Are kits with raised panel lines junk?
LICIN
everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
So here are my questions.
1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
junk?
Just Curious to find out.
Cheers,
Max Bryant
Al Superczynski
>1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
Nope.
>2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
>junk?
Not necessarily - depends on the specific kit.
Al Superczynski, MFE
IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
Check out my want and disposal lists at "Al's Place":
http://www.up-link.net/~modeleral
"Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to,
and the critics will flame you every time."
pcmodeler
to much of the panel lines at the seams and it doesn't take to a wash the
way engraved lines do. I do on occasion rescribe the lines if I really want
to build the kit. It makes a huge difference.
--
Mark F.
http://www.pcmodeler.com
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda
LICIN <li...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990411164646...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> Hi Guys,
> everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available
on a
> subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still
accurate
> alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel
lines
> the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
> So here are my questions.
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
> 2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as
unbuildable
> junk?
>
Joe Hegedus
>
> Hi Guys,
> everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
> the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
That's the "model snobs" talking. Nothing against state of the art
kits, but there are lots of older kits that I think are worth the time
and effort to build. Raised panel lines do not a poor kit make.
Granted, there are some kits that have raised panel lines that are
atrocious, but there are also kits with recessed lines that are just as
bad. There are several Monogram kits that have raised panel lines that
are just as accurate (compare apples to apples, and consider the
aircraft configuration when the kit was first tooled) as later kits that
have recessed lines, and the newer kits don't necessarily have better
fit or detail. And, Monogram jet kits typically have very nice missiles
included, so you don't have to go buy another kit just to put basic
stores on your model (unlike a certain other company who shall remain
nameless).
> So here are my questions.
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
Absolutely not. How else are you going to build 1/48 F-101's, F-105's,
F-102's and 106's, or 1/48 US bombers, or a host of other subjects that
don't seem to be of interest to the other companies because they aren't
P-51's, Spitfires, or yet another Me-109 or Fw-190 version.
> 2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
> junk?
>
To some, perhaps, but not here!
Joe
Cradlets
there is a bead of sealant run down the cracks to seal them and it makes a
definitely raised line. Many models are somewhat overscale on this, but it is
still more accurate than engraved lines on many types of aircraft. The
panels I sealed and saw sealed back when I was an avionics tech in the USAF and
for an airline after I separated, had a bead of sealant about 1/4 inch wide
that was anywhere from practically flush to raised around 1/16 inch as I
recall. This is most common on bombers and cargo jets, but you'll find many
raised lines on fighters too. We used masking tape to mask on either side of
the panel line where ever we could but occasionally (on the horzontal stab
bullet on C-141Bs when we replaced the HF radio coupler most notably) we just
ran the bead of sealant freehand, it looked pretty messy up close.
A general rule of thumb was if the panel had quick opening fasteners it would
be an engraved line, but if it was a panel screwed into place it would be
sealed. F-4s had rubber gasket material on the supporting structure under the
removeable panels so we didn't seal them, but many of the permanently attached
riveted-on skin panels had a raised bead where the panels abutted each other.
Todd Enlund has said that F-15s also have many raised panel lines too,
especially on the upper surfaces of the wings and top of the fuselage as I
recall.
Personally, if the model has raised lines, as long as they aren't TOO heavy
I leave 'em as is.
Scott Wilson
Doug Devers
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
Absolutely not. Heck, I build two 'old-tech' kits (at least) for every new
release.
> 2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as
unbuildable
> junk?
Not to me. I don't build for contests, and from an arm's length away, who
can tell. Everybody gets something different from this hobby, and I build
'em for fun. Engraved, raised, whatever-don't care. Besides, I've never
really cared for the "fill the panel lines with a dark wash" look, anyway.
Unless they're FILTHY, real planes don't look like that.
-Doug
"Did you hear about the dyslexic,
agnostic insomniac who stays up
all night wondering if there really is a Dog?"
-Anonymous
UmTutSut
>everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available
on a
>subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
>alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel
lines
>the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
unbuildable
>junk?
No. No. (I'd add a few more, but there are only two questions....)
Of course, the choice is up to the individual modeler; but the fact is that
the *only*
kits of some subjects in my scale (1:72) are old kits with raised panel
lines (e.g., A-26,
TBD, F-82, F-80). I think my completed kits stand up well against anyone's,
even those
with recessed lines. And if someone absolutely positively has to have
recessed panel
lines, they can always sand off the raised ones and rescribe.
Les
OSTIAANTIC
<<lines?>>
Not at all. In 1/72 scale, many of my favorite kits have raised panel
lines (Hasegawa F4U and others, Heller kits). There are many older kits that
would benefit from sanding, and some just plain need to be rescribed because
they have many large rivets (Airfix A-26). It depends on the kit in question.
<<2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as>>
<<unbuildable>>
<<junk?>>
To me, it depends on the kit, but as a rule, unless the kit has serious
shape flaws they can still be fun to build, with a little added work.
Most importantly, if you enjoy the kit, it's a good kit.
Ron
WSchurr
is right; the real thing isn't all that smooth and pretty. I drilled w/the
reserves this weeked and I noticed an E2 on the transient line. I walked down
and crawled all over it. It really was a study in smoothness (or lack of) and
weathering. The wing tip lights were all fogged over like they'd been glued in
w/super glue, panel sealant was all over, the de-icing boots were really shiney
gray, the side number on the nose was crooked and to top it off, a big hunk of
rubber rain seal was hanging off of one of the main gear doors. If we as
modelers built a replica like this we'd be slain by the judges! Guys that sand
off and rescribe are to be commneded but I can never get the scibed stuff a
consistent depth or around odd shapes. I decided it ain't worht it. I've got
Mono jets like the 105, 6 an A 6 that look just fine w/raised detail. Hells
Bells, alot of time when I rescribe it looks more raised any flippin' way!!!
Bill
Greas
prefer them to the overpriced, overengineered creatures of
the niche that seem to proliferate today...gimme scrap
plastic, a spares box and some imagination anyday... ;)
jsa
(course I'm still buildin down a herd of stuff from way back
when...)
LICIN wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
> everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
> the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
> So here are my questions.
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
> 2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
> junk?
>
Ron Smith
the subject isn't available with recessed lines then I rescribe.
2) I still the Monogram Mosquito is a hell of a good model and can be
made better with a few add ons.........and their P-39 is a damn nice
kit......the original release dates are 1965 and 1969
respectively.........BTW that Mossie has recessed lines and always had
them (although there are a couple of raised lines too).
E McCann
> Hi Guys,
> everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
> the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
> So here are my questions.
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
Don't care one way or the other. As long as "raised" doesn't mean "1/2
inch wide and tall," if the kit itself is fine, I'll build it.
> 2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
> junk?
Two words:
Monogram A-10.
OK, a few more words. There were other 1/48 A-10 kits out there, but the
Monogram kit was always considered the most accurate model of a
*production* A-10 available. (The Tamiya kit was of the prototype, IIRC.)
And the Mono. kit has raised panel lines. It's also a lot of fun to build,
and (at $13 at WalMart) cheaper than Tamigawa.
The big deal with raised lines is (primarily) that they're harder to
*replace* when they get sanded off - and they do get sanded off. It's
easier to rescribe an engraved line, than stretch sprue to the same
thickness and line it up well (and glue it down.) It can be done, it's
just more of a pain.
At the same time, FSM had an article 2-3 months ago (I think) on working
with raised panel lines. The author *deliberately* sanded them down after
painting in order to bring out the panel line detail - sort of an
anti-wash technique, and it looked good on the kit he used.
Just my 2 cents.
-E McCann
emc...@iag.net
E McCann
The one time I can say I *wouldn't* build the kit is if it's one of the
(very old) ones with raised "panel lines" for where the decals should go.
Yes, I've built them - many years ago (well over a decade) but then again,
if the kit itself were accurate in general - well, there's always
sandpaper. That's the ONLY time I think they detract from a model.
-E McCann
emc...@iag.net
Mike
>
> Hi Guys,
> everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
> the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
Some people like the ease of building the newer kits. They require less
work to repair panel lines or in getting a good fit in most cases. Some
consider these people 'assemblers' and not model builders but most
likely they just like to have fun building a model and displaying it
without spending months building it. I guess I've got a foot in both
schools, I sometimes spend a great deal of time on one kit and the next
I may build right out of the box just for the fun of it.
> So here are my questions.
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
Nope. Just got in with five kits, all raised lines. I most likely will
rescribe them though. I'd say about 1/3 of my 100+ kit collection have
raised lines. Built one with both, the line would be recessed and then
right in the middle of the panel would suddenly be raised! Strange.:)
> 2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
> junk?
Try finding some of the subjects available in some of the older
Monogram 1/48 kits anywhere else. If there are any they are in many
cases less accurate then the older kits even though they have recessed
lines. One example is the Monogram P-47 Razorback, I've been told by at
least half a dozen much more knowledgable people than I that it is by
far the most accurate(in shape) P-47 kit available and you can buy four
of them for the same price as the new Hasegawa kit.
I personally prefer recessed panel lines because they are easier to
work with, especially if the fit of the kit is not all that good.
However I do find that sometimes the lines are far too pronounced. I
don't consider the arguement of which type are more accurate because I
find the panel line to be a way to highlight the panel. I've tried to
just paint the individual panels onto a kit with no lines of either type
and I didn't think it 'looked' good. This is just a bit of artistic
license as far as I'm concerned; _I_ think it looks good and that's all
that counts to me.
--
Mike Dougherty
Toronto, Ont.
Canada
IPMS C4928
"Uh oh....."
- famous last words
Mike Settle
>
> Hi Guys,
> everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
> the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
> junk?
>
> Cheers,
> Max Bryant
Answers, short and sweet:
1. No, I don't.
2. Not by me.
--
Mike Settle
Rama Lama Watt Da Ell
Temple of Mangled Plastic
Temple Procrastinator of Model Completion
Never argue with an idiot. It only drags you down to their level, then
they beat you with experience.
Dave Stein
:P
--
And St. Attila raised the hand grenade up on high saying,
"Oh, Lord. Bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou
mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.".
And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs
and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast
cereals and fruit bats....
- Armaments Ch. 2 Verses 9-21
AHorv43767
good-looking model than one with recessed lines.
I build 1/72. In 1/72, all recessed panel lines on current kits, yes all of
them, whether Hasegawa or Promodeler or Academy or whatever, are grossly
out-of-scale trenches. I know they are fashionable but to me they look stupid.
The correct look is to start with a smooth surface and cut a line that can
barely be seen under the paint, maybe even obscured by the paint in some
places. This is easy to do when you start by sanding off raised detail. Not
so easy when you have to fill in recessed detail.
To each his own, of course. I personally think the quality of modern kits is
much overstated and older kits with raised detail are often as good, sometimes
better.
August
KDur597268
>*replace* when they get sanded off - and they do get sanded off. It's
>easier to rescribe an engraved line, than stretch sprue to the same
>thickness and line it up well (and glue it down.) It can be done, it's
>just more of a pain.
Exactly. This is my primary gripe with raised lines. Around seams where
sanding is inevitable (especially on SOME kits! ;-)) it's much easier to
reconnect lines with a scriber. Surprised more folks haven't brought this up.
>At the same time, FSM had an article 2-3 months ago (I think) on working
>with raised panel lines. The author *deliberately* sanded them down after
>painting in order
Agreed. I've done this on many kits. Monogram P-40, F-101. Choose your
base color carefully, overpaint with main color and very lightly sand over
raised lines to reveal base color. In some cases it has even looked good to
have the "neutral gray" of the plastic showing through when sanded *flush* with
the surrounding paint. Kind of an inlay effect. Just depends on the color
combo.
AS many people have pointed out, the overall quality of the kit is more
important to me. The Monogram F-106 comes to mind. Has very petite raised
lines that I think look super after painting.
I am JUST as likely to fill and rescribe a kit that has its recessed panel
lines overdone. Like the Heller DC-6. I'm convertiong it to a C-54 anyway,
but even if I was leaving it, and even if the panel lines were in the right
place (as is they are a wild guess) they are wa-a-a-y too deep and wide.
Yeah, it is a LOT of work, and I have a Hobbycraft SeaFury that's waiting for
me to gird my loins and fill and rescribe....
Ken Durling
IPMS NorCal
PPSEL
Larry Grapentine
Heck no, bring 'em on. A lot of them lines need to be sanded down
a bit so they are not to tall, but the old kits are cheap, and fun to
scratch build your own detail. I go the the model swap meets and pick
up old 1/48 scale aircraft kits for an avarage of probably 7 bucks. I
sure as hell don't want to go buy a 30 dollar kit, another wad of
cash for resin detail parts, 8 bucks for decals. I like to create
my own
detail parts from white styrene stock, wire, small tubing, sprue,
ect. I did get some generic Reheat seat belt buckles, instrument
bezels, and instrument decals. There is enough stuff on the 8 dollar
Reheat package to do at least 10 models!
Does my scratch built detaling lookas good as the resin and etched
brass detail sets I
see in Scale Avation Modeler? Well, hell no it don't, but at least
I can say It's all my own. Don't get me wrong, theres nothing wrong
with buying stuff for the hobby you love, and making super detailed
models, but I certainly don't feel like an inferior model for not
going that route, although I probably won't be winning any contests!
I did win first, second and third place in every Larry's House
Model Shelf Contest ever held, however!
Larry
>Hi Guys,
>everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
>subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
>alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
>the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
>So here are my questions.
>1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
>2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
>junk?
>
>Just Curious to find out.
>Cheers,
>Max Bryant
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Visit my scale model web site for model photos
and a P39 paper model- free download
http://www.primenet.com/~grapent/
or ftp at:
ftp.primenet.com/users/g/grapent/
file name: p39mod.zip
E-mail: gra...@primenet.com
Larry Grapentine
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
----------------------------------------------------------
Sunil Gupta
Joe Hegedus <heg...@us.hsanet.net> wrote in message
news:371112...@us.hsanet.net...
> There are several Monogram kits that have raised panel lines that
> are just as accurate (compare apples to apples, and consider the
> aircraft configuration when the kit was first tooled) as later kits that
> have recessed lines, and the newer kits don't necessarily have better
> fit or detail.
Joe is right on here. For example take a look at the panel lines on
Monogram's various A-4 incarnations... wow!
My 2cents on the subject: I'll build the kit and rescribe it if it's too
bad (for example Testor's U-2R).
Sunil
Stephen Tontoni
(LICIN) wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised
panel lines
> the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
> So here are my questions.
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
> 2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
> junk?
>
One other thing that I haven't seen out there yet; if you have a kit with
raised panel lines, it is a simple matter to sand them off. On the other
hand, if you have a kit with bad recessed lines, you have a LOT more work
ahead of you. You need to fill and then sand.
Of course, with many aircraft, I'd just as soon sand and be done with it.
Panel lines on a 1/144th airliner, for example; WHY? My two cents.
--
Stephen Tontoni
ton...@halcyon.com
Seattle, Washington
Dan Winfield
"Hey Mon-key, that looks like shit, look at those raised panel lines, and
look at that seam you didn't fill and look at that....BLANG!!!!!" Of course
it put quiet a dent in my bed pan, but the doctor said it was very therapeutic,
but I might have gone just a bit too far painting "Bite Me" in OD on his forehead,
but none the less......
Dan's Mon-key
OXMORON1
>but I might have gone just a bit too far painting "Bite Me" in OD on his
>forehead,
>but none the less......
Couple of questions...
Brush or airbrush, gloss or flat, scale paint adjustment or straight out of the
bottle?
What did you use for a mask, NO not the Lone Ranger Mask?
Oxmoron1
CharlesH
etc kits.
Buy them, sand smooth and paint, or if you want rescribe.
Charlie
Mike
> One other thing that I haven't seen out there yet; if you have a kit with
> raised panel lines, it is a simple matter to sand them off. On the other
> hand, if you have a kit with bad recessed lines, you have a LOT more work
> ahead of you. You need to fill and then sand.
Actually I was just going to add this very comment when I read this. I
was primarily thinking of all the work invovled in filling all the rain
gutters on the Monogram 1/48 B-1!
Joe Jefferson
>
> LICIN wrote:
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> > everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> > subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> > alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
> > the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
>
> kits, but there are lots of older kits that I think are worth the time
> and effort to build. Raised panel lines do not a poor kit make.
> Granted, there are some kits that have raised panel lines that are
> bad. There are several Monogram kits that have raised panel lines that
> are just as accurate (compare apples to apples, and consider the
> aircraft configuration when the kit was first tooled) as later kits that
> have recessed lines, and the newer kits don't necessarily have better
> included, so you don't have to go buy another kit just to put basic
> stores on your model (unlike a certain other company who shall remain
> nameless).
>
> > 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
>
> F-102's and 106's, or 1/48 US bombers, or a host of other subjects that
> don't seem to be of interest to the other companies because they aren't
> P-51's, Spitfires, or yet another Me-109 or Fw-190 version.
>
> > junk?
> >
>
>
> Joe
I agree completely. Sitting in my closet waiting to be started is an old
1/48 Monogram P-61. I haven't checked to see if there's another P-61
available from someone else with recessed panel lines, but even if there
is so what? I've already _got_ this one. Why spend money for something
else that no doubt has problems of its own? Not everybody can afford the
latest high tech kits with every aftermarket part ever made, but I think
I have just as much fun anyway.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated August 8th, 1998.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Dan Winfield
Ahhh good question, where should I start.....lets see, wellllll, airbrush of
course, definitely flat, definitely no mask, hey did you know that Tonto means
dumbass, hey I didn't say I said that, I said that they said that, ahhhhh....
Oh look, in Websters New Dictionary it says Tonto means "Bite Me", do tellll..
Dan's Mon-key
OXMORON1
>hey did you know that Tonto means
>dumbass, hey I didn't say I said that, I said that they said that, ahhhhh....
Listen Kemosabe, if Dano finds out you have been stealing computer time again
your anal area will be nailed to the underpass on Interstate 64.
Oxmoron1
MFE
Was Tom Mix's horse called Cement?
Cradlets
real aircraft? Does a real B-17, B-24, B-29 etc. have raised sealant lines on
the wings for the fuel tanks or did they always use bladders then? Did the
B-29 have sealant on the pressurized cabin area panel lines?
For what it's worth, I remember a training film from the early 60s I saw in
the USAF that showed them sealing the panels on a T-39 and a few other jets I
don't recall just now (bare metal T-37 I think but I couldn't swear to that
one). Also I once saw a close up overhead view of a natural metal B-727 nose,
and the panels had that same black sealant we used in the USAF and on the
airliners I worked on for awhile after I separated. I still say unless
overdone, raised lines on a model are frequently more accurate than scribed, at
least on aircraft since the 60s.
Scott Wilson
Scott Hemsley
>
> > Hi Guys,
> > everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> > subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> > alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
> > the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
> > 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
Nope.
> > 2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as unbuildable
> > junk?
Not only do I model in 1/72, but I grew up building the likes of Airfix & Frog,
kits. Scribing isn't out of the question either, at least for me. Some, kits
featuring raised lines may be (IMO) superior to newer releases offering receased
lines.
In at least one case I can think of, raised lines are correct (I made the error of
scribing before I got to examine the real thing!). If you're contemplating a
Haseagwa P-3/CP-140 ........ (the panel lines on a CP-140 fuselage almost appear as
raised welds. Any rms'ers confirm if they are 'welds' or just filled in an effort to
combat salt-corrossion?)
Scott
Mike
> Somehow, Max, I suspect this is a follow through on the
> Monogram/Academy Tomcat thread. First off, I don't think the Monogram
> F-14 is a "hunk of crap" or "unbuildable junk" just because it has
> "raised panel lines." I just think it's inferior to the Academy
> version, and not just for its panel detail. That said, if this were
> any time before 1988, when the Academy kit was released, I'd have no
> trouble recommending the Monogram kit. It surely was the best for its
> time.
I've always heard from the nitpickers that the Monogram kit is the most
accurate shapewise 1/48 kit of the F-15. It's also the only one I've
built so I can't comment on the others from experience.
pjs
So... I'm building a 1/72 Airfix F-105 Wild Weasel. Can I just sand off
all that raised detail and not worry about putting it back becuase it
would be too small to see anyway? What do you think?
David de Ryck
down in flames. There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether a kit
with raised panel lines is junk or not. From a personal point of view, I
model for the enjoyment of it. I will build any kit of any subject, with
a preference for 1/48th scale aircraft, if it is a model of something I
want. I can appreciate that raised panel lines are not technically
correct in the sense of scale accuracy but in then end where does your
model end up; either on a shelf or if your lucky enough in a cupboard,
mostly away from general view; and if viewed are normally only admired
either by yourself, a family member, or the odd passing visitor. How many
visitors come into your home and start telling you that your models are
incorrect because they have raised panel lines? To me having a completed
model of a subject that I like in my cupboard if satisfaction enough. My
final point to ponder, is that unless you enjoy building only kits of
subjects from the WW2 and period shortly thereafter, then an older kit with
raised panel lines is your only option available. But then again that's
my opinion and I'm definitely not a rivet counter.
David de Ryck
Perth Australia
Mike
>
> This is the first time I've written to this group so don't all shoot me
> down in flames.
Hey what's that above your head? Looks like a napalm canister!:)
Jonathan Mock
There are some very good kits out there with rasied panel lines (Monogram,
Heller etc...) and the decision whether to rescribe is up to the modeller.
Recessed detail is preferable and mostly the norm with new kits today, but
rasied panel kits should not be termed "junk".
--
Jonathan Mock
³Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...²
CharlesH
Sand the model smooth correct all joints then using MEK VERY VERY LIGHTLY
paint your model with a paint brush. For some reason where a raised panel
line was the plastic sinks ever so slighlty. An airbrush coat of paint over
that and it is perceptable in the corrcet light. No you wont be able to
highlight your panels using washes and if you rub smooth and redo it the
effect is lost, thats why I say do it once construction etc is completed.
Mind you MEK can remove your filler as well. I also scribe removable panels
as well when using this technique.
I strongly suggest you practise this before using it on your latest
masterpiece.
Charlie
Jonathan Mock <jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-ya0...@news.ukonline.co.uk...
Jnoack
(Cradlets) writes:
>Anyone out there know just when they started using sealant on panel lines on
>real aircraft? Does a real B-17, B-24, B-29 etc. have raised sealant lines
>on
>the wings for the fuel tanks or did they always use bladders then? Did the
>B-29 have sealant on the pressurized cabin area panel lines?
"Wet" structure, where the aircraft structure actually serves as the fuel tank,
is a relatively new technology. While some examples of this approach date to
the WWII timeframe, it was really only when fuel-resistant sealant technology
matured that this practice became common. When I was a very new designer on
the F-14 program, we still used internal fuel bladders (large, suspended rubber
bags) to keep the fuel in the fuselage tanks where it was meant to stay.
The other purposes for a sealed structural joint are, as Scott suggests, to
pressurize a compartment, and to minimize corrosion effects. Water, salt water
(the bane of carrier aircraft corrosion control), and cleaning agents can trap
in a joint and really do a number on the structure (particularly when
dissimilar materials are used and galvanic action gets started - your zillion
dollar aircraft becomes a high-tech battery). For this reason, many structural
joints are made using a polysulfide form-in-place sealant or gasket material.
A similar material called "liquid shim" can be used to fill small gaps between
structual mating surfaces.
The trend on newer designs is to actually use less of these materials, for
several reasons. First of all, after a period of time the gasket material
degrades, and can actually trap moisture. Replacing this stuff can be a
maintenance headache.
Secondly, with the advent of computer-aided design and manufacture (CAD/CAM),
the tolerances at joints and mating surfaces can be held so tightly that the
need for sealants or fillers is greatly reduced.
A notable exception - LO aircraft such as the F-117 and B-2 _always_ have
filled joints, usually with an exotic, expensive, loaded material to minimize
any discontinuities at the joint. Panel edges, if not properly treated, make
excellent radar reflectors. Annecdotaly, I was told that the preparation and
sealing of each foot of panel line on a B-2 costs over $1000 in labor and
materials.
Sorry to be long winded, but that's the story.
John Noack
IPMS 23017
President, IPMS/USA
Shane Weier
David de Ryck wrote:
> This is the first time I've written to this group so don't all shoot me
> down in flames.
Ack-ack-ack-ack
Ignore him guys ! Shoot the swine on sight !
Shane
(G'Day Dave - nice to see you joining the modern world, even if you're a few
hours behind the times over there in Perth!)
Ron Smith
on avarage over $100/quart and they are epoxy type mixes that must be
used once mixed, anything starts to set and it's trashed........also
finicky for mixing, deairing and applying so labor costs are going to be
high........
Phil Brandt
>I like engraved alright but I build raised paneled models. Scott Wilson really
>is right; the real thing isn't all that smooth and pretty. I drilled w/the
>reserves this weeked and I noticed an E2 on the transient line. I walked down
>and crawled all over it. It really was a study in smoothness (or lack of) and
>weathering. The wing tip lights were all fogged over like they'd been glued in
>w/super glue, panel sealant was all over, the de-icing boots were really shiney
>gray, the side number on the nose was crooked and to top it off, a big hunk of
>rubber rain seal was hanging off of one of the main gear doors. If we as
>modelers built a replica like this we'd be slain by the judges!
That's a big rog, Bill! And we haven't even talked about square yards
of super sticky, orange hydraulic fluid all over the sides and bottoms
of F-4s!
Bondo Phil
IPMS 14091
Norm Cabana
wrote:
Uh, Phil, it's supposed to be red, not orange, and if it's sticky
someone is not doing their job, big time!
Norm
Jonathan Mock
> This is the first time I've written to this group so don't all shoot me
> down in flames. There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether a kit
> with raised panel lines is junk or not. From a personal point of view, I
> model for the enjoyment of it. I will build any kit of any subject, with
> a preference for 1/48th scale aircraft, if it is a model of something I
> want. I can appreciate that raised panel lines are not technically
> correct in the sense of scale accuracy
<SNIP>
But then niether are reccessed ones if you were to scale them up!
> but in then end where does your
> model end up; either on a shelf or if your lucky enough in a cupboard,
> mostly away from general view; and if viewed are normally only admired
> either by yourself, a family member, or the odd passing visitor. How many
> visitors come into your home and start telling you that your models are
> incorrect because they have raised panel lines?
If they did, they would never leave...
> To me having a completed
> model of a subject that I like in my cupboard if satisfaction enough. My
> final point to ponder, is that unless you enjoy building only kits of
> subjects from the WW2 and period shortly thereafter, then an older kit with
> raised panel lines is your only option available. But then again that's
> my opinion and I'm definitely not a rivet counter.
>
>
> David de Ryck
> Perth Australia
You got it bang on the nail - you enjoy the hobby at your own pace and if
people start getting all anal telling you that kits with rasied lines are
junk and critcise your efforts then they're pretty sad.
Those than can, build. Those that can't criticse, waiting for the "perfect"
model. Sadly, too many model clubs are full of the latter.
Good post - welcome to the NG!
Jonathan Mock
>
> Of course one can do something very radical.
>
> Sand the model smooth correct all joints then using MEK VERY VERY LIGHTLY
> paint your model with a paint brush. For some reason where a raised panel
> line was the plastic sinks ever so slighlty. An airbrush coat of paint over
> that and it is perceptable in the corrcet light. No you wont be able to
> highlight your panels using washes and if you rub smooth and redo it the
> effect is lost, thats why I say do it once construction etc is completed.
> Mind you MEK can remove your filler as well. I also scribe removable panels
> as well when using this technique.
>
> I strongly suggest you practise this before using it on your latest
> masterpiece.
>
> Charlie
Rusty White in FSM advocated sanding the detail away and drawing panel
lines on with a tehcnical pencil.
I built an Airfix 1/48 Sea Harrier FRS.1 a few years back - rush job for
someone and I didn't have time to scribe in panel lines, so I sanded them
down to near nothing and used them as a guide for weathering with an
airbrush when painting.
Someone later compliemented me on my rescribing job! Slieght of eye!
Albatrosdv
>model. Sadly, too many model clubs are full of the latter.
>
>
They're known as Idiot Putzes Making S- - t. When one of them comes up to you
and starts in on his line of bull, ask politely, "where's yours? I'd like to
see it." They will slink off, since none of these "experts" (definition: a drip
under pressure) can do a model to their own standards, let alone your obviously
much lower ones.
Tom Cleaver
Rama Lama Aye Ara Riter
Keeper of the Sacred Modeling Texts
Temple of the Land of Fruits & Nuts
Internet Modeler
http://www.avsim.com/mike/awn/index.html
Visit The Aeronut - see the P-40C
http://members.aol.com/aerialnut/index.html
Joe Hegedus
>
> >Those than can, build. Those that can't criticse, waiting for the "perfect"
> >model. Sadly, too many model clubs are full of the latter.
> >
> >
>
> They're known as Idiot Putzes Making S- - t. When one of them comes up to you
> and starts in on his line of bull, ask politely, "where's yours? I'd like to
> see it." They will slink off, since none of these "experts" (definition: a drip
> under pressure) can do a model to their own standards, let alone your obviously
> much lower ones.
>
> Tom Cleaver
Tom, that was an uncalled-for slam on IPMS in general. True, there are
some self-appointed "know it alls" in the society, but a lot of the
"model snobs" are not IPMS members, and a lot of IPMS members are
perfectly happy building so-called "inferior" kits with raised panel
lines (myself included in this number).
Joe
IPMS/USA 33868
<SJKH>
wrote:
>Of course, the choice is up to the individual modeler; but the fact is that
>the *only*
>kits of some subjects in my scale (1:72) are old kits with raised panel
>lines (e.g., A-26,
>TBD, F-82, F-80). I think my completed kits stand up well against anyone's,
>even those
>with recessed lines. And if someone absolutely positively has to have
>recessed panel
>lines, they can always sand off the raised ones and rescribe.
Ah, you picked a favourite of mine there! The Airfix F-80 is over 20
years old, has raised lines, BUT it is a lovely little kit, not been
bettered AFAIK, and a complete re-scribe is just a couple of
afternoon's work.
--
SJKH,
Ipswich, UK
Steve Filak, Sr.
> 1.Do you refuse to build a kit based on whether it has raised panel lines?
Absolutely not. Some of the most gratifying kits I have built have had
raised panel lines, or a mix of raised and recessed lines. Don't get me
wrong- I like a Tamiya or Hasegawa kit just as much as anyone else. But I
also enjoy rescribing kits and putting in a little extra elbow grease to
bring things up to snuff, and getting the satisfaction that I put that much
extra work into making my model look good. I'm still a holdout for building
20+ year old kits of the Revellogram variety, it's economical and a little
more challenging. It also gives you an opportunity to hone your skills a
little, so when you do that 'fall-together-dream-kit', it makes things go
that much easier.
2. Is a kit that is over 10 years old with raised lines viewed as
unbuildable
junk?
Again, nope. I recently did a Revellogram 1/48 F/A-18C that, aside from
rescribing some tricky dogtooth panel lines, was a lot of fun to build, and
went together with very little trouble. I'm currently working on a couple
of 1/32 AH-1G Cobras, and here again, this is a kit that is thirty years
old. I'll also be starting the Revell 1/32 F-4J before too long, if all
goes well (another 'dinosaur' by today's standards) I also went to great
pains to build the Monogram 1/48 A-10 (and had to go so far as building jigs
to get everything straight), but in the end, you step back, take a look, and
say to yourself, 'I think I really accomplished something here'. Don't get
me wrong, I'm not patting myself on the back, but you do feel like you've
accomplished something when you can make a halfway decent model out of a kit
that didn't exactly fall together.
Give it a try sometime, and most importantly, STICK WITH IT until the kit
is done (even if it gets a little frustrating), and if you follow through to
the end, I think you'll find yourself pleasantly surprised - not only with
how it looks, but the fact that you used all the techniques at your disposal
to make it look great, and maybe you're more proficient at things thatn you
realized before.
As always,
Wishing you all happy modeling-
Steve Filak, Sr.= RLWDH
Guardian of Temple Northeast
and Keeper of the Fountain of Useless Knowledge
Contributor-Internet Modeler Magazine
http://www.avsim.com/mike/awn
Jeffrey A. Garbutt
says...
> Hi Guys,
> everytime I answer a thread that requests info on the best kits available on a
> subject. I sometimes suggest a Monogram kit as a cheaper but still accurate
> alternative. I then get told that since the Monogram kit has raised panel lines
> the newer and more expensive kits are superior.
> So here are my questions.
> junk?
>
> Cheers,
> Max Bryant
>
>
I had fun building the Ju 87 tank killer by Monogram/Mattel--yes the oop
antique, a couple of months back. It had raised panel lines. I had a
blast. There weren't any frustrating fit problems etc. My expertise
doesn't extend to knowledge of the accuracy, but I'm not a stickler on
that anyway as long as it looks good to me. Right after I finished it
Hasagawa came out with their version; figures right! I haven't bought it
yet.
Frank Tauss
> It could be Mike. There really isn't much out there. I've heard tell
> something is wrong with the Academy kit, but I don't know what. On the
> other hand, I've learned to treat r.m.s.ers pronouncements on accuracy
> with a great deal of skepticism, so who knows. It's too bad Hasegawa
> never came out with a proper kit of this airplane. I seem to remembers
> some sort of "high-grade" (i.e, high price) nonsense in the late '80s,
> but can't remember seeing the kit around very much.
>
> DA
Dude,
Hasegawa didn't do a proper kit? Then please explain this large box
sitting next to me marked F-15E Strike Eagle Kit # P8. It looks like an
F-15 to me. I have a Mono F-15 and a Tamiya C, they look pretty much
like Eagles to me, too. The Hasegawa kit even contains ordnance, a sprue
full of Mk 20s. I'm certainly not as knowledgeable as Kurt Plummer (the
human encyclopedia of all that flies and goes boom) but it certainly
works for me. Especially since I only paid $25 for it.
As for what's wrong with the Academy kit, there are 2 kits marketed as
"E" models. The lower numbered one is actually an F-15C (at least that's
what it looks like to me.) Single seat, all air to air missle load.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it (at least 'till the forensic
evidence comes in)
Frank
James and Linda Young
>Of course one can do something very radical.
>
>Sand the model smooth correct all joints then using MEK VERY VERY LIGHTLY
>paint your model with a paint brush. For some reason where a raised panel
>line was the plastic sinks ever so slighlty. An airbrush coat of paint over
>that and it is perceptable in the corrcet light. No you wont be able to
>highlight your panels using washes and if you rub smooth and redo it the
>effect is lost, thats why I say do it once construction etc is completed.
>Mind you MEK can remove your filler as well. I also scribe removable panels
>as well when using this technique.
>
>I strongly suggest you practise this before using it on your latest
>masterpiece.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>Jonathan Mock <jonathan.m...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jonathan.mockSPAMOFF-ya0...@news.ukonline.co.uk...
>> No.
>>
>> There are some very good kits out there with rasied panel lines (Monogram,
>> Heller etc...) and the decision whether to rescribe is up to the modeller.
>>
>> Recessed detail is preferable and mostly the norm with new kits today, but
>> rasied panel kits should not be termed "junk".
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Mock
>>
>> ³Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
>> Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...²
>
>
I find I get a similar effect when using Krylon Flat White spray cans
as a primer.
**James
Stephen Tontoni
off panel lines. Neat thing about that is that you can redo the lines
using the pink end of the pencil should you make an error.
--
Stephen Tontoni
ton...@halcyon.com
Seattle, Washington
ch1...@earthlink.net
Chuckle,
Before you get me into Really Deep Water(sharks!), let me say I learn twice as
much as I say, from reading the wisdom of others here (which knowing me, is
/truly something/;).
At least two of these wisemen have flown or maintained the bird in question
and I believe one attributes the Academy as having a bad nose-transition
shape around the inlets and unblended tail boom/engine fairings. OTOH, he
likes the Monogram overall for shape which I think is going too far the other
way.
Which leaves Hasegawa as the reigning monarch if you dicount that Academy
gives you those HRL and /most/ of the stub pylons as well as tiltable inlets
which always look cool, down, to me. While largely duplicating the Hase in
layout if not exact shaping of parts, I don't like their molding as much
though.
Two of their last kits came to me virtually bagged-full with what I guess to
be mold release 'grease' and there is frequently a LOT of flash and
plugs/pinholes to clean up.
IIRC, the Hase High Grade kits you mentioned were of the C and the A-ASAT;
never saw an E but I could have easily missed one. White Metal Gear and
Wheels(?), non-feathered exhausts (at that time not in the standard kits,
since redressed) and some PE for the cockpit and feather actuators I believe.
Plus the ASAT of course. They ran around 50-60 bucks and were only a
limited run, not entirely accurate (C lower fuselage antenna fit and A struts
wheels?) for either.
If you have P8 I think you're looking at not just simply 'the kit' (common
except for the Lantirn pod parts and featherless nozzles) but actually the
/intended/ boxart-decals for the old 'Green Eagle' DRF/AFCD aircraft.
I like that bird a lot and wish that somebody would do a proper set of weapons
and sensors to make it shine as a unique DRF model. The size on the included
bombs is a tad 'large' for Mk.20 IMO, but the shape isn't quite right for
CBU-87 either... The Strike Eagle looked coolest lugging the GPU-5 and the
AVQ-26 with blue-and-green training-.82s to me. Make those snakes and throw
in a LAU or six worth of Mavericks and you've got a great 'high class CAS'
bird...
And when this kit was recently reissued it was at a markedly lower cost
(after import) than even the reduced-Yen 'standard' E: LA/SJ versions. This
makes getting decent decals (ASTRA) and LANTIRN PODS/Exhausts (Flight Path,
Eagle Designs, KMC etc.) a little less painful for a full conversion to the
production Beagle standard.
You'll want one of the two conversion sets available (duuuh, I wanna say
Flight Path but it's not in their current list and of course Paragon) as well
though and this will bring any 'realistication' project up close to if not
likely somewhat over $100.00, with shipping.
For reference, Squadron has the Tamiya 32nd E for $97.00 this month.
It might therefore be better to embark upon such /after/ the release of the
Monogram. At 27 bucks, this kit should be a steal-deal and even if you don't
like it, the bottom will probably drop out of the aftermarket items once a
better stock-injection option is available...
Waiting to see how PM-ono handle the CFT/Pylons- Kurt Plummer
LINKS-
AvUSK Flight Path Goodies
http://www.povn.com/avusk/DETflightp.HTML
Hannants F-15 '48th Stuff
http://www.hannants.co.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?a=All&m=&i=&t=Resin&s=48&w=F-15&h
=25 &c=
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Matt Fay
the prototype conformal tank ordnance pylons (as you mention) and that the
cockpit sidewalls are too high leaving the instrument panels looking as
though they were subject to 25g landings! The squashed instrument
panels/tall cockpit sidewalls are a detractor for all the 1/48 Hasegawa
Eagle kits.
The Paragon correction set is beautiful and essentially corrects the
external problems. Best bet for the cockpit is to either kitbash from
Academy/Monogram or use the Eduard sets (very nice) with some minor plastic
surgery on the tub.
Waiting to see if R-M gets all these items done right on their upcoming
Mudhen release.
BTW: Raised panel lines are fine. I finished a Monogram 1/48 F-105D late
last year and have an F-105G in work now.
Good luck,
Matt Fay
IPMS/USA #36085
IPMS Roscoe Turner - Indianapolis
Ron Smith
"D. Anderson" wrote:
> Also of interest, the NASM has, or had, a display devoted to
> model-making. This display included a 100% scratchbuilt F-105 in 1/32
> scale. It was enormous. And beautiful. And lacked any hint of panel
> line detail, other than those for flying surfaces. Some might argue
> that any 1/32 scale kit should show some panel line detail, and maybe
> they're right, but there is no denying that this was a beautiful model
> anyway, and showed skill and workmanship far, far beyond what most of
> us r.m.s. kit assemblers could manage.
That was done by Frank Mitchel many moons ago..........I remember seeing
the fuselage and cockpit in progress when he taught me to airbrush on
the then first released Hasegawa Me-262 in 1/32..........
Ron Smith
people giving constructive criticism and/or help to whoever asks for
it. I'm not perfect and can always improve, by the same token there are
some things i extremely well and am happy to pass on that info to those
who want it. Do I count rivets?......only on my own pieces and rarely
at that, I just try to make it look like what it is supposed to
be.......
As for inferior kits, there are some truly bad kits out there but 99% of
all kits ever produced can be made to look pleasing by any decent
modeler. True some kits take more skill/time/work but that's how you
learn to make better models. One thing to remember, always appreciate
the fine pints of a given model and don't rag on the less fine points
unless you are prepared to help the person who built the info they need
to improve that area.
BTW-I'll be doing a demo Sunday down at the shop, hope to see you there.
The Walrus
John Adelman's 1:48 A-26C Invader in the April 1999 issue of FineScale
Modeler. He might change your mind.
Ken Goldman
THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER
http://www.wman.com/~khgold/
Joe Hegedus
Also, it was boxed as an F-15J, but the plastic inside is standard F-15C
parts. The antenna pods on top of the vertical stabilizer that differ
on the C and J are separate parts and I believe are both included in
both releases (I have a J release that I got, still sealed in
shrinkwrap, for $15!, that is identical to the C except for
instructions, decals and box art). Of course, the issue I have has the
feathered exhausts. Anyone have a set of featherless, 1/48 F-15 nozzles available?
Joe
"D. Anderson" wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:34:11 -0400, Frank Tauss <fta...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dude,
> >
> >Hasegawa didn't do a proper kit? Then please explain this large box
> >sitting next to me marked F-15E Strike Eagle Kit # P8. It looks like an
> >F-15 to me.
>
> Talking about the single seat F-15A/C, Frank. As far as I know, the
> Hasegawa F-15C, if you can find one, was a "high-grade" model with
> mucho metal parts to boost price up through roof. Hasegawa F-15C in
> 1/72 is different matter.
>
> >Frank
>
> DA
Chun325
>Date: Wed, Apr 14, 1999 15:54 EDT
<<snipped>>
>Anyone have a set of featherless, 1/48 F-15 nozzles available?
Joe,
IIRC, KMC has/had a set of featherless exhausts. I remember seeing a pair a
while ago. The casting wasn't as crisp as say a early KMC/Cooper Detail
casting, but on par with some of their recent castings.
I don't know of the availablitiy as there was some rumour floating that CAM
acquired some of the KMC line.
HTH,
HAPPY MODELING, and BASICS FIRST!
Bradley Chun - IPMS #33945
IPMS/Silicon Valley Scale Modelers - 2nd V.P.
I build vacuform, therefore I am.
Invisible souls exit thru suppressed 9mm and .308 cal holes !
You can run, but you'll only die tired.
Joe Hegedus
>
> >
> >Tom, that was an uncalled-for slam on IPMS in general. True, there are
> >some self-appointed "know it alls" in the society, but a lot of the
> >"model snobs" are not IPMS members, and a lot of IPMS members are
> >perfectly happy building so-called "inferior" kits with raised panel
> >lines (myself included in this number).
> >
> >Joe
>
> the kind I mentioned when it comes to being "model bureaucrats" at least out
> here on the left coast (not to start a flame war).
>
> Tom Cleaver
Not trying to start a flame war, just a bit of perspective.
Joe
Albatrosdv
>Tom, that was an uncalled-for slam on IPMS in general. True, there are
>some self-appointed "know it alls" in the society, but a lot of the
>"model snobs" are not IPMS members, and a lot of IPMS members are
>perfectly happy building so-called "inferior" kits with raised panel
>lines (myself included in this number).
>
>Joe
You are, of course, correct, Joe. However, I have noticed a higher number of
the kind I mentioned when it comes to being "model bureaucrats" at least out
here on the left coast (not to start a flame war).
Tom Cleaver
Jonathan Mock
> >Those than can, build. Those that can't criticse, waiting for the "perfect"
> >model. Sadly, too many model clubs are full of the latter.
> >
> >
>
> They're known as Idiot Putzes Making S- - t. When one of them comes up to you
> and starts in on his line of bull, ask politely, "where's yours? I'd like to
> see it." They will slink off, since none of these "experts" (definition:
> a drip
> under pressure) can do a model to their own standards, let alone your
> obviously
> much lower ones.
>
>
> Tom Cleaver
To be fair, most models clubs have their fair share of boorish know-it-alls
and as the IPMS is the largest netwroked club organistaion, I guess they
have more by default.
I can remember one meeting I attended (I won't name the club), it was my
first meeting and I went along to see what it was all about. I bought along
a couple of models and they were nitpicked to death by a couple of guys. It
was stuff like "your nav lights are too red, would it really be that dirty,
blah blah" and I finally asked where their models were. Only one of them
had bought something along and it was the most crappiest, paint blobbed,
seam-showing piece of plastic excretia you've ever seen. The decals -
applied to matt paint - were'nt so much silvering as trying to escape from
this polystyreme horror story. It was an effort not to throw up over it
(and thus improve it 100%).
Another guy always used to pick holes in my airbrush camouflage. Every
meeting he used to tell me it was overscale, it should be like this, like
that, yadda, yadda. The irony was, he didnt even use one! Add to that I was
only a young kid at the time, this was really inspirational stuff to have
your peers knocking your work month in month out.
In all honesty, I've never openly criticised anyones work. When someone
asks me to comment, I'm diplomatic and suggest different methods of
techniques, not to say that they're got it wrong, just to suggest trying
something new next time. We model at our own pace and expectations.
Chun325
There's good and bad in everything and every group. I too was hesitant about
going to an IPMS meeting, but after meeting a few of the club members at their
local contest, my opinion soon changed.
Sure, I met some of the more socialble(sp?) types, but after attending a
meeting or two, you'll know who to ask for good advice, and you'll know which
ones to stay away from.
I also try to be objective and offer fair crticism when asked.
Sure, some clubs seems to have more "know-it-alls" than some, but if you don't
enjoy yourself, find another club or start one yourself.
After all, we weren't all born National winning modelers. We had to start
somewhere.
Just my 2 cents.
Jeff Cooper
>
> To all,
>
> Sure, some clubs seems to have more "know-it-alls" than some, but if you don't
> enjoy yourself, find another club or start one yourself.
>
A bunch of us in Vancouver just did that.
> After all, we weren't all born National winning modelers. We had to start
> somewhere.
Sorry, but I first read that as "National whining modellers" and laughed
the cat right off my lap.
--
Jeff C
Rama Lama Howdee Dodat
Keeper of the sacred Siamese
Wet Coast temple
Canada
Replace "Munged 'at'NOSPAM.invalid" with "jecooper'at'Direct.CA" to
reply.
Phil Brandt
Uh Norm.....more than a few of our approximately 96 UE recce birds in
the Mt. Home and Shaw wings were like that from time to time. Must've
been the airstream that would oxidize the red to an orangy hue...or
the underlaying camouflage gray that made it appear that color. And,
that stuff was as sticky as contact cement. Don't know how often MX
took 'em across the wash rack; we just flew 'em! TAC sortie rates
were really humpin' in the early Seventies.
Bondo Phil
IPMS 14091
jerry 47
involved, you couldn't see the panel lines because you are too far away. NO
KIT should have panel lines, either raised or engraved. Putting panel lines
on 1/48 or 1/72 airplane kits is an affectation. Look at either real
aircraft or pictures of aircraft. 999 out of 1,000 times, you will not/can
not see the panel lines. Any aircraft model with visible panel lines should
automatically be eliminated from consideration for any award in any contest.
Jerry 47
Chun325 wrote in message <19990415221126...@ng113.aol.com>...
>>From: Jeff Cooper <Mun...@NOSPAM.invalid>
>>Date: Thu, Apr 15, 1999 16:23 EDT
>
>>Sorry, but I first read that as "National whining modellers" and laughed
>>the cat right off my lap.
>
>ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ron Smith
aircraft, even from a distance you can see the panels. I also see panel
lines on just about every pic of WWII aircraft I've ever
seen........somehow methinks you're just a bit off in your perceptions.
Now those overly weathered aircraft with enough crap on them to
seriously affect flying should be DQ'ed.......especially ANY 8th AF
fighters, the 8th had a standing order that all fighters be washed down
immediately upon landing (you might see some staining of the paint from
the exhaust or guns, but no soot unless the bird had literally just
landed). While we're at it all "Verlinden System" figures should be
banned because they're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over done and so far out of
scale appearance that Nazi generals come out looking like blacks or
arabs with some skin disease (no offense meant to blacks or arabs
there). Oh yeah.......anything in scales smaller than 1/48 if seen from
more than a few feet should be painted almost black since that's all the
real thing looks like from any appreciable distance, just a damned black
(or other very dark color) speck.........don't forget to paint all your
canopies silver since that's how they look from a distance in real
life.........don't bother to drybrush woodgrain on anything smaller than
about 1/8 scale either because no wood is that coarse in real
life.......you did remember to carve the frog into that raised horse's
hoof didn't you?.......well didn't you????????.........BTW-chestnut
horses highlight with metallic copper, NOT red-brown.......the metal on
all the following should be: US small arms should be dull grey/green for
WWII and dull grey/black post WWII......rich deep metallic blue/black
for 1890's to 1920's......Brit smallarms from WWI through at least the
1960's should be satin (not semi-gloss) black because they painted the
damned things and all German small arms for WWI through WWII should be
rich deep metallic blue/black........you did remember to tip every 5th
round in those US ammo belts red didn't you?........it would be a white
tip for German ammo belts unless it's for aircraft in which case it
should also have a green ring on all the cases just above the
head.......almost all German smallarms ammo cases should be a metallic
OD shade for WWII.......had enough yet?
Ah hell with it, go count rivets........
Jeff J
>
> To get back on topic, once again I will say this. At the scale distances
> involved, you couldn't see the panel lines because you are too far away. NO
> KIT should have panel lines, either raised or engraved. Putting panel lines
> on 1/48 or 1/72 airplane kits is an affectation. Look at either real
> aircraft or pictures of aircraft. 999 out of 1,000 times, you will not/can
> not see the panel lines. Any aircraft model with visible panel lines should
> automatically be eliminated from consideration for any award in any contest.
> Jerry 47
>
Korean War P-51) -- the panel lines are as visible as an elephant in
your front yard. Restored warbirds are often silver lacquered, so that
does hide panel lines and certainly many paint schemes and most modern
aircraft have few detectable lines, but your earlier statement is
hyperbole. What may be part of the problem is that the lines themselves
can be somewhat optically illusive as they are often created by
different shades of metals which make "lines" stand out, but gaps in the
panels are not really there. Now it's true that we modelers (and the
kits themselves) are often none too subtle in accenting lines (I have
been guilty at times) and the kits often have badly overscale lines -- I
think that's what most people on the anti-panel line side are reacting
to: overemphasis. Yet if we couldn't get all that detail and character
lines/shade variation can bring out if done right, what would be the
point?
Jeff
Chun325
Frank Tauss
I couldn't agree more. I had my final realization while looking at the
Squadron A-5/RA-5 Mini in Action. I have 3 of the A-5/RA-5. A 1/100 UPC
A3J, a 1/?? Revell and the 1/72 Hasegawa. After looking at the pictures
it occurred to me that in those small scales you really can't see any of
the lines. They look almost smooth.
What got me stalled is I got a glue stain on a 1/100 Tamiya F-105 and I
was worried how I was going to smooth it without wrecking the raised
panel lines. (Nerd mode off!) Then I looked at the Squadron Wild Weasle
book. Duh! Lines, what lines? We don't need no stinking lines!
I've decided to stop worrying and just do it. Sand and sand, polish and
polish and don't worry about it.
I also do armor kits and what is the deal with all the overemphasized
weathering? Any vehicle that's been in the field for any time appears
(from my reference photos) to be pretty much uniformly covered in dust
with smudges from people walking, oil/fuel stains around inlets and
exhaust/gunsmoke stains in the appropriate places. I don't get all the
elaborate highlighting. It's all very artistic but it doesn't seem to
reflect the photos I see.
One man's opinion,
Frank
Frank Tauss
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:34:11 -0400, Frank Tauss <fta...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dude,
> >
> >Hasegawa didn't do a proper kit? Then please explain this large box
> >sitting next to me marked F-15E Strike Eagle Kit # P8. It looks like an
> >F-15 to me.
>
> Talking about the single seat F-15A/C, Frank. As far as I know, the
> Hasegawa F-15C, if you can find one, was a "high-grade" model with
> mucho metal parts to boost price up through roof. Hasegawa F-15C in
> 1/72 is different matter.
>
> >Frank
>
> DA
Ok, what do you think of the Tammy "C"?
Just curious,
Frank
Frank Tauss
<copiuous snippage>
Thanks Kurt. My attitude is that I simply don't know enough about any
single aircraft type to get really snooty about accuracy. Two things
matter - one is that I have fun, and two that it looks reasonably like
the subject when done. I have a side project going to practice
scratchbuilding and when I get good enough I might make a major go at
something. Not to say I don't use resin (PE is tough - gives me a
headache) but I'm definitely in the previously really good as a kid and
an amatuer returning category. But hey, I watch, I ask questions, I
read. Than I practice.
The main thing I find is that even when I look at pictures I don't
recognize all the items that I see. I've actually flown a few times in a
small civil plane with a friend. Even though I though I was prepared it
was still overwhelming when he let me take off (for those that havent't
done this, it's a feeling like I can't describe, for those that do it
regularly you know what I mean). When I look in the cockpit of a warbird
I realize why it takes so long to train our guys and make them so damn
good. I find it hard to "visualize" those items when I don't understand
them. The older simpler WWII props are easier (more relatable to the
Piper I flew). I'll just keep practicing and reading.
My P8 has no metal or etch. It's all plastic.
BTW Kurt. I'm thinking of compiling your posts into a book on military
aerospace technology. Whadya think?
Frank
Ron Smith
Frank Tauss wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> I couldn't agree more. I had my final realization while looking at the
> Squadron A-5/RA-5 Mini in Action. I have 3 of the A-5/RA-5. A 1/100 UPC
> A3J, a 1/?? Revell and the 1/72 Hasegawa. After looking at the pictures
> it occurred to me that in those small scales you really can't see any of
> the lines. They look almost smooth.
Granted in small scales most panel lines tend to be overdone......I do
1/48 almost exclusively and looking at photos and completed models, I
find that holding the book and model so both appear the same size, most
kit panel lines look pretty good as long as you don't emphasize them.
Most photos aren't even close to big enough to compare with the model
close up but the newer photos do show significant panel lines (even if
not all the lines many are visible) in about 2/3 of the photos. Dark
paint does tend to hide the lines though, just like it does on kits.
> What got me stalled is I got a glue stain on a 1/100 Tamiya F-105 and I
> was worried how I was going to smooth it without wrecking the raised
> panel lines. (Nerd mode off!) Then I looked at the Squadron Wild Weasle
> book. Duh! Lines, what lines? We don't need no stinking lines!
>
> I've decided to stop worrying and just do it. Sand and sand, polish and
> polish and don't worry about it.
As long as it pleases you and some judge doesn't decide to get anal at
1/100, it works for me.
> I also do armor kits and what is the deal with all the overemphasized
> weathering? Any vehicle that's been in the field for any time appears
> (from my reference photos) to be pretty much uniformly covered in dust
> with smudges from people walking, oil/fuel stains around inlets and
> exhaust/gunsmoke stains in the appropriate places. I don't get all the
> elaborate highlighting. It's all very artistic but it doesn't seem to
> reflect the photos I see.
That's called forced perspective.......in this case the modeler is
falsely forcing highlights and shadows. I've seen some of the extreme
weathering come out very good because the modeler didn't get too extreme
on the color variation.....you should not see white on Panzer Grey or
Afrika Yellow.......if the paint is weathered that bad it should be
metal showing.......it's just usually way overdone.
Paul Boyer
<gaho...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Any aircraft model with visible panel lines should
> automatically be eliminated from consideration for any award in any contest.
> Jerry 47
Wow! Glad you don't judge my models!
--
Paul Boyer
Senior Editor
FineScale Modeler
Cyclists who wear helmets have something to protect.
SVanaken
to prove that model building (or should that be painting?) is really an art
form and therefore not subject to all the rules of the real world.
As long as one accepts it as that, then there should be peace in the world.
Now, what to do about the anal rivet counters and the paint police? :)
Cheers,
---- Scott Van Aken IPMS Canada 5729 ----
---- Modeling Madness Webzine ----
---- http://www.geocities.com/~scottvanaken ----
---- Fly by Nite Productions ----
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Paul Boyer <pbo...@finescale.com> wrote:
>In article <G4LhHJ7h#GA....@newstoo.hiwaay.net>, "jerry 47"
><gaho...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
>Any aircraft model with visible panel lines should
>> automatically be eliminated from consideration for any award in any contest.
>> Jerry 47
>
>Wow! Glad you don't judge my models!
I hope you have a sense of context. Tight finished butt joints with some
coats of paint can be hard to see on the real thing, even less a 1/72 model
on the one hand, but there are also flappy access panels big enough to
stick your fingers into or ill-secured and grime high-lighted lap joints
that stand out even in tiny, grainy photos of the original, and to ignore
or penalize a model for replicating that would be nonsense.
I don't agree with the fashion of heavily emphasised panel lines,
especially if the original was noted for how tidy it was and the model
implies trenchworks. But pristine, slick as glass finishes don't
always represent a factual reproduction either.
Since most modeling is art rather than history(as much as we might like
to think otherwise, with few exceptions we all tend to be impressionists)
some level of artifice is to be expected, but heavy handed panel
outlining or pristine to perfection fisnishes or surgar-frosted drybrush
highlighting from hell seem to me to be stylistic effects that have gone
out of ballance.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
SVanaken <svan...@aol.com> wrote:
>All this diatribe about panel lines and thier visibility/invisibility just goes
>to prove that model building (or should that be painting?) is really an art
>form and therefore not subject to all the rules of the real world.
>
>As long as one accepts it as that, then there should be peace in the world.
>Now, what to do about the anal rivet counters and the paint police? :)
>Cheers,
those color chips on a truely neutral base? Is there a bit of yellow in
your scale effect tint? AHA! The graininess of your flatcoat exceeds our
secret directives, so you must come with us for appropriate "correction".
Self-rightious accuracy fanatics will ruel the world!! Grrrr!!!!
(the above was intended to be satirical parody only)
Frank C. Crenshaw
says...
> To get back on topic, once again I will say this. At the scale distances
> involved, you couldn't see the panel lines because you are too far away. NO
> KIT should have panel lines, either raised or engraved. Putting panel lines
> on 1/48 or 1/72 airplane kits is an affectation. Look at either real
> aircraft or pictures of aircraft. 999 out of 1,000 times, you will not/can
> automatically be eliminated from consideration for any award in any contest.
> Jerry 47
Jerry
1. You are wrong.. You can see panel lines and defiantly can also see
faded panels. I have proof.. A B-1B no less. I do think that in many if
not most cases panel lines are severly overdone making it look as though
some bored crewman traced around the planes panels with 1" felt tip
marker. Let us talk about weathring...
2. You are a lously judge if you elimanate contestants based on your own
criteria for accuracy. This is a subject I have posted several times
about. Check out www.dejanews.com and look for a "closed minds" posting
by me.
3. I was not going to post this but Johnathan Mock suggested I put this
out for all to see. In case you have not figured it out I am not a big
fan of the way contests are judged. I have seen too many judges with a
sort of "perfection" mentality ... so here is part of an email I sent to
Johnathan. Yes this really happend...
" Another guy in the club (a judge ) knocked my AM TBM
down huge because he could see the fuselage seam on the inside by turning
the plane over and looking up into the radio compartment (using a
flashlight). You should have seen the 1/72 scale Ju-52 this guy did. It
looked like he tried to fill the seams with cake frosting. The clear
parts were cloudy and there were large marks on the props where you could
tell he cut them from the tree, his paint job looked terrible and his
decals were not done well at all, and his landing gear were crooked with
big wells of glue at the attach points..... This guy can miss such huge
problems on his kit and yet has the keen eye to find a seam INSIDE my
planes fuselage??????
There is no pleasing this sort of person. You just have to develop thick
skin and have fun on your own! "
--Frank Crenshaw
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Frank Crenshaw fccr...@usgs.gov
Computer Specialist
USGS Grand Junction, CO (970) 245-5257 ext. 3018
"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you"
<SJKH>
wrote:
>>Ah, you picked a favourite of mine there! The Airfix F-80 is over 20
>>years old, has raised lines, BUT it is a lovely little kit, not been
>>bettered AFAIK, and a complete re-scribe is just a couple of
>>afternoon's work.
>
>EXCEPT, the air intakes suck (whoops!).
>
>No, they do, really; they are a toy-like approximation of the real
>things. See the Heller T-33 for a better shot at what they should look
>like. If you can overlook this, it's a nice kit
I'm surprised you picked this as the worst flaw. It's the main gear
doors that sucked for me. But, I stand by my original statement. A
lovely (cheap) kit.
--
SJKH,
Ipswich, UK
Ron Smith
SVanaken wrote:
>
> All this diatribe about panel lines and thier visibility/invisibility just goes
> to prove that model building (or should that be painting?) is really an art
> form and therefore not subject to all the rules of the real world.
Yep, yep, yep.........
> As long as one accepts it as that, then there should be peace in the world.
> Now, what to do about the anal rivet counters and the paint police? :)
Make the rivet counters judge Titanic models since it's supposed to have
over 3 million rivets or some such.............the paint police should
actually be forced to paint a 1:1 CV or BB.........by hand with old
brushes.......
Al Superczynski
>...what to do about the anal rivet counters and the paint police?
Burn them at the stake. Replace wood fuel with Combat "kits"..........
;-p
Al Superczynski, MFE
IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
Check out my want and disposal lists at "Al's Place":
http://www.up-link.net/~modeleral
"Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to,
and the critics will flame you every time."
Ron Smith
"Frank C. Crenshaw" wrote:
> " Another guy in the club (a judge ) knocked my AM TBM
> down huge because he could see the fuselage seam on the inside by turning
> the plane over and looking up into the radio compartment (using a
> flashlight). You should have seen the 1/72 scale Ju-52 this guy did. It
> looked like he tried to fill the seams with cake frosting. The clear
> parts were cloudy and there were large marks on the props where you could
> tell he cut them from the tree, his paint job looked terrible and his
> decals were not done well at all, and his landing gear were crooked with
> big wells of glue at the attach points..... This guy can miss such huge
> problems on his kit and yet has the keen eye to find a seam INSIDE my
> planes fuselage??????
Looking inside an otherwise inaccessible area for seams?........geez,
now that's anal!!!!!! I do know why my DML Me-262 was ruled out, the
main gear if left to it's own devices will sit duckfooted 9 times out of
10 and the nose gear is true to scale so in time the "fork" sags and the
bottom of the strut rests on the nosewheel.......both problems would
take some serious surgery to correct........so I just build them because
I like the plane........I *may* do surgery on one though because the
detail you get OOB is awesome!
> There is no pleasing this sort of person. You just have to develop thick
> skin and have fun on your own! "
I figure if my model wins something, cool........and let me tell you
Sunil's work is very good so when he judges I know he can meet his own
criteria! And afterward if he's judged your work he'll give you honest
pointers for next time if you ask. Now that to me is how a judge should
be.......able to meet his own criteria and be willing to help other
contestants improve their work. I admit I couldn't judge figures or
most armor because I do detest the current finishing fads as they're
usually way overdone........aircraft I could judge but it would have to
be other than 1/48 since that's what I enter.......I could probably
judge space and sci-fi and ships.......I doubt I could judge cars
(there's alot of nice work done on the cars, I just have no interest in
them). It's a shame you can't get them to turn out the lights to see
those glowing formation panel lights.........yep, mine usually do glow
because the only paint I've found of the correct color is glow paint,
looks just like G-10 material which is what they're made of.
Chun325
>Date: Fri, Apr 16, 1999 11:49 EDT
<<snipped>>
>2. You are a lously judge if you elimanate contestants based on your own
>criteria for accuracy. This is a subject I have posted several times
>about. Check out www.dejanews.com and look for a "closed minds" posting
>by me.
Highly recommend reading for ALL judges, at all levels.
> " Another guy in the club (a judge ) knocked my AM TBM
>down huge because he could see the fuselage seam on the inside by turning
>the plane over and looking up into the radio compartment (using a
>flashlight). You should have seen the 1/72 scale Ju-52 this guy did. It
>looked like he tried to fill the seams with cake frosting. The clear
>parts were cloudy and there were large marks on the props where you could
>tell he cut them from the tree, his paint job looked terrible and his
>decals were not done well at all, and his landing gear were crooked with
>big wells of glue at the attach points..... This guy can miss such huge
>problems on his kit and yet has the keen eye to find a seam INSIDE my
>planes fuselage??????
That judge is really ANAL, what did he expect you to do, crawl up in there and
fix the seam? Hmm, where have I seen this before? And we all know how I feel
about judges picking up models. IF IT ISN'T TO DECIDE THE VERY BEST BECAUSE
THE MODELS ARE SO CLOSE, THEN DON"T TOUCH THEM!!!!!!
I for one dread it everytime someone says I can pick up their model. I know
the time and skill that is required to build a model, and would fell like I was
lower than snail snot if I broke it.
> There is no pleasing this sort of person. You just have to develop thick
>skin and have fun on your own! "
I don't think there is anything anyone can do to please anal-retentive judges
or know-it-alls.
Maybe that's why I build for myself.
Ron Smith
Chun325 wrote:
> That judge is really ANAL, what did he expect you to do, crawl up in there and
> fix the seam? Hmm, where have I seen this before? And we all know how I feel
> about judges picking up models. IF IT ISN'T TO DECIDE THE VERY BEST BECAUSE
> THE MODELS ARE SO CLOSE, THEN DON"T TOUCH THEM!!!!!!
>
> I for one dread it everytime someone says I can pick up their model. I know
> the time and skill that is required to build a model, and would fell like I was
> lower than snail snot if I broke it.
Well as long as said judge was deciding on two close models and offered
a simple apology, no problem on my end. Especially if the breakage was
not marked down.......just my $0.02 worth......
Robert R. Ruth
ago was an active plastic model club member, until I moved away.
There is a great anal story about one of the yearly contests at the Lincoln
Park Barn. That year some of the judges were being so anal attempting to
find everything wrong and putting it on peoples score sheets that one member
rebelled during the judging and said the following:
Next year I am entering a block of styrene in miscellaneous as a 1/1 block of
styrene. Since it will be perfect model of a block of styrene and 100%
plastic by your standards it will win the Miscellaneous Category and the
overall grand prize!
IMHO, if you can not judge by looking for what is good in models and give
positive and helpful remarks to contestants then do not bother. The goal of a
contest should be to promote the hobby and encourage people, not bashing
others work to make yourself feel important.
The best judge I ever new was Gaylord at the G.J.club. He could judge your
model and point out all the flaws, but did it in such a positive way that one
always felt like having another go at it.
Bob Ruth
In article <MPG.11810a05a...@news.usgs.gov>, fccr...@usgs.gov
(Frank C. Crenshaw) wrote:
> " Another guy in the club (a judge ) knocked my AM TBM
>down huge because he could see the fuselage seam on the inside by turning
>the plane over and looking up into the radio compartment (using a
>flashlight). You should have seen the 1/72 scale Ju-52 this guy did. It
>looked like he tried to fill the seams with cake frosting. The clear
>parts were cloudy and there were large marks on the props where you could
>tell he cut them from the tree, his paint job looked terrible and his
>decals were not done well at all, and his landing gear were crooked with
>big wells of glue at the attach points..... This guy can miss such huge
>problems on his kit and yet has the keen eye to find a seam INSIDE my
>planes fuselage??????
>
>
> There is no pleasing this sort of person. You just have to develop thick
>skin and have fun on your own! "
>
> --Frank Crenshaw
>
>
>
Frank Tauss
> " Another guy in the club (a judge ) knocked my AM TBM
> down huge because he could see the fuselage seam on the inside by turning
> the plane over and looking up into the radio compartment (using a
> flashlight). You should have seen the 1/72 scale Ju-52 this guy did. It
> looked like he tried to fill the seams with cake frosting. The clear
> parts were cloudy and there were large marks on the props where you could
> tell he cut them from the tree, his paint job looked terrible and his
> decals were not done well at all, and his landing gear were crooked with
> big wells of glue at the attach points..... This guy can miss such huge
> problems on his kit and yet has the keen eye to find a seam INSIDE my
> planes fuselage??????
>
> There is no pleasing this sort of person. You just have to develop thick
> skin and have fun on your own! "
>
> --Frank Crenshaw
Why would your club allow this nit to continue as a judge? He seems the
type to drive away members rather than encourage. We fortunately don't
have that at our club. I was very trepidatious when I brought my first
model in. But everyone was really nice (even though I didn't win). At
another point a friend brought in a Panther that he'd done in a nice
ambush scheme. The overall finish was very nice, even though I thought
there weren't enough of the little dapples, they were very sparse and I
thought they should have been many more of them. I told him that but I
also said otherwise it was a nice job. I felt a little bad about it, but
he took it in the spirit intended. I reckon it's in how you say it.
Frank
MarioVL
>model of a subject that I like in my cupboard >if satisfaction enough.
Well said!!
Mario Valdes-Lora
Wilmington, Delaware
Chun325
>Date: Fri, Apr 16, 1999 16:24 EDT
>Well as long as said judge was deciding on two close models and offered
>a simple apology, no problem on my end. Especially if the breakage was
>not marked down.......just my $0.02 worth......
I whole-heartedly agree!
But, some judges pick up models that aren't even "in the running".
Jonathan Mock
> > To get back on topic, once again I will say this. At the scale distances
> > involved, you couldn't see the panel lines because you are too far away. NO
> > KIT should have panel lines, either raised or engraved. Putting panel lines
> > on 1/48 or 1/72 airplane kits is an affectation. Look at either real
> > aircraft or pictures of aircraft. 999 out of 1,000 times, you will not/can
> > not see the panel lines. Any aircraft model with visible panel lines should
> > automatically be eliminated from consideration for any award in any contest.
> > Jerry 47
>
> Jerry
>
> 1. You are wrong.. You can see panel lines and defiantly can also see
> faded panels. I have proof.. A B-1B no less. I do think that in many if
> not most cases panel lines are severly overdone making it look as though
> some bored crewman traced around the planes panels with 1" felt tip
> marker. Let us talk about weathring...
>
> 2. You are a lously judge if you elimanate contestants based on your own
> criteria for accuracy. This is a subject I have posted several times
> about. Check out www.dejanews.com and look for a "closed minds" posting
> by me.
>
> 3. I was not going to post this but Johnathan Mock suggested I put this
> out for all to see. In case you have not figured it out I am not a big
> fan of the way contests are judged. I have seen too many judges with a
> sort of "perfection" mentality ... so here is part of an email I sent to
> Johnathan. Yes this really happend...
>
> " Another guy in the club (a judge ) knocked my AM TBM
> down huge because he could see the fuselage seam on the inside by turning
> the plane over and looking up into the radio compartment (using a
> flashlight). You should have seen the 1/72 scale Ju-52 this guy did. It
> looked like he tried to fill the seams with cake frosting. The clear
> parts were cloudy and there were large marks on the props where you could
> tell he cut them from the tree, his paint job looked terrible and his
> decals were not done well at all, and his landing gear were crooked with
> big wells of glue at the attach points..... This guy can miss such huge
> problems on his kit and yet has the keen eye to find a seam INSIDE my
> planes fuselage??????
>
>
> There is no pleasing this sort of person. You just have to develop thick
> skin and have fun on your own! "
>
> --Frank Crenshaw
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Frank Crenshaw fccr...@usgs.gov
> Computer Specialist
> USGS Grand Junction, CO (970) 245-5257 ext. 3018
> "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
When Frank told me that story, I really couldn't believe it. I'm no fan of
contests to be honest - sure, I've won a few, but I feel modelling is a
hobby, not s competitive thing - but if someone came up and told me they'd
used a flashlight and dental mirror to look for seams INSIDE my model,
they'd be X-Raying his alimentary canal for a flashlight and dental mirror.
I judge the occasional model thang and I choose the best model there and
then. Sure, some of them are finished in ways and means that aren't to my
taste, and sometimes itąs a case of choosing the least worst (!) but as
modellers we see things differently and interpret that on our models in our
own way. I dare say modellers donąt like the any I finish models, I'm not
going to loose any sleep over it.
Iąve always believed that scale models are miniature reproductions of our
*impressions* of the real thing, not 1000% perfect exercise in engineering.
And hey, if anyone wants to see if I would do that thing with the dental
mirror and flashlight, try me...
:-)
--
Jonathan Mock
łQuick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...˛
The Walrus
you. How would that individual "judge" a plank-on-bulkhead ship model that
is, by design, not real in its internal structure? Although it is admirable
and desirable to strive for accuracy, modelers tend to forget that this
exercise of ours, in general, has more in common with oil painting and
sculpture than it does with engineering -- although there are exceptions to
this statement. Sloppy work is inexcusable. The purpose of fine detailing is
to better create the illusion of reality, making the model look like it would
work, even though we know it cannot.
Ken Goldman
THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER
http://www.wman.com/~khgold/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mike
on the engine on my 1/48 Mustang and I was 3cu.in. over the actual
displacement in 1/1 scale. He also said my stroke was wrong but I
dispute that. He did give me credit for using the correct thread on my
spark plugs however and having the proper amount of strands in the
ignition wire.;)
--
Mike Dougherty
Toronto, Ont.
Canada
IPMS C4928
"Uh oh....."
- famous last words
Ron Smith
OXMORON1
>I was disqualified from a competition because a judge did a volume test
>on the engine on my 1/48 Mustang and I was 3cu.in. over the actual
>displacement in 1/1 scale.
This shows the need for proper documentation, pull your copy of the engine
tech. order and make a copy of the tolerances for engine assembly and overhaul.
> He also said my stroke was wrong but I
>dispute that.
What the heck does golf have to do with this newsgroup?
Snip the balance, except for..
>He did give me credit <
What is this credit crap, you pay him to judge you so harshly?
Do not tell "flyby" about the ignition wires or you will have to give him all
your secrets and tell him how to do the work on the cheap.
Oxmoron1
E McCann
This will primarily be true with commercial airliners (considering I was
paying quite a bit of attention on the trip I just finished) but these
are what I saw:
Regional airline (Horizon) using DeHavilland Dash-8's:
Very little weathering, however *some* panels were visible - not as
outlines, but a mix of "off" color panels and outlines (look at... oh,
can't think of who it is, but their models are on Hyperscale - they
paint the panel lines in a dark color first, THEN do the regular
colors.) It looked *exactly* like that.
National airline (Delta, and others) using a mix of Boeing 737-757-767
and MD-10 (IIRC) -
Wings were very distinct in outlining panels and such, esp. around
flaps/spoilers. Center area of wing is definately *dull.* The only
"lines" visible were the doors and a sort of outline along a group of
windows (Which works out, btw, with the "window" strip decals.) Not much
else shown, even around cargo doors.
The regional airlines seem to show a little more detail (from looking
around) than the national ones. Oh, and yes, on the bigger ones, you
definately see the "puttied" panels up close. (Figure from the distance
I was at in the terminals and such, they'd be 1/48=1/100 scale...)
-Eric
emc...@iag.net
jerry 47 wrote:
>
> To get back on topic, once again I will say this. At the scale distances
> involved, you couldn't see the panel lines because you are too far away. NO
> KIT should have panel lines, either raised or engraved. Putting panel lines
> on 1/48 or 1/72 airplane kits is an affectation. Look at either real
> aircraft or pictures of aircraft. 999 out of 1,000 times, you will not/can
> not see the panel lines. Any aircraft model with visible panel lines should
> automatically be eliminated from consideration for any award in any contest.
> Jerry 47
>
> Chun325 wrote in message <19990415221126...@ng113.aol.com>...
> >>From: Jeff Cooper <Mun...@NOSPAM.invalid>
> >>Date: Thu, Apr 15, 1999 16:23 EDT
> >
> >>Sorry, but I first read that as "National whining modellers" and laughed
> >>the cat right off my lap.
> >
> >ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
> >HAPPY MODELING, and BASICS FIRST!
> >Bradley Chun - IPMS #33945
> >IPMS/Silicon Valley Scale Modelers - 2nd V.P.
> >I build vacuform, therefore I am.
> >Invisible souls exit thru suppressed 9mm and .308 cal holes !
> >You can run, but you'll only die tired.
--
Anti-spam measures in place.
Shake a 'leg' to email me.
Steve Bamford
Steve Bamford
Rama Lama Do Dah Day
Official Temple Historian
Grand Creator of :-ş on RMS
Northern Temple
Canada
>Charles Gallo wrote in message <371954fb....@news.datatone.com>...
>Laugh all you want, but there is a guy building a scale model of a
>Merlin, that COULD operate, that shows the model at the metalworking
>shows. It's about a foot long. There are THOUSANDS (I think he said
>20,000) of hours in it already, and it's not done (I think he said
>another 15,000 hours - YES 7.5 full time years!)
>
>Charlie
>
>On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 17:00:45 -0400, Mike <gre...@lunaticfringe.org>
>wrote:
>
>>I was disqualified from a competition because a judge did a volume test
>>on the engine on my 1/48 Mustang and I was 3cu.in. over the actual
Charles Gallo
Me262pilot
times (not always) but more often than not there is a good kit hiding inside
the box. It takes some work to get rid of the "warts" and make something of
it....and I learn something new almost every week. Thanks to this NG.
Bill
Mike
>
> Laugh all you want, but there is a guy building a scale model of a
> Merlin, that COULD operate, that shows the model at the metalworking
> shows. It's about a foot long. There are THOUSANDS (I think he said
> 20,000) of hours in it already, and it's not done (I think he said
> another 15,000 hours - YES 7.5 full time years!)
>
Ya but it's not in quarter scale like mine!;)
BTW, anybody see the cutaway 1/72 Typhoon(or was it a Tempest) in FSM's
Great Models '99? Bet there was a couple of hours invested in that!
Bossarnold
Is every kit with recessed panel lines great?
No.
SVanaken
>Merlin, that COULD operate, that shows the model at the metalworking
>shows. It's about a foot long. There are THOUSANDS (I think he said
>20,000) of hours in it already, and it's not done (I think he said
>another 15,000 hours - YES 7.5 full time years!)
>
About 15 or so years ago, Scale Aircraft Modelling had an article about a
fellow in the UK who had build an operating Merlin. I believe it was 1/4 or
1/5 scale. Apparently it was quite a hit when he fired it up!
Jonathan Mock
> I'm guessing this guy doesn't have young kids under foot.... ;-)
Shall I do my Fred West joke now or later?
:-O
--
Jonathan Mock
³Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand...²