Spinning props

[Mikeew]

Hi All,

I have to ask about making in flight models (ie on a stand) with propellors.

I want to make a DH Mosquito In Flight. I searched ARC and found this link to a review by Steve Bamford of a product called PropBlur.

Prop Blur review

Anyone know if these are still available? if so in 1/72 scale?

I emailed them with the address shown at the end of the review but had delivery failure notice right back in to my inbox.

Any help appreciated.

cheers,

Mike

[brettkp]

Not sure about the product in question, but have you considered motorising the kit props? I'm in the process of doing this on my RAAF P-3C.

Brett

[MikeC]

I've not done too many in-flight models lately, but imo nothing looks very realistic: the most realistic-looking effect is to simply remove the prop blades, fill any gaps in the spinner or hub, and remove anything that doesn't leave the spinner/hub perfectly circular in cross-section.

HTH,

[pingu1]

What MikeC said. Just remove the blades and smooth the spinner. Anything else looks clunky.

Cheers,

Chris.

Edited February 17, 2007 by pingu1

[T-Tango]

Hi Mike, sorry to be the bringer of bad tidings, but just read an article on the www and it seems that PropBlur went out of business in 2004

Cheers

Pete

[Dr Fester]

Mike,

I had the same dilemma when I wanted to make my P-51 'Short Fuse Sallee' in flight.

In the end I had a few attempts with using a clear acetate disc which I mounted in a drill and applied sandpaper to the surface to generate the spinning effect. Then just lightly added the colour to the disc and created one complete version and also one cut in the shape of the prop blur PE to see if was any more effective.

In the end I used the complete circle and using photoshop just removed some of the disc for the photo:-

Just another option for you, certainly easier to just to remove the blades and fill the spinner though.

Cheers

Doc

[stan2004]

The segmented blur is a photographic artifact of fast camera speeds. While accepted as a proxy for motion in printed or 2-dimensional media, the human eye does not see segmented blur in real life. From reading the forums, one complaint of blur methods is the lack of blade depth or thickness.

So if you attach (press fit) the spinner to the metal shaft of an electric motor you leave the door open to all methods discussed in the review: 1) leave it still, 2) externally fan to spin for a photo shoot, 3) power by battery presumably hidden in your stand, or 4) press on a spinner with printed disc or photo-etched blur. Miniature motors suitable for 1/72 or 1/144 are readily scrounged from consumer gadgets. So even if you go with door #4, the cost of the motors will be negligible.

[Matt]

I used to use the acrylic disk, but recently I've become a convert to the 'remove the blades' approach.

Here's an example from the last BoB GB.

As has been said, I just left off the blade, and filled all the holes and spinner details.

Cheers,

Matt

[Miccara]

I used to use the acrylic disk, but recently I've become a convert to the 'remove the blades' approach.

Here's an example from the last BoB GB.

As has been said, I just left off the blade, and filled all the holes and spinner details.

Cheers,

Matt

My preference too. really seems to be the best option in the end.

[miduppergunner]

I think Mike this is one of those instances where only the real thing looks correct. Photos are not always helpful because if the shot is "posed" then in all probability the subject is very likely flying slowly and the blades will be quite visible. If it is side view the same is much the case - obviously too the shutter speed and even the quality of the lense is going to dictate the quality of the image. My inclination then would be to motorise the props - or go for the sans blade option! I have seen some quite good attempts with "discs" but they all look just what they are - and even a master like Doc can't do it completely convincingly! No hope for us lesser mortals then.

David.

[toadwbg]

All good suggestions, no one "right" approach.

IMHO- I like having something there to see. Probably because my son askes "Dad, where is the spinner!" if it isn't there!

[whytewolf]

Just to dredge up this topic again:

I'm building an inflight display of a Halifax Mk II bomber as it's going down after being shot up by a Bf-110. I'm not sure how to deal with the spinning prop effect on the starboard engines--the port engines are dead and so the kit propps have been left sitting staticly.

Any ideas? I'm afraid leaving the hubs clean without blades on the starboard engines would look goofy. Too bad there aren't any 1/72 scale PropBlur etch around ;)

Cheers,

Sean

[BigJets]

Check out the B-24 in yesterday's 'Todays builds'. Nice job there, looks a lot closer to real than did the Prop Blur thing. I was thinking of experimenting with discs of clear acrylic, onto which would be airbrushed the blur.

BJ

[niart17]

I have to agree that IMHO it is better to have something there to see. While it's true the camera increases the amount of prop blur you can see, even in person, a prop is visible. I think the key is being subtle. I have never tried to reproduce spinning props, but of the models i have seen, those with some attempt at showing a prop have more action. Not being critical of those who leave it off, but some would say that is like covering bad intakes as opposed to fixing them. Also, in essence, a model is like a 3-dimensional photograph of a subject, it too is stopped in time. So i think to reproduce the "photo" effect is more than acceptable.

[bizzah]

http://world-war-2-airplane-model.com/spin...-propeller.html

found that. dunno if it helps your cause though cuz it jsut makes it freewheel when you blow on it or something like that. doesnt' actually look spinning all the time.

just thought i'd throw that out there

biz

[chukw]

My opinion- for what it's worth- is that any fake "spinning prop" effect looks just that- fake, and toylike. Avoid the obvious- strive for the subtle. You'll be admired for your self restraint. ;)

Edited June 6, 2007 by chukw

[WW2ace]

If you simply must have something there, just a very thin clear disc. Any sanding or paint will only make it look silly. Better to just leave the blades off.

[Expat Tomcat]

<_< HERE'S AN IDEA!

I dunno, theres alot of good advice here, but IMHO there HAS to be some... thing there. Disc, blur, spinning thing, SOMETHING! The point of spinning props is to show action. I grew up in the shadow of Butch Schroeder's Mustang, the neatest thing is that big fat bladed prop beating the air into submission. ZOOOOOM!!! I think the biggest reason I'm so in love with Mustangs is the power that prop puts out. To leave off the blades renders a prop plane static, it removes the kinetic force. Seems to me kind of like taking the rear tires off a dragster. A photo of a jet looks like any other static object against a clouded sky or a static ground. Many inflight photos of jets, for instance those taken between planes, look very non-kinetic. The motion comes from the relationship of other objects being blurred by the stopping of a moment in time by the camera or following the plane in the case of a motion picture. High speed cameras that would be capable of matching the engine rpm could literally do stop motion photography on prop blades. The prop blur is an optical illusion because your eye is incapable of seeing the prop at the speed its moving. SO if its an optical illusion, it can be reproduced, it's just no one has come up with a clever enough way to render it in 3 dimensions, with the proper opacity and fade on the blades. Maybe a combination of more than one idea could produce. What about a discus shaped( as in fat in the middle tapered on the edge ) carefully shaped, subtlely faded, lexan disc on a SLOW moving motor to mimic the optical oscillation. That would be pretty darn close at least.

I have a military issue Micromesh kit. This consists of a set of sanding sheets from 400 to 6000 grit for sanding dings in real aircraft canopies. This little jewel would allow you to turn the lexan on the lathe, then sand it optically clear enough to see through clearly, then one could paint the desired fade on both sides. If you painted it on just one side the image would be flattened again and the purpose of the 3d disk would be mute. The trick would be getting the paint fade right on both sides and you have to paint the inside part that came in contact with the spinner. Then a clever way to secure it would have to be figured out. Maybe the whole thing, spinner and all, would need to be turned down from a thicker disk of lexan then painted, rather than using a separate spinner. THIS CAN BE DONE! I just bet some way, some how it can be pulled off accurately.

I probably just gave away a patent and a million bucks. <_<

Edited June 7, 2007 by Expat Tomcat

[Kelly Quirk]

My opinion- for what it's worth- is that any fake "spinning prop" effect looks just that- fake, and toylike. Avoid the obvious- strive for the subtle. You'll be admired for your self restraint.

If you simply must have something there, just a very thin clear disc. Any sanding or paint will only make it look silly. Better to just leave the blades off.

Couldn't disagree more. A well done "spinning" prop effect looks much better than leaving the blades off. Leaving the blades off looks just that - missing blades.

[Expat Tomcat]

^ bump