I have seen a couple B-52Ds with a combination of yellow and green chromate on the inside of the gear doors. By that I mean one door would be yellow while another would be greeen, not two colors on one door.
Hi Darth Homer
Sorry old boy but I din’t say I was an expert!!! I just gave my opinion on the subject…You apparently don’t like somebody elses opinion?..[V]
I respect everyone’s opinion even if I don’t agree with everyting said…
PS: Conserning the C-130 in the FSM cover…In my 51 years of Modelling and flying for 8, I have never seen a picture of a USAF aircraft in such bad shape in peace time…
The AC-130 that flew for 26 nights (more or less) over Panama City before and during the Invasion, and destroyed many installations, includding private property, and armored cars never looked like that.
…During WW2, Corea and Vietnam planes looked simetimes worst but in war there are prorities to keeping the paint neat. I have seen planes in junk yards that look like that, but they (sadly to say) were placed there to die. So if the model portrays one that has been sitting in one of these aircraft cemeteries for quite a while it should have been said in the article.
Bottom line is, we can model them anyway we like, we can paint them pink and purple if we want. But if you’re trying to make it look like the real thing, and especially when you put in all the aftermarket goodies, scratchbuild, kitbash etc. to make it look as close as possible to the real thing, why on earth would you over emphasize the panel lines to such an unrealistic degree that looks like a gray Excel Spreadsheet?
It’s totally your perogative to do so, after all it’s your kit. But don’t expect everyone to love it. Clearly, many of the kits we’ve seen presented with the overdone panel lines are still amazing creations. So many of you have more modeling talent than I’ll ever have, and your work and photos inspire me to do better and try new things. 
Here is what that AC-130H looks like today.
I’ve posted this picture before, the mechanics on this 109 really over-emphasized the panel lines here, wonder what the judges will think?
http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Me109-F4-14-Marseilles.jpg
The bottom line is that there will never be agreement on this issue because we all have a different perception of what realism is. I like washed panel lines, I feel that it helps lend a sense of perspective and depth to the aircraft and helps convey the sense that I’m looking at an aircraft rather than a painted piece of plastic molded in the shape of the aircraft. I’ve got literally hundreds of photos of WW2 aircraft that show aircraft with a noticable dark accumulation in all or nearly all of the panel lines, photos taken from at least 20’ away in many cases. I’ll use this as my guideline rather than mathematical formulae that tell me that they should be invisible in “X” scale or other people’s preferences. If you find my models unrealistic, oh well, I build them for me.
The thing is, you can hardly see any panel lines on the fuselage, when there should be some prominent ones just aft of the cockpit and under the canopy.
Here’s a model of a plane much like that one:
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal2/1801-1900/Gal1900_Me109_Ulgur/gal1900.htm
I think the modeler did an excellent job, and his panel lines looks fairly subtle, but they’re still more pronounced that what’s shown in your photo.
I agree, however, that checking photo references, when available, is a modeler’s best bet for getting the “right” look. [:)]
Regards,
One reason you notice the darkness on real WWII aircraft is because these planes had overlapping panels, instead of having joints in the panels like todays aircraft. I think one major thing that makes the cover model look so weird is because of the black used on the panel lines, and the light gray paint used over it. If they would have done a dark gray it may not have looked so prominent!
Hi Berny13:
WOW…The old " Fantasma" as we used to called it is still a live and kicking!!!
happy to know that.
16 years ago, about 8:30 PM we started hearing it go round and round, high, until about 2 AM. I remember one night the Guardia Nacional ack ack made a few shots to it but in a few seconds they went silent to never do it again, they never knew where it was…[:D]…
The C-130 has been one of my preferite aircraft since it first flew. I lived in Marietta, Giorgia back in 1969 and the Lockheed Plant was only 3 miles away, I used to stand by the road off the runway, with a bunch of other guys, and watch the brand new beauties roll out and fly their first flights for hours.
Thank you for the Photos…is that you by it???
Gera
Conserning the C-130 in the FSM cover…In my
Having read through this entire post just today (ah, the quietude of a “rain day” ), one aspect of all this has not yet cropped up–printing.
I was hugely disappointed in the USS Pennsylvania article, until I saw the detail picture of deck construction which showed the contrast from the deck color versus the “vertical” color. None of the ‘finished’ pictures showed any contrast at all (a big bugaboo of mine–similar to using one color to depict the USAF air superiority scheme; just wrong). What happened was that the limitations of photo printing in periodicals is limited in range.
With that in mind, when ever I look at the Spectre, I ‘force’ myslef to only look at the detail, not the paint. The limits of printing, and the limits of the camera/medium used for image capture, dozens of subtle shades could have been lost; the contrast between the shades artificially increases, etc.
That does not mean I have not seen some panel lines shaded like they were window frames–probably as many as really ‘needed’ some, tiny, shading.
Now, my first impression on seeing the cover was “Huh? There’s an “arctic” paint scheme for AC-130s?” Having thought about it a bit, it was tempting to go ‘capture’ the image and port it into PhotoShop and see what happens bringing the base color closer to Euro 1, and bringing the shading lines closer to, say, Gunship. Some reflex of sanity (or an excess of hours before a CRT) kept me from so meddling, but the thought still remains.
There’s 2¢ more to toss into the pot; we’ve probably almost enough for a plain cup of coffee by now . . .
Ah yes, the time tested technique of putting words in one’s mouth. You’re absolutely right. How dare anyone except me give an opinion. String ‘em all up, I say! [;)]
The funny thing is, I never called you out in anyway. My point was simply that a builder should build for themselves only.
IMHO, the “so-called experts” are the only downside of this hobby (come to think of it, my other hobby, Reef Tanks, has plenty of these types too. Yup, I have a Red Sea Purple Tang in with my Indo-Pacific Powder Blue Tang…totally unrealistic…but it is one of the most beautiful things I have had the pleasure of seeing.). Who am I to say that someone’s model building work in unrealistic? Who [censored] cares?!? The builder of said model obviously had a vision in their mind and built (painted) their kit the way they want it. If I don’t like it, there is a handy little button at the top of my web browser…it’s that magical button labeled “Back”. I click that, and WOW, I can’t move on and look at a model that does fit what I like to see in a model. [:)]
If some one doesn’t go through and correct every panel line, etc, or paint the plane (tank, car, ship, whatever) in the exact color, so be it. Does that builder deserve any less respect/praise as the builder who does? Not to me. If the builder is happy, I’m happy, and I’ll look at the model and admire the work that was done. Hopefully I can pick up a technique or two. Heaven knows, I’m still trying to get my seam work down…grr, what a pain. I’m going to get it someday. [tup]
I’m a big enough man to say I’m sorry if I in any way offended you. But I’m also a big enough man to let a builder build and paint their model anyway they want. There’s room for everyone in this hobby…that is the great thing about it.
I’ve been building for about 2 years. I like to use the panel line wash. I guess that means my models are all unrealistic crap. [:I] Oh well, I like them. I’m proud of them. When I look at them, I get that swell of pride knowing that I made them with my own hands. I have used AM cockpits, PE, Decals on some of them….guess that makes it an even greater waste of time/money since my panel lines are totally unrealistic. [:P] [;)]
Oh well, to each their own. Hope y’all are enjoying your current builds, no matter how you are building it!
[2c]
Take Care everyone!
Brian
Now that sounds good. I think I’ll make a run to Starbucks!! [:D]
Take Care everyone!
Brian
CapnMac82: What happened was that the limitations of photo printing in periodicals is limited in range.… Another good point, and probably dead on. Having finally really looked at the FSM cover in question, I see why some don’t like it, but as CapnMac82 implies, what the camera sees is not what the printer prints is not what the human eye would see looking at the model. I just got back from the hobby shop (STICKER SHOCK! STICKER SHOCK! …but that’s another rant altogether) and there were models on display there that did have window frame panel lines—1/16 inch wide on a 1/48 scale model. Looked terrible close up, but from ten feet away, it looked very good. Photography often consists of fooling the camera to see what you want it to see (or what the human brain behind the human eye would think it sees), and the same holds true in scale modeling. Here’s an example: prominent panel lines on heavy equipment make it look heavy because of the increased contrast between adjacent, massive parts. Here’s another: take a color photograph and a black and white photograph of an unpainted steam engine. Notice that more detail shows up in the black and white—strictily an artifact of the photographic emulsion on the film, even the human eye can’t do that.
As a physicist who used to be a load toad on F-16s, we are informed by to additional bits of information:
-
At a distance of 1 meter, the limit of resolution of the human eye is ~0.1 mm.
-
In order to maintain laminar flow, i.e. to minimize turbulence over the wing surface, panels need to have a gap on the order of 1 mm.
Suggestion: Take the scale you are working in and use that to decide which panels need to be accented. For example, in 1/72nd scale, many recessed panel lines in kits amount to huge tranches that would create tremendous drag in real life.
Sure, it’s your model, but let’s get real about realism.
Brian Willard
National Radio Astronomy Observatory
When next you are flying about in your 1/72 scale F-16, can we watch?
[(-D]
I merely presented information for the good of the discussion, and felt I was quite clear.
The good of the discussion? I’m failing to see where these discussions do all that much good. Every couple of months we’re presented with a plethora of reasons and scientific evidence why washed panel lines are “unrealistic”.
Has anyone who uses wash in their panel lines abandoned the practice due to any of the evidence or opinions presented here? My guess would be no. Personally I’m a little of tired of the implications that my models are unrealistic because I use a technique that some people disagree with. Debate is good up to the point where you start pissing people off and causing division. When a new thread on this subject pops up next month and this is re-hashed, I’ll just ignore it.
If you don’t like to do it, by all means don’t. I promise never to start a thread on why I don’t like the way your model looks because you didn’t wash the panel lines.
You know, if you think about it… would panel lines on an aircraft really show up if it were magically shrunken to 1/48 size, or even 1/72? my guess would be probably not. But, the model companies give them to us, so I will wash them. Done deal
Good grief!
You were quite clear. You did add to the discussion, specifically to my comments on human perception—and I thought it was clear that I intended a little gentle teasing—not criticism! Sorry if you thought it was.
Perhaps I should have used more smilies—or looked for a Babelfish…
With the handle “zaphod” I was sure you’d understand. After all, we’re mostly harmless…
I even agree with your realism comment, to some extent. “Real” is 1:1 scale, anything else is an approximation. (I used to know someone who built in 1:1, until the county shut him down.)
As a scientist, I expect you understand the point I was trying to make, earlier—what we think we see is not necessarily what we perceive, or even what we can perceive. Your quantification of human perception makes it easier to understand this.
While this discussion is interesting, I don’t think there is any final answer, other than, as someone’s sigfile says, “Build what you like, like what you build.”
And yes, I do know where my towel is, but not its current state…
It’s already here: “Opening a can of worms.” What an appropriate name for the thread…
My problem is, as a former optical scientist, I find it hard to pass up a discussion involving human perception. [sigh][banghead]
Even [XX] doesn’t help…
Thank you. I don’t understand why some people (joyless model nazis0 either say its to clean, or its to dirty? Everything was clean at least once in its existence, and everything had to be dirty at least once so it could be cleaned?