Mike N Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 (edited) Hi all, This will be my second entry for this Group Build (after the Blenheim), another classic Airframes kit too, this one being the CR.42 Italian biplane fighter. The kit is the newer tooling by CA which apparently corrects a number of inaccuracies with their earlier release, although I’m not familiar with what they got wrong first time round. I don’t want to go into the Italian involvement in the Battle too much, suffice it to say it was minor and not very successful! The aircraft I will be modelling will be the familiar 13-95 (so 0 out of 10 for originality!), which force-landed on the beach at Orfordness after engine trouble. One reason I have chosen this aircraft is that there are reasonably good photos of the aircraft with its nose stuck in the sand, showing the upper and left side camouflage. A quick Google found these images: I’ve also seen the aircraft in the flesh at Hendon, although in a slightly different interpretation of the colour scheme. Upon opening the box, the kit looks very comprehensive with plastic main parts, resin details, and regular and pre-painted photo-etched frets. The plastic parts have only minor flash and have decent detail. As per my Blenheim with similar butt-joined tailplanes, I attached them to each fuselage half before the latter were joined. Upon checking the fit, the chord of the tailplane and that of the fuselage attachment weren't a good match. Checking against plans in the March 2007 issue of Model Aircraft Monthly (as it was then) resulted in this: If you can ignore the shadow (it's a poor photo!) the tailplane is spot on to the plans, so the fuselage side was trimmed to suit. I've also painted the interior. From photos of a CR.42 being restored, the inside of the fuselage appears a light green, with the framework and floor being light grey. Starting with Humbrol 78, I mixed in some yellow to get the colour something like similar. Anyway, that's about as far as I've got, I hope to do some more tonight so will keep you posted! Mike Edited November 16, 2010 by Mike N
Mike N Posted September 6, 2010 Author Posted September 6, 2010 Cheers Mish. I have been working on a BoB collection for a year or so now and have most of the common types (and easier builds!) already done, so it's now down to the also-rans! Mike
chaoslord Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 very interesting and not something that we see often. good start!
ollieholmes Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 Where did you find photos of the CR42 being restored?
Mike N Posted September 8, 2010 Author Posted September 8, 2010 Where did you find photos of the CR42 being restored? They were in the September 2005 issue of Model Airplane International as part of a historical feature on the Falco. They are of one of two aircraft restored in Italy recently. To be honest they are not fantastically useful unless you plan to model it as a skeleton with no skins. I have made a little progress on the build. I have given the cockpit and fuselage a wash to dirty it up a bit, and started assembly of the cockpit. The fit of the parts is vague to say the least, with only a guide for the floor/bulkhead part. I had already test fitted this and sanded it down slightly to allow the fuselage halves to close. The side framework is provided in etched metal and after some test fitting I decided to form it to the fuselage sides otherwise it wouldn't fit. In reality these are tube frameworks and would be better represented in plastic (like the Hasegawa Hurricane cockpit) but Classic Airframes didn't do that sort of finesse on injection moulded parts. The instructions also have a different understanding of the size of some parts relative to others! In the end it's a case of making the best of what you have. The parts look good, especially the pre-painted etched stuff, but there are lot of small fiddly bit to attach with minimal contact areas. I certainly wouldn't normally add an aftermarket etched set unless the detail was non-existent. Starboard fuselage Port fuselage with floor/bulkhead installed I'm concentrating on the Blenheim at the moment so will only get occasional chances to move this build along. Mike
Arachnid Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 They were in the September 2005 issue of Model Airplane International as part of a historical feature on the Falco. They are of one of two aircraft restored in Italy recently. To be honest they are not fantastically useful unless you plan to model it as a skeleton with no skins.I have made a little progress on the build. I have given the cockpit and fuselage a wash to dirty it up a bit, and started assembly of the cockpit. The fit of the parts is vague to say the least, with only a guide for the floor/bulkhead part. I had already test fitted this and sanded it down slightly to allow the fuselage halves to close. The side framework is provided in etched metal and after some test fitting I decided to form it to the fuselage sides otherwise it wouldn't fit. In reality these are tube frameworks and would be better represented in plastic (like the Hasegawa Hurricane cockpit) but Classic Airframes didn't do that sort of finesse on injection moulded parts. The instructions also have a different understanding of the size of some parts relative to others! In the end it's a case of making the best of what you have. The parts look good, especially the pre-painted etched stuff, but there are lot of small fiddly bit to attach with minimal contact areas. I certainly wouldn't normally add an aftermarket etched set unless the detail was non-existent. Starboard fuselage Port fuselage with floor/bulkhead installed I'm concentrating on the Blenheim at the moment so will only get occasional chances to move this build along. Mike I built the italeri version in 1/48th and I also got the novel "The Chianti Raiders" from a pound shop, with a few pictures of a CR42 nose down in the sand the pilot was SGT Pietro Salvadori, a really good book at a bargain price!!!!
Davec_24 Posted September 9, 2010 Posted September 9, 2010 Nice, it'll be good to see this one amongst all our more "mainstream" fighters, too! I actually quite like the CR.42, though I'm not sure as they quite match the Gladiator for looks.
Mike N Posted September 14, 2010 Author Posted September 14, 2010 I've done a bit more work on this one while waiting for bits to dry on the Blenheim. I finally added all* the bits to the cockpit, although it doesn't really look right. I think the floor/fwd bulkhead piece is too far forward, even though it matches the rebate in the fuselage detail. It means that the seat is hanging over the back edge to get a realistic position for the seat relative to the fuselage opening! (* some of the small - and I mean small! - etched parts disappeared never to be seen again!) The pilot will also have to stretch for the rudder pedals, but I couldn't be bothered dismantling the superglued joints to move it all back. I do blame the instructions and the moulded fuselage detail for this, so I hope anyone else building the kit takes note of my discovery! I then closed up the fuselage halves which matched pretty well. After sanding the joints a little, I added the lower wing. The plans I have suggest a bit of dihedral, although the kit part (in one piece) is flat. I tried to encourage some dihedral but in the end it isn't much. Once that had set I used Milliput to fill the gaps; the worst were at the upper join of the wing to fuselage and the tailplane attachments. I wiped the Milliput down with a wet finger or kitchen roll to avoid any sanding. It's now ready for some primer to check for more defects and then paint! The other area I've worked on is the engine. The resin parts for this are excellent. Using the photos of the restored example of the real thing, I painted the central body light grey, and the cylinders black with aluminium tips and drybrushing. An etched piece for the front finished it off nicely: I'm hoping to start painting this weekend, which raises the question of the colour scheme. I'm of the opinion that there was a single blotch colour (green) over a rich sandy yellow, but the underside could be silver (dope) rather than the conventionally accepted light grey. That is how the Hendon machine is painted and is backed up by the RAF crash reports at the time. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on this subject! Mike
Enzo the Magnificent Posted September 15, 2010 Posted September 15, 2010 That's a bit good, isn't it?
Mike N Posted September 28, 2010 Author Posted September 28, 2010 Hi again, Thought I'd add an update to let you know that progress is being made... despite my best attempts to bugger it up! First of all, thanks for the kind words and continued interest Since last time, I primed the assembled airframe to check for further blemishes, of which there were some. I also noticed (eventually!) that there is no representation at all of the (oil cooler?) intakes in the wing roots. I therefore drilled a couple of holes and gouged out the approximate shape to add them. Not perfect, but better than ignoring them entirely. Now for the part where it all nearly went TU. Looking at plans is not always healthy. I noticed that the upper wing has a little too much dihedral, which I was more worried about from the point of view of the outboard struts not being long enough to meet it at the right places. I tried bending the wing in my hands, but it didn't stay the right shape (and didn't want to break it). 'I know, I'll heat it a little in the middle and then bend it!' Using the easiest heat source available, I put a hob ring on low burn and briefly held the wing over the flame. Well, guess what, it didn't produce the desired result, but did give some undesired ones instead! The trailing edge, being thinner, curled down slightly It isn't too noticable but with the lack of positive results, was enough to make me give up! To make matters worse, when I got back to the model desk I then (!) noticed part of the leading edge had melted. Cursing, I cut up some of the kit's sprue into very small pieces and glued them in a blob on the damaged area. Once dry, it was sanded down and is almost like new. In the end I did what I should have done in the first place and filled the strut holes in the upper wing with the intention of letting the struts go where they end up. I also took the opportunity to drill out the hand grab slot in the wing. I got all the parts ready for spraying in the underside colour, with numbered bits of masking tape around the struts. As you may recall, I decide to follow the RAF crash report's description of 'silver' undersurfaces. I first sprayed everything with Xtracolour High Speed Silver (to give it a try as much as for any other reason). This turned out a bit to shiny for my thinking, so I re-sprayed everything Humbrol 56. I found this paint difficult to get a consistent finish with, and have ended up with different shades showing. I'll try gently sanding it to see if it improves, otherwise I may have to do it yet again! Hopefully, I'll be adding the upper base colour this weekend, and maybe even the green splodges. Mike
maltadefender Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 Blow me, Mike, there were scarcely any blemishes after the primer. Looking forward to a bit more Italian style being added to this GB, however.
Mike N Posted October 17, 2010 Author Posted October 17, 2010 A quick update after some progress today. I've applied the main colours now, not without problems though! Since last time, I rubbed down the aluminium undersides and brush painted Humbrol 56 on, which gave a better finish. For the upper surfaces base, I started off trying RLM79, but this was way too dark. I then did some research (note to self: do this part first in future!), and found that the colour was most likely Giallo Mimetico 3. I used this site: http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/colorcharts/s...harts_italy.htm to find a mix for the sand yellow using Humbrol paints. The result was this: I then did the nose cowl yellow, which was RLM04 (simple choice here as the Germans supplied it!). Then came the hard part: doing the mottling. It took ages and a lot of pressure adjustment and thinning/thickening of the paint to get it to work at all. What it really proved was that I am a novice at freehand airbrushing. I'm not delighted with the end result but frankly I didn't care after all the messing about. Maybe after I've calmed down I'll hand paint a few of the worst blotches, something I would now consider doing if doing this scheme in the future. Next step is gloss then decals! Mike
Mike N Posted November 14, 2010 Author Posted November 14, 2010 Yep, I'm on the final stretch so should hopefully have it done by the end of the week... Just bracing myself for the rigging (da dum!). I've never done rigging before, and this is my first biplane in probably 20 years!
Mike N Posted November 16, 2010 Author Posted November 16, 2010 All done with this one now, although that doesn't mean I've fitted all the parts supplied... This has been one of the more challenging kits I've completed, partly down to the kit itself and partly due to the scheme. The kit on first opening the box appears to offer everything you need and be full of detail. However, as I progressed through the build I found that all wasn't as it seemed and I had a few headaches along the way! For those of you yet to build this kit, a few words of warning. The fit of parts is quite poor in some areas, the etched cockpit framework and some of the other cockpit parts being particularly troublesome. I left out some bits as they simply didn't have a locating surface! The instructions are full of errors, I really doubt anyone at CA built this kit from the instructions before putting it on sale, and the research is sloppy too: half the wing struts better fit the opposite side to that shown in the instructions, the centre-most struts are shown upside down (should be 'V' rather than /\ which is really shocking) and the markings plan shows the codes reading the same way on both sides, whereas the '95' is aft on both sides. Those are just the points I found, in addition to the vague placement guidance. A final strange omission is there are no gun barrels provided?! Come on CA, resin details are your greatest strength! Sorry to have a rant, but I really had to be on my guard with this one! I had been tempted to get the CN kit to do the stylish nightfighter variant in overall black, but every time I thought about ordering it I had to regain my senses! I'm hoping someone else comes out with a better kit (Italeri?) for this one. The scheme I chose is also controversial. I've finished it based on my interpretation of the photos available and the RAF crash report - largely as per this article: http://www.stormomagazine.com/Articles/Re-..._Camo_1940.html If there's anything I've taken from this build it is to have plenty of references, check them before doing anything (like I didn't sometimes and then having to correct it!), and even then some things are open to interpretation Hope you enjoyed the build and the finished result, I'll be posting some more pics in the Gallery. Mike
Silver Fox Posted November 21, 2010 Posted November 21, 2010 As someone who arm wrestled the original issue into submission I feel your pain with the second edition. I started mine then gave up as the Italieri CR42 came out. Most of the nice detail ended up in the latter. Nice work all the same and you have produced a very nice result.
Mike N Posted November 21, 2010 Author Posted November 21, 2010 Thanks for the kind words chaps, glad you like the end result Silver Fox: is the Italeri kit significantly better? Or are we still waiting for a decent kit of this nice-looking plane?
Recommended Posts