Trumpeter 1/32 P-40 M 'War Hawk'

[Guest]

So they're glazed panels?

Yes, nothing more than that. An area has been scooped out of the side of the fuselage and a Perspex panel fitted over it.

The pilot's seat blocks any visibility over his shoulder, and there doesn't seem to be any visibility from one side to the other of the fuselage.

You can (just) see in that video that the seat’s headrest is narrower than the fuselage behind it (with which I mean: the width between the two “scooped-out” bits) so if the pilot can look around the side of the headrest, he can see out through the clear panels. Visibility from one side through to the other isn’t necessary.

I don't disagree, but it is clearly a light colour.

I’m not disagreeing either with your analysis, just pointing out that it’s hard to say how light something is unless you have something of a known shade you can compare to. I take it the tip of the tail fin is white? But even that is problematic for comparison, as it’s on a different side of the plane and lit differently …

[stillp]

Visibility from one side through to the other isn’t necessary.

Of course, but the lack of through visibility suggested to me that the 'windows' were actually opaque, which I no know to be incorrect.
Pete

[flyjoe180]

The P-40 wreck discovered in the Sahara (ET574, Dennis Copping) shows what looks to be a middle stone colour under the broken rear perspex panels. Of course this may have faded over the years, but it doesn't look like a version of an interior green to me. Camouflage colour sounds good Steve, for your RAF Kittyhawk.

[stona]

I’m not disagreeing either with your analysis, just pointing out that it’s hard to say how light something is unless you have something of a known shade you can compare to. I take it the tip of the tail fin is white? But even that is problematic for comparison, as it’s on a different side of the plane and lit differently …

The tip of the tail is generally supposed to be white, as are the code letters.

Again, I agree about comparisons. Trying to guess which of two shades of blue is which from a B&W photograph is always going to be as much a matter of opinion as of fact!

I think that what tipped the balance for me was that the only way this aircraft could have received an Azure Blue underside is if it was applied after it was sent to Italy. We know that the Mid Stone was overpainted with Dark Green because they felt that the light Mid Stone colour, designed for the desert/tropics, was not effective camouflage on or over the greener Italian countryside. This was a compelling reason to take the time and make the effort to do the job. However, it seems unlikely (to me) that they would have taken the time to replace one shade of blue with another on the underside, simply because there was no compelling reason to do so.

Of course, we'll probably never know for sure. If I saw a model of this aircraft finished with an Azure Blue underside I would be the last person to argue with it

[Guest]

the lack of through visibility suggested to me that the 'windows' were actually opaque

Ah, yes, this is an obvious assumption from model painting instructions

The tip of the tail is generally supposed to be white, as are the code letters.

I was wondering about the colour of the letters. They look a bit darker than pure white in the photo you posted, but then, so does the tip of the tail. The only thing I would have automatically assumed to be plain white, is the stork on the nose

Trying to guess which of two shades of blue is which from a B&W photograph is always going to be as much a matter of opinion as of fact!

Always one of the fun parts of trying to build an accurate model. Of course, even with colour photos we could be having a discussion like this …

it seems unlikely (to me) that they would have taken the time to replace one shade of blue with another on the underside, simply because there was no compelling reason to do so.

Agreed, unless the skies over Italy were such a markedly different colour than over the Sahara, why would they repaint the underside?

If I saw a model of this aircraft finished with an Azure Blue underside I would be the last person to argue with it

I have a strong feeling plenty of people would not just ask for justification, but argue about it even when given exactly that

[Tim Marlow]

IMHO, this is something that’s hard to conclude from a black-and-white photo, though. What if this photo has been printed a bit light, for example? The problem is finding something of a known shade to compare with, though …


AFAIK, they’re there to allow the pilot to see over his shoulder. Without the recessed areas and the glazing panels, he would just see the fuselage, but this is enough to get a better view to the rear.

Very clear reading of the image I’d say Steve. The non-removal of the side cockpit panels point to brush painting the dark tone as well, because they were obviously not worried about overspray being an issue.
However, I personally wouldn’t take any absolute colour inferences from a black and white shot. You don’t know if the photographer used filters, very widely available, for example, and these can very easily lighten or darken the shade. An example on this shot is that the light Camo colour and the spinner look to be absolutely the same colour, but we know they are not. Different photo emulsions can also be more sensitive to some colours than others, so changing how they appear. If the photographer wanted to emphasise this he could use a red filter to lighten the spinner. In this case he may have used a green filter to lighten the grass and make the aircraft stand out on the image…..this is obviously a high quality portrait image and the photographer may well have been using filters.

There is a bit more on it here…..I know it’s using modern kit, but the technique remains valid. Look at the guys hat in the Ilford delta 400 picture sequence to see what happens to his red hat under the filters.

https://thedarkroom.com/color-filters-with-bw-film/#:~:text=B%26W%20film%20records%20the%20colors,distract%20from%20your%20picture%27s%20quality.

[stona]

I've done the cockpit, apart from painting the headrest, and have temporarily inserted my volunteer pilot, who is not quite finished.

I would say that this is a couple of pictures of the not terribly good cockpit, but the pilot is doing a great job of covering up its shortcomings!

[Guest]

He looks like he needs a cigar added between his fingers …

[minitnkr]

Hard to chew or smoke w/mask on.:smiling2:

[Tim Marlow]

Hard to chew or smoke w/mask on.:smiling2:

Nah, he’s just giving the Agincourt salute…..

[stona]

I've been making the most of the time I have this week and have been fairly zooming along. This is helped by the kit being fairly basic and also very nicely fitting. Whatever issues the kit may or may not have, it does fit together very well.

Here I have just sat the fuselage on the wings with a bit of tape underneath, this makes the gap at the wing root look far worse than it really is. It's a decent fit and should be easy enough.



There was some bad news for our volunteer pilot. In order for me to be able to close the canopy over his head I had to remove his parachute! I'm sure he's not impressed, but it does show the benefits of dry-fitting and planning well ahead. It would have been a pain in the arse (mine, not his) to have discovered this when I came, eventually, to fit the canopy.

[adt70hk]

I've been making the most of the time I have this week and have been fairly zooming along. This is helped by the kit being fairly basic and also very nicely fitting. Whatever issues the kit may or may not have, it does fit together very well.

Here I have just sat the fuselage on the wings with a bit of tape underneath, this makes the gap at the wing root look far worse than it really is. It's a decent fit and should be easy enough.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1205597[/ATTACH]

There was some bad news for our volunteer pilot. In order for me to be able to close the canopy over his head I had to remove his parachute! I'm sure he's not impressed, but it does show the benefits of dry-fitting and planning well ahead. It would have been a pain in the arse (mine, not his) to have discovered this when I came, eventually, to fit the canopy.

That's a shame but then I regularly chop the boots off 1/72 scale Airfix pilots for the same reason.

[stona]

That's a shame but then I regularly chop the boots off 1/72 scale Airfix pilots for the same reason.

I did once seriously maim a pilot to fit him in a Fi 103R 'Reichenberg'. The cockpit was clearly not to scale!

Our volunteer is physically intact, though I did have to cut down what passes for rudder pedals in this kit. He'd just better hope he doesn't need a parachute

[stona]

If anyone ever suggests that you might build this kit with the undercarriage up...DON'T.

It has been designed to be built down and is proving a LOT of work to get looking half decent up!

Glad to get that off my chest.

[Guest]

From other threads about Trumpeter’s 1:32 scale planes, like those BarryW has built, I get the distinct impression Trumpeter expects you to build it with everything open that they have designed to be open. Tough luck if you don’t want that …