What is...what if?

[raptormodeller]

"i wondered why they called it the f117 when it obviosuly isnt" . Sorry but i cant quote posts that id like to...weird. Anyway the F117 gets its 'f' namesake because only fighter pilots flew it not bomber pilots.

[Sir T]

"i wondered why they called it the f117 when it obviosuly isnt" . Sorry but i cant quote posts that id like to...weird. Anyway the F117 gets its 'f' namesake because only fighter pilots flew it not bomber pilots.

I think it had more to do with getting the funding through congress and hiding the nature of what it actually was - But hey I could be wrong...

[mike romeo]

And if you though my last lot were daft....................!!!!!

Lol!! JMNs - eat your hearts out!!

I like it! It's mental, but I like it! Is it just me, or does it have 6 Centaurus? (6 Centauri?)

I'd like to have a go at a Shorts S.36 Super Stirling at some point.

regards,

Martin

[solowing666]

Hi, I'm currently researching on what-if topics, and this thread has some good info.

However I still have some questions,

1. Can all sci-fi models models be considered what-ifs?.... If not, question no. 2

2. Can a model be both sci-fi and what-if (e.g.: X-Wing with USAF markings)? This is related to no. 3

3. To what extent a model is sci-fi and to what extent a model is what-if?

4. Some popular sci-fi (or just fiction) series incorporates real hardware with different markings, and no change to parts (e.g.: Girls und Panzer, Shidenkai no Maki, etc), so... which categories these models fall into?

5. Some popular historical films have mistakes on their sets (e.g. green early IJN Zeros in Pearl Harbor), can we consider those what-ifs or just plain wrongdoings of the film makers?

6. How if a sci-fi model is modified with details, add-on armor, etc. (mostly seen on Gundam models)?

Sorry for the too-many questions,

Cheers!

[trickyrich]

Hi, I'm currently researching on what-if topics, and this thread has some good info.

However I still have some questions,

1. Can all sci-fi models models be considered what-ifs?.... If not, question no. 2

2. Can a model be both sci-fi and what-if (e.g.: X-Wing with USAF markings)? This is related to no. 3

3. To what extent a model is sci-fi and to what extent a model is what-if?

4. Some popular sci-fi (or just fiction) series incorporates real hardware with different markings, and no change to parts (e.g.: Girls und Panzer, Shidenkai no Maki, etc), so... which categories these models fall into?

5. Some popular historical films have mistakes on their sets (e.g. green early IJN Zeros in Pearl Harbor), can we consider those what-ifs or just plain wrongdoings of the film makers?

6. How if a sci-fi model is modified with details, add-on armor, etc. (mostly seen on Gundam models)?

Sorry for the too-many questions,

Cheers!

wow lots of questions....

Ok first up the basics, the most basic answer which can really answer every question. WhatIf is generally considered to be any subject matter that does not appear in the real world.

Ok this can be as simple as "WhitIf" the Imperial Japanese Army used Focke-Wulf FW-190-D6's during the war? Ok both are existed and were real, but as far as we know they were never combined...there are no pictures or documents start operational units in the IJA operation FW-190 D6's. So this would be just a simple made up colour scheme choice. You could take it further and make changes to an aircraft for example, that never actually occurred or a prototype that never made into operational service. So that's the basic WhitIf theory.

Now there are some who take this a step further and create something completely form scratch or use basic model components and create something than never existed other than in their minds. And to take this a step further you create a complete story to go with your creation. In most cases we tend to create an alternate history to go with the model we create.

I'll us one of my builds for example;

This plane never existed, the idea behind it did, and the base aircraft did, but this configuration never existed even on paper (paper drawings or plans for items never build are WhatIf's as well, even though someone drew them).

Ok I had a idea and created it physically, I took this one step further and created a complete story to go with it. I use actual facts and places and massaged them to suit my created story, I even went to the trouble of "creating" photos in a attempted to make this WhatIf project "real"! And yes I was quite successful, I did have quite a few members convinced that this was a real aircraft...I fessed up in the end...sort of. If you do the right search in Google, I found my "build" sort of exists!

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234965238-172-heinkel-he-177z-a6r3-aalborg-april-1945-archive-photos/?hl=he-177z

Ok with SciFi stuff nothing really changes, other than 99.99999% of all SciFi stuff is really a WhatIf subject. It's not generally referred to as a WhatIf as it more or less involves new and advance technology that has yet to be created sometime in the future, but it's still holds ture to the "WhatIf" tenet.

So questions 1,2,3,4, & 6 are all correct, they can either be WhatIf or SciFi subjects. It just depends on how and where they are shown as to what category they are, but mostly they would be called SciFi, especially if the "exist" in some other form or media.

Q5, well that's basically movie stuff up! Even though they could technically be called WhatIf's, they were meant to replicate real subjects, but someone screwed up their information and got it wrong.

With Q6, even just changing the armour of fitting a weapon that was never used by that piece of equipment is considered a WhatIf. If you'r building a model in most of the Group Builds, something as small as this would "technically" be not allowed as the main subject matter must have used used this device in real life.

Hopefully I have answered your questions....

Please feel free to ask away with any more.

[Alan P]

"i wondered why they called it the f117 when it obviosuly isnt" . Sorry but i cant quote posts that id like to...weird. Anyway the F117 gets its 'f' namesake because only fighter pilots flew it not bomber pilots.

Almost! It's because it was a secret project (Senior Trend) in the same classification as the Red Hat and Red Eagle squadrons flying captured MiGs at Area 51. The MiGs were designated (yep, you've guessed it) F-113, F-114 etc to enable pilots to log flight time on classified aircraft without provoking curiosity among uncleared Air Force administrators. F-117s were similarly designated to ensure that Senior Trend remained secret.

[ancient mariner]

........................................... another good thing about whiff is you sidestep the rivet counters lol

Alas not altogether true.

Their are a multitude of knockers within the what if fraternity,mainly on engineering discrepancies. ie: it couldnt fly with that tail or the propeller is too small etc. ad nauseum. Same as any other modelling genre I guess.

[Albeback52]

Alas not altogether true.

Their are a multitude of knockers within the what if fraternity,mainly on engineering discrepancies. ie: it couldnt fly with that tail or the propeller is too small etc. ad nauseum. Same as any other modelling genre I guess.

I encountered exactly this reation before from an "expert". I reminded him that scientific evidence based on the actual design told us that (in terms of aerodynamics) the bumble bee should be incapable of flight!! And yet, this humble insect with its big fat body, tiny wings and drag inducing fur coating manages to fly very well!! In any case, what does it matter. It's all about fun, not striving for "realism"

Allan

[Hotel Papa]

I reminded him that scientific evidence based on the actual design told us that (in terms of aerodynamics) the bumble bee should be incapable of flight!! And yet, this humble insect with its big fat body, tiny wings and drag inducing fur coating manages to fly very well!!

Not the bumble bee again! That urban myth has long been dispelled. I don't know who came up with this, but it certainly wasn't anybody with a deeper knowledge of aerodynamics.

The thing with technically unsound designs is: They don't look right. Doesn't mean you shouldn't build them if you like them, but our subconscious has a pretty good idea about what does and does not work, honed by looking at heaps of working designs made by humans and nature. Creations that violate these rules just look wrong somehow.

[ancient mariner]

Not the bumble bee again! That urban myth has long been dispelled. I don't know who came up with this, but it certainly wasn't anybody with a deeper knowledge of aerodynamics.

The thing with technically unsound designs is: They don't look right. Doesn't mean you shouldn't build them if you like them, but our subconscious has a pretty good idea about what does and does not work, honed by looking at heaps of working designs made by humans and nature. Creations that violate these rules just look wrong somehow.

Wasnt it said on the delivery of the F-4 Phantom,that they thought it had been delivered upside down. Perhaps a myth,but believable.