Author Topic: 22 Sqn RAAF Boston (Read 1641 times)

Greebo · « **on:** October 10, 2004, 02:32:19 PM »

I've just uploaded this skin to The Skin Department. It is a Boston of 22 Squadron RAAF, the only Australian unit to operate the type. In RL the Aussie Bostons had their nose glass replaced with metal skinning and four 0.5 in Brownings fitted instead of a bomb aimer. This particular aircraft was flown by Wing Commander J.H. Emerton and notched up an impressive 186 combat sorties in the South Pacific between November 1943 and February 1945.

Replicant · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2004, 03:02:43 PM »

Very sweet Greebo!

Any chance you could do a French Boston and a USAAF Havoc with D-Day stripes? I'd post reference pics but they're packed away at the moment; I'm in the middle of moving to Germany!

straffo · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2004, 03:31:47 PM »

Nexx you're thinking of a "groupe Lorraine" bomber ?

I've some references but finding doc. in my library is like speleology dark ,wet and dangerous !

Greebo · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2004, 05:21:50 PM »

I'm going to do one or more French A-20s. I like the 1940 Armee de l'Air scheme. The Vichy aircraft with the red and yellow ID stripes look even better but won't work on this skin unfortunately. I may also do a grey/green 342 Lorraine Sqn Boston with D Day stripes. Am I right in thinking that the Free French received no A-20Gs, just Ks?

A USAAF D Day striped A-20G is also on the cards, but there is a mirroring problem with the D Day stripes on the upper wings. What I'm going to have to do is an aircraft with the upper stripes painted over.

Next in line though is a Soviet Boston in winter colours.

straffo · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2004, 05:13:14 AM »

I will check Greebo , I'm not very documented about bomber groups.

Avoid the vichy camo please , even if it's very colourfull it's not very acceptable for me

FTJR · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:22:59 AM »

Nice One Greebo, and thanks..

Dux · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2004, 09:58:28 AM »

It's a nice looking skin, but I have a question...

I'm seeing alot of skins where the markings... especially the white markings... are seemingly transparent, making them look like only a slightly lighter shade of the underlying base color. What is the philosophy behind this...? That the semi-transparent markings will let the panel and weathering detail show through from below?

IMO, white should be white. Panel lines and weathering should be applied OVER the painted surface of the aircraft, including the markings.

Like I said, just my opinion. Do it the way that makes you all happy... but look at some good photos from WW2; the markings do not look transparent. I just want to be sure that you're not all following some misconception or misdirection about skinning technique.

[ps. not picking on you, Greebo... this thread just reminded me of something I have been wondering about.]

Greebo · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:56:38 PM »

The markings are a 100% solid layer but are not pure white, its 220/220/220 RGB IIRC. I find pure white looks too bright but maybe I'll up it a bit. On this particular skin I also used a lot of heavy brown and grey washes to simulate New Guinea dirt. I've got a photo of this plane which shows it caked in the stuff.

Weathering is always going to be a matter of taste, I'm told I am underdoing the effects as often as overdoing them. Still I appreciate the feedback, all constructive criticism is welcome and I'll have another long look at this one and the Green Hornet skin I did earlier.

oboe · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2004, 01:11:09 PM »

Greebo - beautiful skin. I can almost smell that New Guinea mud...

Dux - the way I learned, the order of layers goes - base color, panel lines, rivets, paint, insignia/decals, then weathering on top of that. The paint and insignia layers are reduced in opacity to allow the panel lines/rivets to show through. Not sure how others are doing it though. Reducing the opacity of the paint layer gives an added benefit of making it seem faded - already one step ahead on weathering.

Dux · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2004, 01:36:28 PM »

Naw, that's cool... everyone has their own interpretations, and I don't want to impose any of my own on anybody. It was just something I've been noticing (as a trend maybe) and wondered if there was some scientific method behind it.

rgr that, Oboe... I think you are using Bullethead's posted method for layering, which is perfectly fine. Personally, I use a different layering technique, whch goes from bottom to top: Base colors, details (engines, etc.), markings, weathering, panel lines, and rivets. I use transparencies frequently, but I only use certain modes of transparency, like Multiply, Screen, or Overlay.

I'm only saying this to show that there are many options for doing roughly the same thing. Definitely use whichever suits your purpose.

oboe · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2004, 01:46:16 PM »

Interesting - I'll have to try it that way too. Thanks for mentioning it!

Thanks for crediting Bullethead, too - I forget where I pick up some of this stuff!

United · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2004, 04:03:35 PM »

I do layering the same as you Dux. That way, you can have a full color base and you can adjust how much you want the rivets/panel lines to show through without losing any base coloring.

As you all said before, just a matter of opinion.

Oboe, you may want to check out this thread. Its got some great info on skinning. Dux and Bullethead both contributed many ideas and info about skinning here. Its also what got me interested in skinning and includes my very first works.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2004, 05:28:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dux
It's a nice looking skin, but I have a question...

I'm seeing alot of skins where the markings... especially the white markings... are seemingly transparent, making them look like only a slightly lighter shade of the underlying base color. What is the philosophy behind this...? That the semi-transparent markings will let the panel and weathering detail show through from below?

IMO, white should be white. Panel lines and weathering should be applied OVER the painted surface of the aircraft, including the markings.

Like I said, just my opinion. Do it the way that makes you all happy... but look at some good photos from WW2; the markings do not look transparent. I just want to be sure that you're not all following some misconception or misdirection about skinning technique.

[ps. not picking on you, Greebo... this thread just reminded me of something I have been wondering about.]

For what it's worth Dux, often times the white on aircraft insignia was 'grayed out' to make it less of a target to site on.

This wasn't done consistantly but there are numerous photos of US fighters in particular with this done.

Dan/Slack

Arlo · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2004, 05:42:03 PM »

By the by ... notice ... it's not being flown by the invisible man. At least not in the first shot.

Krusty · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:49:16 PM »

Boston modified with solid nose and 4x .50cal is a Havoc. Both are A20s, just different marks.

Just make the skin for the A20G Havoc, and you're all set!