HobbyBoss 1/48 Hurricane Mk. I, F/O McKnight, Aug 1940

A little extra time on Friday means I get to finally put all that study and research into the murky waters of Early War RAF Roundels and Squadron Codes into practice. I leaned most heavily on the few known-period photos of 242 squadron – known period being late summer, Battle of Britain. (McKnight is sitting on the wing directly below the cockpit in the group photo – right over Doug Bader’s right shoulder.)

Here’s where I’ve arrived for a late August 1940 Hurricane, all-sky underside and no sky fuselage band:

  • Upper wing: 49" Type B
  • Fuselage: 35" Type A1
  • Underwing: 40" Type A
  • Squadron codes: 30", light grey

Of course this means it’s time to try out the set of 1ManArmy masks I bought for this project.

They come with excellent instructions, and there are plenty of how-to videos out there, so I won’t go into detail on the process, other than to show the fun sequence. I used Tamiya acrylics; color mixes stolen from this Britmodeller thread.

Using Tamya acrylics the following are good mixes:-
Dull Roundel Red - Mix of 75% flat Red (XF-7 ), 25% NATO Brown (XF-68)
Blue - Mix of 95% flat Blue (XF-8), 5% flat Black (XF-1)
Yellow - Flat Yellow (XF-3) with a tiny amount of flat Red (XF-7)







Removing paint masks has to be one of the most satisfying parts of modeling… and removing these roundel masks takes that feeling to a whole 'nother level. :grin:

Wife will be out of town this weekend, so I should be able to get the rest of these markings on. I still have to to do the squadron codes, the fin flash, the serial number, and all the stencils. Also, I got the nose-art decals on with only slight difficulty, but I’ll wait to photograph those until after the flat coat blends them in. Right now they look really sticker-ish.

2 Likes

Masking and spraying markings continues.

Research on the exact fin flash style never resulted in a clear answer. I needed to decide between the smaller, rectangular style and the taller, wrapped-stripe version. There is no photo of the tail of P2961, my subject a/c.

(If you want all the detail on this silly dilemma, click here)

The smaller rectangle was dictated by the RAF in November/December 1940, which we know is after my subject date of 30 August 1940 – yet it shows up in photos before and after that date. Most model kit profiles and schemes of this aircraft include the sky band and black port underwing, placing it in time after the Battle of Britain, and don’t help much.

The wonderful painting “Heavy Odds” by Wes Lowe, certainly Battle of Britain-summer placed, shows the very early, pre-war (?) full-fin fin-flash.

Then the famous “hat trick” by painting Michael Martchenko, which is set on the exact day I’m after, and it shows the smaller rectangular style.

A famous photo of 242 Squadron in flight (which I have not been able to date accurately but is likely summer 1940 since it does NOT show the late 1940 sky fuselage bands nor the port wing underside painted black) clearly shows fin flashes of both styles.


Vintage Wings of Canada, who have painted their restored Hurricane in McKnight’s colors, have a detailed page about how they arrived at their decisions for all the paint details, and it’s wonderfully sourced. They chose the taller fin flash based on a photo of a Hurricane in France, Gloster-made, only two serial numbers away from McKnight’s P2961, and likely in its factory paint scheme. This is from that site:

But I personally think they’re wrong about this particular choice, since they’re using the late 1940 scheme with the sky band and black underwing. The smaller fin flash was implemented at the same time, and to me it’s unlikely that if they repainted so much else on the aircraft, that they wouldn’t have also updated the fin flash to match the RAF directive. In short, factory-applied markings aren’t useful for modeling an a/c after two years of combat and multiple official markings updates.

However, if P2961 came from the factory with the tall-stripe type fin flash, it seems very unlikely to me that it would have later had the older full-fin flash type added (as in the painting above). Not impossible, but unlikely.

In the end, after several circular hours, I decided to just pick the one I liked the best. If I’m later proven wrong by someone with a better source than I have been able to find, I’ll happily own the error.

The 1ManArmy masks continue to work flawlessly. I do not operate flawlessly: I accidentally ordered the 36" tall code letters, instead of the 30" tall set. The code letters height is another rabbit-hole saga perhaps even deeper than that of the fin flash. I’m happy with 30 inches, and at this point I don’t want to talk about it. :rofl:

So the masks needed some mods to fit properly; likewise the “A” on McKight’s plane was clearly a non-standard style (and so are many of the other letters on the 242 Squadron Hurris). So again, some creativity is not just allowed, but required.



Lastly, the stencils. More creative freedom here! I cross-referenced my cross-references using period photos and decal/instruction sheets from many different kits. There was little agreement.

In the end just used the stencils that are likely on most/all Hurricane Mk.Is, look cool, and were included in the 1ManArmy set – which didn’t include a placement guide, and in fact included at least one anachronism: a stencil stipulating “AVGAS 100LL,” which wasn’t introduced until the 1970s!



Notable in the above three photos is how unflattering a true macro photo can be. I had no idea I’d got such a sandpaper-rough surface on the wing-root area until I looked at the pics!

Meanwhile, I’m refining the chipping with silver pencils and touch-up paint. The decals are placed and drying. Soon comes an overall flat coat in preparation for oil paints. Also yet to do is final finishing of the canopy, propellor, and landing gear.

Still having fun! I think!

5 Likes

Tom, this is looking really good! :+1:

1 Like

Sol, thanks so much! This has been a really fun build overall, with only a few minor disasters, and a handful of those moments where you try a new technique and it comes out better than expected.

A good example is the top cowling. I had that top seam looking good, so I re-scribed and re-riveted to an acceptable if not great level. Then with the final primer coat, the seam ghosted back into view, and needed another round of filler and sanding. After I painted the camo colors on, I realized that I’d forgotten to refresh the rivets, and due to the very deep molded HobbyBoss rivets, it looked badly like a filled seam under paint.

I himmed and hawed about whether I should leave it or just dive in and re-rivet, even if that meant repainting that area. But to my shock, a few light passes with the properly-sized wheel from the AK 0.75mm riveter seems to have worked. The only damage done was a little paint lift from the ultra-sticky Dymo tape. I can live with that!

By the way: these little AK rivet wheels are a big upgrade from the rather flimsy GSW plastic riveter I’ve been using. They fit into a hobby knife handle, and come in a bunch of sizes. Can’t argue with the price either.

1 Like

Got a matte coat in place – I’m really liking the Vallejo polyurethane Ultra Matte these days, thinned 50/50, shaken to death. The few decals flattened out nicely, though the carrier film on the “Hitler’s a@@-kicking” nose art is being stubborn.

Pulled all the masking off with no major touch ups needed, and to my great relief the gun bay covers on the port wing popped off easily with no damage. Elmer’s glue is the best!

I spent a few evenings going back and forth with chipping – adding some, removing some – and touching up other small areas. I think I’m finally happy with where it’s at, and it’s time to think about weathering – as in dust, fading, dirt, soot, etc. – with oil paints.

6 Likes

Over two weeks without an update… and summer coming on…

Gotta power through!

Actually, I’ve been using another project to bone-up on my oil paint weathering skills before beginning that part of this project.

Meanwhile, I was waiting for a replacement prop/spinner to come in. I just couldn’t get the kit parts to look right, and after a mind-numbing amount of research on which prop/spinner combo is appropriate for P2961, I forced myself to accept the ambiguity and settled on a Rotol Spitfire-type spinner, and found this Quickboost set on eBay for about $12 delivered.

It was designed for the Italeri/Tamiya kit, but the only difference I have been able to find is the mounting hole/rod doesn’t match. A relatively easy fix.

The tool makes proper assembly fairly straightforward, and the blades are reaallly nice and thin – though, probably, correspondingly fragile.


4 Likes

Hi Toimi_Tom, besides complimenting you for this excellent build so far, I now finally understood why so many aircraft modelers go for 1/48 scale instead of 1/72: for the detail work.

But I could also compare your difficulties you were having with the PE parts by Eduard with my own build of 1/35 scale communication equipment set and although not strictly Eduard, but rather AFV Club model PE parts of my 1/35 PAK43/41 anti-tank gun they produced with your own.

Indeed, those tiny thin parts are a bit too fragile to be handled by rough hands as I have, despite all my efforts to handle them with care. Some just broke apart at the slightest bending of them which mad me ask myself, oh why, oh why did I have to torture myself with that?

Finally I managed to put them all together, but man could I have used all that time on another model altogether and so I decided that if something cannot be clearly seen with the naked eye, or is simply too hidden from the viewer that he has to use a jeweler’s lens to see them, then it is time not to use them anymore.

The model might not be perfect in every tiny detail, but at least my eyesight doesn’t suffer and my work can continue at a more normal speed. And besides, in many cases PE is just overrated. I manufactured two cupola lids on a German converted Somua tank by cutting them out on thin cardboard and fitting and painting them accordingly. One would never guess in a million years that they were in that very simple way rather than using and expensive PE detailing sheet. And believe it or not, they are as sturdy as PE and when I glued them on in an open position no one could tell me the difference.

Perfection is one thing, but torture, often of the mind, is yet another and it is better to preserve your strength on matters that really count and are really visible. In this case your cockpit and your landing gear wells, which are tiny masterpieces indeed and extremely well done by you.
Even your gun port within the wing came out outstanding but the pain, the pain, the pain you must have suffered with those tiny bent details and with erroneous instructions about the rear length of the tiny plastic rod. At least that could have been avoided if first, Eduard people had tried it out themselves and re-reading the instructions they got aware of their mistake and corrected it, second if they had at least provided a template on which to shape those very thin layers of PE parts in the correct form to start with. Just saying.

Sometimes the hurry to sell something is not enough to compensate sometimes fatal errors made by the unaware user.

I have always followed this simple mantra which is also valid with other activities as well and it is simply this one: KISS, or “keep it simple stupid”.
Admirable is nevertheless your constant effort to manage and correct it anyway until resulting something manageable, something I somehow have learned too, but man, what a patience is needed to actually fiddle with those tiny things.

Granted, in the end, when everything finally fell into place as they should, we can be proud of ourselves knowing that we have managed to correct what others had planned completely wrong and manage to additionally improve those tiny bits with our skills.

All this is very positive, but I repeat, why sometimes bother if modeling becomes tortuous and all but pleasant as it should be? So sometimes I will take the shortcut and leave some parts off. So what? Would anybody be noticing, unless expressly told about the lacking of that one microscopic detail? I really do not think so and therefore, whenever I can I take those shortcuts without thinking twice instead of wasting hours figuring out how, where, what and when a minuscule part has to be attached to something. Heck, what the naked eye cannot see doesn’t count anyway, so why do it at all.

I hate nitpickers who know everything better than even the most experienced builder. Have they ever tried to apply such tiny things to a model? I dare to doubt it. They are just there to make your life and your model into a constant challenge, instead of being that a fun pleasure.
And they are only satisfied when they see you suffer because of it. To hell with all of them.
Modeling, in my parlance, has to be fun and enjoyable and if it is not, then something is very wrong and I would not play that game. Therefore no satisfaction for the nitpicker, only the one that really counts: my own.

I hope you do agree.

All the best with finishing your Hurricane masterpiece. I am convinced that it will turn out magnificently, Keep me posted about that. Thanks.

1 Like

@Crazy-Creator-5601 — I do certainly agree and I thank you for your thoughtful post, even if my thanks are late.

I often think about this. I have no answers. There’s a tiny Reddit community called “the society of hidden paint,” and it’s made up of photos of paintwork or added detail work in models and miniatures, taken in the moments before that work is permanently hidden by further construction or finishing of the model. A classic example would be a tiny control panel or even a Space Marine inside a 40K assault tank. Once the glue dries that detail will never be seen again, so was it worth it? I suspect the photograph changes the equation.

Likewise, would I make all the same detail, aftermarket, or scratch-building decisions if I wasn’t documenting this build in detail on this forum? If not, is that a bad thing? Rather than it being vanity or performative, I like to think of the forum as a bunch of accountability partners, or maybe just a chorus of encouragement — impetus to push myself and my skill limits with every step of the build.

Of course there’s the immovable factor of marching time. Every little invisible or questionable detail pushes the completion date out further. Taking the summers mostly off from the hobby means a glacier could build models faster than me, if it could keep the acrylic paints from freezing. But who cares?

Well, judging by the size of my stash and how excited I get thinking about starting the next build, I should probably care more.

Anyway…..

I spent all last evening cleaning my bench of a summer’s worth of clutter, and a fine crust of weathering pigments and detritus from the completed Finnish T-26B project.

Made enough room to take the Hurricane out for a status check. Verdict: “so close, and yet so far.” :face_with_spiral_eyes:

4 Likes

I’ve struggled with that bench deep-clean when I’m in the midst of several parallel projects, but as soon as one project gets finished there’s usually some sort of purge and reorganisation and a timely reminder of what the original bench finish looks like…

Looks like you’re all set to resume! It’s looking sensational :grinning_face:

2 Likes

Excellent job. Now all you need is the ideal setting to put it all together. Let me just ask you one question: what type of paint have you used, or better said, what brand of paint?

It seems you applied the temperate camouflage for your Hurricane, but to me it seems a bit too bright or perhaps it is the light glare that makes it seem like that.

The decals are perfectly applied and seem painted on rather than being actual decals. Even the machine gun hatch came out well.

It still needs a pilot climbing into the cockpit though and I know how tough it is to find an appropriate one in 1/48 scale (maybe by modifying an existing figure?).

All in all I am very impressed by your clean job on it. Go ahead, make my day! :grinning_face: :wink: :vulcan_salute: :four_leaf_clover: