Page 1 of 3

Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: April 6th, 2012, 5:47 pm
by TomW
Despite recently avowing to never do another seascape after last years 2 tonne monstrosity I once again have volunteered a scene involving the oggin.

This one infact:

Image


I picked this kit up for £3 from Huddersfield missing its canopy, which was no problem as the Airfix spares department dutifully obliged with a complete new clear sprue :grin: , then last weekend I acquired the second piece of the puzzle in the form of this:

Image

which was the closest approximation I could come up with whilst still using a CBK (a self imposed restriction, I am sure a Tamiya 1/700th waterline would be better/more accurate etc but thats not the point for me)


Inside the boxes reveals lots of 70's Airfix goodness :-D :

Image

Image


But the decals are going to need some sunshine :shock: :

Image


My plan is to slowly start this over the next month or so to avoid a rush like last year (yeah right, that isn't convincing anyone!)

Regards

Tom

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: April 6th, 2012, 7:44 pm
by JamesPerrin
I hope you've stocked up on polyfiller Tom ;-)

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: April 6th, 2012, 10:49 pm
by TomW
I've still got two packets left from last year :ha:


I did consider the 1:1200 Tribal but came to the conclusion that it is too small to achieve a convincing proportionality with the Ju-88, in fact to get the same perspective shot the plane and ship would be only a few centimetres apart which would look a bit daft. The 1:600 lets me use a distance of around 25cm which should help to avoid an overcrowding effect with the diorama.

Hope that clears up my reasoning :grin:

Regards

Tom

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: April 7th, 2012, 1:59 am
by Jagewa
Great choice Tom, looking forward to following you along.

Cheers
Jim

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: April 7th, 2012, 9:07 am
by beany
Personally I would have gone with the Revell 1/32 Ju.88 and a 1/350 shippy-boaty thing. :ha: It would have been wrong on just about every count and never allowed on the CBK SIG table - but what a spectacle :shock:

This one looks really good Tom - can't wait to see what you do with it. Your Hudson base is fine btw - I am currently using it to chock the wheels on my Mondeo to stop it rolling down the hill...

Cheers
Al.

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: July 17th, 2012, 7:55 pm
by TomW
Time to show that there has been some small progress on this build methinks :lol:


Cockpit parts painted roughly:

Image


And as this is an in-flight diorama I can do away with the toylike main gear and wheels and get the wheel-bays closed up nice and early in the build.


........or not :shock: :

Image

Image



Thats some serious gappage, time for the industrial buckets of filler again.

Regards

Tom

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: July 17th, 2012, 9:32 pm
by JamesPerrin
Tom you could try gluing the door halves together first with a strip of plastic card on the inside. That way they will be at least square on even if there are still gaps to fill.

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: July 17th, 2012, 10:14 pm
by bromo
Good tip James.

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: October 7th, 2012, 3:28 pm
by JamesPerrin
Hi Tom, I know you've your own SIG to look after now but are you going to be able to finish this one too?

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: October 7th, 2012, 4:17 pm
by Dirkpitt289
This should be a stunning build. Most impressive

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: October 7th, 2012, 4:43 pm
by TomW
JamesPerrin wrote:Hi Tom, I know you've your own SIG to look after now but are you going to be able to finish this one too?
I hope so James, The Ju88 and HMS Cossack are built and just need painting up, then its the base, which will be quicker (and thinner and a LOT lighter :lol: ) than last years as I'll be making use of expanded polystyrene to build it up to depth rather than solid filler.

Photo's will follow soon I promise :oops:

Regards

Tom

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: October 7th, 2012, 6:54 pm
by TomW
Right then photo's.


State of play with the Ju88:

Image

Image


Just needs a little filler round the wing roots and a rub down along the spine and I can get painting that lovely splinter camoflage, can someone remind me of approx Humbrol codes for Luftwaffe colours please, I cant seem to find my crib sheet :oops:


Cossack:

Image


Most of the superstructure will go on once the hull is fitted to the base, which incidentally looks a little something like this at present:


Image

Image


This is a pre-cut display base to which I have PVA'd a thin sheet of expanded polystyrene, this is deep enough that I can mount the Cossack on it by cutting out a roughly hull shaped hole and using the same filler techniques as last years piece (but it is much thinner and lighter :-D ) to anchor it all in place. Lighter water this time round though so it will be fun finding the right shades.


More very soon

Regards

Tom

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: October 10th, 2012, 6:00 pm
by TomW
Quick update.

Paint going on both:

Image


Im copying the box-art for the Cossack so the upper decks will be a wood colour (stained Oak??) with the rest of the upperworks in dark grey.


Ju88:

Image

Image



Colour call-outs in the kit were in the old Airfix paints which I've converted to Humbrol and have come up with 30 / 75 / 65 for the two greens and underside blue. No doubt these are hopelessly inaccurate ( I know they are but hey ho...).

Regards

Tom

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: October 10th, 2012, 6:12 pm
by beany
Looks very good Tom, nice one. A word to the wise, Hu.30 is generally reviled by the cognoscenti as being a non-colour, an abomination, a match for nothing in either the natural or man-made universes - go with Hu.116 if you have it instead. ;-) :ha:

cheers
Al.

Re: Airfix Ju-88 Vs British Destroyer

Posted: October 10th, 2012, 7:24 pm
by JamesPerrin
Thanks for the update Tom.