just picked up my new copy of FSM at my model shop. What do you all think of the spinning prop technique? I guess I am still out on this one.
i thought it looked interesting and worth a try.
but i am wondering if my feeble airbrushing skills will yield something as convincing as the pics in FSM.
or at least something i can live w/.
I think it’s worth a try and probably will make an attempt soon
I’m thinking of using my Photoshop spinning prop & printing it on inkjet transparencies.
I received my copy of the October FSM through the mail yesterday and, as always, dove right in. Good issue! However, when I got to that article, I couldn’t believe that they bothered to devote space to that method of simulating spinning props. It looks awful! [:0] [xx(] This looks like something you might see on a grammar school project. I can’t see any serious modeler doing this to their painstakingly built model.
The only effective method that I’ve ever seen is to actually motorize the prop. And that would have to be for a very special display. [:)]
Pete
I dunno, I think as a disply in flight it’s effective without the need for extra parts and electronics.
It does not look bad at all for 1/72nd scale, and seems to look like it would be effective for larger scales.
I tend to agree with the PIT. I thought it looked tacky.
looks like we are in agreement then!
some of us like it and some of us don’t.
that’s what makes this forum interesting.
i am curious to see how it looks live, as opposed to on the glossy pages of FSM.
ed.
I would say personal preference should be the deciding factor; it probably looks better on a photographed model than on a “Live” static display.
I’ve never seen a simulated spinning prop that didn’t just cheapen the look of a model (IMHO). It looks like something that should go on Snap-Tite kits.
But like Max said, personal preference is what it’s all about. Which is true of anything i guess!
I agree with Merlin.
I haven’t seen the article in question, but the attempts at simulating spinning props that I have seen always seemed to fall short, if not just look plain ridiculous.
I agree with Pete: Nothing looks more like a spinning prop than a spinning prop.
Just opinions!
It looks toy like. I saw the article and it doesn’t improve the looks of the kit at all. It makes the model look worse. Spinning prop blades and flames are two items that just don’t look good when attempted on a model. The only time I have seen spinning prop blades that looked good was in very small scale and was used on a WW ll aircraft carrier. Most of the ships aircraft had spinning props and one was headed down the deck for takeoff.
I like the photo etched version I’ve seen better although I don’t know if their available to be had anymore.
I commend the thought that went behind the spinning prop, but I dont care for the looks of it
I wouldn’t do it myself, but keudos to the gent for using some creativity to come up with something out of the ordinary.
I’m glad someone brought this up. The projects I’m looking at doing are to be in-flight viginettes. I had just finished reading that issue when I starting forming the idea of these projects (I’m currently reading a book on the Battle of Britain - that combined with a just arrived issue of FSM seems to have fired inspiration.)
Because this article was fresh in my mind while I began brainstorming my projects, the idea of “simulating” spinning props figured prominently. I agree with one of the first things that the author says: “…our models are three-deminsional snapshots of machines…” Motorized props are not “snapshots.” And looking at the picture on the front of the book, as well as some photos inside, a bladeless prop would not look right either. Blur is the only way to simulate the image of a moment in time.
But, I believe his method was a little off. My problem with it is the painting. The yellow warning stripes are spread out to far along the circumferance. And the blur of the blades’ positions are too narrow. But, a nice clear disk may still be the best method (I haven’t seen the photo-etched type.) I would just see about improving the painting of the blurs.
On that note, while looking at some photos of Spits in flight, I notice that with the 3 blade versions, the blurs appear to be asymmetrical - as in that they are not evenly spaced at one-third of the circumferance each. It may be the angle of the photo I was looking at, but not sure. Does anyone know about this?
Also, does anyone have an idea on what spinning blades look like from the side? Are they noticeable? Is the apparant thickness the same as motionless props, or thinner / fatter? Just wondering, because that should play into the thickness of the plastic disk, as well as whether the edge should be painted at the blur positions.
This will be important to my projects, as I want them to have that “moment captured” look. I also want to simulate falling brass as well as debris flying in the slipstream from damage.
Cor
I could never moterize the prop, I thought it was the most convincing spinning prop I have ever seen. Now, to make it… I need to really ppractice with my airbrush, get my hands on some clear plastic sheet, and get the plastic cutter. Wait a minute, wasn’t that all the metrials?
Anyone that has taken a photo of a prop/rotor at 1/500th sec or faster will know that they do not blur. The blur is entirely down to the limitations of our eyes and brain (or slower shutter speeds) to update fast-moving objects. I’m happy with “frozen” props, rather than trying to model a visual quirk of my simian brain [:D]
I’ve seen similar discussions about flight sims that show “wiggly” tracer fire - apparently this effect is a camera artefact from archive footage and cannot be seen with the naked eye. As far as the pilot/gunner sees, they go in a straight line.
Having said that Cor, sounds like a grand project you’ve got lined up, I hope you post some pics when you get going!
You know, I’m sure there was something scratching at the back of my brain about shutter and film speed. But, as most of the WW2 references show that blur (probably strurdy, but slow cameras, as well as the film stock of that era;) that’s where I’d be coming from. It’s something to try, anyway, to see how it’ll turn out. The props won’t be all that central to the overall projects - just might add more to that captured moment I’m looking for, so I can try them and change my mind if I need to.
Thanks for the added info, things to consider. I’m not too sure how grand the projects will be. Big for me, since I’ve done little modelling the past. But, it’ll be just 5 aircraft total for the two projects, with just the He. 111 having damage. I am looking at doing some detail work, as I want to make these as close to show quality as I can. And still have research to do. The biggest thing is that I think I may be coming up with a new way of mounting the planes in-flight. At least I haven’t seen it before. I’ll let you guys know when I get to that point. And of course, I will make sure to get pics.
Cor
CorMak,
You will see that the blades look different from the side than the front due to the way that the props are shaped; they look thicker from the side than the front. My experience working on the flight line launching flights for US Airways (Beech 1900 and DeHaviland Dash 8 aircraft)with props confirmed this. Also, if you blink your eyes while looking at spinning props you will see that they do not “blur” but that you catch “freeze frames” like a camera shutter does. The “wiggly fire” that U-96 refers to is the fact that bullets don’t run one behind the other like a sewing machine laying stitches. Each bullet reacts to wind, recoil of weapon, amount of gunpowder used to discharge from shell and barrel as well as varying weights of projectiles themselves. It may be barely discernable to the naked eye but it surely happens.