The following is one of over 5,000 great modeling articles created through iModeler.

Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar

July 29, 2015 in Aviation

In keeping with the current Japanese theme, this was my first attempt at the all-to-common “paint chipping” effect as seen on many Japanese aircraft of WWII. I didn’t want to go ‘overboard’ (as I’ve seen on many builds). I first sprayed the airframe with metallic silver and then the base coat of green (I forget at the moment which green…I think it was Testor’s ‘Medium Green’).
I then used a low-tack tape (3M blue) and simply touched a few places and pulled up the top color. Although I’ve seen many ways to do the paint-chipping thing, this seemed the easiest way to achieve the desired effect. Upon reflection, I suppose I should’ve done the same thing on the decals, but didn’t wanna pull up the whole thing (and probably would have).

2 additional images. Click to enlarge

People who liked this article:
Profile photo of P.kP.kProfile photo of Milan D.Milan D.Profile photo of Simon WhitneySimon WhitneyProfile photo of Bernd MüllerBernd MüllerProfile photo of hammermrhammermrProfile photo of George WilliamsGeorge Williams

77 responses to Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar

  1. The tape peeling method works well with proper preparation. On the Mavis I painted the national insignia to enhance the process.
    Looks great !!!

  2. Looks great, Craig, especially in that sunshine.

  3. Hmmm…It’s Nakajima, not Nakajimi. Scale? Maker? And sorry to say but the inaccuracies are just too many! What you basically did was use decals from a Zero kit, an IJNAF a/c, on a Hayabusa, an Army plane. Sorry but the end result is rather poor for my eyes.

    • Mr.A.. forgive me but that was rather a rough reply. We enjoy our hobby and the sharing of our skills and builds as they say.
      We also have to remember we are guests here.
      California Steve

      • Rough? I just wrote what I thought of the model. Perhaps it should be something like:
        “I’m really terribly sorry for what I am about to say but if you could be so polite to allow me to express my most certainly humble opinion I would like to venture into commenting that your model apart from being incredibly beautiful and most pleasing, nevertheless falls just a bit short on accuracy which should not be a problem since it is really outstanding”.
        How about that with plenty of “”?

        If I see a model I like, I say so. If I don’t, am I allowed to comment and point out what I don’t like or should I just stay quite and let the modeler keep on making the same mistakes in his next effort? If it’s the second, I would like to ask the moderator to remove all my comments on this thread, I promise not to do it again and leave only positive comments from now on. If it’s the former, I’m afraid that’s how I speak. I’m sure the “native English speakers” on this board would use the most polite and mellow language.

        • No problem Mr.A San.
          You have represented yourself well.
          California Steve

          • Thank you too “California Steve”. Glad you liked how I “represented” myself.
            Actually, on second thought, I would like to ask the moderator to remove all my comments on this thread and leave only this one:

            Excellent model Craig. Keep up the good work.

        • The Editor believes that modeling is a field to express one’s creativity in a way that satisfies the modeler’s own vision.

          The pursuit of “accuracy” may or may not be a part of this effort and is one of the many choices that a modeler may do.

          Everyone is allowed to comment and point out what they think. That said, I’d be always encouraging doing it with respect to the builder’s effort and without imposing one’s own modeling ideals on the work of others.

          One of the beautiful aspects of of this hobby is the variety of artistic license out there. That’s what ultimately drives our hobby forward…

        • oh and that’s quiet not quite Mr. Nakajima

      • I appreciate your comment(s), Steve….as to the “rough reply”, the respondent is somewhat unfamiliar (at least to ME), and I can’t help but think it odd that a Modeling Site (click on the name) would concoct such a response – especially on another modeling site. Methinks there is a shooter on the “grassy knoll”.

        • “Mr. Arawasi” (or whomever you are), there is a function available wherein one can edit one’s responses by clicking on the little box that SAYS ‘edit’, thus making any changes you wish OR removing the entire response and substituting whatever other comment(s) you wish to make. This can be achieved without the moderator’s assistance. Hope this helps.

          • i don’t believe this is arawasi either…i don’t think a distinguished site master and author would bother to troll the internet making such tasteless quips about another modellers work… maybe someone is squatting on his site…posing

          • have you been having any problems with anyone else in the last year that might stoop to this…please don’t answer just food for thought

      • Agree with Steve, i have always enjoyed iModeler because of the kind modellers, sharing their hobby.
        Modelling is a hobby / fun , so “poor results” can t exist
        Rivet counting and offensive words are really sad to find them here 🙁
        But sorry for my rather rough feedback, Mr. Arawasi. Rough? I just wrote what I thought of your reply.
        I am sorry again

  4. Thanks for pointing out my typo – I shall fix that posthaste. The scale is 48th. The kit is Hasegawa. The decals used were in the box. Sorry the “end result” doesn’t meet your criteria. Perhaps you could post a model of one that’s ‘correct’ in order that I learn from an expert. I build for fun, not necessarily “accuracy”.

  5. Hello Craig…The model and the photos both look good to me. Modeling Japanese aircraft is not something I’ve done much of but I’m at a loss as to seeing the numerous inaccuracies alluded to in the previous post by Arawasi. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. As I see it, modeling skills vary from builder to builder but the one common thread is that we build to our own skill level and we build for the sheer fun of doing so. Hopefully we learn from each build and continue to improve our skills.

    • Thanks, Jim…perhaps the kit IS “inaccurate” in some way(s), but as I said, I built it OOB, so they can blame Hasegawa.
      Unless, of course, I painted it “wrong”. 🙁

  6. Hi Craig, your Hayabusa looks very nice, that not too overdine chipping looks great on my side of the web.
    Glad to see a new build from you here 🙂

  7. Craig, I am with the rest here, we build mostly for pleasure and fun, so you made an error when first posting but you easily rectified that mistake.
    Is that a sin? No, the comments from the so called “experts” were needless to say the least.
    This forum has been a pleasure to be on and nearly everyone has been kind, I just hope it remains so.

    Your build looks good, and as you said OOB, if the “expert thinks that is wrong, well let him. You built it, and if you are happy with it, that is all that matters.

  8. Guys, I’m hesitant about chipping in at this stage (no pun intended). The only comment I was going to make originally was that although these aircraft, actual and modelled, displayed widespread breakdown of finishes, I believe the national symbols often remained intact. Not sure why, perhaps better quality paint (I think much camo was often field applied and the symbols factory applied so perhaps applied under better conditions).

    So, despite some wobbles by type, I think Craig is correct in not distressing the national symbols as well.

    Also, you may be aware that ‘Arawasi’ is the moniker of the gentleman who runs a website by that name, and is the author of numerous books on Japanese a/c types. While I personally am not in a position to challenge someone who has devoted their adult life to the subject, I think it’s fair to observe that there is a difference between hobby enthusiasts and those who are presenting detailed publications for worldwide consumption, with all the responsibilites and scrutiny such publications demand.

    Because of this difference, responses (here at any rate) are usually gauged towards positive observations of personal effort, rather than surgical analysis of individual modelling skills on a casual, hobby basis.

    It’s important to strive for accuracy as well as effect, and Arawasi’s points are well made, if perhaps a little more strongly expressed than we’re used to seeing here. Perhaps Craig will take note, perhaps he’s not bothered, but the posting has generated a free, open, and interesting exchange of views, which is the point of the site.

    Happy modelling.

    • Spot on, Rob….I did indeed “take note” and I am, as you said, not ‘bothered’ by these particular observations by “arawasi”, as is evident in my individual replies to that poster. And thanks for “chipping in here”. 🙂

  9. I always like to give a positive feed back to any one that builds these scale models, yes, point out faults if asked but do it in a way that doesn’t make the modeller feel that what he is doing is a waste of time or money. We all, as modellers give our best to the kit we are building, and positive feedback makes us want to do better. Everybody in my opinion builds a nice kit, I for one love the relaxing time it offers and the challenge of trying to build something different and the history involved. Point taken on the comments Arawasi, although a little tact would have been more welcome.
    Cheers on the Kit Craig. Keep on trucking.

  10. I’m no expert on aircraft generally, let alone Japanese aircraft, but I like to think that I’m a reasonably competent modeller who can recognise a fellow iModeler member’s work as being worthy of praise where due, as is the case with Craig’s model as posted here. Additionally, I feel that if you not a registered member (whatever the reason for that may be) then you should be at least a little more circumspect in making rather unpleasant remarks seemingly off the cuff.

  11. I’ll throw in a some what informed opinion here. All aircraft of that period suffered from the fact that paint did not adhere well to aircraft grade aluminum,(1660-T6) regardless of the color. The Japanese were very proud of their rising sun emblem, and maintained its condition on the aircraft, while the rest of the surface degraded. The red paint used faded quickly, more so than the darker colors.

    • You mean I [inadvertently] did something RIGHT? LOL
      Thanks for that, Phil….you made my day (it’s not often I get something right…just ask my wife). 🙁

    • Phil, I have never seen anything about the grade of aluminum used.
      I believe that some Japanese aircraft were delivered in natural metal, and as the war continued, and they went to operational theatres, the need to camouflage became evident. The paint was then applied without a primer, and sometimes using brushes, rags, or whatever was available. The tropical sun, heat and monsoons did the rest, along with climbing on and into and out of the airplane, repair and refueling wear and tear.
      Towards the end of the war, standards went by the wayside.

  12. From a modelling perspective, looks like a very nice model Craig. I think the level of weathering looks right – as you say, it’s often overdone but looks realistic to me. It would help to post the manufacturer/scale, though I suspect it was just an oversight.
    I don’t know enough about Japanese aircraft to critique its accuracy, and for many modellers it’s not a high priority anyway. However I personally hope Arawasi continues to post. He really knows his stuff (I own several issues of his magazine and they are superb) and I could certainly learn from his knowledge.

    • Thank you, Mike….as I said in Simon’s reply above, it WAS an oversight and quickly amended when pointed out. As for Arawasi continuing to post, I have no issue with that. I don’t recall seeing all that much from that poster on iModeler anyhow.

  13. First – I like the model, Craig – nice job on the chipping. I also build for pleasure than for dead-shot accuracy. I do do some detailing and “fixing,” but my main goal is to enjoy the work and create a display of as many different subjects as I can before I die! Thus I’m happy if mine end up as “representations” of actual aircraft, even if with some inaccuracies.

    Second – I don’t mind critique (such as that by Arawasi), as I learn from it. I do think the style/personality of the comments came off a bit harsh, and I assume some of that will be due to differences in culture. I would hope that all can learn to critique respectfully and helpfully! It’s just better to say it “nice!”

    • Completely agree with your perspective, Greg and I appreciate the reply. By the way, do you still need a 48th scale A-6 Intruder windscreen and canopy? I have one if you’d like it. Let me know and I’ll provide contact information off-board.

      • You never did reply regarding that A-6 Canopy since you first posted your request in the “groups” section. I’ve asked you two different times over the past couple of weeks and haven’t seen anything in reply. I can only assume you no longer need those parts. If you do, don’t hesitate to ask. They’re yours – free.

  14. Arawasi is no doubt an expert on Japanese aviation and a subject that he is passionate about. I also do a lot of research on a model in the hope of building that perfect model that is a true representation of the real thing. However, we all practice this hobby for various reasons!!! Craig’s model looks great!!! Positive comments serves as inspiration. Negative comments should always be constructive!!! Artistic license and what the modeller finds acceptable to him/her should ALWAYS be respected. Craig, well done!!! I like what I see. Keep them coming!!!!

    • Thanks, Morne….I realize that there are any number of modelers out there who are light years ahead of me regarding talent, but as I said, I’ve built models for over 50 years simply because I like to do it. It passes the time. It’s a hobby. I don’t strive for “accuracy” and never been a ‘rivet counter’. I don’t care if the fuselage is a millimeter too short/long, whatever. If I post a crappy model, just ignore it and move on (that’s what I do here). If I post a so-so model and it can be slightly improved with a simple change, by all means, lemme know. Just don’t tell me it sucks (in so many words)….that can be discouraging and hurtful to some. Again, I appreciate your input, sir…..always have.

      • I have the utmost respect for any modeller. Our hobby is a passion not understood by many a casual observer!! I still learn daily from just looking at all the great looking models displayed on imodeler. Your rattlecan paintjobs still amaze me. I suck in that type of approach but seeing yours I have decided to give it a go in the near future. Happy modelling my friend!!!

  15. I personally am offended by Craig’s poorly constructed airplane model. This forum is strictly for the “gifted” builders and the hoi-polli should take note. The pursuit of error free, well documented models, no matter what the subject, should be the pursuit of every modeler and nothing less. The build effort should be consistent with a model that one would find at, say, the Smithsonian or the Guggenheim. If you can’t produce a model of merit I say keep off this board, there’s hardly enough band width for great modeler’s like me to be denied space to “show off” my gems.
    You know Craig, it’s hard to be humble when you’re as wonderful as me…..I am God’s gift to the modeling world!

    Word to Cali Fania Steve…please confine your remarks to the Japanese interpetation of Jan and Dean’s “Little Old Lady from Pasadena” and how it relates to climate change.

    • How refreshing to read an “honest answer”, Mike….you have a way with words comparable to my own thoughts and ideas. 🙂
      Some people just don’t get it, do they?

      • The majority of Japanese Army & Navy aircraft that exhibit extensive paint peeling/weathering did not receive a primer

        A relevant portion of the above article.

        “…This policy was in place for these aircraft up until the end of 1944, except for fuselage Hinomarus when these became mandatory sometimes in 1942. Much later, and only for a limited period, some multi-engined aircraft like Ki 49 Donryu were delivered to squadrons in Alclad finish, but this remained more an isolated case than the rule. As a general rule, until late 1944 multi-engined IJAAF planes were painted in the factory with a primer undercoat and an overcoat of the traditional glossy gray-green. Single-engined fighters were sent out to frontline units without a prior application of primer. It was there, at the unit level in the field, that the camouflage was completed. Initially the most common scheme used was a solid coat of Jungle green, then all variations of blotches, stripes, and combinations of two or more colors were used on these planes. IJAAF camouflage colors were used mainly, but sometimes mixing produced non-standard colors, and the use of captured paint was also allowed. The important thing is that the lack of primer generated a lot of paint chipping and peeling, to the point where it has now been established that some artists’ renditions of planes in a blotched camouflage were in fact misinterpretations of a solid color coat that had peeled to the point where it looked like this “blotching” was done deliberately ! In contrast, multi-engined aircraft, finished in the factory with glossy gray-green and then camouflaged in the field with whatever pattern was in use by their unit never became so worn. They weathered just like Allied aircraft in comparable climate, or even less considering the durability of the gray-green paint, which apparently had the same qualities its Navy counterpart had. At the same time, the few types delivered to the units in an Alclad finish weathered the same way that single-engined fighters did. Of course, the climate and the conditions of the aircraft’s use played a role, but all in all the main difference in the way that Japanese aircraft weathered, when compared to Allied aircraft, was not a question of paint quality but the presence or absence of a priming coat.
        Meanwhile in the IJNAF At the time of the “Hawaiian Operation”, the offensive camouflage already described was standard for shipboard planes in first line units. With the exception of the Nakajima B5N2 Model 3 torpedo-level bombers, the glossy gray-green paint clearly predominated. Kates[2], even when camouflaged with the makeshift schemes that were the rule during this first day of the war, were painted without any primer and later were to exhibit a high degree of paint peeling. (See the photo of Fuchida’s plane during the operation against Ceylon, which was taken a not much later.) Very soon this camouflage was considered unsuitable for all planes but the Zero fighter. Despite the continuous string of victory, a kind of standard, non-factory, “sea compatible” defensive camouflage developed. This consisted of the application of a solid dark green coat on the uppersurfaces, and this solid coat was even sometimes applied at sea aboard the carriers. The main aircraft concerned were all-metal floatplanes (Jake, Pete), Type 97 torpedo-level-bombers and Type 99 Model 11 dive-bombers, but this later extended to almost any aircraft other than shore or carrier based single-engined fighters. Although not applied at the factory, these camouflage finishes were usually applied on glossy gray-green factory painted aircraft, and soon the Kates also received a systematic application of underside gray-green. For a while, until this scheme began to be applied in the factory, the Kates remained subject to the peeling associated with the absence of primer…”

    • Mike, I’m a better person for that! I’m selling my stuff, and taking up the bourbon zylophone. The tuning alone should occupy my sunset years, along with the prayer and good works.
      I have done seen the light!
      Brother Bernard, aiming for C sharp major, and failing!
      Brother Craig, Amen!

  16. In response to Mr. Mack’s comments above (his post only offered an “edit” function, not a “reply” function), I have no knowledge of any issues with ANYONE on iModeler. Regarding the genesis of the posts by “arawasi”, I tend to agree that it does seem odd that another modeling site would post such a reply. Maybe HE has a bottle nearby as well. 🙂

  17. Craig, not to hijack the thread, but I saw this thing in the local historical society. It’s a table, with multiple holes in the top, with glasses in the holes. I believe the glass (maybe crystal) is something special, and depending on the level of liquid in them, one can either strike them or rub ones finger along the top to produce a musical note. (!) Being Irish, I immediately seized on the possibilities of using alcohol as a filler, and the need for musical research, in varying the levels to vary the notes.
    I also figure I’ll need others to assist me in this endeavor
    More involved than a handbell choir or jug band, and not as portable.
    Typically, I’m drawn to the bizarre and obscure,it’s a curse!

  18. Always liked the mostly overlooked Oscar, Nice work Craig. Have you tried using a silver pencil for paint chipping. I find the best one to use is a welders silver pencil. I think its a little softer and leaves a smooth (non-grainy) mark.

    • I’ve tried the silver paint with a tiny brush, but not the silver ‘pencil’ method (never tried that “hairspray” thing, either) – in the [rare] instances I go with paint chipping, I generally have it mind beforehand, apply a metallic undercoat and go with the tape thing. Thanks for the response – and the tip.

  19. P.k said on July 30, 2015

    manufacturer and scale ?
    Japan airplanes must make Wetering with feeling.
    kit building is an individual’s satisfaction from different perspectives.


  20. Well boys and girls….it appears we’ve covered about everything there is concerning this thread. What say we move on and allow someone else to start a different controversy. I thank you all for your continued support.

  21. Well Mr. Arawasi was direct,blunt and to the point.Pointing out spelling errors and decals errors and color errors truthfully and honestly never bothered me. If folks are trying to enter contests and are looking for advice being direct is a a good practice both in business dealings and competitions. I noticed that Mr. Arawasi has a business that deals with Models of Japanese aircraft and one would assume that getting it right is of utmost importance. So he may have taken umbrage…

  22. I can’t believe that this warranted over 60 comments.

    • Actually only 24 (counting yours)….the rest were responses/replies.

      • A reply is in fact a comment of sorts. Ate up a lot of time all the way around and accomplished little.

        • I agree, but all I did was post an innocuous little build to try to “join in” the Japanese aircraft theme. Mr. Arawasi got this whole thing started, not me. And if you look back a couple of lines, you’ll see that I attempted to put an end to the discussion. Thanks.

    • +1 All Hobbies seem to have some “Drama”. I’m reminded of the words;” Play the ball and not the man”. If you post here I’d expect constructive criticism of the model and if not everyone sugar coats their opinions …be they constructive… Then your getting sound advice. I’ve noticed that if folks are doing subjects that are representative of other peoples cultures and nationalities and are not up to speed on the subject matter perhaps a little research is order. I’m sure many of us Yanks would not appreciate seeing Don Gentiles P-51B being painted with a Pink nose and being label as a product of Northrop. The internet is flattening the world with so many folks from different countries and cultures being able to share a common thread that we call modeling. The plus side of these sites is that you do learn what Turkish,English,French,Spanish and many more modeler’s have to offer in their country’s aviation or modeling history. Cultural sensitivity and respect for can be a constructive practice.

  23. I have not posted any comments for a while and wanted to review the posts to look at them and perhaps make a comment or two. I saw Craig’s fine post so I started with his. I had no idea of the extent of the comments. Craig is a fine and enthusiastic builder and a compliment to this site. He is the Rembrandt of the rattle can. To say that the comment by Arawasi was over the top is an understatement. I have not seen a comment like his before on this site. Most everything about Arawasi’s comment has already been said. The only thing I would suggest to Arawasi, as a “native English speaker” is to look up the word “TACT” in the dictionary. Very simply, TACT,is the ability to tell someone something they don’t want to hear, in a way they want to hear it.
    Great looking Oscar, Craig, it looks good to me.

  24. Mr Arawasi’s critique was of his passion for Japanese Aircraft, the same passion I have for US Navy aircraft, his critical comments are actually not the first time anyone has been a little harsh on this site and most likely not the last. I build Japanese replicas, and grant it I am no expert in them other that the research for them is much better than before. Still Craig’s Oscar, looks like an Oscar to me, I am not aware of any inaccuracy that Hasegawa may have on the kit. Shape issue, panel lines in the wrong location, I wouldn’t know. FW-190’s have landing gear issues from some of the manufacturers that are well known, yet who cares. Build it and have fun. Unless it is for a show and competition fix it, other wise enjoy the hobby. So everyone chill, relax, it is a hobby we all have a passion for. It’s all good.

    • Well put, Chuck. If you re-read the original post(s) from Arawasi, one can see that, although a bit tongue-in-cheek, I tried to be tactfully polite and not confrontational towards his negativity. Everyone has the right to speak they’re mind (within reason) and I am now simply hoping this whole thing is soon forgotten. Thanks for your input.

  25. In order to solve these problems, Nakajima produced a series of progressively modified prototypes through 1939 and 1940. These changes involved a major weight saving program, a slimmer fuselage with the tail surfaces moved further aft and a new canopy.

  26. Hasegawa should’ve taken a page from Nakajima’s blueprints and produced an “accurate” Oscar in the first place….then [maybe] this whole thread would’ve been avoided. LOL

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.