Pavla Curtiss AT-9 Jeep Build Part II

Uncategorized
The wings and horizontal tail planes are butt-jointed and required some filling and blending. I filled the wing seams with superglue and Mr. Surfacer 500, the tailplanes were filled with Perfect Plastic Putty.
The canopy was vacuformed from a soft plastic. An experiment with the excess sheet on the spare canopy revealed that sanding scratches could not be polished out, which negated my usual technique of blending the canopy and then polishing the transparencies clear again. A self-inflicted problem seen here I have managed to reverse the orientation of the landing gear legs, the pins should point outwards.
The model got a coat of Mr. Surfacer 1000 and any imperfections were sanded out. Most of this effort was focused around the canopy and wing roots, I was never quite satisfied with the canopy seam. The NMF finish is Alclad Candy Apple Base over their black primer. The landing gear legs were cut off, pinned, and put in their proper places.
The wing walk areas were masked off and painted with Mr. Color Tire Black. The Alclad finish is hard enough that the paint will stand up to masking if you don’t go overboard with it.
There is no aftermarket for the AT-9, so the kit decals were used. These performed perfectly. If you’re not comfortable with the NMF finish, there are markings for an Olive Drab over Neutral Gray scheme as well.
The finished product. I’m not entirely satisfied with this effort, I had trouble blending the canopy in particular. I do like the lines of the AT-9. The limited-run kits take extra work, but allow you to improve your modeling skills and build some interesting and lesser-known types.

More completed pictures here: https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/2022/02/22/pavla-curtiss-at-9-jeep-in-1-72-scale/

Published by Jeff Groves

Scale Modeling and Military History

Published

17 thoughts on “Pavla Curtiss AT-9 Jeep Build Part II”

      1. This reminds of a television series in the 60s when someone was flying a plane which was similar to this one. I can’t remember the name of the TV series. I will look for it.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. If you dig into the culture back then you will see all sorts of prototypes and obscure aircraft in the comics and TV shows. Not sure what the “Sky King” aircraft was, but the layout screams “Beach” to me.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. Wiki…

        King originally flew a
        Cessna T-50 Bobcat, a twin-engine wooden-framed airplane some called the “Bamboo Bomber”.[12] The craft was a World War II surplus UC-78B, owned by legendary Hollywood pilot Paul Mantz[13] and flown by employees of his Paul Mantz Aerial Services for filming the flying sequences.[14] At least two other T-50s are known to have been used for on-ground and in-the-cockpit scenes. The T-50 was grounded after episode 39 due to rot in the wooden frame. Songbird I was de-registered by the FAA in March 2018.

        The best-known Songbird was a 1957[3] twin-engine Cessna 310B used in episodes 40 through 72. It was the second production 310B (tail number N5348A), provided by Cessna at no cost to the producers and piloted by Cessna’s national sales manager for the 310, Bill Fergusson. Fergusson got the job after the motion picture pilot already selected was deemed unqualified to land the airplane at some of the off-airport sites required. Some months after a library of stock footage had been compiled, additional sequences were filmed using a different airplane.[15] Cockpit sequences were filmed using the static test fuselage, also provided by Cessna.[16] The original 310B was eventually destroyed in a crash at Delano, California, in 1962, which killed its owner-pilot.[17] A 1962 310D took its place.[3] A third 310, “Song Bird III,” was used for publicity photos. It is still flying today, making appearances at airshows in a modified Sky King livery.[3]

        As of early 2020, the Songbird’s old tail number N5348A was assigned to a Cessna 320C (a turbocharged 310), owned by a corporation in Redding, CA.[18]

        Liked by 1 person

  2. From Wiki:
    “King originally flew a Cessna T-50 Bobcat, a twin-engine wooden-framed airplane some called the “Bamboo Bomber”.[12] The craft was a World War II surplus UC-78B, owned by legendary Hollywood pilot Paul Mantz[13] and flown by employees of his Paul Mantz Aerial Services for filming the flying sequences.[14] At least two other T-50s are known to have been used for on-ground and in-the-cockpit scenes. The T-50 was grounded after episode 39 due to rot in the wooden frame. Songbird I was de-registered by the FAA in March 2018.

    The best-known Songbird was a 1957[3] twin-engine Cessna 310B used in episodes 40 through 72. It was the second production 310B (tail number N5348A), provided by Cessna at no cost to the producers and piloted by Cessna’s national sales manager for the 310, Bill Fergusson. Fergusson got the job after the motion picture pilot already selected was deemed unqualified to land the airplane at some of the off-airport sites required. Some months after a library of stock footage had been compiled, additional sequences were filmed using a different airplane.[15] Cockpit sequences were filmed using the static test fuselage, also provided by Cessna.[16] The original 310B was eventually destroyed in a crash at Delano, California, in 1962, which killed its owner-pilot.[17] A 1962 310D took its place.[3] A third 310, “Song Bird III,” was used for publicity photos. It is still flying today, making appearances at airshows in a modified Sky King livery.[3]

    As of early 2020, the Songbird’s old tail number N5348A was assigned to a Cessna 320C (a turbocharged 310), owned by a corporation in Redding, CA.[18]”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. The wings had gaps to fill and were butt-jointed. The CA is a little harder to sand off but fills gaps without shrinkage and adds strength. The PPP is really good at filling depressions and shallow seams, and can be wiped off with a wet Q-tip without damaging surrounding details. PPP is really good for addressing seams around clear parts.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  6. This is a really great build. Good enough that I think I’ll put mine back on the back of the shelf. I can’t beat this build, and yet it doesn’t capture me. Twenty years ago, I thought it would. An exceptional effort, though.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s