[skydriver]

Since I have been a member of this forum, I have read many posts where some members have noted about the inaccurate markings / paint schemes on various aircraft.

For example, it seems some members will state that the spinner should have had a swirl painted on it instead of just being black, or that the rudder should have been painted red, or the insignia should have been surrounded by red, or the plane should have been painted three tone blue and not two tone blue.

These are just some examples, but in reality, how or what do you consider to be accurate. For instance, I have Corgi's B-17 Bit-O-Lace which shows it with what is obviously a replaced/repaired left wing tip, where as the Franklin Mint version depects it as it looked before the wing tip was replaced.

Or, what about a plane that did have a spinner with a swirl painted on it, but later had to have it replaced and no one took the time to paint the spinner, or that red rudder was was replaced with a silver rudder.

Obviously one can probably find pictures of a particular plane that might look one way when photographed in May, but look different in an August photograph after several months of combat.

I would really like to hear your thoughts.

[Epapazian]

I tend to prefer a model depicting the plane as it was when it first saw combat, in preference to the use of replacement parts. When I redid Corgi's Von Werra BF-109E to reduce the size of its unit badge and chevons, add white wing tips and change the color on the spinner, among other things, I painted over that portion of the upper fuselage in front of the cockpit in colors consistent with that particular plane's original scheme, eliminating the mottled replacement part Corgi had, quite accurately, provided.

I quess it all depends on the model. For example, I like Corgi's B-17G with the replacement portions of the wing in OD.

One beef I have with many models, however is incorrect sizing and placement of insignias, letters, numbers, etc. These errors are found on many IXOs but also crop up on other diecast products. Whenever possible I repaint the affected areas and apply decals to remedy the situation. I also add stencils, such as those omitted on Corgi's P-38s, using surplus decals.

[leeG]

I like to match the model to a reference. A photo, drawing, or color profile.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by leeG

I like to match the model to a reference. A photo, drawing, or color profile.

Same here.

[JustPlaneNuttz]

Yes -- I have to agree. I too like to have the model matched to a source of credible reference material.

I have a hard time with sloppy reference gathering and one case that recently comes to mind is the Halifax Mk II (W1048). The aircraft was near-new (no operational missions) when it went to bomb the Tirpitz. By the time it had landed on that frozen Norwegian lake it accumulated approximately 13 hours (+/-). Virtually brand-new! Yet, Corgi managed to get the serial numbers 'W1048' the wrong colour, even though the Hendon wreck displays them vividly -- in RED -- not white. Where did Corgi get their reference? I suspect from a dodgy online illustration that is in a repository for thousands of illustrations of aircraft.

In the end, I can live with this, but Corgi didn't have to go to Borneo to look at this wreck to confirm anything. They just had to go up north of London, forcryinoutloud, essentially in their own backyard. Next time, if they cover my travel, I'd be happy to do their research for them!! Trenton Halifax, anyone?

JPN

[mikeb1958]

Originally Posted by leeG

I like to match the model to a reference. A photo, drawing, or color profile.

Add me into the group as well.

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by flyXwire

Same here.

That would be my preference too.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by leeG

I like to match the model to a reference. A photo, drawing, or color profile.

I concur!