**** DONE: Kittyhawk Mk III James F. "Eddie" Edwards RCAF - Aircraft of the Aces GB.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thanks everyone. So my learning from this is that it seems to be easier to create the codes using a reverse process, i.e. I should have painted the white first, before any camo colours were applied, then masked the white with tape of consistent width to form the letters. I did my Mk II Spitfire DW-O that way and it turned out better I think. Mind you, these letters were much smaller and tighter so any slight variance in width of the mask became very noticeable. Anyway, I'm satisfied with the results but am not sure this would stand up to model contest scrutiny.

Having now finished the codes, I did some subtle panel line highlighting with a sharp .5mm pencil, darkened the engine area underneath with pastel, and sprayed a coat of Future on making sure there was a good thick coat over the codes. I'll let his set for a few days, give it a light sanding, and then get a flat coat on. Here's how it looks after today's work. The prop has been stuck in temporarily.

Thanks again everyone. I appreciate your comments.
 

Attachments

  • 111010 Top 2.jpg
    111010 Top 2.jpg
    81.9 KB · Views: 97
  • 111010 Bottom 1.jpg
    111010 Bottom 1.jpg
    87.2 KB · Views: 97
  • 111010 Bottom 2.jpg
    111010 Bottom 2.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 93
  • 111010 Top 1.jpg
    111010 Top 1.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 99
Beaut work Andy, and I agree, - reverse masking is often much easier and more accurate. Hadn't realised that the aircraft carried 'A1' underside roundels.
 
Thanks everyone. So I sprayed the entire model with Tamiya Flat Base X-21 mixed with about 20% Future. Not being familiar with Tamiya paints my question is this: is this the stuff that's supposed to give a nice dull flat coat? I'm not familiar with it and normally use Testors Dullcoat. This stuff sprayed on and immediatley dried and clouded severely. I knew going in that it would give a dusty look but I never though it would be that bad. I managed to wipe it off by rubbing over it with tissue paper and it did give the model a rather desert-worn look and I got a bit of the sheen back (pics later) but I'm wondering if I'm using the wrong product?

Unfortunatley I didn't get any pictures of the initial spray as I was a bit spooked and immediately went to work on it. Any advice would be appreciated.

EDIT: Well, I did a bit of surfing and found out what I did wrong. Much too much X-21 to Future ratio. A few threads on other forums have revelaed I'm not alone. Off I go to scrub some more.
 
Last edited:
Ah...correct Andy the flat base should be used starting small to more to get the desired sheen, wrong proportions will give the snowy effect if you have too much. The flat base IS the additive not the other way round.
I had a few issues like you've described long ago including some cracking issues and chose to change to the Gunze stuff, with this I've never had an issue.Hope you sort it out man...
 
Thanks guys. As you can see, I've been able to get most of the snowy stuff off. I must say it was a bit exciting there for a while. After it first showed up in the middle of spraying, I couldn't decided whether to stop or to keep going so that at least the finish would be consistent. I decided to keep going. Pity I didn't get pictures but believe me, it looked as if the model was sitting in a dusty attic for 15 years. I knew that the finish might give a bit of a dusty appearance but that's what I was going for to give it a desert worn look. There are still some remnants on the tail that I'll need to attend to. After that, I'll go back to my Testors Dullcoat.
 

Attachments

  • 111013 Fuse.jpg
    111013 Fuse.jpg
    74.6 KB · Views: 84
  • 111013 Tail.jpg
    111013 Tail.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 84

Users who are viewing this thread

Back