Author Topic: Aircraft modelers??  (Read 1626 times)

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Aircraft modelers??
« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2010, 12:20:37 PM »

I'm not a big fan of the heavily-weathered, heavy-paneled model. I spent 10 years as an aviation museum director and spent nearly all my time around vintage aircraft - they simply don't look like that.




:P
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: Aircraft modelers??
« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2010, 12:47:12 PM »
Now, to keep this photo in context, we were talking about the heavily-done panel lines and artistic shading that was applied to models, not environmental effects. And yes, there are always exceptions to the rules. USMC PTO aircraft were some of the nastiest, snarfiest looking aircraft to be seen. This is, however, the exception and not the rule.

In the scale modeling world, if you were to build this aircraft and replicate the weathering as it appears, you'd be placed in the Junior's category. Sorry, that's the slewed perception of the scale modeling community at the present time.

And yes, I spent tons of time around vintage aircraft, both museum and airworthy examples. We didn't see panels with color differentiations of 30-40% on a single panel. Its not how it looks from a distance, its not how it looks up close.

This is from a real P-40 -



So that on a scale model - and you've misapplied the decals (called silvering) and your model is out of contention for an award.

The latest trend in scale modeling is to create this completely war-torn, weather beaten model. In some cases, its acceptable, but in most its grossly overdone. The idea is not necessarily to depict accurate environmental weathering effects, rather, its to create this artistically derived artifical contrast.

My logic has always been simple... aircraft, whether factory painted or field applied, at one time or another, were immaculate and spotless at some point in their lives. It may have only been a few days, but they were clean. Unless we have specific photogrpahic evidence (such as you provided), we have little to go as to how beaten and battered an aircraft has become.

Here's an example....



This Fw-190D-9 was delivered to Stab./JG301 on December 28th of 1945. I have been told that this model is far too clean, not weathered enough. This aircraft was lost on January 14, 1945. It was a new aircraft less than three weeks old. I've seen modelers build this same aircraft and it looks like your Corsair photo. So who's more accurate in their representation? I could say this a a model of an Fw-190D-9 as it appeared on Dec. 29th, 1945. There in lies the difference between model builders and model makers. When I do an aircraft model, I try my utmost to base it on an actual aircraft. Most modelers don't do that.
Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst