And here we modelers are, trying to make the sharpest lines on our invasion plane models.
Take a look at how it's done in real.
Indeed, this again resurfaces the issues with weathering, darkening seams and panel lines, etc. There are two schools of modeling- one that we model as if the manufacturers of prototypes could have produced perfect specimans to their original prints, and the model depicts the day it left the factory.
The other school wants to model prototypes that are in field service, with all the chips, dents, poor fitting panels, dirt, exhaust and oil stains, etc.
I admire the armour builders for their hand decorated markings, and would like to try that sometimes, but don't have the guts to do it on model, but don't have a printer that can make white decals (no, I am not going to search for and purchase one that does).
There's a very fine line that modellers walk sometimes. We know that temporary markings like these were less than perfect, but just how far do we go to portray them accurately? In many cases, an accurate portrayal will jsut look like slapdash modelling.
Quite a few years ago, I built a Heller Messerchmitt Bf-109K. I had found an interesting colour scheme in Scale Models magazine which showed an aircraft with a very sparse mottle on the fuselage sides and a hand-painted code number of 206 aft of the fuselage Balkenkreuze. I faithfully replicated the crooked hand-painted numbering style and was very pleased with the result. Unfortunately, when I displayed it at the next meeting of my modelling club, it caused some raised eyebrows. I was taken to one side by the club guru (the club was on an RAF station, so the guru was *always* right simply because he was a squadron leader) who asked me in a very patronising manner "Couldn't you have found some suitable decals? That's really not the standard we aim for here." LOL
Railway modellers have similar problems. Have a look at photographs of some steam locomotives. Sometimes you will see them with cabs that are so out-of-true that they look like ricketty garden sheds! I once tried replicating this, once again working from a photo, but the result looked so dreadful that I pulled the cab apart and rebuilt it using a set-square!
...they pretty-up a lot of nose art, too. Particularly the more modern stuff.
"Enzo Matrix" wrote in news:7Jednd5kibZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
I know, I'm not saying we're doin'it wrong, it was just a very nice example . You can also see lots of pictures (and in real life) of airplane stressed metal skins that look more like a washingboard. But if you replicated that on a model, you'ld definately not have a show winner. A show stopper maybe, but no winner!
quick and dirty works for me. most likely the job was given to some private with a bucket and a brush. probably later after D-Day did they take more care in painting the lines.
Craig
B-52's have forward fuselages that look like they are made out recycled aluminum foil. This thing was a real terror of stressed-skin construction:
Pat
I went to a show a few years ago that had aircraft on display that looked like a half-blind drunken monkey painted them. I knew of the guy that built them, and was fairly sure of his level of talent, so I knew something was up. When the judges came by and just gave them the wide-eyed stare and shook their heads and turned to move on, a teenager walked over and laid some pictures on the table next to the planes. The judges looked at the pics then the planes and then at one another. For the four planes, there were three golds and a silver award handed out. When queried about the silver, the judge said the builder had forgotten a couple dents. The point would be that no matter how you build something, if it has odd features of whatever type, have documentation to cover it.
I used to judge flying model scale contests. Half the score was for the static judging, half for the flying. In the static judging, you were REQUIRED to supply documentation, including three-views. If no documentation, zero scale points.
I think this would be a good idea for plastic scale too. Too often the judging depends on the judge's memory and familiarity with the subject. In any group of half dozen or less judges, you are not going to find judges familiar with EVERY aircraft (or ship or tank or car) in history. In so many cases if it looks reasonable it is considered to be scale. But indeed if someone enters a really authentic model that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of what certain aircraft look like, the entrant really suffers, no matter how authentic the model.
That approach sounds logical - at first - but it is a bit "authortarian" when you rethink it. The safest and most civil approach: accept the idea that the artist/builder has done more research on the particular subject, than the judges have. (This is true in the vast majority of the cases - and at a higher percentage than "this here judge knows the subject matter.") Forget about looking for "accuracy." (Of course, exceptions can be made, but for only the blatantly obvious - such as a wing sloppily glued on upside down...the odds of documentation surfacing for *that*, we can agree, are about a bazillion to one.)
I guess what I am getting at is that many scoring systems have seperate sections for workmanship and fidelity to scale. It is very hard for most judges without some documentation to judge the fidelity to scale. Thus, what gets judged is ONLY the workmanship. That being the case, I think we should either require documentation or else make judging ONLY workmanship.
And the same applies to ships. I was reminded of this while rewatching "Destroyer - Forged in Steel" on the History Channel (I think) and noting the uneven sides of the abovedeck structures on a newly built ship.
The WWII and post war destroyer's hull plates at the rear were always rumpled and you could see where the frames were. This was probably due to water pressure, as the destroyers spend a lot of time under water in rough seas.
really? so they crumple like beer cans?
on 11/2/2007 11:05 PM snipped-for-privacy@some.domain said the following:
No. Not that bad. Just buckled in a little between framing members. Even the Cruisers had some buckling, but not as bad as the lighter hulled Destroyers. I tried to find some pics through Google, but was unsuccessful. I spent two years on a Cruiser in the Med and many destroyers came alongside for transfers, replenishment, and to top off their oil from our ship when the fleet oilers were not around. I got a boatload of 35mm transparencies of my time at sea, including some rough water pics taken from the upper bridge. One day, I may scan them into usable web pics.
ok, thanks.
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.