A Day of Odds and Ends

The Tail of a Tail

OK, let's see a show of hands here: How many of you think the Martin B-26 is a good looking airplane? How about a great looking airplane? If you said yes to either or both of those questions, you and I share an opinion. The Marauder is drop-dead gorgeous; no doubt about it. It was a real ground-breaker when it was new, and raised the bar in a number of areas. It was also, in its early variants, what some pilots non-too-affectionately described as a "hot ship", thus leading to nicknames like "Widowmaker" and "Flying Prostitute" (since it had no visible means of support). That's a humorous way of saying the early B-26 had a nasty accident rate, in case you hadn't already figured that part out for yourself, but that same little wing also made for outstanding performance and a top speed that rivalled that of most contemporary fighters. Couple that performance with adequate defensive armament and a useful bomb load and you end up with what the AAF wanted all along; a high performance medium bomber that could get to a target, bomb it, and take care of itself when attacked by enemy fighters.

The 22nd Bomb Group got the Marauder first, and took the initial variant, the B-26MA (not an "A" or "B" model, just plain old B-26MA), into combat from the Port Moresby complex of airfields during 1942. The group often operated without figher escort and was largely successful in its operations. The Japanese, including the elite Tainan NAG stationed at Lae, were highly impressed with the aircraft's performance and considered it a tough nut to crack. Oddly enough, you just don't find that much in the way of negative comments being made by the guys who were flying the airplane in combat either. Kinda makes you think Martin got it right the first time out of the box, doesn't it?

So, we have an airplane. How about kits? There was a time, a very long time ago, when the choice in 1/72nd scale was between Revell and Frog, who both offered more-or-less G-model Marauder kits. Aurora (you can gasp or choke here; your call) had the sole 1/48th offering, and we tried our hand at all of them. Later on Monogram did a B-26B in 72nd in their Snap-Tite line, that kit still being an excellent representation of an early Marauder once you do something about the interior. They followed that kit with a 1/48th scale long-tail. Somewhere in there, Airfix released their excellent B-26G. More recently, our friends in the Czech Republic gave us another 1/72nd scale kit to work with, although it doesn't render the late-70s Monogram effort obsolete by any means. There are reviews of the Monogram and Valom (I think) offerings on other sites, so we aren't going to review them here.

The bottom line to this is a simple one: If you want to build a 22nd BG B-26MA you're going to have to do some work to get there, and some substantial work if your scale is 1/48th. The 72nd scale kits are relatively easy to deal with, because you just need to add spinners and modify the tail turret. (And yes, that's what both Martin and the AAF called it. It was a turret in their view, even though it doesn't in any way conform to what we generally think a turret to be.) It's a whole 'nother game in 1/48th, because in that scale you've also got to rework the wings, empennage, cowlings, and certain minor fuselage details. It's not an easy date if you Build Big.

Enter Mike West of Lone Star Models. Mike does quality resin bits, and even a couple of complete kits, and one of his more recent offerings is, you guessed it; the short-tail Marauder. It's still going to be work to get there but things are a lot easier now, and the conversion is well within the abilities of most moderately-skilled modelers. The conversion might not be appropriate for a neophyte, but if you've been doing this for a while it shouldn't be any big deal---my experience with previous offerings from Lone Star has proven them to be entirely doable by a modeler with modest skills. My skills are modest. Trust me on this one! That takes us to today's photos, which aren't photos at all, but rather drawings from TO 01-35EA-2 dated 30 August, 1941, showing some details of the early B-26 for you to add to your collection. With any luck they'll be of use if you decide to tackle the Lone Star conversion.

That said, those of us who model the WW2 5th Air Force doff our garrison caps to Mr. West and offer a profound Thank You! We're grateful, Sir! May we have another?

Friends Beside Me

Now it's time to pay a couple of dues. I'm new to this blog stuff (as if that wasn't fairly obvious) and one of the things I discovered when I started was that you get to have something called followers. My personal opinion is that anybody who'd deliberately follow me anywhere probably isn't playing with a full deck, but maybe I'm wrong. (But what if I'm right? The mind boggles!) Me, I don't call them followers. I call them friends, and I want to tell you about three of them.

Milton Bell is a relative Newby in terms of Friends 'o Phil, since I've only known him for a few years. We met at King's Hobby Shop in Austin, and pretty much hit it off right away, although I don't see him often and, truth be known, I don't know him as well as I'd like to. I think the term is "casual friends", but that's not really the point. About a year ago I did a 1/32nd Hasegawa P-40E and wanted some fairly unique 49th FG (what else?) markings for the model. I decided on George Preddy's Dragon Flight #85, "Tarheel", replete with the Java Dragon on the starboard nose. At that time nobody made those markings in that scale (but they did right after I finished the model; irony, that), and hand-painting is not in my personal bag of tricks. I mentioned this problem to Milton one Saturday afternoon, and he asked if I had any good references of what I wanted. I said yes. He said OK. A week later, give or take, I had my Java Dragon decal. That's Milton. That's how he is, and that's the sort of thing he does. He's a friend.

Jim Sullivan. You all probably know Jim. He's Mr. Corsair, and what he doesn't know about the Hog probably isn't worth knowing. He's an author, and I'll bet most of you have at least one of his books. He's a photographer. He's a modeler, and a good one, even if he doesn't build many P-40s. (He says their wings are too straight. I'm not sure I understand that, but it's what he says.) And he's never, never, in all the years I've known him, failed to be there when I needed help with a project. Never. Not even once. He's tried and true. He's a friend.

Then there's Frank Emmett. We have History, Frank and I. I met him when I arrived in Texas in 1965 after a 3-year stint in Japan. He was going to college at the time, and was working his way through his undergrad studies at a San Antonio hobby shop. He was (and is) a really good modeler, and I wasn't. We talked a couple of times, and he started giving me tips and techniques so I could get a little better at the hobby. Now, some 45 years later, he's still giving me tips and techniques. With all that time in-between he's become part of the family, but at the end of the day one sentence sums it up. He's a friend.

Why, you might reasonably ask yourself, am I prattling on about that "friend" stuff? Simple. We all start somewhere, and there's a whole lot more to this hobby than simply sticking little pieces of plastic together and squirting some paint on them. We all learn a little about something each and every day, and it's a whole lot easier to do when somebody's there to help you, which takes us to the part where I not-so-humbly suggest that you help the folks that need it, at least every once in a while. Don't be an "expert" (an "ex" is a has-been; a "spurt" is a drip under pressure; it will serve us all well to remember that), just be helpful. Share some of your knowledge with the folks who want to learn. Be a friend to somebody. It's worth the trouble, ya'll.
phil

Shades of Gray, Or One More Stab at the Warhawk

Or, to put it another way, isn't he sick of P-40s yet? Truthfully, the answer to that question is a resounding NO! I think I mentioned before that I love the airplane, that statement being a major clue to my mindset most of the time up to and including right now. We can put a caveat on this thing, though; we're almost done with the Warhawk for the time being, but there's one more item we need to address before we leave the subject.

When last we met, which wasn't all that long ago, we covered the painting and markings of Andy Reynold's "Stardust" in modest detail. During the course of that discussion we talked about the undersurface color of said aircraft and decided (I decided, anyway) that there was a very strong chance it could have been painted Neutral Gray. That opinion is based on photographic evidence. The fly in that particular glass of buttermilk is that it shouldn't be that color and there's more than enough proof to substantiate the theory.

Curtiss was painting their non-OD/NG P-40s to an RAF specification at the time "Stardust" was built, and they were substituting a DuPont light gray color for the undersurface shade specified by the British. That's documented. There are also a whole bunch of photographs, some in color, showing a light gray color on the bottom of the tan and green P-40Es. The evidence is undeniable, except for those pesky photographs that show a dark-bellied "Stardust" in concert with a similarly-painted aircraft that has a light colored belly.

There are a couple of possibilities to consider here, at least one of which could prove an embarrassment to those of us who've done Reynold's bird with a dark gray undersurface. To wit:

The undersurfaces actually were light gray (or light blue gray) but don't show that way in photographs. Some of the 49th's early P-40s were still in existence in Australian salvage yards as late as the mid-1960s and were documented at that time, although our particular specimen wasn't one of them. There were, however, several hulks in the RAF scheme, and they were recorded as having light gray undersurfaces.

The airplane was filthy dirty. That particular circumstance shows up well in every photograph I've ever seen of "Stardust". There's no doubt in my mind that she was well maintained, but she wasn't clean by a long shot, which seems to have been the norm for early-war 49th FG P-40s regardless of camouflage scheme. Those photos could just be showing an airplane that's a little dirtier than those around it, thus making the undersurfaces appear to be something they were not.

The published photographs are of poor quality. There's no contradicting that one either; a lot of the photos of this particular airframe are stills from a movie which hides some detail. We can only hope that somebody's previously unknown and unpublished photos of the 49th, and maybe even this particular airframe, will come to light in the years ahead, but it ain't happened yet so we really can't count on it. (Anybody out there got any unpublished 49th FG P-40 pictures? Maybe some Kodachromes? Maybe a Kodachrome of "Stardust"?)

Or maybe, just maybe, this one particular airframe did indeed have a Neutral Gray belly. We all know it shouldn't have, but maybe it did. Maybe it was a repaint, either partial or complete, possibly in conjunction with some sort of major (it would've had to have been catastrophic, though) repair? Maybe it was painted incorrectly at the factory? At this remove it's almost impossible to know.

One thing is for sure, maybe; "Stardust" didn't have U.S. ARMY painted under the wings. That particular distinction was reserved for the aircraft built specifically for the AAF, and our subject was off an RAF contract. Then again maybe it did have it. After all, it shouldn't have had that color down there either, and it seems that it did. I'm betting it didn't say "U.S. ARMY", though.

At this point you may well be wondering why I don't have any photos of the real airplane attached to this piece. It's the logical thing to do, except that I'd have to offer scans of photographs that have appeared in the published works of others, and I'm not about to do that; I respect the notion of "copyright". What I have done is appended a couple of photos of another Warhawk model, this time one that's in the "proper" scheme, so you can get some idea of the tonal differences. This new offering is Ben Irvin's #75 "The Rebel", which was in the squadron at the same time as "Stardust" and was definitely painted in the correct light gray undersurface color. The paint used here is ModelMaster 36440, and the model isn't nearly as weathered as "Stardust". (As an aside, I use slightly tinted 36118 for my Neutral Gray because of my first father-in-law, who gave me a solid model of a Martin B-26 that he build while he was in the AAF during the war---he painted it with "the real" colors, taken from paint cans on the flight line, and the Neutral Gray is almost a dead-ringer for that color (36118) as offered in the Model Master enamel line. That's a good enough reference for me.) The model of "The Rebel" doesn't have the U.S. Army verbage under the wings in Insignia Blue, and it possibly should have since no RAF serial is visable in any known photo of the airframe---if that's true then the model probably shouldn't have the IFF antennae fitted either. That's another unknown that I don't have the answer to and, just to add fuel to the fire, take a comparative look at the two photos of the undersurfaces. They were taken on the same day and within 3 minutes of each other, but I moved my lighting and the position of the model slightly for the second shot, thus changing the perceived color slightly. There's a lesson there for us all, I think.

Now, are you ready for me to change the water a bit? Are you Warhawked out for the time being? Let me see what we can do about that. In the meantime, be good to your neighbor. We'll talk again soon.
phil

The Other Half of That P-40 Thing

When last we met, a mere day ago give or take, we were discussing the 1/48th scale Hasegawa P-40E as built for the 49th FG during their Darwin period. During the course of that discussion I somewhat foolishly promised to discuss the camouflage and markings in a later edition of this effort, so without further ado:

The 49th is one of the more famous fighter groups from the SW Pacific, and served with distinction throughout the Second World War. Their initial combat aircraft was the Curtiss P-40E, and their equipment ended up being a real dogs and cats sort of thing, with two squadrons (the 7th and 8th) receiving Olive Drab over Neutral Gray aircraft from USAAF stocks. The third squadron (the 9th) had a few of those too, but a number of their aircraft came from British contract (you can tell by the RAF serial numbers but watch out, because they also received similarly painted aircraft that had never been on British contract but simply painted that way to make things a little easier at the Curtiss factory during a period of what could only be described as frenzied production in order to build enough airplanes). The end result was a colorful mishmash of airplanes in the 49th.

We could discuss the history of the group, but this ain't the place. If you're interested in that, or in an overall view of the 49th's camouflage and markings, I strongly suggest you obtain copies of the following:

Curtiss Fighter Aircraft, a Photographic History; Dean and Hagedorn, Schiffer, 2007. This is an excellent history of the Curtiss fighters in general, with a strong P-40 section. A must-have if you're interested in the subject.

Protect and Avenge, The 49th Fighter Group in World War II; Ferguson and Pascalis, Schiffer, 1996. The best history of the 49th that's presently available. Excellent photos and a day-by-day account of the Group's operations. Another must-have.

49th Fighter Group; McDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1989. Ernie McDowell loved the P-40 and authored several books on the subject. This pictorial history is inexpensive and provides photographic coverage of the group. The color profiles need to be taken with a great many grains of salt, but the book itself is extremely worthwhile and was, for a great many years, the best thing going on the 49th during the war. It may still be in print and is well worth buying.

P-40 Camouflage Special; Ian K. Baker's Aviation History Colouring Book, Baker, 2003. This tiny missive is a gold mine of P-40 camouflage and markings in general, and covers Reynold's "Stardust" in considerable detail.

So, now you've got the references, or at least know what they are. Yesterday we discussed the kit, so we don't need to cover that ground again. It's probably time to paint the model instead, and get some markings on it too, but first let's remember that the subject of this ramble is P-40E ET603 of the 9th FS, 49th FG, nicknamed "Stardust/Oklahoma Kid" and only that. This is important to remember, because it seems that no two of the 9th's P-40s were alike, even though they should have been. Even "normal" P-40 paint jobs have caused ongoing controversy within the world of scale modeling, and the 49th's birds weren't normal. Let's accept that as a premise and proceed.

First, there's the paint, or more specifically the paint as it applies to a model. Curtiss was trying to fulfil an RAF contract when "Stardust's" airframe was painted, but they were using American paints and, apparently, American color standards in an attempt to match the British specifications of the contract. The result was a fairly dark green over a strong pinkish-tan, with light blue-gray (or maybe just light gray) undersurfaces. The model you see on this page was painted in Testor ModelMaster 34079 (the green), 30219 (the tan), and 36118 (the "light" gray), with an interior done with Floquil "Pullman Green" slightly tinted with black. The fuselage camouflage goes through the areas of the quarter-panel windows, so don't go painting that area in the interior color, please! You might also note that Curtiss didn't spray these colors free-hand; photos exist of them painting over pre-shaped hard rubber masks. That means a fairly hard demarcation between colors.

There are a couple of other things we should note regarding the paintwork of this airplane. First, that undersurface gray. It should've been light gray, and may well have been, but the surviving photographs of "Stardust" all show her with dark undersurfaces. Since at least one of these photos shows the aircraft beside another P-40 in the same scheme but with significantly lighter undersurfaces, it's possible that her airframe was done in Neutral Gray down there, even though it shouldn't have been. There's no definitive proof either way, but I liked the look that darker gray gave the model and I think it's accurate. You be the judge if you decide to do the scheme yourself.

There are other anomalies as well, and they serve to make ET603 an extremely interesting aircraft. When AmTech did their P-40E kit they included decals for "Stardust", and they're far better than the previously existing aftermarket decals for this airplane. The instruction sheet accompanying those decals also gave a fascinating discussion of ET603's colors, and published a murky (darn the luck!) photo of the right side of the nose that appears to show a dark area of camouflage where the approved "RAF" scheme should be the lighter tan color. AmTech speculated this color to be Olive Drab and the tonal values look about right. There's also a similar patch of paint under the orange background to the diving eagle found on "Stardust's" left fuselage, and at the base of the port wing root. Finally, there's a rectangular patch under the tail number that is very dark and appears to be black, and there's also a black (?) area painted at the wingroot. As for the spinner, it could have been the tan color, but seems more likely to have been dark green. As a wild shot, it could also have been red (the 9th's "Java Flight" color) but I think that's doubtful. My interpretation of all this is represented in the model shown. I can't prove it's 100% right, but I can't prove it's wrong either, and I spent quite a bit of time trying to do both before I painted the thing. What you do on yours is pretty obviously your call, but I think this treatment is fairly close to reality. Anybody out there got a genuine WW2-vintage color photo of ET603?

As for the markings, there are a few things to note. The diving eagle is probably found on the port side only, and it's highly likely that the background was orange or orange-yellow rather than yellow. (The AmTech decals, which used to be available separately from the kit, give the orange interpretation.) There's a command stripe on the aft fuselage, but it stops just shy of the gray undersurfaces, and the fuselage national insignia is placed higher than we're used to seeing it; that seems to be the way Curtiss did things on the British-camouflaged aircraft, because it shows up in a lot of photographs of AAF P-40s from this era.

Finally, "Stardust" was a dirty airplane. The photos of her show lots of smudging and streaking, which adds a lot of character to the model.

So, there you have it. I think the scheme, and the model, are pretty close. Are they spot on? I dunno. There are folks out there who would claim to know, although that's a stretch in my world. This is a best-effort, but your interpretation (and I strongly encourage you to make one) may vary from my opinion. That's what makes this hobby fun!

Until next time,
phil

Preflight

So here we are, a brand new adventure. Some of you may remember me from the early 1970s (yep, that long ago!) when I joined with a couple of friends to found the orginal "Replica in Scale", a quarterly publication devoted to scale modeling. We fought The Good Fight for several years, then folded the tent. We were, or so I'm told, greatly appreciated by the world of scale aircraft modeling. We weren't, and I know this for sure and for certain, making any money at the thing. Satisfaction of the ego is a wonderful thing, but sooner or later you have to pay bills. Filthy lucre raised its ugly head and, once more, got in the way of art, or at least in the way of what we were doing. Life's like that sometimes.

Now it's February of 2010, a brave new age as far as I'm concerned. Thoughts of doing some sort of "Replica" re-birth have been flitting in and out of my head for the past 30 years or so and now it's time. It's back. Right here, right now. Hot dog!

So, what are you going to see here? That one's easy. I build plastic model airplanes, tanks, and sometimes ships, and I also paint the occasional figure (but only to compliment those airplanes and tanks). Nowadays I'll build almost everything, but there are areas I specialize in. Those will become evident soon enough, so we aren't going to list them at this time. You'll figure it out.

That said, it's pretty obvious we're going to talk about plastic models. We'll build a few, show off a few, and maybe even review the odd kit from time to time. My wife tells me I need to do tutorials as well, and that's a possibility too. There's also a pretty substantial archive of photography under this roof, either taken by me or given to my collection by the person who took the original photograph(s). You'll see a few of those too, but you can't sell 'em as your own; that'll make me mad, I think, so please don't swipe my photos for anything other than your own personal use, OK? OK.

Now that all that is out of the way, let's talk about P-40s. I love 'em, and think they're basically God's Gift to the world of military aviation. You don't have to, of course, but I do. 'Nuff said.

So, let's presume you might want to build your very own Warhawk in 1/48th scale, which is what that particular P-40 happens to be in. It's a replica of the P-40E flown by Andy Reynolds out of Darwin, Australia, during The Bad Old Days of 1942, when Mr. Reynolds flew with the 9th FS of the 49th FG, and it's done from the Hasegawa kit that has gotten such a bum rap from the internet modeling community. It's a good kit, make no mistake, and most of the complaints against it are, in my never-humble opinion, totally invalid. The alleged issue comes from the fact that the kit is modular in design in order to allow the most bang for the buck in terms of different variants. That means there are inserts in several places, and for big parts of the airplane. Don't get scared off by it, though; just take your time and pre-fit those pesky inserts before you glue them in place. That's it. That's the secret, and if you follow that advice you'll end up with a pretty fair P-40.

There are a couple of other things you might want to do as well, so let's list them:

1. Use the lenses provided by Hasegawa to fill in the lights in the starboard landing gear fairing knuckle and the formation lights under the cockpit. The P-40E didn't have either one of those features.


2. Sand the "rivet" detail off the fuselage quarter panel inserts. It's grossly overscale.


3. Fix the canopy. If you look at the clear piece provided for same, you'll see that there's a notch at the front of it to accomodate the triangular filler at the base of the windscreen. Hasegawa are trying, albeit somewhat poorly, to simulate a doubler that appeared in that location late in P-40 production. It doesn't belong on an E-model, so add a piece of .015 or .020 sheet to the clear part to properly square it off, then sand off the doubler that's molded to the fuselage and, if you're brave, cut out the appropriate part of the fus so it looks like the canopy would actually close. (That's the hardest thing you'll have to do to this kit, by the way.)


4. Carefully fit and attach those inserts we talked about earlier. You might want to make two complete fuselage halves rather than making up the plugs Hasegawa wants. Life will be easier that way. Trust me on this one.


5. Hasegawa gives you the option of sanding off all the molded-on navigation lights and replacing them with clear parts. It's easier and, in my opinion, looks just as good, if you paint them all white, then paint over them with the appropriate Tamiya or Gunze clear color.


6. There are two possible exhaust treatments for the P-40E. Hasegawa provides the early, tubular style of pipe with the scalloped-out panel, which is appropriate for the aircraft shown above. You can easily replace those pipes with the later fishtail stacks, but be sure to fill in the scallop if you do, and please remember that the early P-40Es all had the tubular pipes. Match the exhaust treatment to the color scheme you're building. Photographs are your friend!


7. We probably should have mentioned the interior before now, but we didn't. That's just how I am, and it's getting worse as I get older. You'll have to learn to live with it, I guess. Anyway, the kit's interior is pretty good as-is, and you can get away with a bone-stock representation of same, although I'd personally add a set of Eduard belts and harnesses.

A couple of final notes, at least until I start to remember the stuff I didn't discuss here; Reynold's airplane was of RAF contract origin, and was also a fairly early E-model, which means it could have had the IFF antennae that run from the vertical stab to the wingtips on the early Hawks. I put 'em on there with stretched sprue, but you don't have to if you don't want to. I would definitely add the radio antenna wire, though.

Camouflage and markings are a Whole 'Nother Thing entirely. I suggest a good set of references, and careful study of available aftermarket decals. When next we convene I'll discuss the paint and markings of this particular airplane, but that's it for this installment. Thanks for taking a look, and I hope you become a regular here. It's good to be back.

vaya con Dios,

phil