Jump to content

Rivets on Real Aircraft and Model Kits


Daniel Cox

Recommended Posts


Hi All,

The treatment of rivets on model aircraft kits compared to the appearance of rivets on the real thing is a popular topic of conversation. With the recent appearance of some sprue shots showing Eduard's forthcoming 1/48 scale Spitfire Mk. IX kit, which also saw some expressions of concern regarding the depiction of rivets on the before mentioned kit.

I have decided to present what is in effect a picture commentary showing the appearance of rivets as found in Nil Copyright and Copyright Expired archival images plus some pictures of kit manufacturers renderings of rivets compared with some crops of some Spitfire pictures taken by myself last year.

Although it is easy to find old pictures that don't show rivets (especially flush ones) in archival images of Second World War aircraft, it is equally as easy to find archival pictures that do show rivets (including flush ones) as can be seen in the cropped images below;

8416800424_9d61b6b714_o.jpg

Beaufighter

8415704197_b01cfbb5ae_o.jpg

Beaufighter

8416800108_257d8f9f91_o.jpg

Beaufort

8415703671_3c76a8b950_o.jpg

Catalina

8416799598_bfb9a68b9b_o.jpg

Corsair

8416799004_36036fabe3_o.jpg

Hellcat

8415702629_981020a7a2_o.jpg

Kingfisher

8416798088_84e057cd95_o.jpg

Liberator

8416797776_1f1f739caa_o.jpg

Liberator

8416797402_5158735305_o.jpg

Liberator

8416797320_2ccddcdf06_o.jpg

Liberator

8416796792_ca7ab578a3_o.jpg

Lightning

8415700549_d74e9e01c3_o.jpg

Mitchell

8415700095_8abd611c99_o.jpg

Mustang

8415700149_9d33c04b3f_o.jpg

Spitfire

8415699479_bac3195c3c_o.jpg

Spitfire

8415695473_f9281cf07a_o.jpg

Vengeance

8416791028_84fc129d2a_o.jpg

Vengeance

8416790688_440076963f_o.jpg

Walrus

More to follow, over.

Cheers,

Daniel.

Edited by Daniel Cox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,


Here are some cropped pictures of two currently airworthy and active Spitfire aircraft, they are a Mk. VIII and a Mk. XVI respectively in order of appearance. As can be easily seen the rivets on these airframes are highly discernible;

8415699085_31153a5172_o.jpg

8415698799_f8f73946fb_o.jpg

8415698475_6e0d296d03_o.jpg

8415698193_e33b088490_o.jpg

8415698007_3a11f6c2b0_o.jpg

8415697557_e2319f000f_o.jpg

8415697189_bcc6ee13aa_o.jpg

8416792746_b95a475966_o.jpg

8416792378_a35e2b6f3a_o.jpg

8415696063_7dacb74536_o.jpg

8416791734_b6f55b416b_o.jpg

More to follow, over.

Cheers,

Daniel.

Edited by Daniel Cox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,


Finally what it's all about, how kit manufacturers depict rivets as shown in a small sampling below;


8415710091_d1b948f45b_o.jpg

Airfix old and new, a 1/72nd scale Hampden wing with a 1/48 scale Spitfire fuselage.


8415710183_6b2a6c8654_o.jpg

Accurate Miniatures and Hasegawa respectively with a 1/48 scale Avenger fuselage and a 1/48 scale Airacobra fuselage.


8416805774_75a459c9af_o.jpg

Tamiya old and new with a 1/48 scale Lancaster fuselage, a 1/48 scale Wildcat fuselage and a 1/32nd scale Spitfire fuselage.


8416806536_11c7833410_o.jpg

Recent Eduard offerings in 1/48 scale, on the left is a Fw190 fuselage and on the right is a MiG 21 lower wing piece.


In conclusion considering Eduard's efforts on previous kits I think it is highly likely that Eduard like a number of kit manufacturers including those shown above, will exercise restraint in their depiction of rivets on their forthcoming Spitfire kit.


All of the above images as 1800x1200 pixel sRGB jpg images can be found on one of my Flickr account albums here or alternatively right click etc.


Out!


Cheers,



Daniel.

Edited by Daniel Cox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re the Spitfires. The most prominent features around the engine, nose, wing fillet, and belly are not rivets at all, but fasteners for removable panels. On the fuselage you can see many pop-head rivets, which are a feature of restored aircraft rather than the originals. Early Spitfires would have had round-head rivets, later ones flush head, for the structure in this area. The general build standard of the Spitfire shows it to be a rather tired airframe, with bulges and irregular gaps that would not have been acceptable on a new airframe just off the production line.

Even so, the gaps between the panels on fixed structures should be embarrassing to advocates of the panel lines on current Airfix kits, but I fear they are shameless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Graham,

I am aware of the difference between the rivets and fasteners on those Spitfires since I get to touch, handle and stand on them and their parts etc with regularity and am also likewise familiar with the non prototypical parts and fittings on those airframes as well as the pop rivets. That said almost all rivets on those airframes are flush rivets, they are clearly discernible as are the small number of pop rivets in all of the pictures posted above, I am sorry Graham that your eyes are not able to see the significant number of flush rivets.

As to Airfix panel lines it is worth noting that all of the kit part images were taken using identical settlings and the same point of focus, all I did was move the parts and press the button for subsequent shots after setting up so the kit pictures are at the same scale.

Cheers,


Daniel.

Edited by Daniel Cox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite sure you do, but not everyone is as experienced as you and without some guidance will not realise just what you are showing. The dominant features in several of the shots - of the cowling for example - are the fasteners and the flush rivetting is barely visible. The belly view in particular has very few rivet heads showing, though there are some very nice flush ones around the lip of the radiator housing. Grey Nurse has a significant number of centre-hole rivets on the fuselage behind the canopy. Are you saying that these are original fit or introduced on the rebuild? I had understood that these were solid head flush rivets.

Edited by Graham Boak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Graham,

I concur that the fasteners etc are more visible I never thought that that was in dispute, all I am saying is that the rivets are discernible in period and current photographs . Considering the fact that the fasteners appear to be more significant on the Eduard parts compared to the rivets I suspect the kit will probably turn out reasonably okay regarding rivet depiction. Also in my experience the rivets are often quite discernible at a variety of distances in person without any optical aids.

Of those pictures I agree in that instance the belly view shows the least amount of visible rivets. As to the Mk. VIII having a significant number of pop head or centre hole rivets behind the canopy all I can say is that is not the case. I have included some closer crops that show the area behind the canopy to show this area better in order to clarify that they are indeed flush.

8417029410_a2f40d4081_o.jpg

8417029156_b45f746600_o.jpg

8417028670_3561d1b094_o.jpg

8415931927_69455b97df_o.jpg

Cheers,

Daniel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody panned the Eduard MiG-21MF when they released the first photos. Anyone else remember that? It was the end of life as we knew it. When we got the actual plastic, it turned out that the über-macro super dooper close up photos had DRASTICALLY over emphasized the surface textures and rivet detail. It's happened with several other kits. Such super close up photography does nothing IMHO. The lighting is harsh and the camera sees things your naked eye doesn't see.

Let's wait until we see the actual Eduard plastic..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an airframe & engine apprentice almost 40 years ago now, one of my instructors at the then Royal Navy Aircraft Repair Yard Fleetlands, was one Danny Parsons. He taught the airframes course to us 2nd year apprentices.

On the subject of airframe finishes, he said that the German's [ Luftwaffe ] had an excellent standard of finish [ he was'nt one to give praise lightly ! ] and it was only more to the end of the war that the allies achieved something more comparable. After seeing some of the Liberators shown, I can understand what he meant ! The edge distance on some of those rivets is highly suspect ! But, in war time when the expected life of an airframe is not lengthy, the phrase ' fit for purpose ' covered a multitude of sins ! That said, after working on American built airframes this side of the pond, not much has changed.

As I seem to be rambling on and getting off topic, personally, I think there is too much emphasis in the modelling world, maybe only by a few to replicate, or I should say exaggerate the rivet effect on model aiframes. Some of the attempts to emulate countersunk / flush rivets by means of the 'pounce' spelling ? wheel or a watch gear wheel, leave a lot to be desired ! Countersunk / flush rivets are solid items not perforations ! Even when you look at the Spitfire in the colour images, the only time the countersunk / flush rivets are noticeable is when they are shown in direct light.

Personally, I'd like to see rivet depiction shown as being restrained or not at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jennings,

Talking about super dooper close up photos here are some 100% crops of those kit part imgaes;

8416004935_301ebbe42d_o.jpg

Airfix

8417101674_57dbc4e1ab_o.jpg

Accurate Miniature & Hasegawa

8417100854_301f036d54_o.jpg

Tamiya

8417101978_229e1baaf0_o.jpg

Eduard

The Eduard MiG part looks pretty good to me.

Hi Steveinns,

Like you I'm not keen on overdone rivet depictions, that said I think that Eduard shows more restraint than Tamiya except when Tamiya doesn't depict them at all. I think they are both probably the best at depicting rivets with restraint, so I look forward to what they both may bring even if covered with representations of rivets

Cheers,

Daniel.

Edited by Daniel Cox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steveinns: I suspect your instructor was thinking of German standards at the start of the war. I've just read - can't pin down where but may add it later - a reference to a Dornier found immediately after the end of the war and how poor the standard of build was. The low quality of the late war Messerschmitts is well known, I think. Pre- and post-Milch's big production push in 1944, perhaps. In the UK there's the supposed difference between Fairey-built Swordfish and the "Blackfish" from Blackburns, and I've a feeling I've seen similar comments about Halifaxes from different producers. I wonder whether there'd be rather less enthusiasm about certain Merlin variants had it been more widely known how many came from Ford! Confidence is a lot. This is an area that could do with more being said: all too often things are either marvellous or awful, with little sense of just what the difference might have been. To get back to Spitfires, David Brown's Seafire has horror stories of the problems in gettng the big wing fairing back into place on a carrier deck, and how if you just started fastening just from one end you wouldn't be able to get the ones at the other end in place. The resulting gaps must have been far larger than the designer's intentions.

To more modern types: it was said (in the factory, at least) that the Americans were very impressed by the standard of the Jetstream, but I can recall walking down the line and seeing fuselage sections covered with inspector's ink over dodgy rivets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so, the gaps between the panels on fixed structures should be embarrassing to advocates of the panel lines on current Airfix kits, but I fear they are shameless.

I was with you there Graham right up to the point where you had to take another sideswipe at modellers who seem to have - and more importantly demonstrate - an ability to deal with stuff that you see to find eternally troublesome. Do other modellers really spoil your hobby that much?

Cue barbed response, cue polite reply, cue Mike... :doh:

Edited by Jonathan Mock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what scares me more are how the invasion stripes are painted on the beaufighter wing. Looks like a rough work with a large brush, not caring much about straight edges...

OMG, did I just say Jehova?

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, the problem with surface detail is that is it only ever going to be an impression of reality, not an exact duplication. Chris Ellis wrote in his seminal "How to Go Plastic Modelling" that when we scale down a subject, our impressions do not necessarily scale down with it. I see rivets on a helicopter and I missed their presence even on a 1/72 kit even if, strictly speaking, they would not reduced to scale. Ironically, I think the older Italeri helo kits with raised panel lines and rivets had more of the essence and character of the subject than their later kits that just went for recessed panel lines.

Truth be told, scale up any kits surface detail and it would be grossly over scale and then some. About the only absolutely true to scale approach any kit could take would be no surface detail (save control surfaces) and a diagram showing how to draw it on with a pencil on the finish paintwork, and even then what we're seeing isn't necessarily the panel line itself but the dirt trapped between it.

I've had this discussion - and occasional disagreement - with Drewe Manton where I've thought something is too heavy but he prefers something that will withstand priming, polishing and a wash, and I think his work speaks for itself. I actually don't like to really fine panel lines on some kits because I have a specific (and probably long entrenched) method of working, plus if I think something is a little on the heavy side, I won't accentuate it at the painting stage. A kit as an unpainted set of parts is no more an arbiter how it looks when assembled, painted and decalled as the ingredients in a recipe can guarantee the outcome of a meal - last time I ate out, the waiter didn't plop an uncooked potato, cheese and tin of beans on my plates and say "and how does that taste sir?".

Plus we have the limits of what can be injection moulded - you're more likely to be able to create a closer facsimile of surface detail at a larger scale than a smaller one but there will come a point where its so fine that, anything other than a suggestion of paint, it will disappear. And there were down to what paints people use and how they apply it. Add to that the development budgets that dictate how much surface detail can be economically done within the limits of the toolmakers abilities.

Me personally I love the look of what Eduard have done with their Spit, and I'm already trying to work out how I can use the detail to its best advantage and the different approaches I may need to take. Its a challenge! But equally, I love the raised rivets on the 1/24 Airfix Spit, they may be over scale, but they equate to the tactile experience I've had of photographing and measuring the aircraft over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to the Eduard Spitfire and while I would prefer not to have that patchwork of rivets I'm hopeful that I will be able to tome them down so that they do not dominate the model. And to me that is the crux ot it. More is so often less and to my eyes an overall patchwork of little holes representing rivets is too much. Yes, there are loads of photos that show rivets, but as has already been said, a lot depends on the light in which the photos were taken and the angle of the surface. With a small model there is less variation in what can be seen - especially if the little holes have been flooded with a wash.

There is, of course, something of an irony in this. When Spitfires were painted some effort was taken to minimise the effect of rivets on airflow. There was, therefore, a lot of stopping and filling of the wings which would have lessened the visual impact of the rivets. Manufactures of models are now applauded for making these rivets visible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is part of the instructions, issued to Spitfire repairers, which includes precise details of how to do a rivet; it was to be pre-drilled, with a countersink, then fitted as shown, definitely not punched into place, therefore no dishing.

The two rivets, used on a Spitfire, had diameters of 1/8" & 3/32", which would have given a head size roughly double, i.e 1/4" & 3/16", which, in 1/48, scale down to .005"(.13mm) & .004" (.1mm.)

Cover with, at least, two coats of paint (primer + top coat,) with the wings' leading edges also filled and sanded smooth before painting (an ICI executive, in late 1944, said that the tailplanes and fins were also being treated the same way,) and how much would remain visible?

flushrivet-Copy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many interesting points raised here chaps.

What's also important to remember is that rivet and panel detail only really becomes visible when standing within about 10ft (give or take) of the real aircraft. Any further away, and it's very hard to see any such detail. You'll notice that all of the pictures shown are very close to the actual aircraft, and therefore the rivets, fasteners and panel lines are only visible because of this close proximity.

Therefore, with the close up shots of the aircraft posted, if this was in model form you'd almost be looking at it through a magnifying class to see such detail. You would be very unlikely to see rivet detail (not necessarily fasteners which are larger) on a scale model from anything other than a few mm away.

This is what I've never been able to understand about highlighting every panel line and rivet on models.

Why?

Yes it may make the model more pleasing on the eye, but is only a mere artistic impression or even caricature of the real thing. Yet on some forums, they rave and pat each other on the back about creating super realistic finishes because every singe panel line and rivet has been washed and now stands out like the proverbial on a nudist beach. To me, it is absolutely nothing like a shrunken down version of the real thing, in fact it looks like a poor attempt at a recreation of the CGI 'aircraft' we see in modern day films - which ironically enough are completely unrealistic and unacceptable to many members of such forums!

Personally, I like to have a few pictures (if possible) of the aircraft I'm building, and try to make my finish as close as possible to that picture, which 99 times out of a hundred will show absolutely no panel lines or rivet detail. There may be some chipped and patchy paint and a few oil and hydraulic stains, but I'm yet to see an aircraft when viewed from more than 10ft away that shows every single panel line and rivet.

I also know that winning any competitions will be very unlikely by finishing models in this way, as again 99% of competition judges seem to love the 'GCI effect' on finished models. Not wishing to start slagging off of judges (who have a very difficult and unenviable job as it is) I'll stop now...

Just my :2c:

Tom

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every model is always going to be an artistic interpretation of sorts, from the design of the kit (even working to actual data) through to how the modeller builds and finishes their model. A think a certain amount of artistic exaggeration is required, often to create an impression of an effect when the actual effect cannot be reproduced because one is an object made of metal subject to heat, wear and tear, the other a plastic model.

I know pre-shading comes into for a bit of a whacking because "that's not how aircraft were painted" but like any technique it can be overdone, just like one can apply too much filler or glue. The best modellers out there use the technique to build up layers of paint to suggest abrasion and degradation, to create an illusion. Yes its not accurate per se, but it creates an illusion of realism, or rather an artistic representation of realism.

I actually think if you were to line up two models of the same subject, one built to a strict devotion to scale accuracy and the other with a little bit more artistic license, more people will be drawn to latter and say it looks more "realistic".

Its a test we could try!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think if you were to line up two models of the same subject, one built to a strict devotion to scale accuracy and the other with a little bit more artistic license, more people will be drawn to latter and say it looks more "realistic".

Its a test we could try!

Now that is an awesome suggestion and I think you are right.

I've often thought this would be an fun experiment... a whole bunch of us building the exact same kit and then sharing the results.

Future GB anyone?!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just visited this thread - thought it might be interesting.

However, what struck me the most was the dirty great roundels stuck all over the Spitfire photos!! What's the point of that?

I presume this was done to deter members from copying your photos. What's so special about you that you look down on us modellers with such disdain?

There are a great many of us on this site who are only too pleased to share their pictures freely. It's pretty poor if you can't share one or two photos without defacing them!

I suggest you should think again.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, I don't think kit manufacturers are trying to provide a scaled-down version of the surfaces of actual flying aircraft. I think they are - and always have been - giving us modellers a means of representing the panel lines and fasteners if we want to.

For every complaint that "real aircraft aren't that grimy", someone can turn up a photo that proves that they can be. Modellers have always had access to this sort of material and many have wanted to show that effect on their models, while others prefer the cleaner appearance, and still others don't feel up to weathering. It's also pretty well established that no surface treatment on a plastic kit is actually realistic - lapped panels, countersunk rivets, etc, all come over only as approximations - but perhaps it was never meant to be. Perhaps all the manufacturers wanted was to indicate where the panels and fasteners are, so that if you want to, you can represent (not replicate) the effect. That they've tried to be helpful in this regard is, surely, a good thing? And that it's generally got better over the years is even more welcome, at least to me.

It's worth remembering that in plastic modelling you simply cannot hope to produce a scale replica of the real thing in all its details. Moulding limitations make some items impossible to produce. But perhaps more importantly, the materials we use mean that we have to try to show visually in one set of media an effect that can be depicted accurately only by using the media used on the original item. Pointing up panel lines, pre-shading, weathering pigments? It's silly to complain that none of these is used on the real thing. They're all techniques for producing a similar visual effect. That's understood - or at least it should be. I'll bet people who try to do the same using oil paint on canvas don't beat themselves up to anything like the same extent as modellers seem to.

And, of course, if you personally don't like raised panel lines or engraved rivets, they're fairly easy to sort out. Much easier than trying to work with a completely smooth surface if you do want to depict the panels and such. I can see there's a problem if they're a bit too coarse to fill easily, but apart from that, it's not the end of the world, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to side with both Jonathon and Pigsty. We are modellers and, as such, we interpret and apply techniques accordingly to try and achieve what we like. I only build models to please me. I am not of a high enough standard to consider competitions, which anyway don't interest me. Which is not to say that I don't admire some of the work that appears on this site.

You don't have to apply a wash to every rivet or panel line if you don't want to. You can cover them up if they really offend. And let's face it that is so much easier than adding them after the event.

This is a debate that will run for as long as this site exists (a very long time I hope!). There is no right or wrong answer and we can all do what we like in the interests of making something that we are pleased with.

Personally, I think Eduard should be applauded for their forthcoming Spitfire. If ever there was a subject that was going to get brickbats before anyone had fondled the plastic, it was this one. As long as the shape is accurate and it builds into a good looking model then I, for one, will be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just visited this thread - thought it might be interesting.

However, what struck me the most was the dirty great roundels stuck all over the Spitfire photos!! What's the point of that?

I presume this was done to deter members from copying your photos. What's so special about you that you look down on us modellers with such disdain?

There are a great many of us on this site who are only too pleased to share their pictures freely. It's pretty poor if you can't share one or two photos without defacing them!

I suggest you should think again.

I don't think the photos are "defaced" at all. I understand completely someone's desire to make his photographs identifiable as his own and to discourage their being ripped off by others. Copyright theft is rampant, and the worst thing about it is that too many people either don't know about the value of copyright - or don't care.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a "rivet counter" and hardly consider myself even a modeller, compared with the hugely skilled people on this forum and others. I just think Daniel deserves a vote of thanks for taking the time & trouble to post all those super, fascinating photos here - and for demonstrating his awareness of copyright (I'm a professional photographer) by pointing out that the pics are either his, or copyright-expired.

Really interesting topic.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Personally, I like to have a few pictures (if possible) of the aircraft I'm building, and try to make my finish as close as possible to that picture, which 99 times out of a hundred will show absolutely no panel lines or rivet detail. There may be some chipped and patchy paint and a few oil and hydraulic stains, but I'm yet to see an aircraft when viewed from more than 10ft away that shows every single panel line and rivet. "

I agree with the above observation/comment...also, the smaller the scale the less rivet/panel detail should be visible...so [iMO] a balanced approach w/o OCD detailing works for me....... :ninja:

Cheers,

ggc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...