X-22 Clear. Oh my. Gloss problems solved. So why is that Gaia clear bottle still taking up space? Next to the Testors clear gloss?

Getting rid of the old (and the spiders and june bugs) I now once again have a nice, clean bench.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

What old things have you gotten rid of in your modeling journey?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Combat Workshop poses an interesting topic for September’s Sprue Cutters’ Union:

What’s your preferred scale(s)? What do you like, what do you not like, and why?

I’ve put a lot more thought into scale than probably any right-thinking human should, and so my longer answer is…complicated. But the TL;DR version:

My preferred scales are:

• 1/32 for World War I and World War II aircraft
• 1/48 for modern aircraft
• 1/35 for armor

That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions. I have several 1/32 jets, I’ve built a 1/16 tank, and so on. But in general, those are my scales.

Why? For many reasons.

The “Ideal” Box – The bigger the scale, the more presence a kit is going to have. That’s just the way it goes. A 1/48 kit is going to have a lot more presence than a 1/72, and a 1/32 more than 1/48, and 1/24 more than 1/32 and so on.

But you have to consider the size of the kit as well. How much display space it occupies. How much bench space it eats up while it’s being built and painted. Beyond a certain size, it just gets unwieldy, if downright impossible to accommodate.

For me, that ideal box is about 15″ x 15″. Roughly the size of many WWII fighters in 1/32 scale. There are a few WWII aircraft that blow through this bound – a B-25 or Mosquito for instance – but Corsairs and Spitfires and Mustangs fit comfortably here. Most modern jets also fit within that box or some permutation of it (10 x 20…) in 1/48.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

1/32 jets, on the other hand, are just in general too big. I still have a few, because they’re awesome and because their shorter wingspans make it possible to squeeze them in. But in general, the ideal box is my scale limiting factor.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I’m making an exception for the A-6, but damn it’s huge

Kit Selection – Another factor in my scale preferences is kit selection (and quality). In some cases, one manufacturer provides enough quality kits to keep things interesting – for example Wingnut Wings with its 1/32 WWI aircraft. In others, there’s a diverse collection of great kits. This is definitely true for 1/48 jets and increasingly for 1/32 props. A new, amazing kit seems to land every other week from the likes of Tamiya or Trumpeter or new players like Great Wall Hobby and Kitty Hawk.

But some scales are…sparse. 1/32 jets in particular. There are a few great and very good kits. Tamiya’s F-16. Trumpeter’s A-6 Intruder. Rumor has it, Academy’s legacy Hornets. But for many subjects, you’re either SOL, or stuck with a Trumpeter kit of variable quality.

Aftermarket – Hand-in-hand with kit selection is aftermarket availability. It’s been ramping up fast for 1/32 props, but 1/32 jets still lag. Consider the A-6 Intruder mentioned above. In 1/48 you can get seamless intakes, wonderful wheels, and decals for pretty much any Intruder that ever flew. In 1/32, there are no seamless intakes as far as I know. No good aftermarket MERs. And the decal selection is very, very limited.

The scales I’ve landed on generally see alignment in these three criteria. 1/32 props and 1/48 jets fit my ideal size, have great kit selection and strong aftermarket support.

If there’s one scale that kind of pisses me off, it’s 1/35, which is generally the standard for armor.

The Problem with 1/35

Here’s the thing. 1/35 armor is basically equivalent to 1/48 aircraft. It can work pretty well, size-wise, for modern armor and for some of the larger WWII AFVs. But a lot of smaller tanks (like the M3) and softskins get really small, really fast. They may be great kits, but they lack presence.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

That’s a 5×7 frame…

But 1/16 is just too big. I built Panda’s Pz.Kpfw 38(t), and it’s massive, about the size of a large shoe box.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Pz.38(t) next to a 1/35 Sherman, for size comparison

Now…1/16 kind of works with the 38(t) because it’s tiny. But even medium-sized tanks like the Soviet T-34 become downright gargantuan. It’d be like jumping from 1/48 to 1/24 aircraft.

What armor needs is its own 1/32 equivalent. Something about 50% larger than the standard scale (1/16, like 1/24 for aircraft, is effectively 100% larger).

1/24 scale would be perfect, I think.

It will never happen of course, short of a consortium of manufacturers making a concerted effort. But a guy can dream.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Since returning to modeling in 2010, I’ve seen several new kitmakers come onto the scene. Quality has sometimes varied. Some manufacturers burst out of the gates while others took a few kits to find their footing. But they’re all injecting a steady stream of vitality into the hobby and keeping the established players on their toes. For all of those who like to gripe about the hobby dying out, these new manufacturers offer a powerful argument that that is just not the case.

And now we have another to keep an eye on –  TANMODEL.

Bucking the trend of new kitmakers emerging out of the Asia Pacific region, TANMODEL comes to us from Istanbul, Turkey. They’ve already released one kit – a 1/72 Hurkus trainer – but it’s their impending 1/48 RF-84F Thunderflash that first brought them to my attention.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The more I looked into TANMODEL, the more interested I became. From their commitment to working from 3D scans of actual 1:1 aircraft to the quote on their website of “thinking like a modeler, not despite the modeler”, to their rather ambitious roadmap, which includes a 1/32 F-4E Phantom, 1/32 F-111 Aardvark, 1/32 F-5A and F-5B Freedom Fighters, and a new-tool 1/48 SR-71 Blackbird.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Who is this company? To find out, I reached out to TANMODEL’s founder, Baris Tansoy, to see if he’d be willing to answer a few questions. Graciously, he accepted, and his answers follow below. Enjoy!

Q – How did you come to start Tanmodel? What inspired you?

My desire for improvement and of course my wife’s support.

Q – The RF-84F Thunderflash is your first 1/48 kit. What made you choose it in particular?

1/48 F-84 series kits were available at a reasonable quality.  The fact that a high quality RF-84F kit will complete the collections of the modelers and that we have access to the actual aircraft in Turkey made it easier for us to decide.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

RF-84F on display at the Istanbul Aircraft Museum

Q – I’m thrilled that you are using LIDAR to scan real aircraft. Will you be using LIDAR for all future subjects such as the F-111 and SR-71?

First of all I should explain what LIDAR is. Because, modelers are using wrong terms unintentionally due to another model kit manufacturer. LIDAR is a cartography term. Geographical elevations are determined by airborne laser measurement.

On the other hand, we perform 3D scanning via laser. 3D laser scanning is easy in application, but the data processing is difficult. It requires powerful computer infrastructure and high engineering. Our specialist team is processing these data. If we don’t have reliable technical documentation, we will continue to use 3D scanning in our other projects. TANMODEL is a leading brand in model kit industry in terms of number of aircraft and helicopters scanned.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Scanning the F-5A Freedom Fighter

Q – I’m familiar with how LIDAR works in general, but I’m curious about the reality. For instance, I recently saw a comment you made stating that the rivets on the RF-84F match those on the real aircraft. Were these captured in the scans, or did you have to use other methods such as photography to augment the point cloud?

We made the 3D design by using the technical specifications of RF-84F’s manufacturer and performed measurements on the actual aircraft located in the Istanbul Aviation Museum. For panel lines and rivet details, we used the rivet map that we prepared. Our kit can be taken as a perfect reference in this regard.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Rivet detail on the RF-84F test shot

All panel lines and rivets are visible on scanning data of the aircraft we have scanned. Our 3D laser scanning device has measurement/precision in microns. After scanning is completed, device takes pictures from the same location using HDR method. These pictures are converted into a point cloud, then they form a separate data set after being matched with the point cloud obtained from scanning. We create surface modeling using these data points. We can display either the point cloud or 3D picture data and we can transfer these directly into our design.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Q – Are there some places LIDAR can’t go? Cockpits, gear bays and so forth?

Scanning device scans without contacting the actual object. Including inside of the cockpit, we can scan all details we want such as wheel bays and nozzle.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Scanning the cockpit of a T-37

Q – Will LIDAR scanning allow you to recreate certain details that might be difficult otherwise (e.g. stressed skin effects)?

The 3D scanning device converts the whole whole aircraft surface into a point cloud. However, we have to deliver you a surface that looks like straight out of the factory. Thus, we re-create the surface conditions on 3D design.

Q – Your website includes the statement “Thinking like a modeler, not despite the modeler”. Could you elaborate on this?

Why does a model kit manufacturer present the fuselage in 3 parts?

Why does a model kit manufacturer sell the same kit with same decal option in 20 different boxes?

Why does a model kit manufacturer just renew its box every 5 years instead of completely renewing a 40 year old kit?

If you, as a modeler, object to this and despite your objections the model kit manufacturer still maintains the same mentality – then you should know that we don’t think like them. We think like modelers, we design and manufacture as modelers want.

Q – One common lament among modelers is the tendency of certain manufacturers to pop open every hatch and access panel. I’ve read that you are taking a different path, leaving those panels closed but including provisions to make it easier for those who want to open up panels to do so. Can you go into a bit more detail about this?

As you build a kit, you look at related books and dive into your picture archive for reference. What do you see? Generally, parked aircraft, ready to fly. Very few of them show aircraft under maintenance. That is, with their engines removed, access panels opened, etc.

If a kit comes with engine parts, then it should also include the engine base, some technician figures, hangar parts and other similar stuff. As a matter of fact, modelers who make such kits are actually making a diorama. If you are not going to be making a diorama ( or a kit including special details ), do you ever want any parts that would raise difficulties? I don’t. That’s why TANMODEL is different. We design by thinking like modelers.

Q – Your Facebook page talks frequently of the importance of fit. What steps are you taking to ensure your kits fit together well?

I am also a modeler and we set the outlines prior to 3D design by using a method similar to storyboarding.

In other words, we design the design itself. This means our designing process may take a little bit longer than the usual.

Our purpose is to create a parts breakdown that makes it impossible for the modeler to make mistakes. We proceed in design if the part structures are compatible with the mould method and we always consider the next step.

[For example, on the RF-84F], a part of the wings can enter into the fuselage. When you assemble the kit, you will notice that, as the wings enter into the fuselage through a channel, it doesn’t move up and down and doesn’t cause any gaps.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Because the parts inside the intake also enter into the channel in the intake end part, each one are self contained separately but together, they form a structure that supports all of them. Our kit has more of these modeler-friendly solutions and we will maintain this in our other kits.

Q – You have an ambitious roadmap of future kits, and a few, such as the 1/32 F-5A and F-4E, are already into the design process. When can we expect to see more of them?

We don’t want to give away too much, so we may remain silent for a while. But I am pretty sure that you will hear a lot from us later on.

Q – Are you taking any steps to keep prices manageable for modelers? Particularly with some of the larger subjects on your roadmap such as the 1/32 F-4 and F-111 families?

Pricing is the most important part of sales operations. The RF-84F enabled us to gain crucial experience in terms of design and manufacturing processes. I believe we will become a brand with reasonable prices and multiple box options.

Q – Are you working with any third party specialists to print decals – Cartograf for example?

For us, accuracy of decal drawings and colors is very important. Previously, we worked with Cartograf for two different projects. But we also wish to collaborate with different printing companies. If all manufacturers are to work with the same printing company, this would cause a monopolization. We should give as much chance to other companies as we can.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

My sincerest thanks to Baris Tansoy and TANMODEL for answering my questions. The RF-84F should be coming out later this year. In the meantime, you can keep up with TANMODEL by following them on Facebook.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

So this is the post where I get to shit all over other people’s builds!

Not really. Or at least, that is not my intent.

My intent is to talk about shading panel lines (mainly pre-shading, but also post-shading), and why – if you’re pursuing a realistic or verisimilitudinous finish, it’s a terrible technique that should be shunned and mocked.

Since there as been some confusion since I first posted this, let me elaborate on a few things.

• I’m not saying all shading is bad. Far from it. Just the kind that tunnel visions on panel lines.
• I’m not even saying that panel line shading is bad. If you’re doing it for stylistic reasons, fine. To each his own. I’m talking about pursuing realism or verismilitude, and then shading the hell out of panel lines.
• I’m also not saying that panel line washes are bad. I use washes on every aircraft that I build. To me the key here is subtlety.
• Verisimilitude – “lifelikeness”, the appearance of being real

Because Reasons

First, let me say that pre-shading actually does some good. It gets modelers – including yours truly – thinking about paint in varying layers of opacity. For that reason alone, it’s often one of those game-changers that elevates people’s build quality, and I think that may be why so many stick with it so doggedly.

I mean, I get it. It’s contrast. And unrealistic, hyperbolic contrast is better than no contrast, right? Just look at the “house style”  Hasegawa uses to show off their new kits. It’s utterly lacking in contrast or tonal variation. It’s…awful.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Is it plastic, or die cast?

But for all the good panel line shading does, it’s bullshit. Here’s why.

It’s a ton of work. For any kit worth its salt, shading all those panel lines is an exercise in concentration and swearing.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

It’s unforgiving. Get a bit too happy with the airbrush and all that work is gone. Play it too cautious and you may have difficulties covering the gray primer or managing the contrast.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Hey, where’d all that shading work go?

Third, it’s just not representative. Yes, the panel lines on some aircraft certainly do get filthy. But look closely. It’s never just the panel lines. And it’s very rarely all of the panel lines. The paint itself gets battered and dirty. Panel line pre-shading (and post-shading) totally misses this, and creates something that looks exaggerated and fake – like one of those overdone HDR images.

Note: I feel I should restate it here: if you’re going after a stylized representation, then by all means go to town. Just don’t make claims to verisimilitude. A Facebook commenter mentioned Monet, and I think that’s a fitting example! Monet was a great painter! But if he made claims impressionism was “realistic”, there would be a lot of laughing.

Look at this Spanish EF-18, for example.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

There are lots of visible panel lines…but they are not uniform. And the surfaces of the aircraft itself are filthy, especially around the wingroots.

Or consider this A-6 Intruder from Desert Storm. Plenty of visible panel lines, but they’re all fairly subtle, and there’s a lot else happening on the surface.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

What I’m Talking About

Now, I hate to speak ill of others’ work. And that is in no way my intent. But…I have to show examples of what I’m talking about. I’m not commenting at all on the quality of the build or even the rest of the paintwork, which in many of these examples is quite high indeed. I am only showing them to illustrate this technique/style of shading panel lines. If you’re getting upset reading this and want to get all defensive and butthurt about it, that’s okay. One of the examples I’m going to show won at the IPMS Nationals this year, so clearly there is some subjectivity at work.

UPDATE: Before showing others’ builds, I figure it’s only fitting to show my own attempts at panel shading. I was never happy with the look it gave, so I dodged away from it pretty quickly (or tended to go a step too far and cover it up!), but I do have a few examples.

First up, my Revell PV-1 Ventura. The panel shading only really pulled through on the Intermediate Blue fuselage sides.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Next, my Tamiya Dewoitine D.520. Subsequent weathering really saved this one, but this interim step is what really pushed me away from panel shading.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

On to some others. I should note that I’ve gone back and revised the images shown to only feature those that have been published, widely publicized, or entered into contests. Those that have already “entered the arena”, to paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt.

First up, we have a very nice 1/32 Su-25 Frogfoot that was on the tables at ModelFiesta in San Antonio back in February.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This Su-25 was beautiful…until you see those panel lines, and then you can’t unsee them. It’s like a checkerboard.

Next, this P-47:

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This one not only took Best in Show at ModelFiesta, it also took it at Nationals this summer. It’s a great build, and the engine detail is just phenomenal. But to my eyes if not the judges, the panel shading on the cowl panels and inside the ammo bay doors is just way too pristine. Real aircraft don’t get dirty in such a precise and uniform fashion. They also don’t just get dirty on the painted cowl.

Here are several more examples:

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Again, this is just not how actual aircraft weather. It creates an unrealistic contrast that sticks out like a sore thumb, while also introducing TONAL CRUSH to the rest of the paintwork.

That’s not to say a lot of these builds aren’t stunning – I think they are. I mean, just look at that B-1. It’s in primer! And it’s glorious! But the shading between panels is just so exaggerated…not something you would ever see on an aircraft fresh from the factory or at most undergoing initial flight tests.

Want to Stop Being Shady?

I used to pre-shade, until I came to see that all it was doing was swinging the pendulum too far to the other extreme.

Since that time, I’ve found several ways to still get good amounts of tonal variation – only across the entire surface, not just the panels.

Here are a few techniques I’ve come to favor (for now):

Prime in Black. Black-basing solves the contrast problem of pre-shading just the panel lines. With it, you control shading as you paint, and can introduce it into the overall surface of the aircraft.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Shade in different colors. A few years ago when I was tackling Trumpeter’s P-47, I ran out of my preferred black primer, so instead I primed and then shaded with a whole lot of different dark grays, greens, browns and so on. The panel lines were very slightly darker, but nowhere near as contrasty as black-and-gray.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Combined with various weathering techniques, it gave me a wonderful surface finish where the rivets and panel lines were subtly called out, but not overpowering.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Use less-contrasty panel line washes. Not everything has to be black or dark brown. Sometimes a slightly darker gray, or a green-brown that matches well with Olive Drab make more sense. This is part of why I’ve become such a huge dork for Ammo’s panel line washes (that and how easy they are to use).

Let’s go back to that A-4F Skyhawk:

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Before panel line washes

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

After panel line washes. Even these, I think, could have been toned down on the wings, but hey, I was still getting the hang of them.

Same principle with Kitty Hawk’s AH-1Z Viper

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Wrapping Up

In short, my issue with all the panel shading nonsense is that it only pays attention to a specific feature of the aircraft’s surface, at the expense of the rest. As nice as the rest of the work may be, it’s a distracting and ultimately detracting element. Pay attention to the whole of the aircraft, and how all of its elements come together in a cohesive fashion.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Recently, a certain modeler shared his latest build on a certain forum. A very nice build, with some really excellent touches that I think a lot of modelers often miss.

The thread predictably filled up with comments like “WOW that looks superb – great finish” and “that’s a beautiful build! I love everything about it…” and “that is a superb model! thank you for sharing”.

While I don’t disagree, I saw one area that I thought could be improved upon. Feedback on completed builds is a bit touchy because the damn things are done, and it’s not like we can go back and address. But there’s always the next build, right?

So I posted the following:

Really like it – nice touches especially with the heat shield shading and the scuffed cockpit sills! Really hoping to tackle on of these big F-4s myself, just have too much on the go at the moment.

Only thing I might suggest for the future is a slightly more subtle shade for the panel line wash, but I can say that about way too many of my own builds!

Mine was (and remains) the only actual feedback in the entire thread. The rest is a string of “attaboys”.

In another thread…a sprawling reaction to my recent post on panel shading…my feedback on the F-4 was specifically called out. There was some “why I never!” about modelers denigrating other modelers based solely on their biases, and the frustratingly common refrain that feedback or opinions equal some kind of tyrannical modeling new world order.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The modeling illuminati command you to stop drybrushing! Mwahahaha!

Attaboy Culture and the Fear of Feedback

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Painting in broad strokes, the modeling community is bizarrely averse to feedback of any kind. Touch that wire and you immediately get hit with accusations of trashing other modelers.

Why? Because “modeling is supposed to be fun”? Because “modeling is just a silly hobby”? It’s both of those things, but you know what? Fuck that. It can be both of those things and welcome feedback and constructive criticism.

The Value of Putting Yourself Out There

As a kid building models in my parents’ garage, I had no source of feedback. Hell, I didn’t even have any kind of connection to a broader modeling community. And it hobbled my development as a modeler.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Once upon a time, I counted this as good

As I got older, I found my way into different hobbies, and of course into the professional world. And I encountered the hell out of feedback. Maybe it was in offroading, and tips on a driving line through a certain obstacle. Or in photography, and how to better balance an exposure. Or writing, exchanging sample chapters with other writers and critiquing each other’s work.

Some of it is shitty feedback. Some of it might hurt. But some of it is good, and you take it, and you apply it, and you improve. And over time you come to realize that the benefits of feedback far outweigh making yourself vulnerable by putting your work out there for judgement. And you come to crave it.

Don’t believe me? Here’s what two obscure tech nerds have to say about feedback:

“We all need people who will give us feedback. That’s how we improve.” – Bill Gates

“I think it’s very important to have a feedback loop, where you’re constantly thinking about what you’ve done and how you could be doing it better.” – Elon Musk

Do It For Yourself. Do It For the Hobby.

Even if we build models for fun, even if we acknowledge that it’s a silly hobby, I think most of us want to improve as modelers. For some of us (and maybe many?), the desire to improve might be held back by a fear of messing up. To which I say, get out of your comfort zone.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

If you don’t want to improve, if you just want to keep slapping plastic together the same way you always have, and painting it the same way you always have, well then I honestly don’t understand your motivation at a fundamental level. Hobbies are by their very nature intrinsically motivated. We pursue them because we want to. To do that and to not want to get better at it just…doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. Even if it’s just to relax – which I totally get – modeling is my decompression mechanism – there’s pride in accomplishment. In a job well done. In a build being slightly better than the one that came before it.

And here’s the thing. When you decide you want to welcome feedback, when you decide you want to push yourself and, as Elon Musk says, think about what you’ve done and how you could be doing it better, you’re doing a service not only to yourself, but to the modeling community as a whole.

Instead of just doing things by rote, there’s experimentation. Instead of stagnation, there’s innovation.

Now, I know somebody will be reading this and around this point be getting all huffy about how it’s “not a competition!”

Nobody said it was. Feedback does not equal competition. It does not equal modelers dumping on other modelers or denigrating them. It’s not about putting other modelers down. It’s about helping each other. Looking out for each other. Sharing what works well and trying new things.

So here’s my challenge to every single one of you who reads this. Reject the “attaboy” culture. Since we’re mired in this whole “oooh can’t offend anybody’s delicate sensibilities” thing, ask for feedback on your builds. Real feedback. Stuff you can chew on.

And if you see someone else asking for feedback, give it to them. Don’t be an asshole about it or anything…focus on improvement. What could they do better next time, and how can they do it?

I’m already on board with this. And I’ll continue to ask with every build…what did I overlook? What can I be doing better? How else could I tackle this aspect? If you have feedback for me, give it. On any kit. Any time. On any site. If you want to start right now, there’s a pulldown menu up top that leads to all of my completed builds. I would rather have one person point out an overlooked seam or something than have ten people pat me on the back.

I hope you all will consider doing the same. Let’s get past the “attaboy” stuff.

Who’s in?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The annual Austin IPMS contest was today. Despite falling on the same weekend as ACL and the TX/OU game, turnout was actually pretty good. There were a lot of entries, hopping vendor tables, and blah blah.

Contest-wise, I didn’t do as well as I’d hoped.

My Bf 109G-10 and Leopard C2 won their categories, which is great. Particularly the C2. Yet again, a last-minute completion ends up winning the category the following day! It’s also the first time I’ve taken any armor category.

More baffling is that the AH-1Z and Corsair were completely and totally shut out. Compared to the choppers that won, I’m baffled as to how the AH-1Z didn’t place at all. And the Corsair…it won the category in San Antonio earlier this year, over the 109G-10. That’s just a hands up WTF for me.

But whatever. Despite the IPMS rules, judging is capricious and subjective. Shit happens. Instead, I want to explore a few takeaways from the show, hopefully food for thought for all of us.

1 – Why even bother with the “Judge’s Comments” box on the entry form?

I’ve never seen or known anyone who has received feedback in this box. And you know what? It’d be really damn helpful to learn what put something over the top – or didn’t. I think I’ll volunteer to judge at the next show I attend – and will make it a point to write a few comments.

2 – The bias toward German armor is alive and well

Among builders and judges. Category breakouts in armor were almost entirely “German ______” and “Non-German ________”. Best armor was awarded to, shocker, a Panzer.

3 – Pay attention to the little things!

There were a ton of “three foot” models. Builds that look really impressive – until you get close.  Then you see gaps that should not be there, canopies 10 or more degrees out of alignment, and other signs of sloppiness. I’m all for cutting corners and the principle of FICE (fuck it, close eough), but come on.

For example – there was a 1/32 F-105 on the tables. Nicely done. The paintwork was a bit bland for my tastes, but well done. But then I looked into the intakes and they weren’t even painted. There were still ejector pin marks! And not buried way in the back, but right on the lip, in plain sight. Maybe if the judges utilized the comments box, they could make the builder aware that this is a contention-killing oversight.

4 – People should buy airbrushes.

When I walked in from the registration table and glanced at the helicopter section, the first thought that went through my head was “oh shit”. Because there was a 1/35 Mi-24 Hind sitting there.

Then I got close to it. And it was brush painted, and painfully, obviously so.

Look. If you can afford a kit like Trumpeter’s big ass Hind, and can have room enough to build it, you can afford a damn airbrush to finish it right.

5 – Overweathering is a problem. But underweathering is a bigger one.

The modern AFV category was baffling. Probably two thirds of the entries weren’t weathered at all. There were several Soviet T tanks in contention, and only one of them went any further than just painting it green. Even parade-prepped tanks have some kind of wear and tear and color irregularities here and there. These didn’t even look like die cast to me. They looked like plastic toys.

Even just a filter. Or some drybrushing. Anything would have massively elevated them.

I spend so much time on forums and Facebook pages seeing amazing work and getting into debates about how much weathering is too much…but seeing those T tanks with none of that really rammed home…something.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

For October’s Sprue Cutters Union, The Combat Workshop asks:

Whether it’s a part of the assembly process, a finishing technique, or a particular tool, what do you think are the essential aspects you cannot afford to cut corners on during a build?

Holy shit! I could go on and on about various imperatives and areas where I just won’t skimp. But then I’d be rambling on, and on, and on. Instead, I’m going to restrict my focus to one specific area that people may not expect.

Decals.

Why Decals?

The best kit, the most beautiful paintwork, the crispest details can be ruined by shitty decals.

Back a few years ago, I built Tamiya’s 1/48 Fw 190A-3. As kits go it’s good, if a bit simplistic compared to newer options. I took it on as a quick build to break in the then-new bench, as I’d just moved and gotten everything set up.

Everything was going more or less fine until the decals…

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I got lazy and used Tamiya’s kit decals, and they were just awful. They refused to settle, and the carrier film was so thick that the borders are visible even under clear coats.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I mean, look at that. That’s after aggressive setting solution application, pushing the damn thing down with a q-tip, you name it. In my attempts to get it to lay down over that damn hinge detail, it tore. Which is why you only see finished photos of the starboard side.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

That Fw 190 has long since become a paint mule.

At the Austin contest this past weekend, I saw a lot of builds mired by shitty decals or decal work. There was a helicopter that looked like it had the decals applied over a flat coat, and then the builder just called it a day. There were others where the decals stretched, tarp-like, across panel lines. Or where, like my 190, they were so thick that the edges were plainly visible.

Good Decals

So, how do you go about ensuring that you’re using good decals? Actual build reviews can count for a lot here, as can industry reputation. Yeah there’s always that one person who had no problems whatsoever with Tamiya’s decals, but the consensus opinion is that decals are Tamiya’s biggest weakness (though there are a few limited edition boxings that include Cartograf-printed sheets of fantastic quality).

Academy was known for terrible decals for a long time, and they’ve done something about it. Over the last two or so years, all of their new releases have been putting a lot of emphasis on decal quality, up to and including putting a big “Printed by Cartograf” on the box.

A good rule of thumb might be – don’t trust kit decals unless you have a reason to do so. But as decals become a point of competition, I expect this to become less of a factor. Hopefully one day, going aftermarket will strictly be a matter of choice, not quality.

Speaking of aftermarket decals, they are generally good…but quality varies and again it’s best to go off reputation and your own experiences. I’ve had, for example, fantastic experiences with Furball Aero-Design, KitsWorld and Barracuda.

So yeah. Good decals. They can make a world of difference.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

My recent rant against egregious panel line shading has drawn quite a hefty response. Plenty of voices of support…and of butthurt and defensiveness. A few who have mistaken the entire thing as some kind of condemnation of all pre-shading.

And then there’s Tom, who left this comment earlier today.

Good grief. Black basing, pre-shading, post-shading, it’s all so much unrealistic bullshit. Especially if you’re building a scale airplane.

I grew up around aircraft, and I fly them. Please, someone, show me a photograph taken at 1:48 or 1:32 scale distance and show me plainly perceptible “panel lines” on any aircraft that’s not dirty. (Yes, I saw the F-18, it’s an anomaly.) Anyone who understands aircraft knows that airplanes are clean. The panels on even well-used aircraft, when seen at scale distance, are almost imperceptible unless the light is just right.

The obsession for showing off “panel lines” is ridiculous and unrealistic. The time taken to highlight them is time wasted to depict something that doesn’t exist in nature.

Stop it. Please.

I like your moxie, Tom! No beating around the bush, no sir!

I didn’t grow up around aircraft. Nor do I get to fly them. But I did go to air shows as a kid and I had all the Desert Storm trading cards. The entire set, Tom! I go to museums when I get the opportunity. Oh, and I have this thing called the internet. If you type the right things into it, it shows you pictures! Even of aircraft! See:

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Shit…I must’ve typed something wrong

Scale distance? Who gives a shit about scale distance?

This is one of those concepts that just isn’t meaningful in the least. When you go to contests, there’s no SCALE DISTANCE – DO NOT CROSS line.

But fine. The maximum image width on this blog is something like 800 pixels. On the average computer monitor at a typical viewing distance, that’s not really even 1/48 unless we’re talking about smaller props like a Dewoitine D.520. So let’s say that any image containing all or most of the aircraft is fair game as some kind of proxy for scale distance.

Anyone who understands aircraft knows that airplanes are clean

Oh, Tom. Under ideal conditions, yes, aircraft are clean. They’re lovingly cared for and kept safe from the elements in well-lit hangars and “no crew chief would ever!” rules apply. Up the operational tempo, though, or forward deploy aircraft where they don’t get to sip lattes in their nice shelters, and cleanliness falls by the wayside. Even the F-117, whose stealth properties could be thrown off by bird droppings, can be seen less-than-clean in many pictures.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Oh dear…are those…visible panel lines? Don’t tell Tom!

Are panel lines even real?

According to our friend Tom, panel lines “don’t exist in nature”.

So I’m going to take up the challenge: Please, someone, show me a photograph taken at 1:48 or 1:32 scale distance and show me plainly perceptible “panel lines” on any aircraft that’s not dirty.

Well, first of all, aircraft get dirty. This is borne out in plenty of photographs, many of them taken of Hellenic Air Force planes. But to keep things on the straight and level, I’m going to stick to “not dirty” aircraft.

Follow closely and see if you can spot the panel lines!

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

No panel lines here! Oh, wait, shit…

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Here too. But maybe it’s cheating to use bare metal finishes?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This P-39 can’t exist because anyone who knows aircraft knows they’re clean.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Resto-jobs from a 2008 airshow. Are those panel lines I see?

Okay, but maybe it’s just that World War II aircraft were slapped together pieces of junk. Tolerances can’t have been all that good, right? More modern aircraft, they don’t have panel lines.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Well…

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Yeah but it’s a helicopter and they don’t count because reasons

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Yeah, but this one’s clearly seen some shit.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I even went to pains to find a clean Tornado. Not easy!

What about something that’s just completely babied. Like an F-15E Strike Eagle?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Maybe that’s just a bad angle?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Okay, but what about like *really* clean planes. Like the ones that don’t get dirty.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

But wait, what about a prototype stealth drone with a curved composite skin and barely any panels to speak of?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Damn!

The Verdict

At this point we could get into a deep philosophical discussion about how we don’t actually see anything, and how it’s just our brains interpreting tiny electrical impulses from these gelatinous photo-receptive sacks that we call eyes.

Or we could just say…yes…panel lines do exist in nature. Are they more prominent on some aircraft than others? Yes! Are they nearly invisible on a few – like the F-106 Delta Dart? Totally! Are they frequently overdone on models? You bet!

But to wade in and proclaim that they don’t exist in nature (lol) and that the entire exercise of depicting them at all is bullshit, ridiculous and unrealistic is not only wrong on the face of it and easily refuted with copious photo evidence – it’s also condescending and dickish. Hence the reply in kind.

Happy modeling!

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Butthurt Prevention Note: This hobby is highly dependent upon preferences and perspectives. What follows is my own. Yours may differ. And that’s totally fine.

When I first came back to modeling, I figured I’d start with something simple and cheap. So I picked up a Revell SBD Dauntless. Maybe, once upon a time, it was an innovative kit. But by today’s standards – or even by the standards I was accustomed to as a kid – it was a piece of trash. I quickly christened it the Fail Dauntless and consigned it to paint mule duty.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I think it’s vaguely criminal that Revell still charges money for this

I moved on to Tamiya’s P-51B Mustang, and the experience of building a good kit was downright revelatory.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

MUCH better…

Since that time, I’ve completed 46 kits (I had to go count!). And I’ve learned a few things.

I’ll be talking about some of those learnings over a handful of posts. Let’s start off with this:

My definition of a “good kit” is hardly ever touched on in reviews.

Kit reviews generally look at two things – detail and accuracy. To me, those are only about half of what makes a good kit good. In fact, I’m willing to give up some of both if other aspects hold up.

To me, the quality of a kit rests on four attributes:

Accuracy – Is the kit dimensionally accurate? Does it get little things correct, like the shape of propeller blades?

Detail – Level and quality of detail. This can vary quite a bit, and of course has all kinds of crossover with accuracy.

Engineering – How is the kit designed to go together? Are we talking fuselage halves, or four different fuselage segments? Are panels left open? Are you obliged to install landing gear legs early in the build?

Fit – Does that engineering pull through into a kit that actually fits together, or is it “too big for its britches”?

The last two, to my mind, are absolutely essential in a good kit.

On Engineering

Show me any subject that’s been kitted and I’ll show you engineering challenges that had to be overcome. This is doubly so when the manufacturer is trying to squeeze multiple variants out of a mold.

Consider, for a moment, two elements of HK’s 1/32 B-25 kits.

The first is the wings. In 1/32 scale, the B-25 is a large aircraft. Too large to be easily maneuvered on a workbench. So HK came up with a snazzy slide-and-lock mechanism for securing the wings to the fuselage. This way they could be painted separately and added toward the end of the build, greatly easing the experience. A lesser kit would have used some kind of standard tongue-and-slot engineering.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

I could point to numerous similar examples…from simple wing spars in Tamiya’s P-47s to the torsion bars in many modern armor kits that allow the road wheels to move and accommodate uneven surfaces.

HK makes another smart move in accounting for variants by keeping the nose separate. This way, a simple swap of a few sprues makes it possible to produce a standard B-25J with the glassed bombardier’s compartment, a strafer version bristling with eight .50 cal machine guns, or a B-25H gunship packing its huge 75mm cannon.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Now…the dicey part of the B-25 setup is fit. But it’s just a single contour.

An example of poor engineering? Kinetic’s F-5B Freedom Fighter.

With this kit, you have to worry about four major points of fit as the fore and aft fuselages slot together – the spine of the aircraft, the curves of the air intakes, and the flat bottom of the aircraft. All with no real provisions internally to guide the pieces into a proper fit. On top of those four points of concern, there are also the wing’s leading edge extensions, and the consideration of copious detail all over this area of the airframe.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The results? Assloads of filling and sanding.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

This kind of crude engineering shows up in a lot of older kits, for which I have an easier time excusing it, since technology has come so far. But it also shows up in a lot of what I would call “junior varsity” manufacturers.

And with them, it pisses me off.

I know there are plenty of modelers out there who love a challenging kit. For me, though, I want kits designed with passion. I want to see the evidence that the right way to tackle a tricky join kept somebody up at night. And the surest indicator of that, to my mind, lies in the engineering.

On Fit

Fit…well it’s pretty self-explanatory, right?

Here’s the thing, though. While fit does go hand-in-glove with engineering, it’s also its own thing. You can have a kit that’s poorly engineered that fits, and fits well. And you can have kits with really smart engineering that just can’t deliver on fit.

To me, it’s easy to tell which one you’re dealing with when you’re building.

The poorly engineered/good fitting kit usually elicits skepticism – “there’s no way this is going to go well” – and then surprise when it does. A great example of this is Zvezda’s Lavochkin La-5.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

There’s no way this should work…yet it does

The well-engineered, poor fitting kit is the opposite. It starts with confidence – “oh, this is going to work out nicely”, and then shifts to surprise when you have a big old trench of a gap in the wingroot. I’m looking at you, Hasegawa P-40s.

Best of Both Worlds

The best kits combine engineering and fit to surprise, delight and engage. And only a few manufacturers really manage to pull this off consistently – especially while keeping the other factors of detail and accuracy well in hand.

To my mind and in my own experience, they are:

Tamiya – Of course. And particularly with anything they’ve done in the last, oh, fifteen years. There are some older kits that have problems. And there are some questionable reboxings of other manufacturers’ plastic. But it doesn’t get much better than their 1/32 Corsair or their 1/48 P-47. A lot of their armor can come in for praise, too, but a good chunk of their run is getting dated now, and lacks certain engineering features like torsion bar suspensions or one-piece barrels that are becoming more the norm.

Wingnut Wings – Masters of their domain, pure and simple. I have yet to hear of a single Wingnut kit that’s poorly thought out or that just doesn’t fit.

HK Models – While HK has been dinged for certain accuracy flubs – the shape of the B-25’s propellers or the tread pattern on its wheels or the shape of the Mosquito’s engine nacelles, in terms of engineering and fit they’re really hard to beat.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Fellow modelers, we need to have a talk. Because…what the actual fuck?

What’s the deal with this hobby’s fascination with German crap?

A 109 here, a Panther there, I get it. In moderation, German subjects can be a nutritious part of a well-balanced modeling diet. But I frequently see it going beyond interest to fascination and, yes, fetishization of the tools and weapons and personalities of Nazi Germany.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Not even the tiny scales are immune!

Running the Numbers

It’s not just modelers. Manufacturers can’t get enough of Nazi subjects either – presumably because we buy the shit out of them. There’s an old saying in the tech industry that “nobody ever gets fired for buying IBM”. In modeling, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a similar saying about kitting 109s and Tigers.

Recently, Dragon announced 16 new armor releases. Fully 15 of them were German. Now…Dragon’s obsession with German subjects is legitimately troubling, but they’re far from alone.

To see how ridiculously slanted this hobby is toward German stuff, I took a quick look using Scale Hobbyist’s handy filtering system to isolate subjects by period and country. Is their stock exhaustive? No. But it’s rather thorough, so I’m going to go ahead and proclaim it a good representation.

Looking at all World War II aircraft, across all scales, we’ve got just over 1500 kits. 28% of them are German. The United States comes in second, with 25%.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

But…

The United States fielded a far more diverse fleet of aircraft during the war.

Consider fighters. Germany had the Bf 109, Fw 190, and Me 262. I’d fold the Ta 152 in with the Fw 190, and would consider adding late war stuff like the He 162 and Do 335. Still, three main fighter types. The US, meanwhile, had the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair. And each of these aircraft had at least two major variants (for example, the P-47D Razorback and Bubbletop, P-47M, and P-47N) and multiple block variants within each “letter” variant. That’s three heavily fielded fighter types to eight, and we’re not even touching bombers, scouts, seaplanes, transports and so on. But there are more German kits.

I think it’s fair to say that the Luftwaffe is over-represented relative to other countries.

In armor, it’s even worse. Of the 1090 World War II 1/35 kits Scale Hobbyist stocks, 56% of them are German (just 14% are Russian, just 12% American…).

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Fucking seriously?

I realize Germany fielded a pretty staggering variety of armored stuff during the War. Among tanks alone we go from the Panzer I to the Tiger and King Tiger, with all kinds of variants of each. Compared to the (relatively) limited variety of the Allies. But still. 56%???

Part of me is tempted to do an audit of forum and blog WIP projects, but 1) that sounds really tedious and 2) the massive over-representation of German subjects probably injects some kind of selection bias.

Heart of Darkness

So…what explains the fascination? The manufacturers have some responsibility, but they’re also picking subjects based on what will sell. Kitty Hawk’s planned 1/32 F-11 Tiger was recently shelved because investors felt it wouldn’t sell. So even with the more esoteric choices…money talks.

And modelers buy and build a ton of German shit.

But why?

I’m sure there’s a small minority of modelers out there who are Holocaust denier types and think the Nazis were just peachy, but I’m going to guess that that’s not the case for most. And if it is, come on, who’s going to own to that in this day and age?

Here are some of the more common reasons justifications rationalizations I’ve seen:

Because history. To me, this is a chickenshit dodge. I certainly don’t think we should flinch away from building any German subjects, but keeping the history alive or celebrating the history or whatever involves ranging all over the field. If you build mostly or exclusively German subjects, well, that’s not an interest in capital-H History. That’s an interest in German history.

Because engineering. I hear this one a lot. Germans just made the best shit. And while I’ll grant they made a lot of interesting innovations and rolled out some gamechangers like the Me 262, this one just isn’t true. For all the engineering brilliance that went into the Tiger, it was a fickle maintenance hog. The Sherman and T-34 may not have been a 1:1 match, but they were easier to produce and easier to keep in the field. The P-51 was a feat of engineering that surpassed any German piston-engined fighter.

Because they look cool. Another common refrain. And one I’ll certainly grant – zee Germans certainly had an eye for design for interesting camoflage schemes. But this is like…really shallow. I’d buy it from a 12-year-old kid, but grown-ass men (let’s face it…most of us are) don’t get into pissing matches over the landing bay bulges on a 109’s wings because they think they look cool. They don’t crawl up your ass about the presence or not of a pistol port on a tank turret because the tank just looks cool. There’s something deeper going on.

Let’s Make a Distinction

I’m not talking about those who build the occasional 109 or Panzer III or whatever. Nothing wrong with a balanced approach to modeling (though I do have a personal rule after my Panzer IV – nothing from SS divisions).

I’m talking about those who only (or overwhelmingly) build German subjects. Who move from Fw 190 to Bf 109 to Bf 110 to Ho 229 to Ju 87, or those who just build Panzers over and over and over.

Or who take completely unrelated kits – gundams and Star Wars walkers and dragons and shit – and put German crosses and swastikas on them. What is that about?

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

“Well I build German subjects because…”

Look. I’m not saying anyone’s a Hitler-loving neo-Nazi. Well, not explicitly.

I’m saying that the massive over-representation of German subjects in the hobby creeps me the fuck out. And it makes me worry about those who circle that drain regularly.

One of my big things in modeling lately is…I guess I would call it mindfulness. Paying attention to what the hell you’re doing and why you’re doing it. Why do you pre-shade panel lines? Why do you chip the fuck out of modern armor? To me, modeling is a journey, and the road to improvement starts with asking why, and experimenting when I can’t find a good answer.

I can’t help but wonder if something similar is the case for Nazi-philes. Why are 75% of the kits in your display cabinet wearing swastikas?

Where do you stand?

Well? Where do you stand? Does a too-enthusiastic interest in German stuff creep you out, too? Do you have a good rationalization for why you build panzer after panzer after panzer?

Sound off in the comments or over on Facebook.

*PERSONAL NOTE TIME

This is something that has been nagging at me and my own modeling journey for something like four years now. Ever since I built a Panzer IV Ausf. G that I realized way too far into the process was actually attached to an SS division that committed some nasty atrocities on the Eastern Front. Of course, the entire Eastern Front was one big atrocity, but still. It bothered me. 

Since then, I’ve built several more German subjects, but only two representing things in actual service with the Nazis – a Panzer III and Revell’s Bf 109G-6. The others have depicted subjects either out of service – an Me 262 abandoned at an airfield outside Innsbruck, another a prototype capture by the US at Messerschmitt’s home airfield, and a Bf 109G-10 flown to an American-occupied airbase – or in foreign service – in the case of an Italian Bf 109G-4 and a Swiss Bf 109G-6.

To me, representing German subjects in this light is more palatable as it shows (in the case of “fled” aircraft) a rejection of the regime, (in the case of abandoned aircraft) the fall of the regime, or (in the case of foreign service) sidesteps the regime entirely.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.