Cruver 1:72 Composition

Military ID models 1:72nd, 1:144th, 1:50th scale { Luftwaffe} and others like the Topping IDs. Bryan Brown Identification model specialist and major collector is the moderator.
Note: 1:200 and 1:432nd scales have separate forums below.

Moderator: BWBrown

Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby ramseyd » Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:18 pm

Question for the experts. I was cleaning some of my Cruver 1:72 models and washed off a Nakajima T97 NTB (Kate). When I held it up to the light, it was somewhat translucent with an amber look in a spot where there was some deformation. I could also faintly see an amber line on the wings where the aileron line would be. I bought the model 6 years ago, but had not noticed this before. It was starting to deteriorate (has not changed much if any over the last 6 years) and has the light vinegar smell. I have compared it to another Kate that has not deteriorated and the translucent one has shrunk and dried out some. I am pretty sure this is an original cruver model because I can not believe someone would mold and make one that showed damage, plus the typical smell is there.

Did Cruver produce the models in other than the black cellulose acetate and then paint some of them as the black models we are familiar with? I think I have seen clear models, but this one has a reddish amber look when you look through the wing. See photo.
ambercruver.jpg
ambercruver.jpg (56.48 KiB) Viewed 6104 times
User avatar
ramseyd
 
Posts: 115
Images: 0
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Oviedo, Fl

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby grwebster » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:13 pm

I have a few that are a swirled plastic and appear to have never been painted- I think someone told me these were part of Cruver's post war efforts to make 'camo' toys, but i haven't seen a sold color one.
When looking for pics of the swirl ones I came across a clear 1:72 Cruver 1942 P-38 like you mentioned. Do you know what these were for?
Image
Also this 1:44th B-52, What are those fuselage tabs for? Perhaps molding marks not removed at the factory?
Image
GR Webster
Central Florida, and France
grwebster@aol.com grwebster@me.com
User avatar
grwebster
 
Posts: 1779
Images: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:11 pm
Location: Central Florida and France

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby soslipstream » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:06 pm

There is a 1:72 B-24 spotter model currently on Ebay. It is either clear or translucent. Possibly its the same material. I have a 1:150 Connie on an Eastern Airlines Travel Agency aluminum ashtray that I am restoring. While restoring the tail feathers, I discovered that It is an early translucent plastic. It appears to be injection molded and, due to the early airplane design, I would date right around 1946-1950.

Regards, Tom Sanders
User avatar
soslipstream
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:16 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby ramseyd » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:21 pm

Tom,
The B-24 listed (item No. 400098839758) has a wingspan of 12.5 inches. My Cruver B-24 1:72 wingspan is about 18.3 inches, so not sure who made this, but certainly not made with the Cruver molds.

The Kate model would appear to be a war-time model, but I am starting to have doubts. I had always assumed that you could identify a "true" Cruver from a recast by shaving/scratching a small amount of the cellulose acetate (or plastic from the recasts) from the hanging hole. When I did this for this model, I do not get the typical black residue, but a non-black plastic-like substance. And the translucent amber color can also be seen in the horizontal and vertical stabilizers which leads me to believe the entire model would be translucent if I wanted to remove all the paint. I did NOT notice the vinegar smell today (I have kept this plane away from any other Cruvers for several days). I am leaning towards this being a recast, but it is deformed/shrunk like the old Cruvers do. Guess someone made a recast from whatever they had and then painted it black? Odd to make one from a degraded model, though. Dennis
User avatar
ramseyd
 
Posts: 115
Images: 0
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Oviedo, Fl

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby soslipstream » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:42 pm

I agree that recasting an old model sounds funky, but, could they have recast it for another reason. Could the original production have produced flawed airplanes that they ran through the process again in the hopes of meeting a production deadline? Could they have already discovered that the acetate based process created a model that had a shelf life and were already working out options. Considering that these ended up in all kinds of climates, possibly they were informed of a problem and simply tested various solutions.

How exactly were these molded? Was it an injection or press forming? I always suspected that release agents used on the molds may have intiated the acetate breakdown process.

Regards, Tom
User avatar
soslipstream
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:16 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby BWBrown » Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:23 pm

Hi Everyone -
I've been gone this past week, and unable to check emails. Anyway, let me clear up some of the questions posed in this recent conversation thread. When Cruver began producing models, the MIL-SPECS called for the addition of lamp black to the cellulose acetate mix. The models weren't originally intended to be painted. When the first models came out, the unpainted models were too reflective. If you have ever held an unpainted model, you have seen the somewhat glossy nature of the item. The MIL-SPECS were revised to change production techniques so that the models were dipped in flat black lacquer. Manufacturers continued to add lamp black to their plastic mixtures, simply because the specifications still called for it. They weren't religious about this, however, and sometimes did not bother. Models came in all kinds of colors under the black paint. While most are black, I have models in clear, like the P-38 shown, amber, pink, robin's egg blue, etc.

Then there are the variegated models, which are known as having a "bowling ball" look. See the P-47 shown. At the time, the necessary raw materials to produce cellulose acetate were in short supply. Cruver was melting down toothbrushes, hair brushes, and the knobs off the dashboards of old cars. Anything to get raw material. These pieces were simply stirred together, resulting in the swirled effect. Scraps were swept up off the floor and reused, as well.

P-47A.jpg
P-47A.jpg (121.69 KiB) Viewed 6066 times


Keep in mind that the models were intended to have only a 5-year life. Impurities and vagaries in the chemical mix were tolerated. Quality standards could not be enforced under wartime conditions. The fact that so many of the models have survived to the present day, and will continue to survive long past any of us, is remarkable.

A few of the clear models were carefully painted in full camouflage coloration, with appropriate decals. This allowed light to shine through all of the windows, and made the model look very realistic. Perhaps these were used as photographic models, since obviously it would be easier to pose a realistic-looking 1/72-scale model against a variety of backdrops than to try to photograph a real plane in similar settings. I have some old recognition training photos, cards, etc., which I will try to find. These are very early, and show what are clearly painted Cruver models (the early P-47 is unmistakable!) posed against a simulated sky/cloud background.

EBAY 105A.jpg
EBAY 105A.jpg (101.47 KiB) Viewed 6066 times


So.... I think all of the models pictured, as well as all of those described by the various commentators, are "real". Let's face it, if you have a black model with a 1942 date, there is absolutely no way to tell if the model was produced in 1942, or 1947, or anywhere in between. The odds are that it is probably from 1946-7, anyway, since with the war over Cruver had an easier time obtaining raw materials. Chemically-stable models are more likely to date from this early postwar era. Cruver stopped producing wartime models by 1948, as production ramped up for models in the postwar series.

The same molds were used during this entire time 1942-1947 frame. Furthermore the dates on the model weren't changed even when the mold was modified to produce a different variation. For example, there are three different versions of the A-31 Vengeance, but all 3 have the same July 1942 date. There is a model of the P-40F, too, but the model is marked P-40E. Cruver modified the mold but never bothered to modify the markings. If you like P-40's, then look for both!

Hope some of this helped! Write with any questions.

Happy New Year to all! -- Bryan
BWBrown
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:03 pm

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby MichaelB » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:31 pm

Yes! Thank you for that information...and that B-17 is lovely! Did you restore it, or is that still original?
Michael
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 1298
Images: 33
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:57 pm

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby ramseyd » Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:09 pm

Bryan,
Good info. Thanks for setting us straight. I thought I had read somewhere (and you could be the source) that the first model year quality was pretty good, so the real early models held up, but during the middle years, the factory cut corners and these are the ones most subject to deterioration and ""rot". The last year of so models were back to fairly good quality and also hold up better. I have seen exceptions to the above for every year, but wonder if this has to do more with how they were stored than when they were produced. Cellulose acetate does not deteriorate as much in cold conditions as it does in hot conditions. Old film stock is also make from the cellulose acetate, and you may have seen programs on Discovery, or the History channel on TV regarding the efforts to save. They found a horde of old films in Alaska that had been dumped in the bottom of an old swimming pool as filler. Many rare films with no other copies known were found. They were in great shape as they were all frozen for decades. The message there, keep the ID model cool. Heat is the killer.

Also, what is the difference between the two different P40s (E to F) in the cruver models. From what I can read the F removed the intake from the top of the engine, so would guess this might be a noticeable difference. From some pictures it also looks like the F also added a trim tab to the top of the ailerons plus a panel on the top of the wings near the cockpit.
Dennis
User avatar
ramseyd
 
Posts: 115
Images: 0
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Oviedo, Fl

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby BWBrown » Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:40 pm

That particular B-17 I sent out for a professional restoration. It was in pretty bad shape when I got it. Then I found a different one. Pictures follow. This one has not been restored. They seem to have been done at different times because of the change in the national insignia. Also, the paint scheme is slightly different, with the red rudder and the black prop hubs.

DSCN1769A.jpg
DSCN1769A.jpg (106.84 KiB) Viewed 6062 times


DSCN1767A.jpg
DSCN1767A.jpg (103.26 KiB) Viewed 6062 times


With respect to the P-40E vs. the P-40F, the difference that is most immediately apparent is the protruding "knees" on the E model. The radiator inlet is different, as is the top of the cowling, where the E model has an intake that the F model is lacking. First photo shows the E on the left and the F on the right.

E-FA.jpg
E-FA.jpg (61.06 KiB) Viewed 6062 times


This photo compares the F-N-E models, from left to right.

F-N-EA.jpg
F-N-EA.jpg (140.98 KiB) Viewed 6062 times


Regards! -- Bryan
BWBrown
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:03 pm

Re: Cruver 1:72 Composition

Postby grwebster » Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:17 pm

excellent posts, many thanks to all.
GR Webster
Central Florida, and France
grwebster@aol.com grwebster@me.com
User avatar
grwebster
 
Posts: 1779
Images: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:11 pm
Location: Central Florida and France


Return to Identification/Recognition Models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest