| Welcome to 72nd Aircraft. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Theory of modeling; What type of modeler are you? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 28 2016, 01:19 AM (1,080 Views) | |
| Mark Schynert | Sep 28 2016, 06:46 PM Post #16 |
|
Yeast
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't assume the instructions are right unless I've got nothing to compare them to, and these days, with Google Images, you can almost always get *some* views of the subject, or something similar. The bigger issue for me, as the modeler of off-beat subjects, is that I usually don't have a decal sheet that speaks directly to the subject. So I do a lot of mixing and matching. In fact, one of the things I do before starting such a model is to determine whether I'v got decals in the scrap box or unused sheets for subjects I will never build that fulfill the needs I'll have to mark the aircraft. I'll set a potential project aside if I can't come up with decals for it. Paint schemes are less critical, as long as I have suitable paint. I frequently see conflicting images for the same airframe, which may reflect changes during the life of that airframe, but more often are simply a disagreement between sources. I make a choice and keep moving. |
![]() |
|
| softscience | Sep 28 2016, 07:03 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've become all too fussy about my modeling lately. My goal is a neat and tidy model. This doesn't mean no weathering, but it does mean no wonky rescribed panel lines, no white-glue boogers where canopies are attached, no errant smudges of pastel or oil paint from washes, etc. The distance between that goal and the reality of some of my models has led me to suspend many projects, and occasionally to bin unfinished builds, or even removed finished kits from my shelves because some little thing can no longer be overlooked (even if I'm the only one who notices it). Just look at my build counts over the last few years. In 2011, I built 20-some models, in 2012, about 15, in 2013, down to 12, 2014, also 12, 2015, only six. This year may jump back up to eight or nine. In the end I'm happier with what I produce, but sometimes I go through a lot of frustration to get there. So that would be the main point of my modeling, a neat and tidy representation of reality. As for the utmost of accuracy? I'm in the close-counts camp. But close means close, not Trump-Boss close. Sometimes I'll get hung up on a particular detail, like the canopy hinge on an F-5, or the brush guards on a sherman tank. On the other hand, precise markings are moderately important, and raised lines don't phase me at all. |
|
----------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from beautiful Maryland, Ralph K. | |
![]() |
|
| dknights | Sep 28 2016, 07:27 PM Post #18 |
![]()
The court of LAST RESORT!
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I experienced the same thing and made generally the same "compromise" that you did. |
|
David M. Knights Fortes fortuna adiuvat 14 Finished: Special Armor V-2, Airfix P-51 15 Finished: SBS Gladiator engine 16 Finished: Brengun C2 Wasserfall, Merit SS-N-2 Styx, World's smallest diorama, Airfix Hurricane. 17 Finished: Japanese Carrier Deck, 18 Finished: NONE The bench:Platz T-33, Trump. T-34/85, Meng F-106, Airfix P-51 #2, Airfix P-40 Revell MiG-21F-13, Ace Citroen V-11 | |
![]() |
|
| dknights | Sep 28 2016, 07:35 PM Post #19 |
![]()
The court of LAST RESORT!
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Rex, This is another aspect of my original post. Things become conventional wisdom (i.e. there were only two types of drop tanks used on F-4s, etc.) It seems like a fair amount of modelers will take that conventional wisdom and stick to it dogmatically, even in the face of photo evidence to the contrary. As a history buff, I enjoy finding things that shake up the conventional wisdom about an aircraft or a color scheme. Some modelers don't seem to either enjoy or care about that aspect of modeling. |
|
David M. Knights Fortes fortuna adiuvat 14 Finished: Special Armor V-2, Airfix P-51 15 Finished: SBS Gladiator engine 16 Finished: Brengun C2 Wasserfall, Merit SS-N-2 Styx, World's smallest diorama, Airfix Hurricane. 17 Finished: Japanese Carrier Deck, 18 Finished: NONE The bench:Platz T-33, Trump. T-34/85, Meng F-106, Airfix P-51 #2, Airfix P-40 Revell MiG-21F-13, Ace Citroen V-11 | |
![]() |
|
| Chuck1945 | Sep 28 2016, 09:25 PM Post #20 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Diversion here ![]() Rex, what was the third kind of drop tank? I am curious. I know all the USAF F-4C/D/E types I saw both in USAFE and then TAC had the 600G centerline tank and 370s on the wing pylons. Was it a Navy thing? or did the AF use them too and I never noticed because I saw what I expected to see? Back to the regularly scheduled topic now |
|
Chuck Eastern WA, USA Finished 2018: Eduard Spitfire IXc, VIII, Monogram/Starfighter BFC-2 On the active bench: Eduard Bf 110C, Hasegawa B-24D, SH P-40E | |
![]() |
|
| Ruudster | Sep 28 2016, 10:14 PM Post #21 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
exactly where i am usually at |
|
Ruud van der Salm SW WA OMS-IPMS, Portland OR | |
![]() |
|
| RJ Tucker | Sep 28 2016, 11:56 PM Post #22 |
|
Ack, Oop, THPPFFT Baby
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I, usually, build to a photograph of an airplane that interests me for some historical reason. I pick an aircraft at a specific point in time then pick the kit, weapons parts, decals, after market stuff etc to capture that brief point in time as a model. When I post a finished model there's, almost always, a story too. Like here: Hasegawa F-15C 58thTFS/33rdTFW That's just ma' t'ing; I reckon.
|
|
RJ Phantoms phorever! Flag Plot: My virtual model display shelf | |
![]() |
|
| dknights | Sep 28 2016, 11:59 PM Post #23 |
![]()
The court of LAST RESORT!
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I admire that system. It appeals to the history nerd in me. Do you ever get stopped on a project by a lack of information? |
|
David M. Knights Fortes fortuna adiuvat 14 Finished: Special Armor V-2, Airfix P-51 15 Finished: SBS Gladiator engine 16 Finished: Brengun C2 Wasserfall, Merit SS-N-2 Styx, World's smallest diorama, Airfix Hurricane. 17 Finished: Japanese Carrier Deck, 18 Finished: NONE The bench:Platz T-33, Trump. T-34/85, Meng F-106, Airfix P-51 #2, Airfix P-40 Revell MiG-21F-13, Ace Citroen V-11 | |
![]() |
|
| RJ Tucker | Sep 29 2016, 12:07 AM Post #24 |
|
Ack, Oop, THPPFFT Baby
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, not that I recall. I've got many on the "Do later list" because of a lack of info. But, for me the research is just as fun as the model. Go figure. |
|
RJ Phantoms phorever! Flag Plot: My virtual model display shelf | |
![]() |
|
| dknights | Sep 29 2016, 01:59 AM Post #25 |
![]()
The court of LAST RESORT!
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I completely understand. As I've said before my wife has said I am a librarian who models rather than a modeler with books. |
|
David M. Knights Fortes fortuna adiuvat 14 Finished: Special Armor V-2, Airfix P-51 15 Finished: SBS Gladiator engine 16 Finished: Brengun C2 Wasserfall, Merit SS-N-2 Styx, World's smallest diorama, Airfix Hurricane. 17 Finished: Japanese Carrier Deck, 18 Finished: NONE The bench:Platz T-33, Trump. T-34/85, Meng F-106, Airfix P-51 #2, Airfix P-40 Revell MiG-21F-13, Ace Citroen V-11 | |
![]() |
|
| Jonathan | Sep 29 2016, 05:58 PM Post #26 |
|
Destroy All Monsters
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One does ones best to ensure they are as correct as possible thru pictures or outside research, and to give modellers aftermarket quality in a kit. Sometimes something slips through, that's life. Even Dick Ward put addendum's on his sheets. |
![]() |
|
| RexTN | Sep 29 2016, 06:14 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Accidental CAG
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chuck, the "three drop tanks" I am talking about were all variations of the 370 gallon outerwing tank. A side note, there were also two different centerline tanks, even before the F-4G started carrying the "F-15 Tank" Here's a quick rundown of those outerwing tanks. First, there was the McDonnell tank. This one fit on an outerwing pylon that can carry either the tank, or a weapons adapter. Bolt bolted on and unbolted because the pylon was both "wet and wired." This tank was used by the USN, the USMC, and the early USAF versions. This the the elliptical shaped tank with a flanged joint going down the middle of both sides. Second tank was the Sgt Fletcher. This tank was bolted to a wet pylon that was "tank only", the pylon and tank had to be removed to add either the older pylon with a weapons adapter, or the USAF "weapons only" pylon. This is the tank that looks like a cylinder with caps (because that was how it was assembled) and is the one with only one side flanged, lower than on the McD tanks. The third tank is the Royal Jet, this one can be seen if pics if you see a cylinder with caps appearance, with the cylinder and flanged joint shorter than the Sgt Fletcher. That flange is in the same place on the tank, but, it is much shorter. The nose on the Royal Jet is much more streamlined than either of the others. I am still searching to see if the RJ was mounted on the McD "wet and wired" pylon, or on the Sgt F "wet only" pylon. Another variation is the since the function and connections for the tanks was exactly the same for all three, if you look closely at pics, you will occasionally see different tanks on the same aircraft,,,,,as long as you are looking at a 1966 or later photo. (1966 being the approximate date for the introduction of the Sgt F and RJ tanks) We are far more likely to see any of the three on USN and USMC aircraft,,,,,,although the McD continued to be mentioned in the 1969 TO that included the F-4D. Also, the McD tanks weren't expended as quickly as we used to assume. I have photos of them on Marine birds as late as the late 1970s. (one photo is 1979) Also, seeing the McD pylon and tank a lot when with VMFA-314, I never could understand all of the "the drop tank and pylon were one assembly" posts on the web,,,,,,,until I realized that so many Phantom Phixers on the net were USAF. Unless they were really old, they wouldn't have spent much time, if any, around the McD "wet and wired" pylon, or those tanks. This is just info that allows a modeler to add some variation to their models. I found it in the search for something different to hang out there on that outer pylon so I didn't have them all with Sgt F tanks or MERs. Tommy Ts Blog has a series of entries called "things under wings", a few of us had a discussion below his Phantom drop tank post. (Tailhook Topics) Apologies for the thread diversion, but, a question asked should be answered, haha. |
|
yep, one of each USN squadron http://hangardeckview.blogspot.com/ http://z15.invisionfree.com/Hangar_Deck_Re...dex.php?act=idx | |
![]() |
|
| Ruudster | Sep 29 2016, 06:28 PM Post #28 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i'm also like RJ, i like my model to capture a specific plane/tank or else at least a specific "feel" of a time period. I love researching and learning. I'm redoing my Bf 109E-4 for the 3rd time because it was not "right" to me. For example, my FM Bf 109G-4 started out as RA 365-1. Yet the finish was not what i had envisioned, so off with the decals and paint (Gunze Acq are very thin and easy to remove w/o damaging the kit/primer). Now it will be RA 363-6.http://www.150gct.it/static/images/Colore7_clip_image023.jpg It is an Erla (jagged wing camo!) and a trop. So i can put the trop filter on and do the cool wing camo. But no RA roundels on the wings. Give and take. This is the only picture i have found of 363-6, so that does give me a bit more artistic license. RA 365-1 will come in the future (i just picked up the 3rd Group Tres Gigi sheet :lol: ) |
|
Ruud van der Salm SW WA OMS-IPMS, Portland OR | |
![]() |
|
| Sky Keg | Sep 29 2016, 08:31 PM Post #29 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
David………… This is an excellent topic of discussion. I have enjoyed reading through all of the postings and gaining more insight. As for myself, I know there are "warts" in many of the kits that I build. I am more willing to accept somewhat "minor" discrepancies to a older generation depiction ( ex : neutral gray 75 gallon drop tanks on a P-51D circa early March, 1944 ) as opposed to more modern types. What I like about building 70`s era to present military jets is that it much easier to find accurate information. Black & white along with color photographs back during the Second World War and into the Korean War, left some debate simply due to the quality of the technology for the time period. Mixed or integrated weapons loads have become much more common on modern jets than in the past. This gives a single type much more flexibility in carrying out a mission. That helps make a subject such as an F-16 or F-18 during Operation Enduring Freedom more interesting. This has also extended to famed European types such as the Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen. Basically, I build as close to historically accurate as possible with room for my own interpretations on occasion. I look forward to more responses. Mike |
|
Sky Keg Mr Dorfman……..Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life. -Dean Wormer | |
![]() |
|
| Joe Hegedus | Sep 29 2016, 09:56 PM Post #30 |
|
Beast
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Again, it depends. If it's something I'm doing that is part of a specific project, I tend to pay more attention to specific details. In the past, I've completed a couple of largish collections to depict markings. One was a series of Hellcats and Corsairs to show the various geometric symbols used as ID markings for the fast carriers in early 1945 and another was a set of Thunderbolts and Mustangs to show the various markings used in the escort fighter squadrons assigned to the 8th AF during WWII. Since the markings were the whole point of building these models, I paid attention to the schemes and markings and tried to work from at least one photo of each subject (there were a couple that i had to take the decal manufacturer's word for it as I couldn't find a photo to verify). The markings were, in many cases, done via the "Rex Method", mixing and matching coupled with paint and masking where required. Some other projects, I happily build and use the kit schemes, particularly if I just want "representative of the type". My Hurricane IId fits this category, as do several other models in my collection. The same reasoning applies to the actual physical construction of the models. Sometimes what comes in the box is either adequate, or close enough if it's something that I'm not extremely passionate about, or overly familar with, and just what "representative of the type". Other times, it's worth the trouble to me to add minor detail differences, or things that may make a particular subject unique. |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








7:24 PM Jul 11