My main hobby is static scale model building, and it seems most of the people I know fro that hobby really agonize over colors and markings for their models. I realize that for RC modelers the fun is in the flyin', not in the painting, but I wondered how much the average RC Warbird owner cares about accuracy ?
I've seen some stuff that manufactures do that just looks so goofy. Obviously they didn't even look at a picture of the real thing.
Anyways, I bought a ParkZone Spitfire because it does look pretty good, but does have many inacurate things that could have easily been done correctly for no extra cost in the design stages. I started a web page to point out these inacuracies and to work on corrections;
The reason model manufacturers no longer provide accurate reproductions of actual aircraft is because owners of said aircraft and even the manufacturer of the full scale plane are demanding royalties be paid by the model manufacturer. So the model manufacturer puts out a model that resembles the P-51, but has markings that do not exist on any full scale aircraft and even might have a slightly different shape.
This though, doesn't prevent the end user (you and me) from making a scale plane by adding the correct markings, color schemes, etc, to make it an accurate representation.
Look at some of the articles in the Model Magazines about Top Gun, I would say these people suffer a bit of agony - and then temp fate by flying them. Not just setting them on the shelf to admire.
Larry, the odd news is that the IPMS builders? worry about building to
level of accuracy that is only judged by the IPMS? judges interpretation of what accuracy really is. Neither the contestant no the official have to PROOVE what is actually accurate!
But at the AMA/FAI COMPETITION level ALL scale builders must provid documented proof of accuracy of all details of the model includin shape, size, color, etc etc etc.
The parkzone flyer you have was not meant to be a competition leve model it was meant to be a ?sport? scale representative model of th real thing. This is equivalent to a plastic OOB build, one that i only as accurate as it comes straight out of the box.
But like I said in IPMS competition, the last thing you?re judged on i accuracy, and that is open to someone?s opinion
I do a bit of IPMS judging myself, and we are instructed not to judge accuracy in colors and markings because no judge could be an authority on all types of aircraft. The main criteria is the quality of the build- basic construction techniques that apply to all models. Only "bad" judges let personal preference or extensive knowledge of a type enter into their decision.
The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:
I have spent the last thirty years building scale sailing ship models for collectors and museums so know the efforts you have to make to satisfy not only yourself but also that of a client who is paying five figure sums for what you turn out, after two years building my latest it is off to L.A very soon ( I live in the UK) and I would hate to think that even though it is a ship model that some loony would try to float it in their bathtub.
I am just putting together the materials and equipment side of the flying hobby then i will complete the half-built model of a good sized high-wing trainer I started before moving onto the more exotic stuff, if I cant get the hang of a benign well behaved trainer whats the point of building a Mk 22 Spit or Ta 152? although many compromises have to be made in structure and power with aircraft models compared to the real aircraft it is easy enough to look through a book of WW2 aircraft photos and find a genuine prototype to work from and then do a proper job on the paint scheme, if you have spent a couple of hundred hours building it why not a couple of hours extra to finish it properly?.
Like model ships you can only see what is on the outside so do a good job of it, although most people will only see the model from 20 yards or so it has to land sometime and people always wander over to have a closer look so make it worth their while and include smaller detail and decent paintwork,
I have done a few scale models, and to get an acceptable outline is only a few hours, not a few hundred..what takes ALL the time is the detailing and painting. At which I am frankly just shy of "crap" at, mostly.
Whih is why the majority of FLYING scale models are not finished to a huge standard..its a bit specialised to do it well, and what MOST people want is a recognisable 'in the air' experience..we call it 'cartoon scale'
That is, if the model at a casual glance is recognisable as what it is supposed to represent, so you can say 'ah yes, thats a Luscombe Silvaire' or whatever, then that's enough..
It also helps if it looks good on the ground, but by and large we want to fly the things, not sit around peering at them with magnifying glasses.
Indeed.
Just don't get closer than 6 feet to my hand painted Maltese crosses on my little EIII..mind you, once long ago I was taken on a holiday on a cruise ship. Oh how white and smooth it looked..till we got to the gangplank and saw the rust pitted hull with more white paint being slapped over the corroding steelwork..
I'm in the throes of modelling a machine that had a Gypsy Major engine in it..with the beaten aluminium cowls that those had..my cowls have gaps..then I looked at the full size photos and their gaps were bigger than mine!
I felt MUCH better.
Now how to simulate the dirty trail of oily exhaust that every Gyspy Major engine leaves down the aircraft belly.. :-) Apparently two pints per hour...or is it two GALLONS per hour.
Get yourself some black or dark brown paint and an airbrush. Practice on paper or scrap pieces until you can successfully reproduce the look you want, then do it on your plane.
Actually Ive got a friend, who is a bit of a scale nut, who has an airbrush..the deal is I buy him several beers, and hand over the plane in primer, and supply the paint...and he gets to fly it.
Please note: the flared cross used by the Central Powers early in th First World War is commonly called an 'Eisenkreuz' or 'Iron Cross' i is a variation of the cross pâté. It remained in use, albeit with a overlaid swastika, as an award through WW-II. The straight cross, use at the end of the war is a 'Balken Cross' (with an 'e') or "bar" cross Please don't use Maltese for the first and Balkan (with an "a") for th second. The problem is further compounded by the transition perio between the two markings. There is much photographic evidence that th ground crews' simple solution to remarking the airplanes was t straighten the lines from the points of the Iron Cross. This formed very broad Bar Cross. At a later date, the aircraft were agai repainted to the regulation standard narrow bar cross.
I used to own an Auster that had the Gipsy Major. It used around a quart an hour or Aeroshell, and when we switched to Texaco it dropped to half a quart per hour. The tank held 12 quarts, or three gallons, A two-gallon per hour loss would be a serious thing indeed; the tank only held three gallons. There was always oil on the belly, mostly from the rocker cover overflow vents. The exhaust wasn't particulary oily. Just VERY loud.
My first ever flight was my fathers last ever flight: he rented an Auster and threw three kids in the back. Apparently I yelled until taken up into the cockpit. I was only three.
I don't remember, except I dreamt a few times of flying low over hedges and trees..maybe it was a memory..
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.