The Worst F-106 Model Paint Job (Read 3,338 times)

I agree Mark. I don't understand why anyone would spend
all the time and effort to make the paint look so bad. i would be ashamed to call it mine. The birds in the bone yard have better
looking paint.

I quess I'm too ignorant to understand, but what is the "shading" supposed repesent? I've never seen an aircraft or a model aircraft painted like that. None of the aircraft I worked on in the 27th looked like that, even just before they went in for a complete overhaul at McClellan and supposedly in their sorriest condition.

Tom Dlugosh

I agree that this F-106 has some pretty dark dirt streaks but I must admit as a former six painter that I have seen some that looked that grungy just before the went to depot for IRAN. It was so nice to see them come back with a brand new factory fresh paint job then I could do the tail flash and they'ed be beautiful!

I looked at the rest of this guys work and he's pretty darn good with cockpit details and the real small stuff. I can only imagine how small his equipment must be - the tiny rolls of masking tape, the six inch tall B-1 stand, etc. HaHa. Some of his Navy carrier fighter work looks just like what you see on TV these days. I guess fresh water is a premium on carriers and the chiefs don't get to wash'em down very often.

I salute anybody who can do this type of detail work especially since my hands are not that steady anymore. I can understand why he has to charge 200 bucks a pop for these (I'd have to charge more cause it would take me 5 times longer to finish).

I lucked out. My neighbor is a model builder and he built one of the new F-106 models for me and painted it with the 66-68 tail flash we used in the 456th rather than the decal in the kit which was the earlier version used in 60-65.

Wishing all you guys a Happy New Year and hoping my pal the Old Sarge is doing well and still building those magnificent clocks - now there's a real craftsman!

:yellowbeer:

Well GOOD MORNING!!! YA'LL!!!!!!!

Hows the Sunshine in the far off land of the morning calm?? Happy New year, PAt!!!
HAd to get up today and start out with a little participation in this "On Line" Maybe we need to have a simple way of I.M.'ing everyone!

I just read the reviews of the F-106 model and had to go take a look for myself. I have to agree that I cannot recall even the dirtiest of birds going off to IRAN looking like that! I do like the detail inside the cockpit! What a steady hand someone has!

Hope we can pull this off!!! I'm on line and I'll be sending a few e-mails to others that need to be on as well!

Hope everyone had a great New Years and will have many more to come!

A few beeers to you all! YA'LL!!! :yellowbeer: :yellowbeer:

MArv

The idea of weathering a model is to make it look "realistic"; as it would look in service rather than fresh from the factory. The whole concept originated in the UK when giant scale models were used in portions of the movie " Battle of Britain". Dave Platt was one of the modelers and he moved to the US. He built an SBD Dauntless that was weathered and he got a perfect static score at that years NATS (forgot the year, but it was quite a while ago). Up to that time, scale models were always painted to high gloss, many coats of hand rubbed lacquer, in fact the glossier the higher score.
When Platt brought out his Dauntless it revolutionized the finish on scale models by finishing the model to show the wear and tear that eventually takes it's toll on the finish of a real airplane. Factory fresh was out!
What this guy didn't do, and it's the most important aspect of scale modeling, is RESEARCH. First, I've never seen a SIX with a flat finish, they're glossy. If he would've taken the time to get the FS number, and check it, he would've found the number identified the paint a glossy. Second, I've never seen any that were as shabby as this thing, especially a Bicentennial bird. The airbrush work was way overdone: the shading of panels is supposed to represent dirt and grime that gets in the panel joints, and to break up the finish by subtly highlighting various panels and joints, which this guy obviously did not do; the result is the whole effort was a waste of time. When you weather a model, less is always more.
Oh well, someone bought it for over $200, which just proves WC Fields was right: "Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump".
Happy New Year everyone.
BRG,
Jon

Old Sarge,
Ref: nose gear door. The shape of the door leading edge is wrong. The real door was flat across the leading edge with rounded corners. The door would also be raised a little higher, but the artisit may have lowered it some to show the writing on the door.

As a modeler I have to admit I'm not that good. I am into accuracy though and would never paint a model in a scheme I know didn't exist. I also visit aircraft museums regularly and photograph preserved aircraft for a myself and for a friend who posts them on his website. The thing that gets me about some of those displays is when the curators/restorers paint a specific tail number into something it wasn't. I'm not talking about aircraft on display like those Sixes at Castle and Great Falls - the tail number may not be accurate but the paint job is. I've seen many displays that have been bastardized just because the restorers liked it. I feel the same way about plastic. Modelers like to build their kits the way they like them and I suppose I can't do anything to change that but it doesn't mean I like it!

Mark