Armorcon and feedback on my models

After the IPMS National Convention a couple of months ago there was the typical cluster of conversations about judging, with modelers picking sides on the never-ending IPMS vs GSM debate. I see the value of both, albeit with tweaks to improve them, but that’s not my intent with this post.

What I’d like to do is share the value of the feedback that the GSM method (sometimes) provides. Last weekend I attended Armorcon in Connecticut, a show that I regularly attend. I took a few photos, but my photography skills are down there with my rigging skills, so I won’t embarrass myself by sharing them. Instead I’ll point you a great collection of photos that my neighbors at IPMS New Jersey shared on their Facebook page.

I entered three models in the contest, and I want to share the judges' feedback. (My thanks to IPMS NJ for allowing me to use their photos of my models.)

This is my Dragon 1/35 T-34/85 in Croatian markings. As points of reference, I used Voyager photoetch, an Eduard barrel, Kraya cables, a Hauler M2 machine gun, and Friulmodel tracks.

The judges' feedback:

• Right front track sticks out past the fender, and bigger gap on the right than the other side of tracks.
• Great paint finish.
• Track alignment way off.
• Decent build. Keep up the good work.
• Three wheels float on left.
• Rear left track crowded.
• Nice screens.

Next is my Trumpeter 1/35 BTR-80 in Ukraine markings. I used Miniarm wheels, DAN Models sandbags, and a Master KPVT machine gun.

The judges’ feedback:

• Left rear tires off the base.
• Back left tire is towed out and not touching the ground.
• Nice build.
• Right front and left rear wheels don’t touch.
• Small glue spots on hatch hinges.
• Lens not in housing completely.

Finally my Italeri 1/35 L6/40 Carro, which has only a Greif lens and Friulmodel tracks.

The judges’ feedback:

• Left idler wheel not attached to track.
• Some missing paint.
• Love those Italian tiny tankettes!
• Nice paint overall.
• Beware. Unpainted surfaces.
• Friuli tracks not sitting.
• Tracks not tight on idler.
• Seam upper hull back.
• Missing paint in spots.
• Good decals.
• Nice consistency on weathering and chipping. 
• Friul not easy to deal with.
• Paint looks a bit spotty and slight seam visible on upper hull.
• Ejector pin marks on inside of bogey frames.

When I got home I looked at the feedback vis a vis the models, and each comment was fair and on point. With the exception of the compliments, each item is objective; there were no opinions that I could debate. Most importantly, it confirmed what I already know about my modeling, that I struggle with alignment. That information motivates me to be more diligent as I assemble my models, particularly the hull and running gear. 

What I find mildly amusing are the things that I don’t like about these models that the judges didn’t pick up on. For example, my self-made sandbags on the T-34/85 are, in hindsight, terribly executed; the judges said nothing about them. On my BTR-80, I’m disappointed in my painting of the aftermarket resin sandbags, but the judges either didn’t notice or thought they look good.

Ultimately contests are not about the competition. I know that’s strange to say, but I believe it’s true. I enjoyed looking at a couple hundred models and finding inspiration in others’ work. That I got some feedback on my models is pretty cool, too, so it was a day well spent.

Weathering armor and analysis paralysis

In late 2016 I wrote about the disappointments with several of my builds that year, including my attempts to finish a Trumpeter Pz.Kpfw 38(t). I struggled through weathering it — trying my hand with pigments in particular — and ultimately trashed the model when the results were not up to my expectations.

Since then I’ve gone back to basics with painting and weathering armor, at least the basics in terms of the process I’ve mastered (such as post shading, pin washes, and the use of pastels for dust effects), and I’ve slowly introduced new products and techniques. Usually I try them on a paint mule and then incorporate them into my next build. So now I’m much more comfortable with:

• Modulation
• Filters
• Washes
• Oil paint rendering
• Paint chips
• Hairspray chipping
• Mud splashes

Despite my newfound confidence with each of these, I now find myself suffering from analysis paralysis, wondering with every build which products and techniques I should incorporate into the model and in what order.

To be sure, I have plenty of books on the topic.

I have multiple products.

I have magazines.

I’ve watched plenty of videos on YouTube, such as Adam Wilder’s incredible 27-episode series on painting and weathering a KV-I.

And I've taken notes on the dozen (hundreds?) of articles and builds you can find on modelers’ personal blogs and Facebook pages.

Despite all of these resources it’s easy to be overwhelmed with the choices you’re confronted with. Every modeler has his preferred products, techniques, and process, and it’s a challenge to understand them and then to incorporate them into your own modeling.

That’s what happened with this build of the Trumpeter JS-4. I'd worked through the fundamental steps of painting and weathering it but then hit a wall of sorts wondering what to do next. I’m figuring it out, but the model languished for a few weeks untouched.

I started moving forward with the model this week, but it doesn’t feel…right. It feels like there was probably a better way, and I’m figuring that out as I go, even if in hindsight, and I know I’ll continue to refine my products and techniques with subsequent builds.

If you’ve had the same experience, my suggestion is what I’ll offer myself with my next build. I’m going to trust my instincts and outline the steps I’ll take to see the model through the painting and finishing stages. It’s probably not going to align with any one master modeler’s process, and it might not work out well for me, but at least having a plan is better than not having one at all.

We visit the 2017 AMPS International Convention

I’ve been going to Armorcon in Danbury, Connecticut for several years now, so I was thrilled when AMPS chose Danbury for their 2017 International Convention. Armorcon is a good show, but this weekend’s convention was a great show.

The contest is the core of every convention, so with just over 600 entries there’s no denying the success of this year’s show. AMPS makes a strong effort to accommodate all modelers’ skill level — Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced categories offer a place for every modeler. Each model is judged individually and scored as objectively as possible. A team of Associate Chief Judges reviews the scores of all the models, looking for consistency and unusual outliers, and when aberrations are found, ask the judges to review their scores. A friend who was involved in the judging told me this was done several times during the two shifts that he worked. Kudos to the organizers and leadership for doing all they can to create a competitive but fair environment. (Read more about the AMPS judging philosophy here.)

Armorcon’s strength has always been its vendor room, so it’s no surprise that the International Convention’s vendor room was a compelling attraction. There were a number of vendors selling practically every armor kit currently in production. Other vendors offered a huge assortment of painting and weathering products — Mig Ammo, Vallejo, Wilder, Hataka, you name it, it was there. And there were a handful of vendors selling books and magazines ranging in price from $5 to $500. I don’t think anyone walked out of that room empty-handed. The only weakness might have been the lack of modelers selling models from their private collections; there were only one or two, so true bargains were few and far between.

There were seminars, too, another credit to the convention organizers. It’s unfortunate that contest attendees enjoy seminars only at national or international conventions like this one. I wish clubs that sponsor small, local shows would make the effort to do the same for their customers.

Next year’s convention is in my old neighborhood, Dayton, Ohio. Until then, here are some of the models that stood out for me.

My favorite entry was this Dragon 1/35 Su-100. Perfectly built and finished.

The most interesting model on the tables was this 1/35 jeep and carrier pigeon conversion. Most unusual and fascinating!

There were a number of really well done T-34s.

I've always had an affinity for the M5A1. This example was as well done as any I've seen.

I've also had a long interest in IDF subjects. This Tiran was expertly finished, I suspect with a very effective black base.

At every contest there's always one model of a subject that hadn't been on my radar but, upon seeing it, prompts me to say, "Damn, I gotta build me one of those!" This weekend it was this nicely done Dragon 1/35 Su-76i.

There were many, many more great looking models. Watch the AMPS Facebook page and the forums for more photos.

See you next year!

A plethora of resin Humvee wheels

Have you noticed how many aftermarket companies produce resin wheels for the Humvee in 1/35 scale?

Aires
Blast
Calibre35
CMK
DEF Model
DTOYS
ET Model (three versions)
Live Resin
Mig Productions
Panzer Art (two versions)
Pro Art
Trakz
Verlinden
Voyager

And I'll bet you a banana split that I missed two or three others.

I can only surmise there’s an unspoken rule that if you’re going into the aftermarket business, you absolutely must release Humvee wheels!

And I must say…they all look very nice!

You can find reviews for many of these wheels on HMMWV In Scale, which is an excellent resource for information on the Humvee.

My disappointing year

Every December Hyperscale readers post photos of the models they built throughout the year, but while many modelers are enjoying the fruits of their 2016 efforts, my look back is leaving me dejected. I had a terrible year. Not only was my output low, but the quality of what I finished was below my expectations.

I like to think that my skills are growing from year to year, but if 2016 is any indication, my skills are declining. It began with my build of the Airfix 1/72 P-40, a project that was originally conceived as being a super-detailed build, complete with cockpit, engine, and open ammunition bays. The model quickly went south when I struggled to find a way to properly mount CMK’s resin engine to the fuselage, and I had to scrap the kit and buy a new one. And I struggled through it as well.

I also fought Hobby Boss’s 1/72 Rafale M to its mediocre end. Like the P-40, I had to buy a second kit after I screwed the pooch on the first one, and the final result does not reflect my best work.

(You can read more about both models here.)

I’ve had issues with my most recent build as well, Academy’s 1/72 F-16C. I didn't properly address a seam in the intake, which now looks horrible, and I failed to anticipate the consequences of attaching the ventral strakes prior to applying the complex Thunderbirds decals to the lower fuselage. When I tried to apply the aft-most decal, it wouldn’t fit around the strakes and — after trying to cut it and slice it to make it fit — I had to discard it.

Last but not least was another ill-fated attempt at armor. I started Trumpeter’s Pz.Kpfw 38(t) with optimism, but as you can see in the picture below the final application of pigments resulted in a total mess. My hat's off to those of you who’ve mastered the use of these media, but I’ve decided to go back to techniques that I’m comfortable with and refine my own style rather than copy the style of others.

As I look at what went wrong with these models I think it all comes back to planning. I need to better visualize every model’s assembly and the consequences to its painting and weathering. 2017 has to be better.

Is the T-55 the new Bf-109?

I don’t have the patience to count the number of 1/48 scale Bf-109s on the market. An accurate tally would require a calculator and a level of proficiency in calculus that I do not have. Suffice to say, it’s a large number.

Here we are the weekend after the 2016 Shizuoka Hobby Show, and we’ve learned that two companies are planning to produce variants of the T-55. Panda announced a T-55A (with parts for Soviet or Czech versions), and Miniart announced a T-54B. This news follows an announcement from Takom a month ago about their upcoming Type 59 and Type 69-I kits (which they originally said would be available only in the Chinese market but now say will be available worldwide).

Armor modelers have long enjoyed the Tamiya T-55, an excellent kit that the company has retooled in recent years for the Enigma and Ti-67 variants. More recently Takom released their T-55 AM and T-55 AMV kits to much excitement in the armor community.

We’ve come a long way since the Lindberg T-55 was the only game in town. Earlier this year I opined about why we see multiple releases of the same subject, but I’m hesitant to complain today about so many companies producing kits of the T-55, a tank which has seen enormous usage around the world over the last 50 years. With so many variants, it’s not hard to imagine each of these companies releasing additional kits to cover all of those T-55 variants. My excitement about these releases is tempered only by the finite time available to me to actually sit at the workbench and build them.

As a fan of Soviet and Russian armor, these are clearly good times. And by the way, we haven’t a peep from Trumpeter yet. I bet you a banana split they announce a T-55 series by the end of the summer.

A quick fix for motorization holes

A lot of you still build older armor kits, and those of you who do are familiar with Tamiya's marketing gimmick back in the 1970s where their armor was sold with small, battery-powered motors. A square or rectangular hole was molded into the underside of the lower hull to allow you to insert the batteries that powered the tiny motors.

Serious modelers laugh at the idea of running their carefully built and painted models on the floor, so the first task with every model was filling the hole. Unfortunately, most modelers over-engineered the solution, choosing the laborious process of filling and sanding the hole flush. I counted 14,335 articles in FineScale Modeler where the authors took that approach with their tracked masterpieces.

There's an easier way, and I really don't understand why no one does this. Rather than fill and sand the hole, simply cut a piece of sheet plastic that vaguely represents an access hatch and glue it over the hole. You're done in 10 minutes and you're an hour closer to modulating the bejesus out of your model and applying rain streaks.

Simple sheet plastic on a Tamiya Chieftan.

I hear a few of you protesting. "But that's not accurate. Access panels are flush with the underside!" True, but once the model is on a base or in your display case, it's extremely difficult to see the very fine line where the bogus hatch has been applied. And rarely, even in a contest, does it matter.

So there you go. Easy, right?

Fighting sameness

There was this short but interesting thread on Missing Links recently that addressed the question of copying someone else’s work. The OP saw a number of dioramas on eBay that closely resembled dioramas that have been created by scale modelers, and pointed them out to the readers of ML.

I often come across photos and WIPs online of subject matter that I’d like to do, and sometimes those models are built and painted almost exactly as I would like to. Same scale, same markings, same weathering, etc. I usually feel a bit deflated on seeing someone else build “my” model, and then I struggle a bit with the decision to proceed with my vision of the model as I had originally planned. I don’t mind building the same model as someone else, but I really don’t want to copy one per se.

A couple of the people who responded to the Missing Links discussion rightly pointed out that many of the old masters in the art world copied each others’ work. Cliff Resinsaw said that copying others’ work — and I would suggest, copying their techniques — is  part of the learning process, but I fear that too many scale modelers are building models using the same products and techniques over and over again, and this has led to the pervasiveness of what is often referred to as the “Spanish style” of painting and weathering models.

Frank Michaels summarized my thoughts perfectly in his response on the ML tread. “A truly individual style is a thing of the past. I collect magazines and modeling books. If you removed the builders name, you could never tell who built it.” He’s right. With all of the out-of-the-box paint sets and weathering sets there’s a sameness that has set into the hobby. It started in the armor world, and now it’s making its way into aircraft and ships.

That sameness has existed in the car modeling world for many, many years. Car modelers have rarely weathered their models, and so it often seems that all of the models at any given NLL contest could have all been built by the same person.

I remember attending the IPMS Nats and other contests 15 or 20 years ago and seeing models that varied greatly in their styles. I could look at a T-34 and know it was build by Ken Guntin. Or a Sherman and immediately realize that Dave Lockhart was in attendance. That’s not the case anymore. Most of the armor on contest tables look the same. We've lost something along the way.

I’ll be the first to admit that these new products and techniques require a good deal of skill to use effectively. I used pigments, washes, and modulation on a JS-II and a T-34/76 recently and the results were, shall we say, lackluster at best, so I won’t criticize the adept use of those items. But when all of us are doing exactly the same thing, the hobby becomes less interesting. I’d like to see each of us follow our own path without feeling the need to rely on out-of-the-box solutions and to create models that fit a certain style or trend.

Is that possible? I think it is. David Parker’s Leopard is a good example of weathering restraint that allows his model to shine through the dust and dirt. I like Hakan Mamaoglu’s Tiran 5 because of his restraint. Ditto for David Coyne’s Tiger I.

Look for new media and explore new techniques, but don't forget to discover your own style. That is much more engaging than the alternative.

Rethinking conversions

Twenty years ago aftermarket conversions were extremely exciting. A number of small companies were regularly releasing conversions for aircraft and armor that, at the time, we were sure would never be produced by the mainstream manufacturers. If you wanted an M4A2 Sherman in 1992 you had to buy the Panzer Concepts or Verlinden conversion. Eager to build a Pzkpfw II Ausf. C? You got the MB Models conversion. If you built flying things and wanted a 1/72 F-101B you looked for the Airmodel conversion, and a full kit of the B-66 was available only as a vacuform kit.

My, how times have changed!

Despite cries that our hobby is dying, we're at a point in its ongoing evolution where anything is possible. Just look at all the great kits that were released last year and announced for 2014. This must be an incredibly difficult time to be in the business of conversion kits, because no matter how obscure the subject, there's a very real possibility that one of the mainstream manufacturers will produce it sooner than later. And with little notice!

Look at the armor community for a recent example. The Leopard C2 MEXAS has been seen service in Afghanistan since 2006 and intrigued me as soon as I first saw it. Recently Trackjam Models stepped up to produce a MEXAS conversion for the Italeri/Revell kit, and I quickly put it on my personal wish list as I awaited its release.

But then two, um, bad things happened. First Legend Productions released its own MEXAS conversion (no wait required), and then Takom announced its upcoming release of a complete, injection molded kit.

My excitement about the Takom kit was tempered only with the realization that the folks behind the Trackjam conversion may have lost a good degree of momentum, guessing that most modelers will prefer a buying kit rather than a conversion. While Legend might be able to absorb diminished sales of their conversion, a small, cottage industry shop like Trackjam has much more invested in terms of their overall resources. That said, as Trackjam specializes in Canadian subjects, I think modelers are confident that their MEXAS conversion will be a great product and might even be used to correct any errors on the Takom kit.

As I look at other conversions I'd like to buy, I find myself re-thinking just how urgently I want them. A little voice inside my head tells me that if I wait long enough someone will eventually produce a kit. I've always liked the Israeli Nagmashot, yet I've been putting off buying the Legend conversion because it's not hard to envision Meng producing a kit of it in the next year or two, particularly if their Achzarit sells well. The same is true for those less detailed kits of more obscure subjects. For example, I have a Heller 1/72 Saab Viggen in the stash, which will require significant effort to superdetail. How long will it be before Trumpeter or Hobby Boss produces a new tool kit of that jet? Ditto for a new kit of the F-106 that's better than Hasegawa's ancient offering?

Are you re-thinking purchases in light of the new kits we're seeing? How long are you willing to wait for a complete kit rather than use a conversion?

More on the Dragon T-28

Back in September I lamented my need for an apprentice in order to build Dragon's big T-28 Super Heavy Tank. Marcos Serra recently completed a very nice build of the kit on his blog Panzerserra-Bunker, and we can now see just how much work is required to assemble the suspension. I don't think it's as bad as I had thought, but I'm still accepting applications for an apprentice.

In the meantime, this looks like an impressive model. Be sure to look for the picture of the T-28 next to a Jagdtiger and Tortoise!

A big thank you to Marcos for use of his photo.

An old survey, 30 years perspective, and models

If you've been in the hobby for 20 or even 30 years as I have, it's fun to look through old magazines and realize just how far we've come. With all the rivet counting of new kits (which I support, by the way), it's easy to forget that 30 years ago we were dreaming about many of the kits we have today. Sort of.

While unpacking old magazines after my move a year ago, I came across the January/February 1984 issue of IPMS's Update. It published the results of a survey in which the organization asked its members what new kits they wanted to see. Over 1,000 responses were counted, and the results are interesting. Consider the top ten kits requested for aircraft in the two most popular scales.

Aircraft 1/72

B-58 Hustler
F-89 Scorpion
A-3 Skywarrior
C-10/AC-110 Flying Boxcar
F3H Demon
F-94 Starfire
C-135/KC-135 Stratotanker
PBM-5 Mariner
F7U Cutlass
B-57/RB-57/WB-57 Night Intruder

Aircraft 1/48

A-20 Havoc
A-26 Invader
F-101 Voodoo
F-89 Scorpion
F-102 Delta Dagger
PBY-5 Catalina
Heinkel He-111
F-94 Starfire
Macchi MC.202 Folgore
SBC Vindicator

Most of these aircraft are now available in kit form, but many are what I would consider "third generation" quality, lacking the level of detail that we come to expect today. For example, Italeri's 1/72 B-58 is roughly 30 years old and totally shows its age, and only Monogram has tackled the A-26, F-101, F-89, and F-102 in 1/48 scale...about 20 years ago!

(By the way, the top five aircraft requested in 1/32 scale were the F-100D, P-6E, F-105D, A-10, and A-7.)

Now look at what the armor modelers were requesting in 1/35 scale in 1984.

M24 Chaffee
T-72
BMP-1
M-108/109
T-54/55
M2 Bradley
Merkava
ZSU-23-4 Shilka
PT-72
M18 Hellcat

You could probably make the argument that armor modelers have it made. Nearly all of these kits are available with fourth generation quality. (Dragon's Shilka is oldish, but still a very nice model.) And as I browser further in the IPMS wish list, I see many other AFVs that are now on the shelves of your LHS (BTR-60, M26, Wespe, BRDM-2, M88, T-34/85, JS-3, etc.).

I may spend more time looking at the list and comparing it to what's available today. A quick glance shows some odd choices from the manufacturers. For example, while over 100 people requested the B-58 only eight requested the F4D Skyray yet Tamiya offers a very nice Skyray while the B-58 in my stash has nasty raised panel lines all over it, not to mention proportions which I've read are way off. Fifty-five people requested a 1/48 F7F Tigercat and 12 requested a PV-1 Ventura, but which one did Revell choose to produce?

Oh well.

I need an apprentice

You may have heard about Dragon's surprise announcement of their upcoming T-28 tank. If you're an armor modeler you have to be intrigued by the tank's unique nature, just as you were years ago with Dragon's Maus or more recently with Meng's VsKfz.617 Minesweeper. Some models just beg to be built no matter what your primary interest is.

But just as my excitement peaked on studying the T-28 box art, a pessimistic little voice inside my head said, "Ummmm, maybe not." What happened? I noticed all of those road wheels and track links! By my estimates there are approximately 650 road wheels and 4,300 track links.

Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit, but I think there are just over 100 road wheels and too many track links than I care to count. No matter how you factor it, that's a lot of tedious cutting and sanding and gluing. Our hobby is all about tedium, but is there a point where you say it's just too much work?

That's why I need an apprentice. I need a young, enthusiastic young man you wants to learn the art of modeling by working at my side for ten years, or until he preps all those road wheels and track links for me. Hell, even Michelangelo had an apprentice, (Daniele da Volterra) and was an apprentice himself (to Domenico Ghirlandaio).

Who will be the first to apply?