Battle Of Malta - SPIT NEXT!

Noel Petroni wrote:

skyhigh wrote:Gunze  ?  

Actually I would like the number of the colours of ..
Hobby Colour
Vallejo

Today I bought the following from K-Hobbies:

Hobby Color - Middle Stone No71
Hobby Color - Dark Earth No72
Are they Good????

I need the underside

Better ask JF........  

JF.........where are you?   

What's wrong with it Noel? Looks like a good old much weathered malta Spit. The only thing which needs some sanding down in the radio mast behind the cockpit, it is a bit too chunky, otherwise ok.

Looks fine to me too Noel! Glad you've got the air-bug and trying your hand at 1:72.

I had so far resisted answering to the blasphemy about the 109 being obsolete before the war started, etc,etc! The end K version was one of the most advanced, fastest and versatile fighters in existence. The only problem is the good pilots were all dead and the fuel situation was so bad they only got to fly for a few hours and by kids who had a couple of flying hours experience. You cannot really assess aircraft by which is the best or which is more beautiful than the other because this is entirely subjective.

Back to your models, you are definitely getting the hang of it and I look forward to seeing your artistic interpretation of a few other subjects.

You are there Noel..... you are there...  ..... can't you feel......the slipstream ........


Model aircraft..... gives you WINGS............   

looks good to me, except that radio mast.

Aldo, may I continue with the blasphemy - the 109 was an evolutionary dead end with skilled or not so skilled pilots, fuel or not. The spitfire was in continuous evolution basically till the end, which brought about by the war's end and the advent of jet power. It does not mean that the 109 it was a bad fighter but by war's end it had lost its edge and surpassed by better fighters like the Fw190, P-51 and Tempest with better performance, fire-power and endurance with latter 2 being the Achilles heel of the 109.

Joe ..may be your right .. but in my opinion your wrong ..Germany was losing the war no fuel and etc ....etc... if they had the time and the resources , like the allies for sure the 109 would have been better ... ..  

skyhigh wrote:Joe ..may be your right .. but in my opinion your wrong ..Germany was losing the war no fuel and etc ....etc... if they had the time and the resources , like the allies for sure the 109 would have been better ... ..  

ok granted, german industry was hard pressed for raw materials and especially fuels, yet they had enough resources to build the Me262, Me163, He162, V1, V2, Ar234 and Do 335. New technology costs more in material, resources and finance because it is still being developed but yet they invested into new technologies.  Why not divert the meagre resources you have into upgrading the 109?  Whilst there would be variables, the simple fact remains that they needed something better than 109 could offer to counter what the allies had in the air both in fighters and bombers.

All this at a time when Luftwaffe and Germany are losing the war.  Had Germans been winning the war, there is chance that the development of the 109 would not have progressed any further because there would not have been a need to improve performance.  One should also take into consideration what were the operational needs of both axis and allies.  Bomber needed a fighter escort all the way to and back from the target - they got the P-51.  Fw190 emerged - spitfire mk.IX developed (a stop gap version ended being the most version build).

J.Fenech wrote:Aldo, may I continue with the blasphemy - the 109 was an evolutionary dead end with skilled or not so skilled pilots, fuel or not.  The spitfire was in continuous evolution basically till the end, which brought about by the war's end and the advent of jet power. It does not mean that the 109 it was a bad fighter but by war's end it had lost its edge and surpassed by better fighters like the Fw190, P-51 and Tempest with better performance, fire-power and endurance with latter 2 being the Achilles heel of the 109.

Jo, you are reading too many 'british' books who continue to perpetuate many such ideas which started after WWII. We read of the 'crazy idea' to arm the 262 as a bomber, of the He219 being a useless aircraft and many such stories which have in time been considered to be quite the contrary. As I said, these are subjective opinions which do not take into consideration certain conditions of a political nature which existed in the beligerent countries in WWII. In England development was limited to a few designs and technology was disseminated freely between manufacturers. In Germany, development was open and the RLM would consider any proposal for its requirements. The technology was however not shared between manufacturers and that is why development was sideways not forward as in the case of the British who were receiving American aide in the meantime while the German industry was being pounded by day and by night. Besides, the Germans were advancing the technology in leaps and bounds, (see the Me109TL) and it was a matter of resources rather than design flaw. In my book, both the 109 and the Spit had their history - it is the context which differs.

Sorry for hijacking Noel's thread. Hey Noel, try a 109 since it has been brought into the picture...

Aldo wrote:Looks fine to me too Noel!  Glad you've got the air-bug and trying your hand at 1:72.

I had so far resisted answering to the blasphemy about the 109 being obsolete before the war started, etc,etc!  The end K version was one of the most advanced, fastest and versatile fighters in existence.  The only problem is the good pilots were all dead and the fuel situation was so bad they only got to fly for a few hours and by kids who had a couple of flying hours experience.  You cannot really assess aircraft by which is the best or which is more beautiful than the other because this is entirely subjective.

Back to your models, you are definitely getting the hang of it and I look forward to seeing your artistic interpretation of a few other subjects.  

Wow! Thanks Aldo!.... between you, Brian, Marco and Joe making positive comments about my aircraft building....... I'm being more encouraged to build more!!!

Anyway, the problem with the above model was this...... I had the idea to paint by brush the entire model with Testors aluminum paint... the pigment type ones... when I painted the model with and black and white pre-shading and top coats...... every started coming off when I pulled the masking tape!!!!!! It seems that the paint did not adhere to the silver paint!!  Furthermore when I removed the masking of the camo, I realized that I made them to small and airbrushed again to enlarge the areas removing the hard edge in the process!... So I painted by brush over the edges to obtain the hard edge....... insomma .. a whole mess.

its hard to believe. from the pics you posted it looks nice. might notice these things if i had to see the real thing.

I agree with Brian; looking at the photos you can hardly see these 'faults' but perhaps they are more visible when you see the model in the flesh.

As for the metalizers, I don't think they are a good undercoat for other coats especially when applied by brush. I am assuming you used Tamiya type masking tape as I cannot imagine using anything else on fragile metalizer paint. As a rule, I never used brushes in 1:72 scale because the finishes should be very thin and in this weather (humid), it is best to allow more than usual for the paint to dry. You could have 'surface drying' problems which is why the paint lifted with the tape or as you say, the metallic paint did not have sufficient adhesion to the plastic. Having said that, I have used metallizers extensively and masked over them more than one colour application without incident.

As for the top surfaces, you could just correct the camo pattern by moving the masks and respraying the camo colour. I would not take the hard edge rule in the biblical sense - taking the amount of weathering you have put into it, one would be very correct to accept that the hard edge has started to soften in the weathering process.

For one of your first aircraft models, I think you score very highly especially in artistic rendering. I suggested a 109 because the camouflage involves more blending of colours assuming you choose a mottled version.

Noel, I understand your frustration. Testors/modelmaster metalizers and metallic paint are nice but do not apply tape over them, otherwise you would be risking a disaster as paint is peeled off when removing the tape. I still use them but apply them last when no masking is required after their application. If you intend to pursue the method of applying an aluminium/silver undercoat, I suggest you use Alcad as when fully and properly dry they can withstand tape application safely - I tested this!

Aldo wrote:

J.Fenech wrote:Aldo, may I continue with the blasphemy - the 109 was an evolutionary dead end with skilled or not so skilled pilots, fuel or not.  The spitfire was in continuous evolution basically till the end, which brought about by the war's end and the advent of jet power. It does not mean that the 109 it was a bad fighter but by war's end it had lost its edge and surpassed by better fighters like the Fw190, P-51 and Tempest with better performance, fire-power and endurance with latter 2 being the Achilles heel of the 109.

Jo, you are reading too many 'british' books who continue to perpetuate many such ideas which started after WWII.  We read of the 'crazy idea' to arm the 262 as a bomber, of the He219 being a useless aircraft and many such stories which have in time been considered to be quite the contrary.  As I said, these are subjective opinions which do not take into consideration certain conditions of a political nature which existed in the beligerent countries in WWII.  In England development was limited to a few designs and technology was disseminated freely between manufacturers.  In Germany, development was open and the RLM would consider any proposal for its requirements.  The technology was however not shared between manufacturers and that is why development was sideways not forward as in the case of the British who were receiving American aide in the meantime while the German industry was being pounded by day and by night.  Besides, the Germans were advancing the technology in leaps and bounds, (see the Me109TL) and it was a matter of resources rather than design flaw.  In my book, both the 109 and the Spit had their history - it is the context which differs.

Sorry for hijacking Noel's thread.  Hey Noel, try a 109 since it has been brought into the picture...

I am not biased  . I read multiple sources then come up with my opinion.  I do not agree that the He219 was useless, to the contrary, it was advanced but they were too little and too late.  I agree with you on the bomber 262 version, it does not make sense when you need an air superiority fighter, again to little/too late along with under developed tactics for its use because of time.  Notwithstanding the lack of resources, lack of cooperation and bombing, the Germans were way ahead technologically in most aviation aspects with designs that would later become an integral part of aviation technology - ejection seats and swept wings for example.  As for the 109 I am not saying that it was not a good aircraft but it came to a point where further development was not possible without drastic alteration to the design, possibly at a detriment to performance or becoming something else. The Fw190 airframe was more versatile, adaptable and had more potential for development. As you said, these are subjective opinions but ultimately piston engined fighters reached their peak development during WWII.  The Me262 and other jet powered fighters of WWII paved the way from today's jet fighters who have dominated the airspace since then.  


p.s - sorry for the hijack Noel   

This is for Joseph as the quotes are too long now.

Agree with you on the Metalizer paint but I have used Tamiya masking tape over it and never had a problem. Still, I would not risk it and go for Alclad to be safe.

Agree also re the 109 development, since it ended up as the 209 (the V5) and the 309 which digressed more from the original design than the late war Spits from the original Mk.1. That's why I said you have to see it in the context. Imma nsomma back to Noel's Spit.

Aldo, we could go on with this debate forever!!    . The 209V5 looked more like a Fw190D and along with the 309 scantly resembled the 109. I agree with you that over the course of years the spitfire changed shape from the mk 1 to the mk24 but one could still distinguish it as a spitfire. The really drastic change was with the spiteful which ultimately was a dead end.

Noel, i use bub'n'buff or silver wax for an undercoat when i need to scratch the model to reveal the metal. You have seen many of my models in silver before i start the camo. If i apply the first topcoat and then a few coatings of gloss varnish between one coat and the other, the paint won't lift but metallizer is way too fragile as Joe told you.

To play it safe... for the moment I'm not going to paint my models silver! Thanks for the tips you all put in, ..... very helpful, noted and I'll think about it.

In the mean time, although no progress, I had fun taking some more mobile pics....

Is that a 110 underneath the Spitfire?! Wow, you are really enjoying this aren't you? Looks nice. Have you decided on a scheme?

The last few pics show the paint to be quite rough. Why did you want to paint it by brush?