1:32nd scale - Ansaldo 'Baby'

[smperry]

Thanks for the low down on the pins and holes Mike. My own, far greater, lack of precision doesn't chafe so badly now :-)
sp

[Mike Norris]

Hi all,
Just a small update.
The instrument panel is complete.
Oil paint for the wood effect and decals added (not in the kit) from my spares.
The five selector levers were made from 0.4 mm Nickel-Silver tube, flattened then bent to 90 degrees.

Mike

 

[Alexis]

Nice detail work on the panel Mike 


Terri

[RAGIII]

Excellent Panel Detail Mike! I Love the bezels. The switches are fantastic and look the part. Were the bezels included or are they aftermarket?
RAGIII

[Mike Norris]

Hi Rich,
The instrument panel in the kit is a one piece photo-etch, which has the bezels embossed on it.
I primed then applied 'DecoArt' crafters acrylic paint (Burnt Umber) to get the wood effect.
Once dry I gently scraped the bezels with a curved scalpel blade to remove the paint and expose the bezels.
Much easier than trying to attach separate bezels from the likes of 'Airscale' etc,
I did the same fore the switch surrounds etc.

Mike

[fredjocko]

Hi Rich,
The instrument panel in the kit is a one piece photo-etch, which has the bezels embossed on it.
I primed then applied 'DecoArt' crafters acrylic paint (Burnt Umber) to get the wood effect.
Once dry I gently scraped the bezels with a curved scalpel blade to remove the paint and expose the bezels.
Much easier than trying to attach separate bezels from the likes of 'Airscale' etc,
I did the same fore the switch surrounds etc.

Mike

The panel looks fantatsic!! Would you please share how you did the wood effect with the crafters paint?

[Mike Norris]

Thanks.
I don't use traditional oil paints, such as 'Windsor & Newton' or 'Abtielung 502', as many modellers do.
Instead I use an acrylic paints from 'DecoArt', which are water based acrylic paints that are semi-liquid and smooth.
Basically I prime the part and once dry, brush on the paint (Burnt Umber) and quickly brush away excess paint to leave the disired effect.
The paint, unlike traditional oil paints, does not need to be drained of linseed oil (it has none) and dries with 20 minutes.
It can also be sealed with any lacquer or acrylic coats.
The only down side is that as it dries quickly, you can't keep 'working' the painted surface as you can with traditional oil paints.
The up side is if you don't like the finish you can just wash it off as it's water based acrylic.

Any of my build logs on my site (link below) have a chapter on wood effects - click on the a model PDF icon to read or download the build log,

Mike

[PrzemoL]

How did I miss this start??? Great one, indeed.
Many of the points requiring corrections which you mentioned agree well with my observations. However, I found one more, vital one, which you might have not noticed. When checking the geometry of the wing cellule vs the fuselage I found that the lower wing roots (being the parts of the fuselage halves) required moving back by at least 2mm - I have realized it only when the wings were assembled, so I cut the complete wing panels and moved them back. You may wish to check it beforehand :-)

[fredjocko]

Thank you for sharing. I'll have to try the technique.

[Mike Norris]

How did I miss this start??? Great one, indeed.
Many of the points requiring corrections which you mentioned agree well with my observations. However, I found one more, vital one, which you might have not noticed. When checking the geometry of the wing cellule vs the fuselage I found that the lower wing roots (being the parts of the fuselage halves) required moving back by at least 2mm - I have realized it only when the wings were assembled, so I cut the complete wing panels and moved them back. You may wish to check it beforehand :-)

Hi PrzemoL,
Yes I have your great build of the Sopwith version tagged for any common information.
I saw you input about moving the wings rearwards by 2 mm.
I assumed it was due to misalignment issues but didn't know why.
I checked wing and strut alignment and it looked OK

The forward fuselage of the Sopwith 'Baby' is slightly different to the Ansaldo 'Baby.
The leading edge of the lower wings on the Ansaldo model are more or less central to the fuselage access panel.
On the Sopwith, the leading edge seems further rearwards (the access panel position is different as well).
The two illustrations are about the same scale and you can see the difference.

Ansaldo 'Baby'



Sopwith 'Baby'



I haven't seen the Sopwith model but my Ansaldo seems to fit with the illustration.
What information did you have that required your Sopwith wings to be moved rearwards,

Mike
 

[AndRoby67]

Hi Mike!
Outstanding work "as usual" until now. Engine and instruments panel are delightful.
So I will continue to follow your W.I.P.!
I'm always happy when someone choose to build italian subjects.
I want to point out something strange: in photo that you posted with "4" and roundel it really seems that roundel have red outer ring ("4" is red too?) instead of green and this is really strange for italian produced planes. Not a vital thing for your building, but I love to note these anomalies.
Great work!
Roberto
 

[Mike Norris]

Hi Roberto,
That photograph and another are of a 'Baby' thought to be operating at Orbetello flying school.
It has the engine cowl of a Sopwith 'Baby' rather than the type fitted by Ansaldo.
It's difficult, as you know, to be exact as to the actual colours when looking at WW1 monochrome pictures.
I think, given it has the Sopwith engine cowl, this particular aircraft could be a visiting RNAS Sopwith 'Baby'.
That would explain the roundels colours you referred to, which would be blue, white, red,

Mike

[PrzemoL]

How did I miss this start??? Great one, indeed.
Many of the points requiring corrections which you mentioned agree well with my observations. However, I found one more, vital one, which you might have not noticed. When checking the geometry of the wing cellule vs the fuselage I found that the lower wing roots (being the parts of the fuselage halves) required moving back by at least 2mm - I have realized it only when the wings were assembled, so I cut the complete wing panels and moved them back. You may wish to check it beforehand :-)

Hi PrzemoL,
Yes I have your great build of the Sopwith version tagged for any common information.
I saw you input about moving the wings rearwards by 2 mm.
I assumed it was due to misalignment issues but didn't know why.
I checked wing and strut alignment and it looked OK

The forward fuselage of the Sopwith 'Baby' is slightly different to the Ansaldo 'Baby.
The leading edge of the lower wings on the Ansaldo model are more or less central to the fuselage access panel.
On the Sopwith, the leading edge seems further rearwards (the access panel position is different as well).
The two illustrations are about the same scale and you can see the difference.

Ansaldo 'Baby'



Sopwith 'Baby'



I haven't seen the Sopwith model but my Ansaldo seems to fit with the illustration.
What information did you have that required your Sopwith wings to be moved rearwards,

Mike

Thank you Mike for this clarification. Now I suspect that Lukgraph made the same fuse with wing roots in both kits, while there should have been differences.
I used WD scale drawings.

[Mike Norris]

Hi Przemol,
Looking at your photographs the Sopwith is different to the Ansaldo fuselage.
However, it might be they set the position of the wing roots the same on both.
Luckily I chose the Ansaldo then  .
I think you are like me - if you find something that needs to be changed, you won't rest until you know it's as good as it can be 
It a curse sometimes isn't it  ,

Mike

[PrzemoL]

Hi Przemol,
Looking at your photographs the Sopwith is different to the Ansaldo fuselage.
I think you are like me - if you find something that needs to be changed, you won't rest until you know it's as good as it can be 
It a curse sometimes isn't it  ,

Mike

That might be true but you flatter me too much. Surely your level of error tolerance is much lower than mine. It is what I admire most in your modeling!
 Not a curse at all imho.😉