by ch1466 » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:05 am
Guest,
>>
I had built one 1/144 trumpeter sea wolf recently....painted "hull red" in the lower section of the hull and upper hull body with "semi gloss black + dark grey + clear blue". there was a upper hull section (where the area visible when the sub surface) with semi-gross black. the finishing is looking good but trouble was I had some doubt wheather i doing the right thing
>>
New boats do indeed go out for their early trials with an orangish-red 'antifouling' bottom. This is akin to the Zinc Chromate primer on some aircraft parts and is done so that the Navy can inspect the welds, valves and the like closely afterwards to make sure there is no cracking or pitting of the metal as might be obscured by a thick coat of service paint.
>>
You see...according to the kit instrustion, i should paint all upper hull with engine gray.....but I did compare it to the real thing found in the picture.....its does not look like engine gray. that why i try to paint in some what looking black and blue.
>>
I would go with a mix of 35164 Medium Blue and 36118 Gunship myself. Though nominally black, there is a definite color change in the upper hull area from that of the lowers which are almost rubberized as part of the anechoic system.
On the Virginias (and in some Seawolf photos) this change appears deliberate, regular outline, as if the boats are being painted in the old SSBN scheme of grey upperworks down to about the 1/8th circumference point. Noting that the antiskid and sail are still quite black so the effect is one of black-grey-black rather than a solid upperworks in any one shade.
>>
I had done some web research and found out there some differences.. based on the photo available (all of them showing the sub surface), some photo show a section of upper hull (just above the water line) is sky grey, and some sugesting its hull is totally black.
>>
The boats oxidize quickly under the sun, leading to a very dull set of colors and 'weather' underwater as well thanks to changes in the temperature/salinity/pressure variations which do terrible things to the coatings.
>>
Am i doing doing the right thing?anybody have any idea?
>>
It's more a case of deciding what stage in the boat's life you want to represent the ship as being and then gathering supporting photos to prove it. The Hull Red/Semigloss Black color is frankly never accurate (too bright, wrong shade) but does help break up the overall very plain geometries of the hull and is very clean looking. As such, it would be typical of a presentation model given to the christening individual or their family at commissioning or when an officer leaves the boat or a VIP leaves the program.
A more accurate version of the pre-acceptance configuration would be a dark metallic grey (like gunmetal or titanium with a light overspray of flat black to take out the shine of metalic particles) topside. Plus a dull tan with mottled orange and 'grime' (sludge wash) brown-black on the bottom of the hull going up to just about the level of the dive planes. The final look being one of almost a stained appearance as one color fades into/through the other. The result is a much more realistic looking craft and one with a lot of visual interest, IMO. While a sharp demarcator is still fairly typical for these models, the fact is that the real trials boats usually have a flaked as much as 'feathered' (in scale) broken edge which is just barely visible over the waterline when they come back into port.
The service boats are the most boring of the lot in that once they are accepted from the yard and full 'warpaint' has been applied, all markings are stripped with the result being a very stark, very DARK, appearance. Indeed, the biggest mistake modelers make is trying to differentiate sections of the hull like a pinstripe suit with the result that the hulltops look far too bright/light colored once gloss coating goes on for the residual draft and rescue trunk markings.
A more accurate approach would result in a range of blacks and very dark charcoal greys differentiated solely by the gloss of the _materials_ used and their exposure point during a sortie.
The bowdome is a plastic/GRP type material and is very smooth with a high shine at launch but degrades to a uniform dull black rapidly thereafter. Comparitively, the relatively worn black (36231 Dark Gull Grey is a good starting point) of the upperhull looks almost brown where it meets the bow and is heavily streaked and mottled. The lower hullsides, at least while they are fresh, are almost waxxy as they represent the color of the principle coating material when it is not exposed to direct sunlight/color washout. This is not a true 'paint' but something more akin to a spray on plastic sheeting material.
When new, the antiskid areas are the richest color (which is not to say gloss), something like a coal black or RAF trainer black. They are the only material darker than the dome.
If you do a weathered boat, keep in mind that, like a hardwater streak on a shower tile, the craft will striate and weather cross-hull in a pattern that almost makes the boat look striped or even wrinkled. Especially where this is done with hints of metallic undercoat showing through; weathering here can help break up the long-tube effect of the hull and, along with the section welds (which ARE visible at close range, Dragon having got this _dead on correct_, even as 'recessed lines'), help make the hull sections pop as 3D shapes using a technique similar to panel countershading.
That said, the biggest problem with the Trumpeter kit is that little fits as it should (cough, sail) and most of the key outlines around the wide baseline array, bow dome taper, propulsor section (the flow vanes should /surround/ the actual impellor, not lead it!) and torpedo tubes are questionable at best.
The hull reminds me of a good vacform rather than a standard injection kit and it takes roughly half the build to rig the hull with bulkheads and/or spacer columns sufficient to compensate for the spongey fit and poor seam alignment around the tabs. And then you're still left with the fore-and-aft shortfall in hull lengths.
Roughly 20-30% of the remaining construction time being 'well spent' building up the contours and fixing some of the shape anomalies which begin before the bow and tail sections joins on the main hull and hence cannot be readily fixed by individual surgery. Again, the plastic is quite thin and brittle so it's best to build from the outside rather than section-in.
If you want a really good SSN-21 class kit, you almost have to go up to one of the 1/96th RC models or back down to the 1/350th specialty resin pfferings, the former being completely ridiculou$ for a static display kit, the other not nearly as impressive for size. In this, Trumpeter has hit a market point wherein the kit is not really worth the price of the 45 parts in it. But at 30 bucks, it is less than half the cost of the next best kits which more accurately capture the class outline.
KPl.
Guest,
>>
I had built one 1/144 trumpeter sea wolf recently....painted "hull red" in the lower section of the hull and upper hull body with "semi gloss black + dark grey + clear blue". there was a upper hull section (where the area visible when the sub surface) with semi-gross black. the finishing is looking good but trouble was I had some doubt wheather i doing the right thing
>>
New boats do indeed go out for their early trials with an orangish-red 'antifouling' bottom. This is akin to the Zinc Chromate primer on some aircraft parts and is done so that the Navy can inspect the welds, valves and the like closely afterwards to make sure there is no cracking or pitting of the metal as might be obscured by a thick coat of service paint.
>>
You see...according to the kit instrustion, i should paint all upper hull with engine gray.....but I did compare it to the real thing found in the picture.....its does not look like engine gray. that why i try to paint in some what looking black and blue.
>>
I would go with a mix of 35164 Medium Blue and 36118 Gunship myself. Though nominally black, there is a definite color change in the upper hull area from that of the lowers which are almost rubberized as part of the anechoic system.
On the Virginias (and in some Seawolf photos) this change appears deliberate, regular outline, as if the boats are being painted in the old SSBN scheme of grey upperworks down to about the 1/8th circumference point. Noting that the antiskid and sail are still quite black so the effect is one of black-grey-black rather than a solid upperworks in any one shade.
>>
I had done some web research and found out there some differences.. based on the photo available (all of them showing the sub surface), some photo show a section of upper hull (just above the water line) is sky grey, and some sugesting its hull is totally black.
>>
The boats oxidize quickly under the sun, leading to a very dull set of colors and 'weather' underwater as well thanks to changes in the temperature/salinity/pressure variations which do terrible things to the coatings.
>>
Am i doing doing the right thing?anybody have any idea?
>>
It's more a case of deciding what stage in the boat's life you want to represent the ship as being and then gathering supporting photos to prove it. The Hull Red/Semigloss Black color is frankly never accurate (too bright, wrong shade) but does help break up the overall very plain geometries of the hull and is very clean looking. As such, it would be typical of a presentation model given to the christening individual or their family at commissioning or when an officer leaves the boat or a VIP leaves the program.
A more accurate version of the pre-acceptance configuration would be a dark metallic grey (like gunmetal or titanium with a light overspray of flat black to take out the shine of metalic particles) topside. Plus a dull tan with mottled orange and 'grime' (sludge wash) brown-black on the bottom of the hull going up to just about the level of the dive planes. The final look being one of almost a stained appearance as one color fades into/through the other. The result is a much more realistic looking craft and one with a lot of visual interest, IMO. While a sharp demarcator is still fairly typical for these models, the fact is that the real trials boats usually have a flaked as much as 'feathered' (in scale) broken edge which is just barely visible over the waterline when they come back into port.
The service boats are the most boring of the lot in that once they are accepted from the yard and full 'warpaint' has been applied, all markings are stripped with the result being a very stark, very DARK, appearance. Indeed, the biggest mistake modelers make is trying to differentiate sections of the hull like a pinstripe suit with the result that the hulltops look far too bright/light colored once gloss coating goes on for the residual draft and rescue trunk markings.
A more accurate approach would result in a range of blacks and very dark charcoal greys differentiated solely by the gloss of the _materials_ used and their exposure point during a sortie.
The bowdome is a plastic/GRP type material and is very smooth with a high shine at launch but degrades to a uniform dull black rapidly thereafter. Comparitively, the relatively worn black (36231 Dark Gull Grey is a good starting point) of the upperhull looks almost brown where it meets the bow and is heavily streaked and mottled. The lower hullsides, at least while they are fresh, are almost waxxy as they represent the color of the principle coating material when it is not exposed to direct sunlight/color washout. This is not a true 'paint' but something more akin to a spray on plastic sheeting material.
When new, the antiskid areas are the richest color (which is not to say gloss), something like a coal black or RAF trainer black. They are the only material darker than the dome.
If you do a weathered boat, keep in mind that, like a hardwater streak on a shower tile, the craft will striate and weather cross-hull in a pattern that almost makes the boat look striped or even wrinkled. Especially where this is done with hints of metallic undercoat showing through; weathering here can help break up the long-tube effect of the hull and, along with the section welds (which ARE visible at close range, Dragon having got this _dead on correct_, even as 'recessed lines'), help make the hull sections pop as 3D shapes using a technique similar to panel countershading.
That said, the biggest problem with the Trumpeter kit is that little fits as it should (cough, sail) and most of the key outlines around the wide baseline array, bow dome taper, propulsor section (the flow vanes should /surround/ the actual impellor, not lead it!) and torpedo tubes are questionable at best.
The hull reminds me of a good vacform rather than a standard injection kit and it takes roughly half the build to rig the hull with bulkheads and/or spacer columns sufficient to compensate for the spongey fit and poor seam alignment around the tabs. And then you're still left with the fore-and-aft shortfall in hull lengths.
Roughly 20-30% of the remaining construction time being 'well spent' building up the contours and fixing some of the shape anomalies which begin before the bow and tail sections joins on the main hull and hence cannot be readily fixed by individual surgery. Again, the plastic is quite thin and brittle so it's best to build from the outside rather than section-in.
If you want a really good SSN-21 class kit, you almost have to go up to one of the 1/96th RC models or back down to the 1/350th specialty resin pfferings, the former being completely ridiculou$ for a static display kit, the other not nearly as impressive for size. In this, Trumpeter has hit a market point wherein the kit is not really worth the price of the 45 parts in it. But at 30 bucks, it is less than half the cost of the next best kits which more accurately capture the class outline.
KPl.