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.

Getting started with airbrushing

One of the most common subjects of discussion and frustration in Facebook groups — after D-Day stripes — is airbrushing. Newcomers want to know which airbrush to buy, and once they have one in hand, they struggle with its use.

If you struggle, don’t feel bad. Airbrushing is one of the most challenging tasks in our hobby to master, in part because there are so many variables:

• Your airbrush
• The cleanliness of your airbrush
• The paint you use
• The thinner
• The paint to thinner ratio
• The air pressure you spray at
• Your technique
• The weather

If you’re new to airbrushing here are a few suggestions based on my experience over the years.

Purchase any double-action airbrush

There are many airbrushes on the market in every price range. And modelers are quick to offer suggestions for all of them. If you’re new, the best advice I can offer is to start with a double-action airbrush in the $30-$50 price range. I want to suggest the Iwata HP-CH that I use, but the $150 price tag is a bit much for a beginner. You can always upgrade as you build experience.

Select just two or three paints

When you’ve purchased an airbrush, your first decision will be which paint to use. It’s easy to be overwhelmed with the choices. You’ll find modelers who are strong advocates for each paint on the market, as well as some who will tell you avoid this paint or that paint at all costs. 

My advice is to but one color from two or three manufacturers so you can use them yourself and choose the brand you like the best. I’d probably recommend:

• Tamiya
• MRP
• Mr Hobby
• AMMO by Mig

In addition, purchase each manufacturer’s own thinner for now. There are alternatives, but if you’re beginning, best to keep it simple.

Experiment

Before you even think about using your new airbrush on a model you care about, spend a few weeks learning how to spray each of the paints you purchased. Your goal is to simply explore the characteristics of each paint given these two variables -- air pressure and paint-to-thinner ratio.

You’ve probably seen YouTube videos where modelers are pouring paint and thinner directly into the airbrush and mixing by eye. If you’re new, you’re better off building your experience by counting drops of paint and thinner and writing them down for future reference. When you find a combination that works for you, you’ll want to be able to use it over and over. You’re not mixing a lot of paint at this stage, just enough to see how well you can spray the paint. 10-20 drops of paint and thinner will be sufficient for you to apply overall coats of paint and fine lines.

Practice, practice, practice

When you’ve found a paint manufacturer and thinning ratio you like, the next step is to practice on old models. Your goal is to reach a point where you can apply paint to your model with consistent results. When you’re ready to commit paint to a model that’s important to you, the last thing you want is an unpleasant surprise, so taking time to continue to master your airbrush and paint is important.

I hope you find these ideas helpful. Airbrushing is hard, but if you’re diligent and persistent, there’s no reason why you can’t use your airbrush with good results.

P.S. On final thought.... For all that is holy in this world, please, please keep your airbrush clean! A little extra effort after each airbrushing session goes a long way to ensuring your most valuable tool can give you the results you seek.

Solving the problem that is yellow

I often see conversations on ARC and other forums about painting yellow. It seems to be one of the more challenging colors to work with. I've never had to paint a large area of yellow myself, but with a few models in the stash that will eventually call for yellow (T-6/SNJ, T-28, Blenheim), I've been anxious to see if it’s as hard a color to apply as people seem to imply. Of course I'd use my paint of choice, Tamiya.

Before accepting the challenge, it might be helpful to briefly review basic color theory.

Three attributes define all colors:

• Hue – the simple name for a color, such as yellow, red, blue.
• Lightness – a color’s value in terms of whether it can be described between two poles of light and dark (or black and white).
• Saturation – a color’s colorfulness, that is, whether it’s intense or dull or somewhere in between.

Let’s talk about hue. I’ll share a simple thought: Yellow, even a specific pigment such as FS 33538, is basically…yellow! As I suggested in this post a year ago, don’t obsess over finding or using a “correct” yellow for your model. Be content with a color that any reasonable person would identify as yellow.

That leaves us with lightness and saturation. There are many factors that affect the specific yellow that you see on a 1:1 scale airframe. There’s the sun's illumination and its light being filtered through clouds, real-world weathering, variations in the manufacture of the color used on the actual aircraft, the correct mixing and application of the paint in the factory or field, etc. Likewise, there are many factors that affect the specific yellow that you see on a scale model. The light in the room, scale effect, the paint you used, your ability (and a viewer’s ability) to correctly see color, and the memory that you (and a viewer) have of what they think the correct color should be.

Those factors affect the lightness and saturation of the colors that we see. Accepting these variables and knowing that you cannot control all of them makes it easier to be comfortable applying a color to your model that looks like yellow.

The challenge with painting yellow is the opacity of most paints. They generally don’t cover well, so you have to use a thick application or many thin applications. The former is problematic because thick paints don’t flow efficiently through an airbrush, and the latter is problematic because many layers of paint tends to obscure detail.

With all this color theory in mind, I set out on an experiment by selecting a suitable model, Sword’s 1/72 Northrop N-9MA Flying Wing. Pretty crude kit, but the point of the project was learning how to paint yellow not superdetailing. Nevertheless, I added a few things here and there, particularly splitter plates inside the leading edge air intakes, and I had to scratchbuild a new front landing gear when the kit piece broke.

Earlier this week I arrived at the painting stage. First I applied a suitable blue to the underside of the aircraft, custom mixed by eye. Simple.

Then I thought through an approach to yellow that would address the challenges I described earlier. Most modelers suggesting a white undercoat prior to the yellow. I’m not one to apply bright, true colors to my models, so I decided to try something different. I wanted to try a tan color with a marked yellow hue. I decided on Tamiya XF-59 Desert Yellow mixed 50:50 with XF-3 Yellow, the paint I would use for the main color. I theorized that tan would provide a deep primer color that would not subsequently require copious amounts of yellow. And I was right; the color was perfect for a reasonable application of yellow.

In thinking about the final yellow, I’d read that opacity was problematic, so I decided to follow this “tan theme” and mix a bit of the same Desert Yellow into the main yellow color, which I theorized would increase its opacity. I used Tamiya XF-3 Yellow, XF-59 Desert Yellow, and XF-2 White in a 4:1:1 ratio respectively, the white used to bring down the color a bit for scale effect. Again, the result was a satisfactory color that, I think, is slightly lower in saturation than it would’ve been had had I used the pure yellow out of the bottle.

I’m very happy with the result, especially after some subtle post-shading, though to be self-critical I don't think I used the right color to tint the yellow. A pin wash and weathering will ultimately follow, which I expect will alter the finish a bit.

As you approach painting challenges, I encourage you to think outside of conventional wisdom. Follow your intuition. Try something new. Make your own path. You might be surprised what you learn along the way.

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?

5 ways to increase your output

I'm a slow modeler. Like, four or five models a year slow. I enjoy detailing and I've been known to obsess over seams and fiddly bits, but with more kits in the stash than I'll have time to build, I've been thinking a lot about what I can do to increase my output. A couple of weeks ago I suggested painting your cockpits black as one way to move more models across your workbench, so here are five more ideas. I know they're not for everyone, but maybe you'll find something here that can increase your output, or at the very least get you thinking about other shortcuts.

1. Don't use photoetch

I like the idea of photoetch, but I'm growing increasingly frustrated with it, and by the look of the comments on this thread on ARC and this one on Hyperscale I'm not alone. When you use photoetch for a kit you're often building a second kit; you have to cut the parts off the fret, sand the cut edge (and usually the other edges, too), bend it, and apply it. One small part may require 10-15 minutes of preparation and application. Multiply that by 25, 50, or 100 and you can see how much photoetch sucks from your modeling time. I'm very close to avoiding it altogether unless it provides significant aesthetic value (such as the mesh for engine grills on armor).

2. Minimize time spent on the underside

Ever try to look up the kilt of a 90mm Scottish Highlander? There's nothing to see. The legs of figures often just attach to the block of resin or metal that forms the torso. Figure painters are smart. They don't waste time modeling things that 99 percent of the viewers don't see. Aircraft modelers can learn something from them. Why do we obsess over landing gear bays, resin wheels, and underwing weathering? I know, I already hear some of you saying, "I know it's there." I understand; I've said that myself and have replicated my share of landing gear hoses and whatnot. But you also know there aren't tiny pistons within the engines you just attached to that B-17, yet you're still happy with the model, right? Think of the time savings if you did just the minimum with your undersides.

3. Don't obsess over minor seams

I'm no trophy hound but admit to enjoying the challenge of trying to build each model better than the last. I spend a lot of time trying to get the seams on my models perfect, because an obvious seam can be a major detractor from an otherwise excellent model. One of the quickest ways of speeding along a model is not spending too much time on minor seams. Maybe we should ensure that only the prominent seams are good but leave the others "good enough."

4. Skip the seamless intakes

I like the idea of seamless intakes, but I rarely notice or appreciate them, particularly in 1/72 scale. The only time you see a seamless intake, or the horror of a blanked off intake, is when you look directly at the model. How often do you do that? Are those few moments worth the time and expense of modeling them? I'm not sure.

5. Skip the stencils

We like stencils, but with the exception of 1/32 scale models, and maybe a few subjects in 1/48 scale, most of them wouldn't be seen in scale. You can probably skip the NO STEP markings on your 1/72 F-16 and still dazzle your friends with your epic skill with filters and pigments. The four hours you don't spend applying those 50 stencils could be time spent starting your next model.

So what do you think? Are these good ideas, or am I diminishing the value of our craft?

Paint it black and close it up

Like many of you I have a lot of models in my stash. More than I can build in my lifetime. Well, maybe....

What if we could speed up our builds, go from building five models a year to 10. Or if you're already building 10 a year then to increase your output to 15 or 20? We still may be be able to build all of the models in our respective stashes, but we'd build considerably more by the time we go to that big hobby shop in the sky, right?

I've had a few ideas, and I've wanted to test and write about them. This one is a bit of a success story, so I thought I'd share it, if only to prove that I practice what I preach...and that sometimes my suggestions are actually viable!

Last summer I saw an F4F Wildcat fly at The World War Two Weekend in Reading, Pennsylvania. I'd never seen one in the air before and was struck by its speed relative to the other aircraft. Who knew that a reciprocating engine could propel a rocketship! I knew I had to build one eventually. Fast-forward a couple of months, and I stumbled upon an Academy 1/72 F4F Wildcat on sale at the LHS. It was cheap, so I bought it.

I took it off the shelf recently to build it but immediately saw how crude it is. The cockpit is barely better than those provided in the old Matchbox kits of the 1970s, and the engine is about as simple a representation of a radial engine you will see while still being identifiable as an engine. I briefly looked for a resin replacements for both, found what I needed on eBay, and put them into my watch list. Then I thought to myself, "Self, as cool as the airplane is, you're not really a huge fan of the Wildcat. Why do you want to put a great deal of money and time into this particular model when there are so many others in the stash that excite you more?"

I wondered how I could build a $5 model without investing $40 of resin and 40 hours time into it. And do so relatively quickly. What if I build the cockpit using only the parts provided in the kit but paint it completely black. It's a small cockpit and the single-piece canopy can't be positioned open, so black would hide the nonexistent detail and allow me to quickly proceed through assembly and to painting and weathering, which is what I most enjoy. Could I do the same for the engine? Sure.

So I committed to building the model as quickly as possible so that I could focus my time and effort on the finish, which is what I enjoy most. A quick application of black paint on the appropriate parts and I was ready for assembly within 30 minutes of opening the box.

Assembly was fairly quick, and after filling seams and rescribing a few panel lines I had the airplane ready for painting.

That's where I spent most of my time with the model, painting it. I used my typical custom-mixed Tamiya paint, matched by eye to photos of Wildcat models I studied on Hyperscale and ARC, and weathered it with some post-shading, pastels, and artist pencils. I'm happy with the result considering how quickly it went together (even if my photography skills leave a lot to be desired). It looks good in my display case, where the black hole of a cockpit detracts little from the overall look of the model.

In fairness, painting a cockpit black may not work for everyone. Some cockpits are quite large and visible (such as an A-37), or you may simply enjoy painting and detailing cockpits. I do, too, but looking forward I can see myself doing this again, if only to increase my annual output by one or two models a year, which could amount to my ultimately completing 50-60 models more than I would otherwise.

Try it. You might like it!

Resolutions and hairspray

I admit it: I used to use hairspray. Back when I was as handsome as Tom Cruise and the ladies would swoon when I'd walk into a room carry the latest Monogram release under my muscular arms. Those were the days!

I have a different relationship with hairspray these days. I don't need it for my hair as much as I do for my models. Unless you've been living under a rock or been overly preoccupied with The Simpsons, you're at least vaguely familiar with the use of hairspray in scale modeling. In case you're not, it's a technique that allows you to create extremely realistic paint wear and chipping. Here's an example, a 1/48 Hs-129 by Bob Windus seen at last year's IPMS Nats.

 The general process looks something like this.

1. Apply color #1.
2. Apply hairspray.
3. Apply color #2.
4. Use a pointed tool or brush to removed color #2, allowing color #1 to show underneath.

Mig Jimenez has a very nice tutorial on his blog, and if you can find your way to Google and can type on a keyboard, a quick search will turn up dozens of other articles and SBS's where the technique is shown. There are even some very helpful videos on YouTube. The ultimate FAQ, in my humble opinion, is found on this thread on the Mig Productions forum.

I'm talking about the hairspray technique because, as you may recall, one of my New Years resolutions for you (and me) was to experiment. I've wanted to try this technique for a long time but have been afraid of failing -- because, you know, if you screw up a model your life has no value, right? So I found an inexpensive Hobby Boss 1/72 MiG-3 (which is quite a gem, by the way), purchased a bottle of AK Interactive's Worn Effects Acrylic Fluid (i.e., hairspray), and said a prayer to every god I could think of, including Tengri, the primary deity of the the Xiongnu, Hunnic, Bulgar, and Xianbei peoples.

I won't go into great detail about the process I used on the MiG, other than to say I used Tamiya paints exclusively, with a typical application of Future before and after applying the decals...and before the application of the chipping fluid and white paint. I'm pleased with the results, but I'll offer the three reactions I had to my efforts.

First, the paint didn't come off as easily as I had expected, even though I started working it within 10 minutes of applying the chipping fluid. Maybe it's my choice of Tamiya, which is a surprisingly durable paint. Next time I'll try Polly-S.

Second, it's very easy to chip or rub through the paint right down to the bare plastic. I did so on one or two areas, though it's not obvious given the color of the airframe. This may be the result of my using Tamiya, but in general I'd suggest proceeding carefully.

Third, the results are somewhat random. I guess this is a good thing, but as an "artist," I like having much more control of the final effects that I have envisioned. Some spots on the MiG are over-worn and others under-worn, at least to my eye.

Overall I'm very happy with the model. I think it turned out quite well for my first attempt at a new technique, and I'm eager to try it again. I hope you're experiementing as we move further into 2014. I'd love to hear what you're doing!

A few tips

Over the weekend Aircraft Resource Center user DutyCat wrote about his experiences building the Hasegawa 1/72 F-14 on this thread, and I echoed his thoughts on one item in particular. He pointed out that, after a coat or two of paint, the axles on landing gear often won't fit into the hole in the wheels. I've encountered the same difficulty over the years, also upon trying to insert landing gear into the fuselage/wings as well. It's very frustrating to be so close to completing a model only to find out parts won't fit. I contributed my "cure" for this problem on DutyCat's thread, but I thought I'd share it here with a couple more random modeling tips I've picked up along the way. 

Attachment points

I struggle with alignment, a lot. Getting parts to fit and adhere correctly is crucial in building a model (especially if you seek the great fame, wealth, and glory that accompanies a win at an IPMS contest), so lately I've been masking areas that will serve as mating surfaces for two parts. For example, on the B-26 I just finished I used thin strips of Tamiya tape to mask the narrow areas where the bulkheads joined the fuselage. This, I hope, provides a strong bond of those parts.

To DutyCat's observation on ARC, I've been using Micro Mask to ensure that the holes and mating surfaces for landing gear and wheels remain clean of paint, which eases assembly and ultimately provides a strong bond. Is all of this tedious? Yes, but anything that helps me during assembly is a good thing.

Paint chips

I love weathering. It's my favorite part of the model building process, and for me it begins with painting and ends with paint chips. I used to use silver paint to represent paint chips, but I've found that it's not condusive to creating "chips" small enough and jagged enough to look realistic. I've seen well-painted models with paint chips that resemble silver amoeba rather than irregular and jagged damage.

A better medium for me has been artist pencils. Using an inexpensive pencil sharpner, I can get them sharp enough to create very fine "chips," lightly tapping the pencil on the model to create the smallest chips. The trick then becomes creating chips that appear realistic, which is difficult and time consuming. I spent approximately two hours on the paint chips on my B-26.

Color

I'm a proponent of scale effect. I won't bore you with a technical explanation, but if you're new to the hobby the concept simply suggests that colors become less intense in smaller scales. For me it means that I never use paint directly out of the bottle. Every color I apply to a model is muted or altered in some way, and it's especially true of the so-called primary colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet), and white and black. I always reduce the intensity of these colors by adding another color to them.

For example, my B-26 features black and white D-Day invasion stripes. Rather than apply those colors directly from the bottle, I added a little tan to the white paint and white and tan to the black paint to weather them and avoid the stark contrast that a bright white and dark black would impart. The same holds true for the yellow on the tips of the propeller blades, which was toned down using tan and white.

I hope you can use these ideas for your models. I'll share some additional tips in the future.