Noyhauser

Hey, I'm new to modeling and working on my first, a 1/72 corsair, and have run into a concern/problem. I bought tamiya acrylic paint to use on the small pieces instead of spray painting them and it's very watery. It works fine for flat surfaces, but for things like the landing gear, propeller and other small, rounded parts it's hard to get it to stay because it's so watery and dripping off. Is it supposed to be this way or is there something I'm doing (or not) that's causing it? I'm storing them in my garage which gets pretty cold now, does that make a difference? Thanks!

Couple of questions: Are you thinning it at all? Tamiya paints tend not to need too much thinner. Also make sure that shake and stir the paint well from the paint pot before you use it. It tends to separate and the paint accumulates at the bottom.

By the way, are you building the Tamiya corsair? Its an absolutely gorgeous kit (I'm building one right now too)

Hi Guy's

I just recently got an airbrush and have had this one question in the paint mixing. All the pages that I have checked out said mix the paint until it is milky. It has me a bit lost.

Does anyopne know the ratios for the mixing and if you use Tamiya paints do you neeed to use there thinner or will water do? I Use everything from Creos, to Games workshop and Tamiya.

Is there any sites that can help to?

Thanks

Tamiya paints need Tamiya thinner; the paint has a specific formulation which the thinner is designed for (Specifically the drying retarder glycol.) Depending on your airbrush, it shouldn't be milky either; thats usually what I use as a mist coast. I don't have a specific ratio for it because the paint is pretty robust when going through the airbrush. Its more of an art than a science; I think it should be compared to the quality of the paint you get out of the bottle, maybe a little thinner.

Sorry Bri, I was shooting a bit fast from the hip there and didn't fully read the links... you're probably right that it wouldn't work too well on larger models; I think the effect only works when there is other, "normal" paint around it to give it some contrast.

In short: non metalic metals, NMM for short, is a style of painting that aims to create a more realistic metalic look with opaque paints then can be done with metalic paints. The technique is quite popular in miniatures atm, but I rarely, if ever, see it used on larger model kits. Wonder if it still looks good on a larger surface.

The technique is also a commonly used amongst airbrushers. Anyone here with experience in that area that wouldn't mind shedding some light on the use on larger areas?

I plan to experiment with it on some VF-1's to see if I can get it to work.

For some background info:

Reflective materials: metal

Example model

I'm doing precisely this with alclad for my VF-11 build (and a RAAF Meteor) here. In addition I'm part of a NMF group build on Fine Scale modeler which has brought alot of different methods to the fore.

Just finished decaling a 1/60 harrison custom Gundam F91. I'm kind of torn between dullcoating, or leaving it gloss. Opinions?

painted and weathered or just glosscoated?

He he, I have the Hobby Base Retppu kit (rubbing in) and wanted to do a conversion kit, two seater ELINT or so but just never got around to it!

Maybe if there is sufficient interest I can do a recast of it, now in colour of your choice with or without metallic flakes!

I haven't seen the HBR kit but I really like the proportions of the Club M kit; It looks sleeker than the YF-19. If you can give it the same treatment as the VF-4 (and I have some ideas on what you can improve) then I think It could be a dynamite model.

Excellent I can't wait to see two more VF-11 build ups...

As for mine, I've been working on it slowly. Oh and for your interest Petar, I'm co-building it with a RAAF Gloster Meteor mk8.

So I've started building my model. Its been a bit of a pain getting everything together. Its fragile enough that everything needs to be pinned, from the main assemblies down to the horizontal stabs. Its fit is a bit off too so its important to find what you feel is the best. I made the decision not to use the fast packs and keep it in the clean atmospheric configuration.

I'm now doing assembly/painting. Since I'm using alclad I need to put down a black enamel base coat, which is what you see in these photos. Yet given the construction of engines, arms and fuselage, I had to paint the legs first so I can get them completely covered. Thats what you see. I chose a variation of a scheme of an aircraft I saw growing up. I didn't cover the legs up completely so there was a bit of spill over, but that can be easily buffed out.

Looking good Thom... the panel lining is superb and really brings the details out for the eye to see. Also I like how you've cut parts off the runners but keeping some of the sprue for painting; I'm going to use that myself. I'm eager to see what you can come up with.

Well, you need detach the super parts if you go to the atmosphere, instead the VF-27 dont need to do so can use bosters to obtain more advantage.

With this new pack you dont need detach the bosters, so you have the same VF-27 advantage.

I understand why is called atmospheric unit, you can go in with it.

Yeah, except for the fact that everything about that fast pack flies in the face of basic aerodynamics, specifically the concept of lift and drag.

Destroid; thats a pretty looking F-14; your shading looks really well done as does the details. In particular the exhausts are brilliantly done. :thumbsup:

Is Heavy Gear an RPG too? I think Steven Jackson Games was working on a new edition

DP9 published both an RPG and a Miniature version at the beginning (1st edition rule book had both actually.) What was kinda a neat thing was that user content was incorporated into the broader storyline, as the Universe had a pretty in-depth meta story. This continued until about 2005 when RPG was gradually phased out, and the company started focusing on the miniature rules... until last year with SJG obtaining the rights.

Yup. In fact, the very first Heavy Gear design came about as a joke: I had sketched-up what I called an updated Votoms that I called the "V2." Apparently, the joke backfired

Was that a Jager or a Hunter?

Hey all

I've busy over the summer trying to learn how to better airbrush... including the BF-109 I completed a couple of pages back I also built a Hawker Tempest V, Hawker Sea Hawk, and a Supermarine Seafang (I still need to complete a bit of weathering on that one though.) Next on the block is something a bit more macross related.

No, that's how they're designed. They even have 2 different engines designed, for the 2 different gearboxes needed to accomodate the 2 different props. Logistics nightmare... (and no prop blade rotates THAT much for reversing)

According to Airbus they only have one engine and two gearbox types. They consider this an acceptable trade off considering the advantages they anticipate;

Perhaps one of the most interesting A400M innovations was the decision to adopt “handed” propellers whereby the propellers of each pair of engines turn towards each other.

This counter-rotation characteristic is known as Down-Between-Engines (DBE) and the A400M will be the first aircraft ever to use such a configuration. The advantages of DBE have far-reaching effects both aerodynamically and structurally. Firstly, airflow over the wings is symmetrical, improving lift characteristics and the lateral stability of the aircraft. Secondly, DBE allows for an optimum wing design by eliminating most of the effects of torque and prop-wash on each wing, concentrating the airflow over the most efficient portion of the wing located between the engines. DBE also reduces the “critical engine” effect of severe yaw in the event of an outboard engine failure. The result allows a 17% reduction in the area of the vertical tail surface.

Further aerodynamic advantages inherent in DBE have been found to give a 4% increase in lift from the wing at slow speed, which enables, for the same total lift, a simpler, lighter flap system to be employed. As a consequence of the lessening of the aerodynamic forces applied to the flaps, the surface area of the horizontal tail-plane can also be reduced by 8%.

Keep in mind that the F-203 might have been used in a different theater of war. It's not that it didn't exist, it's just that it wasn't in service in the Pacific.

In addition its quite possible that Dragon equipped squadrons were depleted and replaced by older fighters retrofitted with OTEC. Remember the mechanic's comment that most of the pilots are new and inexperienced due to losses; using older fighters was their only option to replace those losses. Or in the case of illustrious there just wasn't replacement airframes weren't available so they were forced to make due with upgraded versions of their present airframes. Only newer carriers like the Asuka were deployed with bleeding edge carriers like the VF-0.

Second; the dragon was shown to be a land based fighter; Macross Zero was fought completely fought by Carrier forces (on the UN's side)

Well a friend and I finished ODST off last night... it was pretty good, though nothing too amazing. The changes are an interesting wrinkle to the game, they make the game significantly harder. You can't just take on everything anymore, a bit of stealth and planning are key. Some of the weapons have changed in their power; the silenced SMG is a pretty versatile gun, pistol is the underrated star of the game (headshots on grunts are ridiculously simple with it) while the Needler got a much needed upgrade and is one of the better weapons again (especially against brutes, not so much against the top tier enemies.)

Still my friend and I breezed through it in about seven hours on legendary with a fair bit of skulls on (Except Iron, though I doubt it would have been that much more of a challenge with it as we rarely died.) If you're a major or above in Halo3 it shouldn't be that difficult.

Firefight is pretty good too; I doubt I'll be going back to playing Nazi Zombies on COD anymore.

It was the first console FPS with a decent control scheme and while it's not the best it's a solid well balanced shooter... in the console world that makes it gold.

Actually I think it goes beyond that. Its more of a social gaming experience; It allows four people to play against each other competitively in the same room with a solid game experience, or even against a group of others online. Bungie built a game that has appeal to a wider array of casual gamers. Throughout college I played Halo with alot of my friends, few of which would play traditional FPSs. Stuff like Half Life or CS can't offer that in the same way, which is why I think Halo has a much greater popularity than other, more traditional FPS games.

The Eagle Squadrons were actually formed after the Battle, but there were several US pilots who volunteered to join the RAF and fought in it before the Eagle Squadrons were set up.

Canadians - what I was trying to get across is that I can't name any names from 1940 off the top of my head; if I did some research I probably would find Canadian pilots who participated in the battle (and they wouldn't have to have been flying Hurricanes or Spitfires, either; Bomber Command had a role to play during that summer as well... ) I also can't say with absolute certainty, but the impression I've always had is that country-specific squadrons generally formed a little bit later than 1940, after the "panic" had died down a bit. Theres no doubt all the so-called "British" forces were truly multi-national, including Poles, South Africans, Czechs, Free French, New Zealanders, Australians, - heck, I think there was even an Austrian prince in the RAF at one point!

No there was a 'Canadian' RAF specific squadron (242) as well as a bonafide Royal Canadian Air Force Squadron (401) which was deployed from 1940. This does not include Canada's contribution to Coastal Command, FAA and Bomber command.

While Canada made a large direct contribution, they also helped train over half of all Commonwealth pilots who served during the war through the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.

I wonder if stainless steel alclad might be able to give a similar finish; its pretty shiny

Both, the two part harmony of those twin engines is one of the sweetest things I've ever heard, and as you can see I had a P-51 on hand to compare it to.

Have you heard the deep growl of a RR Griffon on a Spitfire? Its not as harmonious but the growl is pretty awe inspiring...

I think the key is to remember, everybody sees things differently. It is an art form. People are going to see different things when you see a painting.

Here's a Monet:

Not everyone is going to look at it in the exact same way.

Kawamori is treating Macross the same way. He's offering the audience different views on a single piece. He's creating different interpretations for the audience. One version isn't necessarily wrong compared to another. There's also the Arthurian legend. There's a historical basis for the character, but many interpretations of the legend. The Thomas Malory-version tells it one way. The Alfred Tennyson-version tells it another. One version of story says Guld played a game of chicken with the Ghost X-9. Another says he crashed into it. One version may have Michael dying in front of Klan. Another may have him dying farther away with Klan only seeing it from afar. There are certain facts in the story but how those events come to be is subject to interpretation. A good modern example is Band of Brothers. Historically inaccurate at times but it accomplished telling a story within the fabric of historical events.

I absolutely agree, and I think its clever decision by Kawamori (which follows other post modernist pieces) that allows him to avoid having to defend his work from every nitpicker. Macross is what it is to the eye of beholder; don't like something you can just ignore it. Personally I can't stand the fact that the VF-0 can go underwater; guess what, I can ignore it. Instead of getting people wound up about continuity or canon, he can just concentrate on telling stories the way he wants. Thats the way it should be.

For example, I have been thinking that Macross sequels are not real sequels. No significant original characters or even robots remain. Sure, the universe is the same and is expanded and filled in. (That's why I was disappointed with Kawamori's answer -- we can't even do that?)

But is Macross technology and universe alone sufficient to be a Macross sequel? Think about the two unrelated anime that were meshed together with Macross to form a trilogy... change a bit of dialogue, splice in a couple of scenes to connect them, that works for most part too, doesn't it?

Anyway, this interview was over ten years ago and his stand may have changed. It'll be nice to get an up-to-date interview.

Um, first things last; I'm almost certain his views on this have not changed at all given the Macross Frontier episode with the filming of the Macross Zero movie. Its a classic filming of a film interpretation, which is the same as what he was getting at with Macross 7.

Second, Robotech was not a great trilogy. There are massive stylistic differences and there are nothing really linking the three works. Whats the overriding theme? Who are the connecting characters? At least the various iterations of the Macross series have a common theme, though its sometimes to its detriment (Macross Frontier being too much in common with SDF.) I like the technology aspect of macross universe; Its realistic given the level of technological development you would expect. Newer designs replace the older ones, and there is a logical technological progression from VF-1 to the VF-25.

In addition to the five you mentioned the Australian Canberra class LHDs are going to have a ski ramp to support VTOL aircraft and the RAN has put in a (currently unfunded) request for a small number of F-35Bs for those ships. Given that they have a pretty firm order for 100 F-35As already it seems like a no-brainer to me. India isn't as likely a customer for the F-35B though, they seem to want to move to STOBAR or CTOL aircraft for their carriers, I would think the C model or Super Hornets would be more likely purchases for their carrier air groups if they were looking to buy American.

Can the C operate in that role? I completely discounted that. And India was probably the longest shot of them all, but the dynamics of the Indo-American relationship and India's regional environment makes a shift not out of the realm of possibility.

I doubt all those countries will continue to operate carriers in the future, and many of those that do will switch to choppers I bet, especially with the cost of new planes.

As for UK---every other report out of there is either "carrier/JSF program threatened" or "RR abandoning development". If the UK switches to the CTOL version, the VTOL version will be threatened.

Well Japan and Korea just introduced their "helicopter destroyers", with the Ise being commissioned in two years time. I'd be surprised if they didn't upgrade these vessels to carry JSFs in the next decade. The only reason why Japan hasn't was it was needlessly provocative and there was no suitable aircraft to equip them with until now. The Koreans may well do the same in response.

The Indians bought the Admiral Gorshkov from the Russians a few years ago, and are planning to build the Vikraant class in the next decade. While they operate Russian aircraft, given the political drift between them and Moscow and the new level of political cooperation between them and Washington, its not outside the realm of possibility. Italy and Spain have formed an amphibious EU battlegroup and have organized their procurement to suit that task. The Italians design the Cavour with the JSF in mind, its doubtful they would commission a ship last year only to pull out now. The Spanish are about to launch the Juan Carlos I next year, and while its more of a helicopter carrier, it does have a ski-jump installed.

Really the only country that might give up carriers is Thailand. It might not be able to buy the JSF, but it doesn't need an anti-sub carrier either.

Uh, DH the F-35B is still flying, at least BF-02 is, as for the issue that has ground BF-01, well I can't go into too much on that here, so it is being used for ground and load testing. Anyways, BF-02 recently began inflight refueling tests, and has been performing quite well, let me talk to the JSF CTF guys and find out what is going on with hover tests, I know that they are not suppossed to be long in coming.

Its also doubtful it would be canned as there are just so many export opportunities. The Thai, Spanish, Italian, Indian and Japanese Navies all operate VTOL carriers and they need replacements for the Harrier over the next two decades. Thats not even including the British, which make 200 firm orders if not more.