Why is military aircraft more popular to model?

[Superjew]

I was thinking about how I love modeling WWII planes and have dreams of cranking out a ton from my work bench, but no civillian aircraft, even Military aircraft that also has a civillian variant looks a little boring to model, such as a DC3/C47 or One of those pipercub lookin artillery spotters in the Vietnam war.

Is it because of the sheer performance of military aircraft, the advanced technology for its time period, the fact it can shoot down other planes and blow things up? Perhaps its because some of the best looking airplanes were weapons of war from WWII? B-17 looks great, is what Im modeling now, and I think the sound and sheer power of a Corsair is amazing, would make a good 2nd model.

One thing I like about WWII airplanes, is that so much of it was fought in the air, that I like to think that these planes changed the course of history. I forget which German General said it, but when he was asked which battle changed the pace of the war in favor of the allies, the russian journalists were expecting him to say Stalingrad and he said 'Battle of Britain' which was mostly an airwar.

Do modelers tend to be military buffs that allowed their familiarity with weapons of war go towards which aircraft they model? I am pretty big on WWII and its history, as well as flight simming in WWII aircraft (Cant wait for BoB:SoW to come out)

I could foresee a commercial pilot modeling a Boeing 787 if thats the plane he might fly, and wants a desk ornament signifying what he does for his living, but at the same time I think games like X-Pilot and Microsoft Flight Simulator looks kind of boring outside of their amazing graphics (Although Ive never played them)

In terms of showing your skill as a modeler and with an airbrush, there would be more options with civillian aerobatic airplanes with vibrant paintjobs compared to dull camoflauge or olive drab, but for some reason a model of Patty Flagstaff's airplane does not seem as interesting to look at as a well done P-38, with 4 .50 cals and a 20mm hispano cannon sticking out, and the whole idea of strafing tanks or dogfighting seems more exciting than aerobatics.

Anyways, I guess Ill get off my soap box, but my friend said he could never get into modeling, and I told him that outside of the molded parts, the plane is a completely blank canvas that you can make look however you like, and is like a 3d painting of a plane pulled straight out of that time period, as I use to draw WWII planes when I was a kid and I wanted something to sit on my desk that was more interesting to look at than a painting. The one thing I noticed is that neither one of my friends seem to like props as much as jets, but to me props have character that jets do not have.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Superjew

[dmk0210]

I mostly model single seat fighters. High performance and cool camouflage schemes.

To further expand, I love a nice old Cessna 180 or Beachcraft Staggerwing. The old Lockheed Connies are a thing of beauty and the big Jumbojets are impressive. However they just don't stir up the excitement of a Merlin or P&W engined fighter screaming through a barrel roll, or an F-16 or F-18 roaring through the mountains on the deck, or an F-15 or SU-27 running down a runway in full afterburner then rotating, tucking up the wheels, and pulling full vertical in a climb.

Edited December 10, 2010 by dmk0210

[jester292]

Very good question, and thought provoking. I have thought about this before because I only model military aircraft. Apart from not having much interest in civilian aircraft (in a modeling aspect), I have no answer.

Aaron

[Jinxter13]

IMHO it's the capability of the military machines specifically the fighters, bombers, and the attack aircraft,that capture the imagination, or the thought flying these aircraft in the arena for which they were created, and doing heroic deeds or doing ones part for the good of the land and/or nation they call home. By modeling a particular aircraft they can get as close to that or they can have readily at hand for constant admiration; a replica of a type or a specific plane. The capability of such aircraft as the Raptor, Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Flanker, and the Dragon gets some as close as they can to doing things millions have dreamed of. J. Gillespie Magee said it best in "High Flight ":

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth

of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things

You have not dreamed of -

By building a model your admiration and imagination are boundless, and perhaps it's as simple as just having models of these fantastic machilnes done by you/me mere feet away for viewing at your/my leisure.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Angels49

[zeus60]

I started modeling military planes as a kid, so I'm not sure what inspired that. I do think the fact that military aircraft, regardless of era, have more interesting painting schemes is a big part of it. It is for me.

[Raymond]

because part of the human psyche is attracted to tools of influence and control :-)

[mingwin]

there's not much offers anyway in the "civilian side" of modelling...

and i think that this is mainly due to "copyrights" on privately own aircrafts...

so the kit manufacturer have to make an agreement with the aircraft maker, and with the sponsor or owner of a particulier machine...

(a bit like it would be for a race car model)

[fulcrum1]

The F-16 looks badass, it sounds badass, and it does badass things. A 737? That's like asking why people like Ferrari instead of Volvo.

[MarkW]

Simple. You can't take a 737 model and crank and bank it while making pew pew pew pew noises.

[steel_tiger1]

Because they can kill people & break things. nufff said.

[drhornii]

I like military subjects due to the fact I can have an uneven paint job by accident and I can get away with that by calling it weathering.

Civilian subjects are normally glossy & spotless finishes (usually white) and is harder to paint......

Plus, I like subjects that break & kill things.......

[Old Blind Dog]

Probably for the same reason that coupes and convertibles are more popular than four-door sedans and station wagons.

A Corvette will always generate more attention than a Caprice. Why? Speed, style, capability, and the fact that for the great majority of people, the Corvette is out of reach--a dream.

cheers

Old Blind Dog

[gonzalo]

I work with civilian aircraft. Believe me there are some beautiful aircraft to model. However, I build military planes because they captured my imagination. Until I served in the USAF I never really saw them so they were a bit of fantasy. Now, I build them because I don't like to spend my down time building aircraft I work around. I get enough of them and they certainly are not exciting, at least to me.

[graves_09]

The F-16 looks badass, it sounds badass, and it does badass things. A 737? That's like asking why people like Ferrari instead of Volvo.

Bingo.

[Eastern]

Hi! As for me, I build only military fast jets. Why military fast jets are more attractive to model?

Well, take a look at F-16 or Su-27UB, or Mirage 2000, or...well, even F-22 look more attractive to me than "bulky" passanger airliner (to me at least).

Fast jets in comparison with airliners or transport props and jets are like sport cars in comparison with trucks and other road vehicles.

I think a sport car is much more "sexy" than a truck. Similary to military jets and transport/passenger props or jets.

Military fast jet is a quintessence of human knowledges, technologies and design aiming to achieve something that shows high speed, manoeuvrability and beauty, all in one (correct me if I'm wrong here). Can't say that while picturing props or, say, huge jets.

I'm just in love with military jets!

Cheers and happy modeling! More fast jets on your shelfs!

Alexander.

[Wayne S]

there's not much offers anyway in the "civilian side" of modelling...

and i think that this is mainly due to "copyrights" on privately own aircrafts...

so the kit manufacturer have to make an agreement with the aircraft maker, and with the sponsor or owner of a particulier machine...

(a bit like it would be for a race car model)

Other then the big boys, I think most of civil type builders are more into the R/c "none static" part of our hobby.

The guys that like the big boys end with smaller scale desktop sizes. To a degree, from what I see, they have the same problem as other static forms these days.

One could buy die-cast with almost the same detail has none built models can produce, so if a person likes that type of thing and does not want to build up the skill set it takes to build a nice piece, they do not need to.

To me there are builders and collectors, majority of us fit into both categories somewhat. If those that just wanted a collection of say F-16s or what have you and were not forced to build their own, They most likely would not build and would just buy the die cast.

Cars on the modeling side are going through this now. There are good die cast companies producing cars, so those who just want a ready built collection could buy the die cast, That is why the race car side of static model building is getting smaller and smaller.

Luckily or possibly unluckily for some, on the military side of things there is no other option for static then to build ones own model or pay someone to build one, now there is no substitute.

Same for those on the R/c side with value other then WWI aircraft. Even to build a nice Scale P-51 etc is going to cost a good amount more then say a piper cub, God forbid we even look at jets on the R/C side, In realism if I had the money and space to build a fleet of 1/9th-1/10 scale birds I certainly would do so yet even one bird cost thousands if not 10s of thousands to build.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Wayne S

[Raymond]

i think that this is mainly due to "copyrights" on privately own aircrafts...

i tried to get into airliners, then my imagination was served with a breach of copyright notice

[B-17 guy]

For me, I was raised around the military, mostly army. I was always around military in some way, my dad used to take me to drill some times, he was a crew chief on helicopters, used to let me sit in them. I remember the smell, loved it. (Which was a big influence on my decision to go into the army) Plus dad was always watching war movies, amd some tv shows (tour of duty, china beach). Then we started going to the airshow every year in geneseo, and it was mostly all WWII warbirds, and that's where I fell in love with the B-17, and all the others. Seeing as how I couldnt have my own real B-17 for numerous reasons, building scale models was most the best option for having one, and here I am today.

Plus, civilian aircraft are boring, they dont have guns or drop bombs and have ugly paint schemes. My favorite colors are olive drab and neutral gray.

After building models, growing up on war movies, and going to airshows as a kid, I started to get into the stories of the men who flew and fought in them, which is now the main topic of all my books.

Edited December 10, 2010 by B-17 guy

[galileo1]

I like modern military aviation (modern fighter jets) and I like to build the machines that represent this specific side of things . Why? Well, it's quite simple, really:

1) I saw TOP GUN when I was a kid and my obsession with military jets began (particularly with Naval aircraft). My forum name says it all :D

2) Modern fighter pilots just look super cool with all their gear on (G-suit, helmet, Nomex gloves, oxygen masks, patches, etc).

4) I can never do what those guys do so that makes it even cooler

5) Afterburners rock!!

6) Hornet, Eagle, Tomcat, Raptor, Viper, Tiger II, Strike Eagle, Prowler, Intruder, etc, etc....yeah, sure, compare these slick names with names such as "Airbus 380." Boring doesn't even begin to describe civilian aviation.

7) Click >>>here<<< and >>>

<<< and tell me why would anyone like anything else!

Just some of my reasons....

Rob

Edited December 10, 2010 by TOPGUN

[Jay Chladek]

I think it is the power of the vehicle myself. I like fighters, be they single seat or two seaters (surprisingly enough, I prefer two seaters, probably due to the team play aspect). Experimental jets I have been getting more into, probably because it combines what is traditionally a military aircraft with a cleaner paintjob. The pilot of such aircraft had to really be on top of his "A" game flying one as the plane could potentially kill the pilot before any missiles would. Now in my case, I will always have a soft spot for the ultimate experimental aircraft, the Space Shuttle. In its normal state, it looks pretty dirty. Yet it can fly at speeds no jet will match while making a lot of fire and smoke. At the same time having a shape I wouldn't exactly call sexy (no wonder it is called the flying brick).

That being said, I do have an interest in civilian types as they are the types that the vast majority of us on this planet ever get to fly on. Sure, most are clean. But it can be just as much of a challenge to weather a civilian job that has been out of the paint shop for four years and is due for a maintenance check. Just look at pictures of some of Air France's dirtier jets to get an idea as to how weathered an airliner can get and still fly regular service.

[Darius at home]

For some obscure reason reading the posts on this thread reminds me of this:-

Over the years I have amassed a somewhat large collection of built aircraft kits and an even larger stash of unbuilt kits. By far the majority of both sets are military aircraft ranging from WW1 to the present day, but I have an ever-growing selection of civil subjects - not jet airliners, I hasten to add (never found these interesting). I like the "golden age" civil aircraft of the 20s, 30s and 40s, which are rare to find in kit form. Cabin biplanes and monoplines, air racers, floatplanes, propliners. To me these are just as interesting as their military contemporaries.

So that there is no misunderstanding, I still like and build military aircraft, hopefully less because of their ability to maim and kill people, but more for their sound, speed and appearance. That said, let's hear it for the civil aircraft as well!!!

Civils

:D

Darius

[Kevan Vogler]

A civil aircraft can exude just as much power as a military one can depending on where you see it.

Growing up, my hometown in Canada had two active airports, an international and a municipal. The municipal was not far from the centre of the city and had regular 737 flights.

At that time they were the long pod 737-200 series aircraft. If you've ever been around one of those when they were spooling up, you know you can feel the power of the beasts. I remember watching them come and go, I loved them just for the level of noise and vibration they could generate.

When I came to the Czech Republic from Canada, my flight was on an MD-11 with a 737 on either end of it. The first leg was on a 737-200 to connect wit hthe MD-11 and the final leg was on a later 737 variant from Amsterdam to Prague. I sat near the wing on both 737 flights, but it was a totally different experience. Yu could feel the power and vibration in the old -200 version; you could feel she just wanted to be unleashed. In the newer 737, nothing like it, smooth, almost no vibration; didn't feel the power at all.

If someone comes out with a decent 1/144 injection molded 737-200 with 70s/80s era Pacific Western markings, I know I'll be all over it. :D

For an awe inspiring civil aircraft, this one is hard to beat if you're near one when they taxi about and take off:

[spejic]

What I don't get is why tank models are far, far more popular than construction vehicles, which have similar utilitarian look, are even more complicated, and are readily visible to anyone in an urban environment.

[Camus272]

Yeah, its weird but I don't really have any interest in non-combat aircraft, or at least non-military (T-38, T-2, SR-71, C-5, C-17, C-130, S-37 are all okay). Of course it starts with shape, power and performance, but if there were non-militarized versions of an F-16 of F-22 I wouldn't find it nearly as interesting. I like the look of armed models. Even at air shows, I have no interest in looking at the civilian planes on static display, it kind of seems like looking at a bus or a neighbor's car. The stunt performers are okay, but I would prefer to be watching fighters. I'm not interested in violence or a warhawk, but it seems like there is so much more importance in the need to survive combat.

Brian

[Camus272]

For an awe inspiring civil aircraft, this one is hard to beat if you're near one when they taxi about and take off:

I saw one of these landing at MSP when I was taking off for Aviation Nation, an interesting sight indeed.

Brian