Jump to content

1/32 Revell SBD Dauntless and Corsair


LSP_Matt

Recommended Posts

Hey Matty they look great, I think the weathering on both birds looks great. It's a tough call, the more pictures you look at the more confused you get! Case in point is the corsair, some photos you can eat off them, others look like they've been to hell and back. I reckon you have nailed the "look" with both birds. Good stuff. Jim. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the comments guys. I used Testors Dullcoate for the final finish. Given that its a reasonably old, semi-used bottle, I'm unsure if it contributed to the extra weathering that suddenly appeared. I'd love to say I meant the effect that happened but it just kind of turned out that way.

 

With the battle damage it was my attempt at a little creativity :D

 

Thanks Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Matt!

Excellent job on both aircraft!

I like my models to have the same weathered-and-beaten-to-crap look you have achieved so well with these. I hope I can get the same look on the old Airfix Dauntless I obtained on e-Bay (just prior to the re-release of the Revell kit).

Were these old builds that you re-worked?

I say flak damage and bullet holes are just fine, and hardly ever done by modelers.

Matty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys,

 

Yeah I gotta say I like the really beaten up look weathered finish some guys get on their Pacific Brids. There're all just standard Revell kits. Hmmmm....wonderful absence of detail for scratchbuilders heaven.

 

Unfortunately Jason I slapped a fair bit of it together before I'd learnt new stuff/techniques so in the end I just had to 'kinda' finish them. I think in the future I'll definitely do a SBD again but this time with some serious cockpit detail, scribing, internals and riveting.

 

Good luck with the canopy on yours....if MG's are to be displayed I couln't get all the glass bits in there. Its like the kit was engineered to have all the glass bits only if it was closed down. somewhere in my house ( kids! ;) ) is also the divebrake from one wing...gawd knows where that went.

 

cheers guys...

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those 2 are fantastic

I love the weathering on both and the bullet holes are a nice touch

Nicely done.

 

Just one remark if I may on doing such a thing.

 

In this case you picked a specific plane 'Lonesome Polecat' for the damage.But did you find real evidence that the plane in question ever got damaged like done by you ?

 

Some might find it a mistake to add damage to a well known plane when it never got damaged at all.

 

Do you know what I mean ?

 

If one does that to a plane with no personal markings,then it's OK to add whatever damage you want.

Otherwise it more tricky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys...

 

Keith...how's your 109E coming along?

 

Thanks Sean....but yeah good point Erwin and a good idea for being able to use artistic license in a more historicaly accurate way.

 

Honestly, even though I would burn at an IPMS stake, I just put the decals on to make it look cool. ( I think the genuine Lonesome Polecat had white and not black writing anyway). I hadn't really thought about 'Lonesome Polecat as a specific plane though in using the kit decals it's effectively what it becomes. I defintely didn't intend for it to be construed with historical accuracy. I guess the objective was more artisitc experimentation, to get in some practice for some of my later builds...those being more expensive kits. Mostly I just wanted to build a Corsair to show that wicked frontal shape and bent wing.

 

You got me thinking about that kind of stuff though. I went to the model show on Sunday and heard a couple of guys absolutely tearing shreds out of what looked to be quite a nice 1/24 Harrier. Ok...so it wasn't 'perfect' but it was put under a microscope of scrutiny that sounded frankly nit picky. I pondered about this for a while trying to decide if the guys were just 'rivet counters' and missing the big picture...I guess in the end, given it 'was' a competition, I figured probably not unreasonable but not my style of evaluation either.

 

Perhaps thats why we have diverse 'slats out' or 'slats in' views. Its not right or wrong either way unless the model is displayed within the context of 'competition' or 'historical accuracy' standards. Even then, as so rightly pointed out there is always an exception to every rule. Thankfully the hobby is diverse enough to cater for all of us, some who are rivet counters ( leading to phenomenal accuracy, depth of knowledge), some in the middle, those building OOB and not fussed if its not 'perfect' and those that get fun from simply building a 'plane'.

 

Cheers Mat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt,

 

Very nice painting and weathering on your models...we all learn all of the time, and your efforts are a good example to us all, especially more so since these are your early kits. Battle damage (and especially trying to make it look convincing) must be one of the most difficult skills to master in modelling (I have never personally tried it - yet!), regardless of what type of model you apply it to...you have done well with yours.

 

Best regards

 

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion about the outstanding Dauntless & Corsair paint jobs here leads into a question I'm curious about--how do YOU do your models and why (in terms of weathering)?

 

Some like factory fresh, others like the beaten up and used look. I'm definitely in the "used look" category.

 

I had an interesting talk with a retired USAF pilot (he'd flown F-4s, F-15s and had been an exchange pilot with the RAF and had a shot at flying the Tornado F3).

 

He said even modern aircraft are dirty and dinged up.

 

It was a bit of a revalation for me, as I do mostly WW2 aircraft (with the occasional foray into Korea and later) and have always had the impression modern stuff never got quite as weathered as WW2.

 

This may be true overall, given the primitive nature of some WW2 facilities, but it's interesting that even in a top of the line airfield & maintenance situation, you still can't fix everything...

 

Any thoughts?

 

Tim W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again chaps. So many aspects of these builds just kinda turned out. More than often it was one step forward and 3 back. They were pretty frustrating. Trust me, I'll be asking lots of questions about correct colours for US Navy birds in the future.

 

I had the idea of battle damage running through my head tonight whilst reading about 112 Sqn in North Africa. Some good shots of battle damage there....mind you chunks as opposed to holes. That would be very hard to do.

 

I prefer the weathered/beaten up look myself Tim. I understand though that good/accurate weathering would simulate environmental, operation and service history conditions applicable at the time. Obviously a newly delivered jet is clean as opposed to one that has completed a tour at sea. One thing is for sure, I'd never task any of my soldiers to clean something to make it look pretty...I'd ensure it was kept serviceable and ready to do what it was designed to...more often than not the military though stuff is overcleaned...guns especially.

 

Cheers Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...