vince14 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) I've just seen some stunning work posted online - These are the engines for the Wingnut Wings 1/32 Felixstowe Flying Boat, built by a Japanese modeller; I have to say that the skills displayed by the modeller are amazing. The rust and mould are very convincing...but...unless the modeller is intending to display the kit as an aircraft that has been left in the open for 30 years, it's a completely unrealistic representation of what an engine on an operational aircraft would look like. Thoughts? Edited March 9, 2015 by vince14 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
toadwbg Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I like it. Modeling is art after all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tobiK Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Looks like a washed and clean old engine, not in service anymore. An engine like that would be shiny, oily. I imagine such engines from that time period were always a bit leaking. So the oil film protects it from corossion, means: rust not possible. But the (black) oil attracts dust, insects ... when the ground crew is busy and very proper, always having time to prepare for the next sortie, they wipe the engine, remove the oil but a very thin film still remains. That's my idea of an WWI aircraft engine...over 100 years later there are still engines leaking oil, Harley Davidson and even high quality japanese motorcycle engines do after a few years. Even my 20 year old VW Golf is doing that. But the work of the modeller is awesome...very skilled. It makes the part looking good. And as you said, modelling is in a certain range ART. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I think other than possibly a little too much surface rust that probably wouldn't be allowed to happen, everything else looks pretty darn realistic. Sure it might have a bit of an oil leak that wasn't cleaned up, but that's to be expected on some aircraft in wartime. I would say to err a bit on the slightly over-weathered is more realistic on a plastic model than a totally cleanly painted engine with no weathering, which in my opinion is too toy-like. At least that my take on realism. Besides that, it's WAY better than most modelers can do. Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Where are you guys seeing rust???? I see paint or some coating flaking off a crankcase, I see no rust colour in those pics. Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tarlucan Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 On a different form, there was a model of an aircraft type that I have flown operationally. The model was contructed and finished immaculately and weathered with a stunning degree of skill that I coukd only aspire to. However, it did not look like any aircraft that I ever flew! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If one is gunning for realism, what are the sources/references? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Incredible work. Not sure if it would be totally realistic for an operational aircraft but keep in mind, this was a seaplane with open cowls. The engines would be pretty beaten up. I can live with this because it adds a nice touch to the overall model. Now if you want to talk about all those models with excessive "preshading" (you know, the ones that appear to be plaid), that is a different story. If there is one technique that tends to be waaay over abused, preshading is it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I have to say that the skills displayed by the modeller are amazing. The rust and mould are very convincing...but...unless the modeller is intending to display the kit as an aircraft that has been left in the open for 30 years, it's a completely unrealistic representation of what an engine on an operational aircraft would look like. Thoughts? Like someone already said, it's art and these decisions must be made by the creator. That being said, I'm not sure if he was really off mark with his engine weathering because metals weren't as strong or corrosion resistant as they are today. That's one of the reasons it took the leading countries another 2 decades to make engines powerful enough to break the 400 mph barrier. A seaplane, always in the salty air, using engine systems that don't always contain their oil, and which were built during a time of severe wartime rationing, may very well have looked the part. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Now if you want to talk about all those models with excessive "preshading" (you know, the ones that appear to be plaid), that is a different story. If there is one technique that tends to be waaay over abused, preshading is it. Agree. Been around aircraft all my adult life. Navy aircraft on the boat can get pretty nasty looking but...I recently saw a model of a modern jet that the crew could get out and play chess on. The effect works well for WWII aircraft in the field but todays modern fighters not so much when "over done". Some folks idea of over done varies from others though. I'm currently building a C-2A and in my minds eye I want to make it look nasty and used but all the reference pics I come across of the particular aircraft I'm building show it to be only moderately dirty in the appropriate spots. Navy birds get washed frequently...often times a 7/14 Day inspection comes first over a flight (war time ops not withstanding). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
echolmberg Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Hey, if people can gouge channels (aka "panel lines) and have black lines cris-crossing all over their planes, then this guy can depict his engine any way he wants. Eric Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Since we are on the subject, my other pet peeve is bare metal combat aircraft that are buffed to a mirror finish. I'm sure that there were a few exceptions but your run of the mill ETO P-51D or Korean War F-86 combat vet were parked out in the open, serviced in the open and worked hard. Most aircraft would fade to a flat metallic grey-ish color within a short time. Very unlikely they would look chrome-plated like many models. Those just end up looking like kids toys. The few modelers I've seen that can replicate a worn, weathered bare metal finish have my respect. I've tried, it's pretty hard to pull off. Edited March 9, 2015 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) I think it's nostalgic revisionism that leads to those chrome mirror finishes. Some of the bare metal aircraft near the coasts lost their shiny appearances to the salty air and grease stains. A once pristine P-47 would become opaque and less reflective before long. 82 is right about the amount of weathering we generally choose to apply to modern US aircraft. I saw a few planes with patchy paintwork, but it never lasted long because the plane captains, maintenance department and airframers were always busy keeping up with the many federal programs they have to abide by. Even 'Nam vets have told me that they would have tore their crew chief's head off if their bird was as dirty as some of the models we presume to be accurate. It's not just about art, modeling is about history and perception. It's about interpreting the wider meaning of something, and processing it in such a way that you would like others to see it in. The few modelers I've seen that can replicate a worn, weathered bare metal finish have my respect. I've tried, it's pretty hard to pull off. Yes it is. The feat of capturing the look of a war-weary crate can change the viewer's understanding of history. Edited March 9, 2015 by Exhausted Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Thommo Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 The dirtier, the better.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AVGBob Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 See, that's ok because it's referenced. I think it should look like the original plane. If your references show a dirt caked mess, then by all means, make it that way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 The dirtier, the better.... Horrible job, where are the thick black, "pre-shaded" panel lines?? Kidding... I followed your build on the In Progress Forum, outstanding work! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Thommo Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Horrible job, where are the thick black, "pre-shaded" panel lines?? Kidding... I followed your build on the In Progress Forum, outstanding work! They were there.....but they got obliterated by the top coats, endless dry-brushing and the relative lack of finesse I have with my much abused and unwisely oft dismantled Aztek :D When I get around to buying an Iwata, the thick black pre-shading should rise like a Phoenix :o Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Some people have the skills to make a model any way they wish and still make it look great. I have no doubt, Thommo, that if you wanted a pristine Spitty then you would still have made one of the greatest I've seen. That's easily my favorite Spitfire model. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Thommo Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Some people have the skills to make a model any way they wish and still make it look great. I have no doubt, Thommo, that if you wanted a pristine Spitty then you would still have made one of the greatest I've seen. That's easily my favorite Spitfire model. Thanks for the plug, I appreciate it. As I said in the build thread, I had no idea how I was going to do all that staining, made it up as I went along and it turned out OK. I'm not so sure I could do a pristine spitty as well as some other ARCers though. Some of the finesse and neatness I see on here blows me away. And my eyes and fingers ain't what they used to be....which is a bit of a worry at 51 :o Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.