- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,456
- Reaction score
- 19,163
Restoring a damaged 'Advanced F-86 Sabre' desk model
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
Thanks for the replies, I thought it was an early F-100 too, but the pictures on an earlier post on this forum show the same horizontal tail layout and round intake like this one but, I could be wrong. It also has a pinched fuselage below the canopy, that is unlike an 86 or a 100. I'd like to confirm what it is.
There is no damage to the wood itself, it looks like the wood dried out and shrunk, causing the paint to 'buckle'. I added a few more pictures.
There is no damage to the wood itself, it looks like the wood dried out and shrunk, causing the paint to 'buckle'. I added a few more pictures.
Watch a few dozen hours of Baumgartner Restoration videos to get a sense of what a proper restoration can be. One can argue that a display model may or may not be as"worthy" of that level of effort (for instance, I'd have little problem fully stripping and repainting the *base* as it's simply overall black), but you can see the techniques and ideas that can be deployed.
*Pretty* sure he'd bond the paint flakes back down to the wood. Likely softening the paint thermally or chemically, but the point would be to retain as much of the original as possible.
Or he might look at it and go "what the hell is this? This is not an Old Master! This is beneath me! Begone with you!" Never can tell with art-types. That's why I'm in favor of learning how they do things, then do those things yourself when at all possible.
I think gentle use of scalpel, hypodermic and conservation-grade adhesive would be the way to go. I'd worry that heat would warp the wooden parts.
Thanks for the lead to those Baumgartner videos. Very good instructions, he has amazing talent and patience.
I need to watch more to take note of what chemicals and adhesives he uses. Certainly not a weekend project!
Thanks again for all the replies, I hope to hear more and will share its restoration progress.
I need to watch more to take note of what chemicals and adhesives he uses. Certainly not a weekend project!
Thanks again for all the replies, I hope to hear more and will share its restoration progress.
I asked a "professional factory model collector" I have had some dealings with for his thoughts on this model. He's of the view that if it was his, he'd have it stripped down to wood and entirely repainted.
It's a matter of what you want, and what your plans are. If you intend to keep it... then pretty much anything is "the right answer." If it's your intention to sell it, especially for a profit... it would be advisable to do a *lot* of research. One buyer might pay a mint for it as it is, another for it "restored," another for it completely reworked.
It's a matter of what you want, and what your plans are. If you intend to keep it... then pretty much anything is "the right answer." If it's your intention to sell it, especially for a profit... it would be advisable to do a *lot* of research. One buyer might pay a mint for it as it is, another for it "restored," another for it completely reworked.
southwestforests
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 28 June 2012
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 561
Should we place bets on whether the bare wood is appealing enough that it gets left that way?
I guess it's worth a bet! It'll be nice to get some pictures of it in the raw.
A light shell based blast or hand sand?
You might try simply peeling it off. Obviously a fair bit is barely hanging on; some of the rest might come off with tape.
If you do go that route, make sure to take excessively complete sets of photos. Not just to aid restoration, but for history.
Yes. The intended lifespan of these things was likely less than a year, long enough to win the contract. After that, the suits didn't care. The wood *should* have been completely dried before being used; sometimes it wasn't. And sometimes the dry wood ended up exposed to humidity or outright water.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 2,100
Yeah - no point in "maintaining" a dilapidated artifact in a distressed condition. What value whatsoever is there in preserving wear and tear?
"Conservation/preservation" vs "restoration." It's a matter of displaying what actually remains, vs displaying brand new stuff.
If you have HBO Max, there is currently a documentary on there called "The Craftsman." A WWII-era Higgins Boat - a landing craft used in the Pacific and at Normandy - was found in Lake Shasta in California after a drought. It was recovered and *conserved* but not restored. By any rational metric it is a rusted-out piece of junk; any effort to restore it to even *looking* like it originally did, never mind actually functioning, would be silly. It'd be easier to build a new one from scratch. But the wreck itself has historical value. The metal is largely rust; the wood id rotten. But they are the *original* metal and wood. Apparently the only extant Higgins boat with the original wood.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNC8ewzbgCs
Similarly, the video below shows the preservation of an M3 greasegun. Usually the guy restores old rusting guns to fireable condition; in this case that's impossible as it's far too corroded. It now exists solely as an interesting historical item, still clearly badly damaged.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-W7wVS8FIQ
Taking it to the extreme: lets say you found some interesting archeological find. Say, a 2,000 year old wooden board with carved hieroglyphics or runes or whatever that tells an amazing story. But the wooden board is rotten, worm-eaten, just looks terrible. Before you put it on display in the museum, do you stabilize it so it decays no further, or do you patch the holes and Bondo the surface to make it looks just like it did back in the day? I believe the right answer is "stabilize" it, and then commission the production of a replica showing how it originally looked. Display side by side.
If you have HBO Max, there is currently a documentary on there called "The Craftsman." A WWII-era Higgins Boat - a landing craft used in the Pacific and at Normandy - was found in Lake Shasta in California after a drought. It was recovered and *conserved* but not restored. By any rational metric it is a rusted-out piece of junk; any effort to restore it to even *looking* like it originally did, never mind actually functioning, would be silly. It'd be easier to build a new one from scratch. But the wreck itself has historical value. The metal is largely rust; the wood id rotten. But they are the *original* metal and wood. Apparently the only extant Higgins boat with the original wood.
Similarly, the video below shows the preservation of an M3 greasegun. Usually the guy restores old rusting guns to fireable condition; in this case that's impossible as it's far too corroded. It now exists solely as an interesting historical item, still clearly badly damaged.
Taking it to the extreme: lets say you found some interesting archeological find. Say, a 2,000 year old wooden board with carved hieroglyphics or runes or whatever that tells an amazing story. But the wooden board is rotten, worm-eaten, just looks terrible. Before you put it on display in the museum, do you stabilize it so it decays no further, or do you patch the holes and Bondo the surface to make it looks just like it did back in the day? I believe the right answer is "stabilize" it, and then commission the production of a replica showing how it originally looked. Display side by side.
Nice video links Orionbb! That M-3 is something else.
Started to peal paint slivers off of the model. A lot of it is very well adhered to the model. Going to see someone about soda blasting tomorrow, need to be careful with wood. Found magnets in the bottom of the wings for holding the underwing stores in place and notice the layers of paint on the forward wing root!
Started to peal paint slivers off of the model. A lot of it is very well adhered to the model. Going to see someone about soda blasting tomorrow, need to be careful with wood. Found magnets in the bottom of the wings for holding the underwing stores in place and notice the layers of paint on the forward wing root!
I had it glass bead blasted today. I watched him test the removal on the bottom and it was surprising how many layers of paint there were. Interesting mix of wood and notice the starboard wing wood laminates are parallel with the tailing edge, while the port wing is parallel with the leading edge. Also found additional wood plugged cuts (for magnets) of outboard underwing stores.
The last surprise was the horizontal tail plane, it's solid aluminum. Lots of 'fill-prime-sand-repeat' left to get that sweet original finish but, I'm up for it.
The last surprise was the horizontal tail plane, it's solid aluminum. Lots of 'fill-prime-sand-repeat' left to get that sweet original finish but, I'm up for it.
Attachments
That's a *rough* surface. A result of the blasting?
That is an unfortunate result. I would have stopped the moment I saw that happened to a test patch, and gone with something less destructive.
- Joined
- 18 June 2009
- Messages
- 1,290
- Reaction score
- 2,103
I've always remembered this admonishment from the Antiques Road Show: It is very sad how the character and value of a true antique has been diminished by its owner refinishing it.
I held my tounge about commenting as I had felt it is the owner's model to do with as he pleases, but after seeing the results, I am moved to reply.
If I had been offered a choice between getting the original model with its flaking paint or a perfectly finished new looking model, I would have taken the original. The original is without doubt the real deal with the flaws of age and history revealed. Anyone can get or make a new slick looking model, but this was an authentic original as built by its maker in original condition. I particularly liked the shading of the canopy and quality of the remaining finish and flaking on the stand.
The horro....
I held my tounge about commenting as I had felt it is the owner's model to do with as he pleases, but after seeing the results, I am moved to reply.
If I had been offered a choice between getting the original model with its flaking paint or a perfectly finished new looking model, I would have taken the original. The original is without doubt the real deal with the flaws of age and history revealed. Anyone can get or make a new slick looking model, but this was an authentic original as built by its maker in original condition. I particularly liked the shading of the canopy and quality of the remaining finish and flaking on the stand.
The horro....
- Joined
- 11 March 2011
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 983
I disagree Richard, there is a diminished value when something gets so bad that it presents as some awful object. I WOULD however have kept as much of the original paint on the fuselage, matched and aged the wings as best one could, and call it a day. Result........ a nice mode that cost $1487.33 to repair and restore, that would be worth $500 bucks.......
- Joined
- 11 March 2011
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 983
Oh man I have been traveling and missed this... I would have clear coated the areas that were lifting or used a thin glue..... and then masked the good areas, primed and filled, and then spent a tone of time trying to match the paint.... which is not impossible, but time consuming.
An extreme outlier: many years ago a Japanese bazillionaire bought a painting for many million... I *think a Van Gogh. He then announced that his plan was to have the painting cremated with him when he died. Art community promptly flipped it's lid. Other bazillionaires regularly buy such masterpieces and install them on yachts that can burn to the waterline or sink.
The point: a painting by Van Gogh is a one-off. Sure, it can be copied, but the thing itself is singularly historically important. A display model? Wellllllll....... there might well have been dozens or even hundreds of them. The decision to conserve vs restore, or just outright strip it and paint it as Malibu Barbie Advanced Sabre, is less hair-pulling, though lots of folks are gonna have thoughts.
FYI, here's a model I restored many a year ago:
The point: a painting by Van Gogh is a one-off. Sure, it can be copied, but the thing itself is singularly historically important. A display model? Wellllllll....... there might well have been dozens or even hundreds of them. The decision to conserve vs restore, or just outright strip it and paint it as Malibu Barbie Advanced Sabre, is less hair-pulling, though lots of folks are gonna have thoughts.
FYI, here's a model I restored many a year ago:
Apparently that stunt *increased* the value of the artwork. I guess it makes sense, as that was the work *of* the artist, as the intended outcome. Some other random yahoo come along with a boxcutter and slashed it to ribbons, the value would have been decreased. Slashed, if you will.
southwestforests
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 28 June 2012
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 561
Fascinating to see the construction method.
southwestforests
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 28 June 2012
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 561
Nicely done! Interesting comments about what it might be made from.
You need to fill in the discontinuities specifically, not rely purely on the primer. Then sand those down and prime over that. This thing should be baby-ass smooth before the paint goes on with no surface blemishes visible.
In Merriman's videos you will find many solutions... And maybe he can help with some sage professional advice.
- Joined
- 19 February 2007
- Messages
- 1,102
- Reaction score
- 1,520
You probably already know this, but OBB is correct - the reason is that the primer will shrink as it outgasses and cures. I had a problem with a project where I had areas of thick and thin primer (due to sanding). When I sprayed a final primer coat, the thicker areas swelled up showing the discontinuities again.
Filler putties have more non-volatile (well, fillers) and don't shrink as much. My advice (free advice is worth what you paid for it) is to stop and let the coats of primer outgas and cure. If you can smell it, it ain't done. Then lay in some thin putty coats where the dents and where the grain shows. Look at Merriman's thread. Let that harden up, sand and then lay in a thin primer coat. The volatiles from a thick, wet primer coat migrate to the older coats and will cause them to soften and swell.
You also need to figure out how to fix up your wing trailing edges. Allyson is an expert at that.
Oh, and if the primer is clogging up the sandpaper, it's too fresh.
Filler putties have more non-volatile (well, fillers) and don't shrink as much. My advice (free advice is worth what you paid for it) is to stop and let the coats of primer outgas and cure. If you can smell it, it ain't done. Then lay in some thin putty coats where the dents and where the grain shows. Look at Merriman's thread. Let that harden up, sand and then lay in a thin primer coat. The volatiles from a thick, wet primer coat migrate to the older coats and will cause them to soften and swell.
You also need to figure out how to fix up your wing trailing edges. Allyson is an expert at that.
Oh, and if the primer is clogging up the sandpaper, it's too fresh.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 2,100
Sounds like the real problem is that model makers of yore were using materials that really weren't intended to last for the ages. Oh well.
Thanks for the advice, I found a high-end wood filler that has the consistency of toothpaste, it works great. The surface was full of divots and deep grain streaks when I started.
It's a time-consuming process for sure
It's a time-consuming process for sure
Let it take its time. While it takes days to cure, you can use that time to watch Star Trek: TOS or Star Trek: TNG or Star Trek: DS9 or avoid watching Star Trek Discovery.
TJDougherty01
Dr. TJD
- Joined
- 30 January 2023
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 94
For decals, try here: https://www.furballaero-design.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=F-100&Submit=Search
It "may" be a wind tunnel test object. I've attached some photos of the wood models at the Pax River Museum that were indeed wood wind tunnel models.
So, it looks like an interesting artifact. Up to you how much effort you want to put into retiring it, and whether you want to add decal lines or scribe items like the ailerons and flaps on the wing and rudder movable surfaces.
It "may" be a wind tunnel test object. I've attached some photos of the wood models at the Pax River Museum that were indeed wood wind tunnel models.
So, it looks like an interesting artifact. Up to you how much effort you want to put into retiring it, and whether you want to add decal lines or scribe items like the ailerons and flaps on the wing and rudder movable surfaces.
Attachments
Last edited:
Wood wind tunnel models are usually made of *hard* woods. This model looks soft.
Similar threads
-
-
-
Question re Douglas A-4 Skyhawk & North American FJ-4B Fury/F-86 Sabre
- Started by Pioneer
- Replies: 6
-
-
Official Kill Rate for the F-86 Sabre in the Korean War- Started by Steve Pace
- Replies: 4