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.

The dilemma of D-Day stripes

This month we commemorate the anniversary of D-Day, so I thought it would be suitable to briefly write about one of the more popular topics of interest to modelers of World War Two era aircraft, D-Day stripes. Conversations about these markings on the forums are often contentious, but they shouldn't be. We can all pretty much agree on two points.

Some D-Day stripes were painted with great care.

And some D-Day stripes were painted seemingly with a mop from the mess hall.

And if you look hard enough, you'll find examples of D-Day stripes between these two extremes of neat and careless. That's good new for us modelers, because we can’t get D-Day stripes wrong, right? Well, sort of.

Here’s the rub. If you choose to paint perfectly applied D-Day stripes, your model may look like…a toy. Accurate, perhaps, but still toylike. If you choose to represent carelessly applied D-Day stripes and you paint them as poorly as they appear on that Boston above, people will think you’re a crappy modeler. Yes, a knowledgable modeler will realize what you’ve attempted to do, but your finishing skills will still appear to be subpar.

I did a quick image search in Google to look for models of P-47s, B-17s, etc. that feature D-Day stripes, and I discovered that the majority of modelers play it safe, applying fairly neat stripes. The results are generally effective. To be sure, I found some really nice models in the process and saved a more than a few for inspiration on future projects. But in general, it would seem we're reluctant to show sloppy D-Day stripes.

What makes a D-Day stripe “sloppy?” Well, it was poorly masked (or not masked at all), the paint was applied haphazardly, resulting in inconsistent coverage over the area, and the paint might have been applied with one very thick coat.

Knowing that, how do we show sloppy D-Day stripes on a model? I think the answer is, we don't. The key is striking a balance between what I refer to as accurate sloppy and representational sloppy. On an actual aircraft it would look something like this Spitfire, a photo that I'm sure you've all seen before. This is the general effect you should probably strive to represent on a model. Although the white paint seems to quite thick, these two artists have made a good attempt to keep the lines straight and the width of the lines consistent.

To mask representational sloppy stripes, you can toss aside the idea that you can paint them without masking. Maybe your grandfather did so on his P-51 in 1944, but in scale (even 1/32 scale) masking goes a long way to your achieving a good foundation for the stripes, even sloppy ones. The tape you cut for the masking doesn't need to be cut perfectly sharp and straight. You can score your tape partially through and then carefully pull the tape to create a mask with a slightly ragged edge. The degree of raggedness depends on the scale — the larger the scale, the more ragged it can be.

And then there’s coverage. When you apply each of the white and black stripes, you don’t have to apply a complete coat of paint. A thin to medium application of paint provides sufficient basis for a subsequent application of very thin paint applied with a brush, which is an attempt to represent the application of paint by brush on the actual aircraft. If you apply a thin coat of paint, leaving just the impression of brushstrokes, the in-scale effect should be ideal.

Here's my Hasegawa 1/72 B-26. Look closely and you'll see that the edges of the stripes aren't perfect; I left some imperfections to suggest that they weren't too carefully applied. I also did some chipping, assuming that the paint probably wasn't as durable as that which was applied in the factory. These stripes don't capture the effect quite like I had in mind, so you can be sure the next time around I'll vary my technique a bit and see what comes of it. (And you can bet that if I do another B-26 I'll spend more time fitting the landing lights properly.)

Finally, despite my joking about there being too many discussions about D-Day stripes, this recent WIP of a Typhoon on Britmodeller provides good advice for sizing your stripes.

Don't let facts slow you down

Someone recently asked this question (paraphrased) on one of the armor forums:

I think M1 Abrams and M2 Bradleys arriving for service in Desert Shield in three-tone NATO camouflage. Some or most were repainted in desert tan after arriving. My Desert Storm M1A1 I'm building will not have much weathering but I'm wondering about the underside of the tank. What color would it be? Were the backside of the wheels and road arms repainted tan or left in the original colors.

A while back I wrote about painting what you see. This is a perfect example of how you can apply that principle to your models. Look at this photograph of an M1A1. What color is the underside, assuming you were low enough to see it at this distance?

The underside looks black to me, because it's in heavy shadow. It might be sand, black, or pink. I don't know, and for my purposes in building a model, I wouldn't care. Painting the underside black, dark grey, or dark green would offer the viewer a reasonable representation of the tank in scale.

That, my friends, is painting what you see. It's a simple approach to scale modeling that diminishes the sometimes overwhelming burden of research and documentation and lets us build models the way our minds see aircraft, vehicles, and ships in the real world. I enjoy research as much as the next guy, but sometimes I just want to move a project forward without a quest for the facts slowing me down.

Take Two

I would be remiss in adding a note about this person's specific question. I don't know the answer, but absent any definitive proof we have to rely on logic and intuition to surmise what probably happened back in 2006. If I were responsible for tasking my soldiers to paint the tanks in my battallion, I wouldn't expect them to crawl under every vehicle to paint their underside and back of the wheels. That effort would seem to me to be a waste of time and paint and ultimately add little or no value to our efforts to camouflage the vehicles.

Does research -- even if you enjoy it -- slow you down?

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.

Five New Years resolutions for you

I'm not one to make New Years resolutions for myself, but I'll happily make five for you! Please pass them on!

1. Start experimenting. I appreciate the ease with which you can ask questions on the internet forums, but all of us need to spend a few days throughout the year trying a new technique without the promise of success.

2. Don't pick fights with rivet counters. I know some of them can be abrasive at times, but we should be thanking them for offering critiques of new models. We've seen several instances where their observations have prompted the manufacturers to re-tool kits to make them more accurate. If accuracy isn't a driving factor for you, skip their reviews.

3. Stop hijacking new release threads with your personal wish list. Enjoy new kit announcements for what they are and post your requests elsewhere; practically every manufacturer now provides a medium for providing feedback. I'd love to see a 1/48 L-17 Navion, but you don't' see me posting that every time Kitty Hawk announces a new kit. Oh, and quit with the annoying "wrong scale" barbs. You're annoying.

4. If you build armor, show some restraint in your weathering. I appreciate the artistry of highly weathered tanks (which I have yet to master myself), but it's time for this fad to go away. Who among you will offer something new for us to get excited about?

5. Inventory your stash (and books) for insurance purposes. One of our peers recently lost his house in a fire. I have no idea how much he lost in terms of models and related resources, but it should open our eyes to the substantial investments we've made in our hobby. Inventory that stuff and store it offline. I recommend DropBox, but there are a number of solutions available today.

Dear Santa

Dear Santa,

Hi, my name is Steven and I like to build models. I know you're busy preparing for your 'round the world trip tonight, so rather than ask you to give me anything I'm asking that you plant a few ideas in the ears of the model industry. I hope that's okay.

1. Please ask the decal manufacturers to produce slime lights (formation lights) for jets that are dirty. The decals in the kits and from the aftermarket guys are always bright and shiny. In reality, they can be filthy.

 2. While they're at it, maybe the decal manufacturers can produce decals of dirty Remove Before Flight tags. If my airplane is dirty, I'd like my RBF tags to be the same.

3. Please tell the manufacturers to stop putting those deep, engraved "panel" lines on missiles and other ordnance. Santa, I don't know if you spend any time at airshows during your off season, but if you've ever seen a missile up close, all of the components fit quite tightly together. Trying to paint stripes in or around those engraved trenches is very difficult. I'd rather the manufacturers just leave them plain and let me do the painting and decaling required.

4. As you know, I build 1/72 aircraft. The biggest weakness with models in this scale is the canopy. Tell the manufacturers to produce thinner canopies. That would go a long way to making my models more realistic.

5. While we're on the subject of canopies, please ask the guys over at Eduard to manufacture canopy masks for the inside of canopies. I know, using masks is cheating, but that sure would make our canopies more realistic.

Thank you for your time, and have a safe voyage tonight.

Your friend,
Steven

You're ugly on the inside

We've seen countless outstanding models posted to the forums since the early days of the interwebz, and the quality has only increased over the last few years as painting and weathering techniques have become the focus of our attention. But one area is often overlooked...the interiors, particularly with aircraft.

Except for Patrick Bodet. He recently posted photos of his 1/48 I.A.R. 80 to Hyperscale, and as you can see from this photo weathering skills are simply outstanding.

Go to Hyperscale to see more photos of Patrick's model. You'll find that his exterior finishing techniques are as good as his interior techniques.

Thanks to Patrick for use of his photo.