Si B’s 1/35 Airfix British Army 30-cwt 4x2 G.S truck

[Si Benson]

That’s interesting Si. Never had any issues with the decals in the sister kit. I’ve found current Airfix decals to be among the best out there. Always used cold water though, float them on the top, and only wetted one at a time in a drop of water on my bench. To be honest, I wouldn’t think a little volume of water like that would stay warm long?

I think in all honesty Tim, they were submerged too long :thinking:

I’ll definitely go back to my usual method next time :nerd:

[Si Benson]

.

[Si Benson]

.

[Si Benson]

That seems an odd placement for the corps/divisional sign on the back, being painted OVER one of the reflectors on the tailgate
Also, the AoS marking (26 on red/green for RASC) are supposed to be on the same side front and back, both offside or near side, though there is an enormous variety of placement, just going by photos. And I've yet to see any kit give the changeable / reversible small panels they're supposed to be on!

Just blindly following the destructions…..maybe a stern letter to Airfix :smiling5:

[Guest]

Gecko’s version has the markings like that too:



For, in fact, the exact same vehicle (L4474685). I can’t find a Second World War photo that this was based on, but I assume both Airfix and Gecko used the same one for this marking option.

Wait, they might just have based it on this one:




That would explain a thing or two, such as the too-modern style of the digits in the registration number and Arm-of-Service marking (it looks like Helvetica or possibly Arial, which date from the 1960s and 1980s, respectively). I wouldn’t be surprised if the AoS marking on the rear is on the right because the number plate had to go on the left.

[Graeme C.]

Looks good with paint & decals Si, decals can be a pain, the placement can vary from vehicle to vehicle, even kit makers with all their research can get it wrong.

[Si Benson]

Really great looking paint job. Very neatly masked. Decals look good despite your issues.
I soak a small piece of blotting paper with cold water and lay the decal on it, face up. It softens the glue and releases the decal without getting the surface of the decal wet or it curling up. It's easy to slide the decal off the backing paper and into place.

Cheers Jim :thumb2:

It’s not normally the soaking part that causes me headache, it'll teach me for following instructions …..you live and learn I suppose :rolling:

[stillp]

I normally dip decals in room temperature water then place them on an old tile until they're ready to slide off.
Pete

[Si Benson]

I normally dip decals in room temperature water then place them on an old tile until they're ready to slide off.
Pete

Same here Pete, except I use a piece of acrylic sheet. Don’t know why I decided to do it differently this time :flushed:

[Steve-the-Duck]

Jakko, I think you've nailed it. Interesting the restoration (which is a beautiful piece of work I'd say) has the reversible AoS plates and brackets, but they're not in the kit. Hmm, time for a brass detail set. No reflectors on the backboard of the 'real' one either

A lot of modern Airfix kit schemes seem to be based on restorations, like all the aircraft from the Shuttleworth collection they've used. But here they're crediting the scheme as contemporary, which NOW makes me wonder what the restorer based his work on. Some restorations have gone with what the restorer thought was right (or what they wanted to do), irrespective of the actuality. For instance, many RAF vehicles, purporting to be wartime, are painted blue-grey, because it looks smart, whereas the wartime instructions were all airfield vehicles were camo'ed, and you'd be hard pressed to find any wartime pictures of a vehicle NOT in camo

Of course, Si, this does mean you can have a completely pristine and unweathered vehicle, just like the 'real' one!

[Guest]

Interesting the restoration (which is a beautiful piece of work I'd say) has the reversible AoS plates and brackets, but they're not in the kit.

They also weren’t on the wreck they started with — I just checked the pictures on that site to see if they were. Of course, perhaps a post-war owner took them off as being unnecessary and/or rusted up.

A lot of modern Airfix kit schemes seem to be based on restorations, like all the aircraft from the Shuttleworth collection they've used.

IMHO, that’s not a great idea. How accurate are those restorations, for example?

But here they're crediting the scheme as contemporary, which NOW makes me wonder what the restorer based his work on.

Quite possibly the average vehicle restorer’s mentality: “I thought it looked good this way.”

Of course, Si, this does mean you can have a completely pristine and unweathered vehicle, just like the 'real' one!

Only if he also adds the modern tail lights

[Steve-the-Duck]

IMHO, that’s not a great idea. How accurate are those restorations, for example?

Always a good point. Still, the Airfix aircraft SAY what they're doing is actually the Shuttleworth example irrespective of accuracy / authenticity to the inspiration. I would say my Gladiator is the Shuttleworth example DEPICTING Sailor Malan's one from the Hendon display in 1938. Whereas the plan sheet for this Austin says it's a vehicle from Tobruk in1941

Is this all a minor quibble? Maybe. But it comes down to how 'accurate' can you be modelling something that no longer exists outside of a few old photos. In black and white. If even that
Ooh, NOW we're getting into the fundamental philosophies of model making. Time to stop and just build OOB!
Or whatevs

Still, let's not distract from a superb build

[JR]

Si , I've always used the same method as yours for decals, but just use a old tile for the base.
Think its a great build.

[Si Benson]

I haven’t been sat on my hands and was waiting for a new pot of silicone to turn up so I could mould a couple of spare wheels and a few other bits to chuck in the back.

[minitnkr]

Nice clean build. Love the CITB.