Brandon Wood

All in all, I think it's a good kit, but not for the inexperienced or those that prefer shake and bake. Could some of the parts or their casting design be better, probably so. For me, the subject is one I have wanted to do for several years so it's worth a little extra effort. BW

Here is the cowl ready for another coat of primer to spot flaws Of which I am sure there will be many, but that is what primer is for................ BW

So, as I plan out the best way to correct and accurately represent the radio-gunner area, I have tried to keep pushing forward. The underside of the fuselage is going to require some TLC in order to address the gap but preserve the fabric detail on the rear portion. I would prefer that Lukgraph extend the pour stub out past the fuselage and allow the modeler to sand/cut back or review their current configuration. The cowl halves were pretty rough as well with the added bonus of pin holes and voids just under the surface that appeared with the first few swipes of a sanding pad. More pics to follow as soon as my laptop finishes updating......

Ok, so I have been trying to reconcile the cockpit arrangement for the SBU. While the pilot's position is pretty easy to understand and the kit appears to be pretty close in most areas, I have had a difficult time with the radio-gunner's area. The Erection & Maintenance manual has three photos of the rear area along with multiple drawings/arrangement sheets that were not making sense at first. But as I continued to study them, I finally understood and accepted the obvious: the radio gear was behind the radio-gunner, not in front of him as on almost every other aircraft. While there were basic flight instruments and the RDF loop on the shelf in front of him, the transmitter, receiver, battery, etc…..were all located in the rear portion of the fuselage. This will require quite a bit of rearranging and some scratch building to accurately represent. Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh The other issue was the fact that the SBU did not use a ring mount or track mount for the .30 cal gun in the rear. Instead, it used a post mount that will actually be pretty easy to replicate. This configuration appears to have replaced the WW1 era Scarff ring mount beginning in 1932 and can be seen on the Vought O3U and SU series and the Grumman FF-1 and SF-1. The post mount was replaced by the track system on the Great Lakes BG-1 and Curtiss SBC which then was replaced by the ring-seat configuration that is seen on the Vought SB2U and Douglas SBD aircraft. The first photo is a general arrangement drawing. While not as accurate as plans, they are useful and helps you understand where equipment is located. IMG_20170324_0002 by buno02100 The second is a more detailed plan view of station 4 which is the last section of the cockpit tube frame represented in the kit looking aft. IMG_20170324_0001 by buno02100 So, back to work. I followed what Jan did on his build and scratchbuilt the tube framing as I thought the resin pieces would be difficult to clean up and keep round. It will also allow me to more accurately represent the tubing according to the plans. BW

Dirk, Looks great. I may have missed it, but where did you find the outer pylons or rather, where did you scavenge them from? The ones in the ZM kit are integral with the wing tanks and I plan on hanging an empty TER there. BW

Jan, Good job on the interior, it looks very convincing. I am going to perform some modifications on mine to try and replicate what I see in photos and diagrams, but not sure how much of it will be seen or how many people would even notice the differences. Rather jealous of the progress you have made and speed at which you are able to work! Looking forward to more. BW

When building radial engine aircraft, I usually start with the engine. With big open cowls that draw a viewer's attention, this area has to be good. In 1/48, I almost without exception, replace kit engines with resin versions from Vector. These are some of the best, if not the best, aftermarket accessories on the market today and if you have not tried one, treat yourself. With careful painting, they can really turn out great. Here is their 1/48 P&W R-1830 slightly modified to represent a -90 used in the F4F-3A. I added the Curtiss electric prop control on the shaft, ignition wires and pushords. The engine included in the SBU kit is a R-1535 and while the crankcase is excellent, the individual cylinders are a bit soft and suffer from mold parting lines. I will try cleaning one or two up, apply paint and a wash to decide if they are salvageable. If not, I will try and marry cylinders from one of Vector's 1/32 engines with the Lukgraph crankcase.

Very interested in this side by side comparison build. I have the Fine Molds kit and it appears very well done with good detail and logical construction. But when I saw the Wingsy kit in person, I suffered a bit of buyer's remorse. The petite surface detail and representation of rivets just blew me away. Not sure how well/easily it goes together, but it looks great in the box. BW

Ok, I will try and respond with what I have. Simmo.b, the inside of the flaps are not called out to be red in any reference that I have and I have not located any photo that clearly shows the color. The first application of red to the interior of flaps that I am aware of occurred with the SBD-1 in 1940. Tnarg, i will try and post responses and updates as I move forward. If you have any specific questions, please ask and I will try and answer. BW

After relearning how to post photos, I figured I should put this skill to use. My plan is to not bog down and document my progress on the new Lukgraph SBU-1. Primary resources for the build will be an Erection & Maintenance Manual I acquired last year, photos and documents from the Vought archives now at UT-Dallas, and a few others I picked up at the National Archives. All of that was in preparation of scratch building either a 1/16 or more likely a 1/32 SBU-1, but with Lukgraph bringing one to the market, life got much easier. So, wish me luck, and if you have any questions along the way, fire away. I will do my best to answer. BW

Jan, The transitional period is a hard era to model. A general rule of thumb, but one that is NOT foolproof is to use the outer finish to guide what the interior finish was. By the end of 1936, the Bureau of Aeronautics, which controlled all navy aircraft, finally accepted an aluminum lacquer over a zinc chromate primer for metal surfaces that withstood its testing criteria. Prior to that, they had been using a gray enamel because earlier use of aluminum colored varnish had not withstood exposure. So, in 1937, new delivery aircraft and those undergoing overhaul were painted aluminum lacquer. Of course, it never fails, our subject aircraft was accepted in 1936 so it would have been painted originally in gray enamel but repainted when overhauled. The decals depict the aircraft near the end of its career and with the neutrality star applied, so it would have gone through overhaul at least once if not twice by that time. I personally have always wondered if they would have taken the time to completely disassemble and mask an aircraft interior to repaint it, but overhauls would sometimes last several months according to aircraft history cards, so they were out of service long enough for that to occur. So I think it is very likely that the interiors were also repainted during these overhauls. While some of the above can be found on the internet, most is from discussions with Dana Bell, my own research at the National Archives, and a little from Elliott's Monogram Color series. Now, the SBU-2 is easy. The Erection & Maintenance manual issued in January 1937 directs that the metal parts would be primed in zinc chromate and then have two coats of aluminum lacquer. As for the fabric parts, they would have had two coats of clear dope applied followed by two coats aluminum colored dope. The clear dope would have sealed the fabric which is why it remained white on the inside even when the exterior was painted. So, as for me, I am going to be building a late in life SBU so it will be aluminum and white interior. If by some off chance a document and color photograph surfaces AFTER I finish that shows something different, I will just have to live with it!! I hope this helps and isn't too confusing. If you have additional questions, please let me know. BW

Jan, It is looking good and I am about to start on mine after its arrival yesterday. Not sure if you have closed up the fuselage yet, but if you have not, I would recommend that you adjust the colors used for the cockpit and crew area. I know that Lukgraph calls out interior green, but the inner fabric surfaces should be white while the metal sections should be aluminum lacquer. There is some debate as to whether the SBU-1s had their cockpits repainted when the Navy shift from the grey paint to the aluminum color since they were delivered before the transition, but I believe the consensus is that when an aircraft went through major overhaul they were repainted. Interior green and bronze green did not start appearing in most Navy aircraft until late 1940 or 1941 for new production. Definitely not a criticism of your work, its top notch. I have an erection and maintenance manual for the type, so if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. BW

Joel, Good work on the -3, it's not a shake and bake kit but worth the effort, especially since it's the only 1/32 -3 in town. If you are building a VMF-211 bird, they may not have weathered much, a little but nothing like Corsairs you often see. They were painted on the way to Wake aboard Enterprise and were out of action less than a month later. It was a primitive environment but a bit different than the South Pacific. As for bomb racks, if you locate some, they would be correct for -211 birds and they even carried bombs on a few sorties against the first Japanese attempt to take the island. Looking forward to the next installment BW

I really hope to see this on the contest table in San Antonio next month. After viewing your A-4 in person, I walked away trying to decide if it was either the most realistic finish I had ever seen or the best representation of a finish applied to a scale model. Your F4U further confused the issue and it seems each new subject builds on the previous one regarding technique and mastery. Looking forward to the next installment. BW

I will put my scratch built effort aside and really hope they do this aircraft up right.