Jump to content

Do you build aircraft to look pretty or real??


Recommended Posts

I was wondering how you all view your finished aircraft builds? Do you build your aircraft to look pretty or to look real?

My preference is to replicate the aircraft as it looks on any given day.

Construction and finishing being equal, do you prefer a clean finish or weathered realistic finish?

Just curious....

Edited by Rhinolover
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty can be real.

Some people like to build their aircraft fresh from the paint facility.

Others like to build them while deployed..

And both are historically and functionally correct.

Everything is valid.

I would agree....everything is valid. I conceed some aircraft are pretty. I think I was just seeking out peoples preferences.

Edited by Rhinolover
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to build all my models like they look in real Life.....Used. I do not believe in making them look like they just rolled out of the factory, or like they are in some art show. I have been to many Model shows where i have seen Me-109's and Fw 190's that look clean. 1st of all when they where in the war the aircraft where far from clean their paint was chipped and faiding. Also you notice many Modern fighter aircraft with barely scuffed up and all the bells and whistles being showed off. I was at the Homestead Airshow this past November and i saw and F-15 with a small hole in the intake where their was a peace of dibrea that struck it. If you want somthing that looks like a Franklin Mint model. Then buy one !!

Thats all i have to say about that

Frank :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually don't build pieces to look like museum exhibits. I like aircraft to look much the way they would day to day.

I can appreciate super clean builds from other people though.

Cheers

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

This is an interesting topic and a question I have long mused over.

My personal preference is for a realistic appearance as much as possible. I like to look over at my cabinet and feel like I'm looking out of a window onto a flightline......... :o

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Used and abused every time! Even present day restored warbirds have exhaust staining, dirt staining from rain/dust, fretting of cowl fasteners etc. I've even a static museum aircraft with oil staining from leaks, or worse still, covered in dust as per the Science Museum Hurricane!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to go for the real (weathered) look. My own peeves are airliners that look absolutely immaculate (they are some of the dirtiest planes in the sky) and natural metal finishes that make the model look like it is wrapped in silver foil. Most pics and examples of unpainted aircraft show them to be a dull, silvery grey. Certainly not the highly buffed, shiny finish shown on some models. Note - I am well aware that there are exceptions to these statements.

Both examples to me make a model look toylike.

That being said, it is up to the person investing the time and money to decide which route makes him the happiest. Nobody else's opinion should matter.

Regards,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a "rivet counter" :) I preffer my builds to look as a real thing but weathered moderately.

Fresh painted birds are NOT my style, to me they look unreal. Even slight weathering brings much realism to a model, I hope you agree. :o

Cheers!

Alexander.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can go either way, but I tend to stray to the clean side because I haven't had/taken the time to perfect my weathering technique yet :(

Ves :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm one of the few modelers who builds them to look pretty, but I will freely admit that I am a very casual (although very enthusiastic) modeler. My "research" usually consists of reading the instructions. My finished models do look toy-like, but that does not bother me (and I take no offense at the term), as I enjoy the process. I know many of you will consider this heresy, but I'd rather finish multiple clean models than one weathered one, because (1) there are so many subjects I want to build and (2) just trying to build them cleanly represents enough challenges for me! Perhaps in the future, building them clean will become routine, and at that point I'll start weathering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually do clean. I will do less than clean on occasion, but only if I have enough references of a single aircraft so I can copy that one aircraft's wear pattern. I won't do an "idealized" weathering job. Partially, it is because I haven't been around real aircraft enough to have a feeling for what typical wear looks like, so my attempts look kind of fake. I also feel like a model should represent not only an existing physical object (even if a fictional object), but that object at one moment in its history. The cleaner you make it, the more sure you are that it looked like that at some point in its history, even if it is only for the first 5 minutes out of the paint shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MY ONE and ONLY model that I have built so far is F-15 Eagle and

it is pretty and clean... :wub:

....I got t messy doing it though !!! :whistle::tease:

I guess it depends on the subject at the time of the build.... :rofl:

HOLMES

Link to post
Share on other sites

I build "real," which in my subject area (modern jets), generally means slightly weathered. Overdone weathering IMO detracts and is sometimes used to hide basic construction flaws.

Some USN TPS aircraft from the 80's and 90's became unbelievably weathered while on cruise, but I personally can't bring myself to paint an aircraft to look as though it is dirty with a hundred splotches of primer gray sprayed here and there. Better to look like it is out of the paint barn for a few weeks, rather than filthy from being on cruise for four months.

Having said all that, one of our local club members builds high quality and squeaky clean, and he hauls off awards at every show he goes to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I try to build as much as possible "real", but at the same time trying to make the overall effect balanced.

I think that in this way, the model assumes a life of its own, this is probably an idea that has remained in my head when I painted figures.

Of course there are clean models that are true masterpieces although do not fall under my point of view.

I am attaching some pictures of my figure models

gengizkhan1.jpg[/url][/img]

highlander.jpg[/url][/img]

higthlanderveteran.jpg[/url][/img]

Gianni

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey-

I go for moderate weathering, just enough to make it look like it has been used. IMO a heavily weathered aircraft or armor, even if very accurately done, looks silly to me without a base or in a diorama to give it some context as to why is is so weathered.

Gianni, just beautiful figures! Boy, I wish I could do that.

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gianni, that's some fantastic paintwork on those figures! The guy in the middle looks like Neil Young a little...

The question, as worded, is a bit loaded. It suggests that pretty can't be real (which you've already and rather politely conceded in the first few replies) but it also implies that weathered IS real...that depends on the subject and also on who's doing the weathering. Many a model has been "ruined" by heavy-handed and just plain over-the-top weathering, IMHO.

If that's what makes the modeler happy then by all means, have at it, but it's getting to the point now where single color paint is all but expected to be applied in multi-hued layers and pronounced panel line weathering is becoming almost synonymous with realism...I've seen so many Luftwaffe models with "scale effect" lightened paint to convey "distance" yet with panel lines as dark and heavy-looking as they might appear up-close on the full-size aircraft requiring one to slip into a self-induced cross-eyed trance (like "finding the giraffe" or whatever in those goofy dot paintings that were all the rage about 10-20 years ago) by looking "through" the panel lines to eventually discover the faint greyed-out camouflage pattern hidden somewhere beyond the gridwork maze. Funny, most real late-war Luftwaffe aircraft were probably only a few weeks old by the time they were destroyed, either shot down or shot up on the ground.

Lo-viz USN jets are a category unto themselves when it comes to "realistically dirty" although even they get a fresh coat of paint occasionally so both ends of the weathering spectrum and anything in between can be and is a realistic representation.

OK-so to (finally) answer, I'll join those who've said it depends on the subject, although lately I've been attracted to the cleaner and prettier subjects...

Maybe I'm just getting old and realizing life's too short for the uglier ones! ~John

PictureP51-139.jpg

http://s218.photobucket.com/albums/cc77/tubeglue/?start=160

Edited by John Krukowski
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...