Why the animosity towards WIFFs (What If builds)?

[Litvyak]

Where it becomes a bit of a grey area for me is the fictional parts. Things like the mounting of weapons rails that don't or have n't actually existed on that airframe, imaginary colour schemes that sort of thing. I would probably be less inclined to offer any input on those aspects of a build given the choice.

This makes me curious: why does it matter what it'll be used for?

I build both real and what-if - I may ask a question today about something about a detail for a what-if American People's Air Force MiG-21, but how do you know I won't need that information down the road for a real-world Hungarian Fishbed?

Or another aspect of the same thing. Due to space and time and monetary constraints, I have to be selective of what I build; so, with the VERY rare exception, my real-world builds are almost exclusively of Canadian subjects. So, would it be a waste of your time to answer a question I might ask about, say, a pylon, in a discussion about F-15s? The information may never end up being used... but that doesn't mean I can't be interested in the answer. I build models because of my interest in all aircraft; I'm not interested in aircraft because I build models.

Let me answer that with a question.......why would you? Why would you not just build a squadron airframe? :blink: If everything but the serial is factual, why not just go the whole hog and build a real aircraft? Now I'm all confused again..... :wacko: :lol:

Well. Maybe because, say, I like the number 234669?

In sum, I can't comprehend the resistance to sharing information simply based on what it will be used for.

If someone asks a question to which I know the answer, I'll answer and be happy I could help someone; information wants to be shared, after all. I have a personal... revulsion to Nazi subjects, for example, but if a question is asked, and I can answer, I will, just on principle.

Where I understand this least is where it the what-if part is just a what-if paint scheme. It almost came to pass in the real world that Canada bought Iran's F-14s right after the Islamic revolution there; this deal fell apart after the Iranian government discovered Canada's role in getting some hostages freed. Motivation here? This could have happened!

How about an in-service Avro Arrow?

How about one of the aircraft that didn't win a given competition - say, F-16 in the Canadian competition that resulted in the Hornet choice.

Or, the AIM-XYZ missile that was cancelled in favour of the AIM-ABC. "What pylon would have been used to carry that missile operationally?" Is that a waste of your time too, if you know the answer?

Detail accuracy is relevant for reality-based whiffs - things that could have happened, but didn't - because the goal there is to make the finished model as plausible as possible.

[dmk0210]

I have many decal sheets,,,,,they are of popular and well known units and aircraft,,,,,but, nearly half of them were produced from pictures that are not in my book collection and don't come up during an online Google

for me, that makes them "nearly Whiff" material, because some of those decals are old enough to fall into the "wrong assumptions" era of decal companies, or the "that company made lots of errors" group of companies

You are right Rex. Some decals sheets are very much fictitious in some areas. I'd bet that many modelers are building WIFFs without even realizing it!

[geedubelyer]

OK, you're right, now I am confused. Don't these two points contradict each other? And also in the Goon car example you stated one would feel like they wasted time not knowing that the answer was going to be on a purple painted F-14. Now you're saying there is no reason to mention that the Canadian colour is going on a fictitous F-14. So if the person asked the general question, and then you found out that you dug through your resourced to find that correct Canadian color. When that person posted a pic of their F-14, didn't you say that would make one feel like they wasted their time? Not seeing the thoughts.

Bill

I see what you're saying. I have n't related my thoughts very lucidly have I?

Let me try to explain my train of thought. In the Canadian colour example the question is simply :"what colour does Canada use for it's cammo?" To me, it does n't occur to me that the builder would use it on a What-If F-14 or anything else for that matter. If I had that information and someone asked that question I'd post the answer. Same for the purple Goon car. If the OP just asked the question: "what colour was Joker's Goon car?" and I had that information, I'd post the answer. If I later found out that either scheme had been used on a fictional creation or should I say, a creation different to what I'd thought it would be used for then yes, honestly, I might feel that I'd wasted my time. :(

It's a character flaw I know and believe me, I try to be less selfish but it's not easy. -_-

[FAR148]

Let me answer that with a question.......why would you? Why would you not just build a squadron airframe? If everything but the serial is factual, why not just go the whole hog and build a real aircraft?

Years ago an Automotive Designer ask me to build a model for him, a Hasegawa F-16 A plus he got for Christmas. I built it for him and did a home grown convertion to a Block 40. Was it perfect... Heck no and I told him. Will he ever know the difference from an A plus to a Block 40... No (and 99% of anyone who sees it). The point is he loves the model and thats all thats matters.

Happy Modeling! (Real or What-If)

Steven L

[phantom]

That above is the kind of "What if" I like. Something that might have happened in a realistic paint scheme.

Kind of like the Canadian CF-16 question. No it never happened but IF it did the colours used are (likely) to be 36XXX.

Mind you sometimes the realistic just does not work, CF-16 in correct colours:

Same CF-16 in less boring colours:

With a "what-if" CFA-4 aggressor.

Edited July 9, 2012 by phantom

[geedubelyer]

This makes me curious: why does it matter what it'll be used for?

Hello Litvyak, truth be told, it does n't matter what it will be used for as I mentioned a moment ago. What is more telling is the time it takes to find said information. In the example I suggested to Bill the hour and ten minutes is the important part, not the information. If the What-If builder could easily create the component or item, scheme, what have you without real life information then spending some time finding and relating that information constitutes a waste of time. I might as well just make something up on the spot. The builder might be none the wiser and it would only take seconds. Through this discussion I have gained valuable insight into the world of Whiffs and recognise that Whiffers may ask questions from a different perspective to ones that I hold. I shall certainly take this away with me from this conversation.

I build both real and what-if - I may ask a question today about something about a detail for a what-if American People's Air Force MiG-21, but how do you know I won't need that information down the road for a real-world Hungarian Fishbed?

That's a very good question and one that I can't easily answer. You make a good point and it certainly gives me food for thought.

Or another aspect of the same thing. Due to space and time and monetary constraints, I have to be selective of what I build; so, with the VERY rare exception, my real-world builds are almost exclusively of Canadian subjects. So, would it be a waste of your time to answer a question I might ask about, say, a pylon, in a discussion about F-15s? The information may never end up being used... but that doesn't mean I can't be interested in the answer.

At the risk of repeating myself, if I had the information I'd offer it but that particular question would be similar to the F-4 wheel bays or Canadian cammo colour questions all of which relate to real world articles or things.

Where I begin to feel uneasy is spending time finding an answer to a question that could just as easily be answered by making something up.

If someone asks about an F-15 pylon that's one thing, if they ask about an F-15 pylon to mount on a Mustang, that's something else entirely.....(they could add anything that resembled an F-15 pylon to a Mustang and it would n't look any more or less realistic than an actual F-15 pylon)

In sum, I can't comprehend the resistance to sharing information simply based on what it will be used for.

I hope I offered a reasonable explanation above? I don't have a resistance to sharing information when the information is relevant but the exact shade of green that the Danes used on their Drakens does n't seem important to me if someone is painting a What-If B-17. Any shade of green paint that looks the same would do in my eyes and I struggle to see why there would be a need to know the exact colour.

Where I understand this least is where it the what-if part is just a what-if paint scheme. It almost came to pass in the real world that Canada bought Iran's F-14s right after the Islamic revolution there; this deal fell apart after the Iranian government discovered Canada's role in getting some hostages freed. Motivation here? This could have happened!

How about an in-service Avro Arrow?

How about one of the aircraft that didn't win a given competition - say, F-16 in the Canadian competition that resulted in the Hornet choice.

Or, the AIM-XYZ missile that was cancelled in favour of the AIM-ABC. "What pylon would have been used to carry that missile operationally?" Is that a waste of your time too, if you know the answer?

Detail accuracy is relevant for reality-based whiffs - things that could have happened, but didn't - because the goal there is to make the finished model as plausible as possible.

I suspect that this comes down to the overall interest in creating a parallel universe kind of situation where the builder wishes to portray what might have/could have been. In truth, I have more than enough on my plate trying to get to grips with what is going on in this world without getting sidetracked by fantasy aircraft and what might have been projects. With what I have left in my stash to build and at the rate I build I doubt I'll finish all of my real world projects, let alone any Whiffs.....

[Jennings]

I see lots of guys ask questions about details and a common answer seems to be "it's a What if, do whatever you want". Or what does it matter?"

I love WHIFFs, but what *does* it matter? The only one whose opinion is of any value (in almost anything in life, for that matter) is your own. I really couldn't care less what someone else thinks about what I like or don't like.

[RKic]

Why does anybody get a bee up their bonnet about anything anyone builds and how they build it?

Though the language here has been civil, the barely veiled judgment in some responses, of one type of modeling being more worthwhile over another is prickish and seems simply ridiculous.

Edited July 9, 2012 by RKic

[jeffryfontaine]

This is a hobby, not a religion though we seem to have just as many factions within our ranks as those that assemble for religious worship.

[TaiidanTomcat]

TT, nice looking "Meet-skito" or "Mosq-truder",,,,,lol, I am not sure which jet you started with before you added plywood wings to it

Not mine, I found it. Very cool though!

The Tomcat build was mine

[Rex]

that Tomcat was cool, too

that Marine Hunter is great,,,,,close to a Whiff based on Real, also,,,,,,doesn't ATAC have Hunters today? (if not, I am sorry, all I remember seeing is a Hunter in the background of an NCIS episode about a year or so ago)

[TaiidanTomcat]

that Tomcat was cool, too

that Marine Hunter is great,,,,,close to a Whiff based on Real, also,,,,,,doesn't ATAC have Hunters today? (if not, I am sorry, all I remember seeing is a Hunter in the background of an NCIS episode about a year or so ago)

That hunter is peach of a model :wub: That might be one of those "bridge builders" that we can all agree looks great, and find common ground between our tense tribes :lol:

[sadchevy]

As someone who builds for fun and relaxation, all my builds could be considered WIFFs, as in WHAT IF I could actually build an accurate model. I like to know details and such just because I'm interested in that kind of stuff and sometimes I put what I have learned to use.If I take the time to ask the question whether for a WIFF or reality, I would hope that the information gleened from said question wasnt a waste of time but more a teaching opportunity.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I really enjoyed the subtlety of this model

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47751/message/1238634340/Since+it%27s+April+Fool%27s+Day

[HOLMES]

You make a good point about individual artistry as well.

:wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:

[Rex]

almost too subtle for me

I figured out "what was wrong" just before I sent off a post asking what was Whiffing with that

that Mustang ranks right up there with the clipped wing USN Corsair I saw at a Nats a bit ago,,,,,,I stared at that thing for longer than I care to admit trying to figure out was different

I once saw a 5 bladed Griffin powered Hurricane at a show,,,painted as FAA Sea Hurricane

[sadchevy]

one in progress...as what I have know clue might turn out to be certain phantoms modern day alter ego.

[sharkey]

I like when other people do the WhatIfs', but I couldn't put that much work into something that wasn't a real jet or a complete kit. They are braver than I.

[Alvis 3.1]

I find there's about as much animosity towards What If builds as any other modelling subject. Wait around long enough, and you'll find somebody online who doesn't like how you paint your ejection seats.

Alvis 3.1

ARC Accuracy Police Liason

[Wayne S]

Wayne,,,,,you do get the irony of your car example, I hope?

if someone asked me about "a Dodge Hemi in a Ford Mustang",,,,,,I would just send him to looking for "Ford Hemi in Ford Mustang" info (two different Ford vintage engines),,,,,,,,,or send him to look for "Micky Thompson swapped 426 Hemi heads onto a 427 Ford block" references

Rex, it would be cool to give the knowledge about things that have been done. Now writing that, You still would not be giving the person relevant information to their question, you would have never gave them an answer to the question asked.

Person is building a 69 Mustang Mach1 and asked for accuracy of a Mopar 426 Hemi that they decided to put in the vehicle as a WIFF.

Understand? It is the Engine they would be asking the question for. The Mustang I guess could be seen as an intensifier for the Question it is added fluff.

I would do the same as you have written also tho. Tho I would not go on about it for five pages after the person wrote/told me "No thanks, I want to power it with a Mopar 426 Hemi".

Edited July 10, 2012 by Wayne S

[Jinxter13]

The King if not he's high in the Royal pecking order one Eddie M., whom is a member of these forums should get in on this and be heard. Ya wanna talk about some way, way out designs that could be very real...check out a WHIF build named "Hogzilla". Wings with a dihedral, quad engines, :wacko: .

HOGZILLA!!!!!

Edited July 10, 2012 by #1 Greywolf

[Litvyak]

In the example I suggested to Bill the hour and ten minutes is the important part, not the information. If the What-If builder could easily create the component or item, scheme, what have you without real life information then spending some time finding and relating that information constitutes a waste of time. I might as well just make something up on the spot. The builder might be none the wiser and it would only take seconds. Through this discussion I have gained valuable insight into the world of Whiffs and recognise that Whiffers may ask questions from a different perspective to ones that I hold. I shall certainly take this away with me from this conversation.

Well, I can't speak for all whiffers, but for my own part I want my whiffs to be accurate, too. Accurate, that is, to the backstory in question - which for me are all set in another quantum reality, in which this Earth is this Earth with a few differences. But if a given aircraft's backstory says that it flew with AIM-9Ls, then I'd like the missiles under the wings to be representative of AIM-9Ls. Sure, I could put an AIM-9B there, but then it wouldn't be an AIM-9L and the model would be wrong. Who knows this? The most important critic: me.

If someone asks about an F-15 pylon that's one thing, if they ask about an F-15 pylon to mount on a Mustang, that's something else entirely.....(they could add anything that resembled an F-15 pylon to a Mustang and it would n't look any more or less realistic than an actual F-15 pylon)

...

I hope I offered a reasonable explanation above? I don't have a resistance to sharing information when the information is relevant but the exact shade of green that the Danes used on their Drakens does n't seem important to me if someone is painting a What-If B-17. Any shade of green paint that looks the same would do in my eyes and I struggle to see why there would be a need to know the exact colour.

Yes, I *could* use anything - but any random green isn't the colour the Danes used, and I'd know it. Please refer above to the comment about the most important critic. :)

I suspect that this comes down to the overall interest in creating a parallel universe kind of situation where the builder wishes to portray what might have/could have been. In truth, I have more than enough on my plate trying to get to grips with what is going on in this world without getting sidetracked by fantasy aircraft and what might have been projects. With what I have left in my stash to build and at the rate I build I doubt I'll finish all of my real world projects, let alone any Whiffs.....

Ohhh, that I understand very well! Which is probably part of why most of my whiffs are digital art as opposed to plastic. I also very much enjoy creating the "parallel universe" situation itself. For an example, check out some of the pages under "General Info" at http://altcan.webs.com/index.htm ... rank structure is irrelevant to a model airplane, except in perhaps tangentially deepening the backstory.

I find it great fun, and very relaxing - an enjoyable way to NOT have to think about the real world for a while! :)

[JasonW]

I find there's about as much animosity towards What If builds as any other modelling subject. Wait around long enough, and you'll find somebody online who doesn't like how you paint your ejection seats.

Alvis 3.1

ARC Accuracy Police Liason

Actually, this comment is one of the more enlightening I've read in this thread. A very accurate way of putting it.

The 1/72 versus 1/48 debate, aircraft versus armor, Whiff versus uber-accurate, the "shut up and build it" crowd versus the "use every possible after market set and do uber surgery to correct even minor kit faults" crowd, cats and dogs in bed together........

The hobby seems big enough to accommodate all of us, some just seem bent on trying to make that not the case.

Oh well, Jennings got it right, the only person who you should build to please is YOURSELF.

[Spectre711]

I did this one a while back and was told that it wasn't a realistic loadout.

[Rex]

Spectre,,,that is because any idiot can tell you that no Phantom ever flew with that version of the tricycle gear,,,,lol

Wayne, yeah, I get you,,,,,the part I was typing would really just be "additional info" for that modeler,,,,,not exactly useful for what he really wanted to build

ps,,,,,,I forgot,,,,,,,Spectre, I like that model,,,,it reminds me of the Blue Mock Up before they knew which engine would be ordered,,,,,,the Blue Mock would be a good one to spring on Judges sometime,,,,they would swear it was a Whiff, then after letting it in, they would ding it for the "engines not matching side to side"

Edited July 10, 2012 by Rex