I’ve spent a lot of time around aircraft. WhileI do some aircraft modeling, I primarily do ships. That said, I was wondering if someone could explain a common idiosyncracy of aircraft moders: The unrealistic pose. (Answer could be as simple as IPMS judges like it).
What puzzles me when going through the pages of Finescale, the articles on aircraft tend to be about how to make the aircraft more realistic. (e.g. Such and such antenna is not appropriate for a Q model.). After all this emphasis on accuracy, the aircraft is finished in a pose that leaves me scratching my head.
For example, canopy open, ready to board and:
Brakes extended.
Flaps extended (and not on an aircraft, say p-51, with hydralic retraction)
One wing retracted, the other extended.
Full load of ordinance and every possible maintenance panel open.
I don’t see this trend in AFVs. Maybe someone could explain this trend in aircraft modeling.
I think this depends on the type of modeling you are doing. I think of an individual model, i.e. one outside of a diorama setting, as a display piece. As such, if there are unique features, I want those highlighted, much like you would see in museums. Yes, it is taking license with pure realism, but it conveys what I, the modeler (read artist) wish to convey.
Now, place the same model in a diorama, where it must fit into a real life scenario, then it would be improper to “mix and match”, so to speak. The purpose of the model is now totally different.
I think it depends on how you define realism. When I think of realism, I think of realism with in the sense of detail in those open flight decks and maintenance panels, etc. Fully loaded planes with open flight decks and maintenance panels shows we’re proud of the detail and effort we put into our planes, not necessarily an accurate “realistic” portrayal of the state the plane may be in at any given time. If the plane is in a diorama then I can see why one would want to make sure the plane is portrayed in such an accurate state of configuration, however, most planes are displayed standalone, therefore the demand for such portrayal is not as strong as it would be within an AFV setting where AFV’s are more often displayed in dioramas.
What’s important to most of us is that we’re happy with the end results of our models.
I flew Chinooks in the Army for 23 years, and it was my experience that each time we walked out to the aircraft for a mission, our Flight Engineer and Crew Chief would have already been there for an hour or so and have it in a “Down & Dirty” configuration to facilitate us doing the Pre-Flight Inspection. Scratch your head if you will, but it’s more than just tradition, it’s standard operating procedure to have their aircraft sitting ready for pre-flight when the Pilot/s arrive.
Many of the model aircraft that are pictured within these hallowed pages are prepared that way, simply because that’s how it was. In doing so, the modeler has the opportunity to add some of the interior detail, which gives it a more realistic aura, but more importantly, because that’s how they chose to display it!
The days of a plastic model that ‘almost’ looked like it’s life-size counterpart are long gone. Now we have large kits with huge amounts of detail, almost everything that opens and shuts shown. So ask yourself: why wouldn’t I want to show off all this detail? It’s there, I might as well use it, right? Why let all that extra detailing, which I pated extra for, go to waste?
[2c]
Cheers,
John
As far as 1 wing retracted 1 wing extended I build in that manner for the very simple reason is it is visually more interesting then both wings in the same position. Also as far as realism goes I certainly would rather look into the cockpit and admire all the work that has been added to the kit, with the glass cover the cockpit it makes it hard to see the detail. Also on modern jets why go through all the trouble of removing factory intakes adding Seamless suckers intakes and covering it with FOD for realism?
In some cases, leading edge slats, flaps, gear doors, speed brakes and other things would extend or open as hydraulic pressure bled off. The F86 for example
had a nasty habit of having it’s front wheel strut collaspe if it wasn’t locked in place.
Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of modellers wanting to show areas that are detailed or as oldhooker put it - open for preflight inspection. Unless one is displaying the model in a diorama scene that is not maintenance, I have no problems with extraneous panels opened for display or wings folded one side and not the other.
It really all boils down to personal preference, but here’s one thing to consider:
Not everyone is familiar with military hardware, so, looking at a model, all they see it the interesting pose, extra detail or eye catching paint scheme. Most casual observers don’t care if you’ve got the B mod with D mod antennas or the squadron markings are wrong. They see a cool looking model that obviously took skill and time to complete.
Heck, I don’t even pretend to know everything about even a tiny fraction of what I build. I just hope in the end that what I’ve built looks close to the box art.
I tend to agree with you. However, I spent 26 years around fighter aircraft. If I have mine opened up, I leave off all weapons. If I have weapons installed, it is closed up ready for the aircrew. That is the way it is in real life.
I see other points mentioned. If that is the way they like to model their aircraft, then go for it. NOTHING in the modeling world is in black and white or set in concrete. That what makes this hobby so interesting.
Come on…First of all its our hobby and that makes us happy.Even if someone spend a year for a 1/72 model with everything on it accurate, or other one build it OOB.
Modellers make a plane with everything open,tank fully weathered but on a plain wooden base,the same goes for ships on a base screwed with two bronzed(why bronzed and not aluminium? [:D])and figure maquettes with wooden bases like sky scrapers…
Personally I build what I like.
Some of my models builded extremely accurate but take years to finish,while for other I dont give a … if they are smaller or bigger,or not accurate cockpit,etc.But I have a fun build it in two weeks or sooner. [tup]
If i’m doing a RAF jet,as a rule.i dont put ordanance on as it’s not carried ‘day-to-day’ however pods & drops are.
Slats,flaps & IFR are often deployed to relieve hydraulic pressure on the system.
But,at the end of the day,if it looks ok,i’m happy.
Merv
I like to personally load on every possible “detail” I can on a model. That’s just personal preference. Take my current project, for example. I plan to motorize my Ju 290Z, but the motors are little gems. I have to show at least a couple off. Add to this the fact I plan to load it up to the gills with underwing ordinance and… well, there you go. “Politically incorrect”? Sure. But I don’t really care! As was said before, it’s all personal preference.
Depends on the airframe I’m modelling, but I tend to try and show off as much detail as possible when I build so it looks more interesting to me when its sat on my display shelf.
When I build for someone else, I pose the aircraft as they want it, I guess it’s simply a matter of personal preference.
I agree with LemonJello. I spent A lot of time around carrier planes and I can add certain details that maybe the casual modeler won’t think of adding. How often do you go to an airshow and see an A-10 with all the panels open for public inspection? I myself am very impressed by super detail.Maybe because I haven’t reach that level yet.
Maybe another way to explain it is it’s art. Try to explain the weird things I’ve posted here
[(-D]
I agree with Berny here, personally I model weapons on, closed up and ready to fly or opened up weapons off waiting for the crew. Having said that I must say that this is just my taste and what I think looks right to my eyes. Many others as you can see from the posts here have a different opinion and that’s just fine because at the end of the day you are really only building your model so that it looks good to you.