|
Post by dewobz on Nov 15, 2012 8:26:43 GMT 12
Calum, sorry, I wasn't clear, that was just an example to establish that the Slippery Sam illustration may also constitute a correct line drawing and may be useful regards the upper fuselage panel line you mentioned. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Nov 14, 2012 8:49:13 GMT 12
Hi Calum, I think the illustrations in Pacific Twins are accurate, of which the full page on Slippery Sam is the largest and most complete. You can see, for instance, that not only is the window too high, the panels in front of it are incorrect. Cheers, Wally.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Nov 13, 2012 15:58:38 GMT 12
Looks awesome Calum. The additional interior details add a lot I reckon, even if you won't see much eventually. Are you doing anything about the position of the starboard rear fuselage window? That's my biggest bugbear about this kitset. I reckon the window is too high - negating the possibility of correct starboard fuselage roundel & bar placement - and the panel lines around it are incorrect. Compare the illustrations of Slippery Sam in Pacific Twins with the kitset. Cheers, Wally.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Oct 17, 2012 9:28:16 GMT 12
Looks okay to me. Nice little unit mate. Great to see another one of your Kiwi subjects. I reckon your display (& photographs) might be improved somewhat by the simple addition of a textured surface colour on the base - concrete, tarmac or turf, that sort of thing. What's next on the desk for you? Another Kiwi bird I hope? Cheers, Wally.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Oct 15, 2012 15:25:38 GMT 12
Good stuff mate. Nice build.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Sept 19, 2012 12:15:19 GMT 12
My father, Owen Hicks, who I believe you will be talking to soon Dave, transfered from No 1 SU on Kittyhawks to No 10 SU on Venturas and should be able to provide some information. Cheers, Wally.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Sept 12, 2012 16:48:13 GMT 12
Dave, this topic all began because you had artwork for a 'Patua Te Ra' decal as your avatar for a while. You asked if anyone else was interested and two of us replied A-ffirmative. Has anything transpired about the decal(s) for NZ4516? If not, could you possibly send me the artwork so I can print my own? Cheers, Wally.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Sept 10, 2012 15:02:29 GMT 12
That's great additional information and tallies with what my Dad remembers. My father, Owen Hicks, confirmed with me Saturday that he was groundcrew accompanying the second flight and was redirected to Tontouta to assist the first flight groundcrew repair the 4 aircraft which the USAAF boys had recovered off the beach. He was at Tontouta when the second incidents occurred and the fact that 3 aircraft were damaged explains his recollection that they had a total of 7 aircraft to repair. (Owen recalled 5 & 2). Perhaps third flight groundcrew were also involved since the second incident casualties were their aircraft? While USAAF groundcrew undoubtedly participated in the repairs - I believe it was an American who painted the 'pussy cat' - there was certainly a significant RNZAF contingent. Owen remembers being given access to the Yanks' vast stores of brand new parts. The repairs apparently kept him there for six weeks. I wonder if there are any other original 14 Squadron groundcrew still with us? After all, it was their involvement (or not) that was the topic question first posed by Dave H.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Sept 8, 2012 13:48:36 GMT 12
I go along with the others Harrysone, brilliantly executed! And aren't we lucky having perhaps the best decal manufacturer in the world right here in Godzone? Go Ventura!
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Sept 8, 2012 12:15:30 GMT 12
RNZAF groundcrew certainly participated in the recovery of these 14 Squadron aircraft from the beach near Noumea. I know this because my father, an RNZAF electrician groundcrew, spent the first month of his first tour doing so. I have also PM'd you about this Dave. Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Sept 3, 2012 14:15:00 GMT 12
Excellent work Callum. Very nice indeed. I love the weathering you achieve. Great subject matter too.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Sept 3, 2012 13:28:32 GMT 12
NZ3202 P-40N-15 30165 42-106403 - Assembled by No.1 Aircraft Depot, Hobsonville and BoC at Hobsonville on 24 November 1943. Coded "78". To No.2 OTU, Ohakea. Sold to J. Larsen from Rukuhia on 02 March 1948. While with 15 Squadron on 28 January 1944 , pilot F/Sgt T A Stephenson claimed an A6M Zero 'Zeke' destroyed over Tobera, New Britain, making NZ3202(78) (by my reckoning) the highest serialed RNZAF P-40 to claim an enemy aircraft destroyed in WW2. Repatriated to No 2 OTU probably in Sept 1944. Italeri 1/48 kitset with Eduard exhausts and some PE and Hasegawa wheels, AeroMaster paints, Ventura & HobbyBoss decals. Recently completed for the www.kiwimodeller.com 75th Anniversary Group Build with more photos in the Build Gallery of that forum. Cheers, Wally. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Jul 30, 2012 14:58:59 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Jul 30, 2012 14:56:33 GMT 12
Here's a link for 'In Bed' by Ron Mueck, one of a number of artists doing life-like sculpture in various scales, including extremely large. New Zealand's own Glen Hayward is a world-class exponent of this genre of fine art, having won practically every NZ art award bar the Walter's Prize. I believe his work is in the Walter's collection. However these artist's works and the likes of Fiona Banner's Harrier & Jaguar are not 'models' in the sense kitset models are. They are either created from scratch or utilize existing objects including, in Banner's case, actual jet aeroplanes. The artworks are 'made' or 'found'. The planes are not models at all or even lifelike replicas as Hayward's work often is, they are aircraft or 'things' utilized in a sculptural work of art. I guess the differences become kind of semantic too. Perhaps partly what is being debated here is the question, "When does a model become a sculpture (or work of object art)?" From each his or her own individual perspective if you think it is art then it is art. However if the art world considers it a model and not a sculpture or object artwork then I hazard a guess they - who are after all a select kind of 'we' - do not consider it to be fine art. As far as I can tell the art world does not consider an OOB kitset model the same as it does a blank canvas. You and I might, which is perfectly fine, but they - this other 'we' - don't.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Jul 27, 2012 11:37:04 GMT 12
Nowadays the art world certainly accepts models, including stock-standard kitset models, as components of fine art works. The photo is of a work of mine accepted for moderation for my Dip Applied Arts. My intention was to comment on post-war materialism and consumerism but of course all art is open to viewer interpretation. Check out the work of Australian sculptor (or object artist) Ricky Swallow, especially his earlier works using figures placed on obsolete electronic equipment. I have seen some 1/35 AFV dioramas I certainly consider fine art as in 'Spring in Berlin' (title from memory - modeller unknown), perhaps mostly because it said something powerful and I found it deeply moving. Children playing, perhaps for the first time in years, amongst the destruction of Berlin and a burnt out tank (once again from memory). A single model airplane or car or even many a diorama may not have the contrasting elements to achieve such artistic meaning? This may remain yet to be tested in the fine art arena? Perhaps someone will enter a scale model or diorama one day in the Walter's Prize or Turner Prize. Ultimately for me however, if the art world today accepts almost anything as art, then conversely I can decide individually what I consider to be art. I certainly consider a great many of the built models I see to be works of art. There may never be a definitive answer to the question. 'Art' as in quality of expression? Creative skills? Or art as it is loosely defined by the 'art world'? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Jun 28, 2012 9:19:50 GMT 12
Here's my latest RNZAF PV-1 Ventura build, finished as NZ4562 at Guadalcanal in early March 1945. Classic Warbirds No. 8 depicts the aircraft in photograph & colour illustration as having fairly fresh NZ Blue Sea Grey over NZ Sky Grey camouflage. Adf. serials states - NZ4562 6007 PV-1? Bu48771. Assembled at Oahu and BOC with Unit 12, Ohakea on 14 January 1944. To No.1 Squadron, Guadalcanal. With No.2 Squadron, Guadalcanal by late 1944. With No.8 Squadron, Guadalcanal by January 1945. Crashed at Henderson Field on 19 March 1945. The aircraft swung on takeoff and was written off as a result of the damage received. Revell 1/48 kitset, (self-mixed) AeroMaster paints, Zotz, AM, kit & Ventura decals. The full build is on www.kiwimodeller.com RNZAF 75th Anniversary GB - including my comparison/summation of the glaring innaccuracy on the model's starboard rear window placement & surrounding panels - with more pics in the Build Gallery of the same forum. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Jun 15, 2012 11:10:55 GMT 12
Good points all. Once again today I have not bought Classic Warbirds 'Pacific Twins' to work where I have internet access. The Piva work area photo is further on in the book from the 'Patua Te Ra' nose photo and is the second such picture. It includes NZ4503 and another PV-1 with field repaints in NS Sea Blue. NZ4518 is parked between them. The only 'problem' I see with a January or Feb '44 repaint of NZ4516 is the date on the Dec '43 nose photograph. The artwork is already there and, as you seem to agree, the aircraft has been repainted (though not necessarily in NZ BSG/NZ Sky). Could the Dec '43 date on the photograph in the book be incorrect? If she was still 3 tone scheme in this photograph, I wonder what the painters did about the background colour of the artwork when repainting her (again)? Or perhaps they would have repainted the artwork too?
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Jun 14, 2012 12:44:20 GMT 12
Further to what is effectively a new thread started in Catalina NZ4010 XX-L, I will share my thoughts as to the possibility that 'Patua Te Ra' is repainted in NZ Blue Sea Grey over NZ Sky Grey. They are all anecdotal and I am not trying to push a barrow. First, yes, Dec 1943 does seem early for a repaint. I wonder if there is any record of when repaints were done? My thoughts (albethey anecdotal) - 1) The 'short wave' demarcation line between upper and lower colours on 4516's nose. This seems unusual to me. 'Slippery Sam' had (what I call) 'long waves' but most PV-1s as far as I can tell had relatively straight demarcation lines. 2) In the peak of particularly the second wave in from the front it looks to me as though another, lighter upper colour is showing. 3) The overall effect of the paint on the uppers nose area seems dark to me. Of course this could be the light but the paintwork has what I might call a 'fresh' look. 4) The uppers paint on the cowling does not 'wrap' around just under the opening (as it does on 'Slippery Sam') but appears to turn upwards into the opening, leaving an area of lowers colour in the centre of the opening. This might equate with what appears to me to be a general lowering of the demarcation line in repaint schemes. 5) Although very little of the top of 4516's nose is visible, not as much as in the 'Slippery Sam' photo, I cannot see a demarcation line for Intermediate Blue/NS Sea Blue. There is a line of rivets (I think?) but I don't perceive the definite colour change visible on Slippery Sam. 6) In most cases, I gather, when we talk about RNZAF PV-1 artwork it is artwork that "survived into the operational area"? 'Patua Te Ra' is surely locally applied and therefore freshly painted artwork? Freshly painted artwork atop fresh paint I wonder? 7) We know (from hobbyvista.com) that NZ4515 was repainted and from Classic Warbirds that NZ4518 was repainted. NZ4517 was written off in Oct '43. Therefore the two surviving aircraft serialled either side of NZ4516 were repainted (at some time). 8) In the photo of the work area at Piva with NZ4518 her paintwork looks quite faded. This photograph (from memory) is undated in the book but let's say, for argument's sake, it was taken in Dec '44? Could she, 4515 & 4516 have been repainted a year or more earlier, at which time (Dec '43) their paintwork would look fresh? 9) One might conclude that the underside colour on 4516 is simply too light to be NZ Sky Grey and must be Insignia White. Compare the underside colour lightness and contrast between upper & lower colours in the photo of NZ4551 in flight later in the book. The NZ Sky Grey looks very light. I hope these thoughts are worthy of consideration. Regards, Wally.
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Jun 14, 2012 9:51:50 GMT 12
You betcha goes for me too. I do have a question though, in the spirit of 'us' - the Kiwi modelling & RNZAF historical fraternity (if you will) - getting it right. "Patua Te Ra" artwork painted upon what camouflage colour? Intermediate Blue (of a 3 tone scheme) or NZ Blue Sea Grey? You may very well have already verified this from sources I do not have access to, but based on my own comparison of the photo in Classic Warbirds with other photos in the same book, and for several other reasons I can elaborate on depending on the answer to this question, I wonder if the aircraft has been repainted in NZ Blue Sea Grey over NZ Sky Grey by the time that photo was taken in Dec '43 (according to the caption)?
|
|
|
Post by dewobz on Jun 12, 2012 16:33:29 GMT 12
To paraphrase William Shakespeare, "Is that the makings of a decal I see before me?" (Patua Te Ra). And to extend the analogy, "If so sir, pray, tell us more?"
|
|