I’m just kind of putting this out there but what did you all think of the A-20 depicted in the recent issue? I was born 25 years after the end of WW2 so, needless to say, I was NOT there. But the weathering on the A-20 seemed to be a bit over the top for me. It seemed great if the plane were sitting in a scrap yard exposed tot he elements for 20 years but not so much for a front line attack plane. Yes I know the conditions were harsh, etc, etc, etc. But that just seemed way too trashed to me. In spite of the conditions, I’d have thought the maintenance crew would have taken better care of their aircraft than that.
From what I read, he chose to model a specific aircraft, the Green Hornet flying out of New Guinea in 44 and had reference photos of this ship. Theres plenty of pictures out there of war-weary A/C that look like his A20 or worse…so, IMHO, its not "over the top" but probably pretty accurate. The maintenance crews were more worried about keeping their planes in the air than what the plane looked like. Well, thats my [2cnts] worth!
I’ve seen some pics of this particular plane sitting on a scrap heap somewhere out in the Pacific circa 1945. Even in those pictures, it doesn’t look as trashed as the model depicted and the marking certainly aren’t as faded as those shown on the model.
While I don’t doubt that some planes looked like they went through the ringer, the was this specific plane was depicted didn’t seem that accurate in the least. Just my thoughts…
Personally, if I were to see that model on a contest table, I’d give it a glance and keep walking. In doing that, I’d miss all the additional work that the guy put into it, but that’s what a “I-can-outweather-anybody” finish does for me. Just not interested – accurate or not.
The biggest complaint I have about these articles is they don’t really show how they did it. Usually just a quick sentence or two of “I faded with whatever color” or “I did a filter with whatever color” or “I did a wash with whatever color” after a whole page listing all the resin and photo etch they bought.
I agree these articles usually seem like more of a “look what I can do” more than “here’s how you can do this”.
I glanced over the article and kept going. I guess if he’s got the photos to prove it I can’t argue with him. Still we’ve got a backhoe at work that’s been sitting out in the elements for about thirty years and it doesn’t look a tenth as beat-up as some of the weathering on planes and AFVs I’ve seen at contests.
However; these models win contests and I don’t so what do I know??? [:(DD]
Ugh, does it really matter that much? I echo Len’s comments. Flying out of a Pacific base, through tropical temps and weather, using dusty, dirty, muddy, coral-paved run ways, charging through flak and smoke, and flying sortie after sortie over salty seas will cause weathering.
Every one has opinions and that’s OK. You don’t like the weathering, I do. Who cares? Modeling doesn’t always have to cater to some criteria and it doesn’t always have to fit every single person’s idea of right and wrong. What a lame hobby if that were the case…
Check out these weathered birds…
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…or the beer holder…one or the other…
Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate a good weathering job. But I guess I have to emphasise the “good” part. To me, the model looks more like it was carved from a piece of rotting Spam and less like an aircraft that was exposed to the elements.
But what about the pictures that Jon posted?! The weathering on some of those birds is comparable to the job he did on his Havoc.
I don’t see why this is such a big deal. I thought it was a heck of a job.
I would, however, echo the comment that it is frustrating to see a complex paint job and get very little description/pictures of how it was actually accomplished…
Those ones in Tunisia were a “field applied” desert camo. I cant recall off the top of my head if it was mud or a local paint they used to tone down the OD to better fit the local terrain. But as you can see it did not wear well…[H]
Dave: Not that I know of but knowing our maintainance guy anything is possible [;)]
Don’t get me wrong, I like some weathering. I try to fade the paint, chip it a few places, and apply oil and grease stains to my stuff. The A-20 just seems over the top to me. Then again the weathering isn’t any more extreme than the photos posted here by Jon and others. Guess I’m just a snob that likes a showroom shine to my models [whstl]
If this Carlos is who I think he is, he built a 72nd scale B-24D " Ploesti Raider" ,posted in a back issue, that some of these guys would really hate! Made his A-20 look factory fresh…lol.
The thing is, every one has their opinions about weathering…whether they like it, or do not like the look of it. Some prefer them beat to hell, others prefer factory fresh. That’s fine. The problem is when people start obscuring their preferences with what they believe to be fact - when people say “its over weathered” or “it never appeared that way in real life” or “ground crews would never have let it get that way” blah blah blah. Clearly the photos I posted for discussion purposes show that planes got extremely dirty, faded paint jobs, engine stains and chipped paint and in some cases beyond what you would have initially imagined. I mean, look at all the paint missing off the side of that P-39!
Most people model NMF as pristine and shiny. I would love to see some one pull of the look of that B-26 (?) pic I posted. It has lost its sheen. But I’m sure some people would find that not to their taste, that’s fine, just don’t say that it never happened.
In the end, I think the modeler pulled off a very nice look. Looks fantastic to me actually. But I’m in agreement with Boyd and a few others that it’d be nice if the article focused a little more on how to recreate that finish.
I took time to look at the model and compare it to photo’s from the book “Wreaking Havoc - A Year in an A-20” by Joseph W. Rutter. The author was in New Guinea at the same time as Green Hornet and I believe in the same group. The olive drab did fade some, but they were more dusty than bleached. I have scanned some photo’s from the book to show my point. Also, the bulider doesn’t mention the ventral machinegun. According to the author these aircraft flew with only 2 crew (pilot and turret gunner/engineer). At this point of the war they seldom encountered any enemy fighters so the ventral gun was replaced with a camera that was turned on just after bomb release. That’s how you get all of those films of the parachute bombs falling behind the aircraft. To do a A-20G at this point of the war, the ventral gun needs to be removed, but the angles provided and the text don’t make reference to it being done to this model.
