1/72 Bandai A-Wing – The “Jakku Bandit”

If it seems like I’ve been somewhat quiet of late, well, I have been. In part thanks to a combination of work, travel, work travel, and being glued to the twists and turns in the Trump-Russia scandal. But also in part to behind the scenes work on a project for an upcoming issue of Weathering Aircraft magazine.

The theme of desert weathering happened to line up nicely with the release of the final novel in the Star Wars: Aftermath trilogy. While not a particularly good book, it’s notion of a protracted Battle of Jakku gave me the idea of Rebel fighters forward-deployed planetside to cover ground forces. And Bandai’s A-Wing seemed like a fun subject to mess around with.

And, well, here it is:

The mental narrative I worked from is that a forward-deployed A-Wing squadron found it necessary to paint over the deeper red markings with something more suited to desert operations, inspired by the photo recon Spitfires the RAF flew in North Africa. At some point, a hit from a TIE fighter took out the starboard engine, necessitating a cobbled-together field replacement. And of course, grinding service in a hostile desert environment means sand, dust, and all that good, delicious weathering.

The blow-by-blow will have to wait until the article drops, but I will say two things.

First, I used plenty of enamel weathering products on the A-Wing and it did not explode.

Second, there are some tricks to building these Bandai kits that I frustratingly discovered too late in the game. While overall the A-Wing is an excellent kit, the press-fit nature of the assembly is problematic. It makes it very difficult to test fit. In several areas, like the central fuselage, the parts went in and there was just no going back. Toward the end, I started cutting off various lugs and found that this made test-fitting and removability of parts significantly easier. And the fit is still damn good. For example – the engine assemblies and rear bulkhead fit snug, but can be teased off with a small amount of wiggling. Next time I tackle a Bandai kit, I’ll be better prepared for sure.

Tamiya’s New 1/32 F4U-1D Corsair – Quick Thoughts

UPDATE: Additional photos, some formatting fixes, one or two additional thoughts

Tamiya’s next 1/32 kit has broken cover, and I believe Marcus Nicholls deserves credit for sharing the first photos of the new F4U-1D Corsair chilling at the Tamiya booth at the Shizuoka Hobby Show.

While the -1D is hilariously being greeted with yawns of disappointment, I find it fascinating in a number of regards. And so, as I’ve done in the past, I wanted to share some quick thoughts and speculation about Tamiya’s latest.

One Precedent Holds

Tamiya has a now well-established history of releasing new 1/32 scale kits at the Shizuoka Hobby Show in odd-numbered years. In 2009 it was the Spitfire, followed by the Mustang in 2011, Corsair in 2013, and Mosquito in 2015.

Less than a week ago, I was wondering whether this precedent would hold. The new Shizuoka kits typically make themselves known a couple of weeks before the show, but this year April came and went with no news.

But it did hold. Kind of. We do have a new 1/32 kit debuting at Shizuoka in an odd-numbered year. We do not, however, have a new 1/32 subject. Continue reading

No New 1/32 Tamiya Kit for Shizuoka?

It’s no secret that I love to analyze Tamiya’s releases and release patterns and speculate what they may mean for the future. I’ve done it HEREHERE, HERE, and most recently HERE.

There’s a lot to wade through in those links, but the TL;DR version is pretty simple. Going back to 2009 and the Spitfire IXc, Tamiya has established a pattern of releasing a new 1/32 subject in odd-numbered years (Spitfire in 2009, P-51 in 2011, Corsair in 2013, Mossie in 2015), and of debuting those new subjects at the Shizuoka Hobby Show in early/mid May.

By all accounts, we should currently be losing our collective shit over Tamiya’s next 1/32 subject. But we’re not.


Continue reading


There seems to be an awful lot of negativity swirling around the modeling community at the moment. And I certainly bear at least some of the responsibility. Kitty Hawk, it seems, has become a lightning rod for a fissure that has riven the hobby since I came back to it, and doubtless long before then.

So taking on a build review of the Su-17 was bound to cause a stir. And straight-up anti-recommending it, even moreso.

I probably could have predicted the way things would go. There are plenty of people in this hobby who can’t seem to understand that kit quality and user ability are two completely separate things. It’s not like scratchbuilding intuition and airbrush experience come in the box, bagged up nicely next to the decals.

Call out a kit for being bad? They attack your ability. That’s the way it goes. And I’ve written about it before.

Ultimately, it’s the same shit in a new dress. It all comes back to the same “modeler vs. assembler” broken record. God forbid we acknowledge, respect and even celebrate the spectrum of preferences and talents that are encompassed by this hobby. Instead by all means let’s reduce it to some meaningless binary bullshit. Let’s deflect any critique of kits, of paints, of decals, and throw it all back on the modeler (exception: bashing Trumpeter for accuracy issues).


As fun as wading through sludge can be sometimes, and as hilarious and pathetic as Facebook protest groups can be, I thought I’d swim upstream a bit and talk about the things I’m grateful for in this hobby. Or a few of them at least. Continue reading

Judging kits and the judges who judge them


Kitty Hawk’s new 1/48 Su-17 has hit the market, and now that the plastic’s in the hands of various reviewers, thoughts are starting to trickle out.

My own copy – destined to be the third subject in the Contributor-Funded Kit Review series – should be arriving on Monday. The timing is fortuitous – my long, long build of Tamiya’s F-14 Tomcat is in the home stretch and should be wrapping up probably Sunday or Monday, so I’ll be able to crack into the build review pretty much the moment the Fitter shows up.

So close now...

So close now…

Personally, I want this kit to be awesome. I’m pulling for it, and I’m pulling for Kitty Hawk.

But I have my reservations, because come on, this is Kitty Hawk we’re talking about. They can do some good detail, and they can do some good kits as well (I really enjoyed the AH-1Z Viper), but more often than not, they shoot themselves in the foot with somehow overdone-but-poorly-thought-out engineering and the aggravating fit issues that engineering causes.

Anyway, that’s where my head’s at. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. But apparently I don’t even have to do a build review at all! Because in a guest post over on Scale Model Soup, Red Star Models’ Paul Cotcher has proclaimed that any negative take on the kit is not only something he disagrees with, but is also, get this – incorrect.

Subjective vs. Objective

Okay, first of all, I’m not really sure how an impression of a kit can be incorrect. We’re dealing with inherently subjective takes. Like film reviews or car reviews. There are some objective points – how long a movie is, who stars in it, how fast a car goes from 0-60 and so on – but there’s so much subjectivity wrapped into it that it’s not a matter of correct or incorrect.

Even accuracy…no kit is 100% accurate. Something will be off. So it becomes a question of inaccuracy tolerance, which is a subjective thing. The threshold for what you’re willing to accept may be different from mine. Hell – mine varies based on the subject and how many fucks I give about it. I can live with an A-7’s intake being a bit too “square”, but I will get pretty punchy about small goofs on a P-47.

Different Strokes

I’ve written about it before in a number of ways – but, basically, different people like different shit. When you think about the four main “pillars” of any kit – detail, accuracy, engineering and fit – you have people who literally only care about accuracy, and you have others who are interested in engineering, or only have eyes for fit.

There’s also what I’ve taken to calling the “Primer Divide”. Think about what you like the most about modeling. Does that aspect come before or after you lay down primer? Some people love the building and scratchbuilding aspects. For me, it’s painting. I do enjoy building, but it’s definitely more of a means to an end. So a kit that gets a scratchbuilder’s juices flowing may leave me completely turned off, and vice versa.

Again…it’s subjective.

“Here’s Why You’re Wrong”

So why does Paul declare negative takes on the Kitty Hawk Su-17 incorrect? In his own words:

Here is why the negative point of view, relatively speaking, is incorrect. Let me make this VERY simple:

You ready?

Gonna be hard for some of you to comprehend, but…


End of discussion. Somehow we’ve gotten ourselves into the practice of comparing every kit to some idealized non-existent kit that can never be achieved.

Okay, I’m going to make this distinction right now.

Just because a kit is better than a shitty, older kit, does not mean that it is a good kit. Continue reading

The Perfect Black Backdrop

For the most part, I love the hell out of my photo table. Yes, it’s big and unwieldy and attracts bugs in the summer months, but the nice even lighting and the ability to use uplighting make it all worthwhile.

ShootingTable 1

It’s an excellent way to showcase my builds.

But…I do miss the option to shoot on a different backdrop – like black.

Why? Simple. White is rather strong, tonally, and can introduce a form of tonal crush all its own, obscuring subtle tonal variations in a paint finish. With certain tones – particularly grays – it can also make accurate white balance a pain in the ass, and thanks to the white plexiglass not being a pure white, can make certain grays look too blue, or conversely make itself look too red.

Case in point – the Tamiya F-14 I’m currently working my way through. Take this shot…in which the Dark Ghost Gray seems both too blue, and too dark:

After completely resampling the white balance, I took another go at it…and was happier.

But now the white looks…dingy…and the gray is not pulling through nearly all of the tonal variation going on.

But when you put it on black…

At the exact same exposure – the gray looks far, far more tonally correct, and the subtle variations across the surface more apparent.

The problem is finding a good black backdrop

Posterboard works…decently…but it’s small and confines angles. Bigger posterboards are too stiff – and paper products just do not last long in the garage environment (thanks, humidity).

Photo backdrops that are made out of shit like muslin are right out – those are great for portraits, but not great for a photo table, where the grain shows through.

Ideally I’d be able to find something like a nice big piece of clear, flimsy acrylic – but I’ve only ever found those in clear – and attempts to paint them a black that’s opaque never seem to go well.

I thought I’d found an interesting solution with a big sheet of adhesive vinyl…I mean it does take pretty damn good pictures…

But it also ended up creasing like a bastard on the slope of the photo table, leading to very obvious reflective areas and making me question its durability for ongoing use and storage cycles.


So what say you, readers? Know of a wonderful backdrop material that won’t turn to mush in moderate humidity, that won’t attract every mote of dust and then refuse to let it go? That’s big enough to allow freedom of shot angles (approximately 4 feet by 3 feet would probably work)?

Any ideas? Because I’m running out.


And the Winner Is…


2016 is definitely a year of, uh, unexpected elections. Let’s just leave that at that.

The Contributor-Funded Kit Reviews Round 3 vote, it seems, is no exception.

After the Round 1 and 2 votes saw the eventual winners pull into a commanding lead relatively early on, Round 3 was different. The early favorite fell off late, and two other subjects remained neck and neck. Trading places as votes came in.

For a while, it seemed that Kitty Hawk’s upcoming Su-17/22 Fitter would squeak it out. And then HK’s big B-17E/F nosed ahead. And then it went back, and forth.

And then they fucking tied. 106 to 106.

Well. Shit. I hadn’t planned for this.

Jesus take the wheel?

There have been a few suggestions to flipping a coin or other random-selection mechanisms. No. Maybe it’s the way I’m wired, I don’t know, but I’ve never been a fan of turning things over to random chance. Random chance has enough say in our lives as it is.

I’m also not keen on a run-off, because that’s another fucking mail merge to set up, and limiting it to those who voted the first time out would require some Excel formulas that I don’t want to work out on a weekend.

Determining the winner

So what’s going to determine the winner?

Two things.

First, a bastardized bicameralism. The US government divides its legislative branch into two bodies. The House of Representatives is based on proportional representation. States with more people have more representatives. Then there’s the Senate, where every state has two senators, and most of them are assholes.

To determine the winner, I’m going to look not only at the vote total, but the voter total. My main voting system is $1 = 1 vote, but for runoff purposes, a 1 vote per person approach will indicate which subject has a broader base of support.

Second, which one I feel is more in need of a rigorous build review. With both the Fly Hurricane and Kinetic F/A-18C, I feel like there was enormous benefit to covering how the things actually come together. If you’re going to build one, it helps to know where to pay extra attention or drink extra alcohol.

And the winner is…

The winner, on both counts, is the Kitty Hawk Su-17/22 Fitter.


In terms of the “popular vote”, the Fitter musters 61% of the vote to the B-17’s 39%. Essentially – more people are interested in seeing the Fitter reviewed.

In terms of which is more in need of review, I have to concede, that’s the Fitter as well. For a few reasons.

  • The HK B-17E/F definitely skirts my own “no warmed over variants releases” rule. Given the interest in the subject that a lot of people have (I’m more a B-24J fan…), and the retooling effort HK went through moving from the B-17G, I gave it a pass. But we already know HK’s B-17 is a pretty sweet kit.
  • There are lots of B-17 kits. There are fuck all Su-17 kits. Well, there’s a terrible ancient kit, but you get the idea.
  • The Fitter is a Kitty Hawk kit, and we know what that means.
  • The B-17 is so size prohibitive in 1/32 that it has a limited audience, and that audience is going to buy it or not buy it on factors other than me dropping F-bombs on YouTube. Yeah there’s a Car & Driver-reviews-a-Ferrari quality to it I guess, but I’m not Car & Driver.

So. The Su-17/22 it is.