To stencil or not to stencil?

[binbrook87]

Hi guys. 

 

I'm just finishing off yet another F-4  and have arrived at the dreaded stencilling bore! 😬 So my question is.... do you folks tend to apply them all religiously, leave some off or leave most of them off altogether apart from say the main warning triangles etc? Some don't appear to be that obvious on the real aircraft anyways so would look slightly out of place and out of scale when in model form. Be interested in your thoughts as it's the one modelling task that I hate (especially when it comes to the Phantom)! 🙄

[Casey]

I'd ask... what scale are you doing it on and if you are great fan of puzzles that you need tweezers and a microscope to put together...

[binbrook87]

It's 1/48 scale so i suppose fairly noticeable?

[Casey]

It may be not immediately visible from the distance, but those details add a lot to a model viewing experience when you examine it closely after it is finished. Or for that feeling "Nobody can see it but *I* know I placed it there"

 

When I look some models other people in this group did, I do notice those little things after a while, and they somehow make me feel happy...

 

I personally would find a way to force myself to do it, especially if it is a task I hate, since it is a training in patience.

 

For example, I hate doing canopy masking, but bad canopy work can trash a model. I love doing thousands of decals so that boring experience of yours would be a very relaxing part for me. I hate doing weathering because it ruins all the color work I usually do on model, but on the other hand I would like to perfect it to makes my models look more natural...

 

 

[Bertie McBoatface]

A logical policy would perhaps involve checking references. Some aircraft such as JASDF fighters seem to be speckled with stencils even when photographed from a distance which approximates model viewing distance but that is unusual.

 

Model viewing distance = approximately 2ft x the scale of the model. In 1/48 that's a hundred feet away.

 

Can you see inch high, black writing on a green surface from 100 feet? I can't, and I find that a model that has all of the smaller stencils applied looks rather silly. Black writing on a pale grey surface? I can see that, but not read it, from 100 feet away so that would look 'right' to me. 

 

This all sounds very calculated but what I actually used to do with aircraft stencil markings was to start with the big ones and work down, stopping when it looked right to me. I'd say that is always the best way - make your model the way YOU  like it and to the devil with those who presume to tell you that you are wrong.

 

It's your model after all and asking a hundred other modellers will only get you confused by a hundred different opinions. (He said, giving freely of his opinion. 😁)

 

[binbrook87]

Some really great replies here so far. Thanks very much for your thoughts and opinions. I do like the scale effect from distance.... this makes a lot of sense 😊

[ckw]

Agree with much of what has been said regarding scale effect - I think part of the problem is that pure black against a light background (or vice versa) results in too much contrast, so unless that contrast can be toned down it doesn't look quite right.

 

Another thing I consider is the nature of the decals themselves - if, when applying the primary decals, I notice any tendency toward silvering I usually ignore most of the tiny stencilling - to my mind a silvered stencil decal is much much worse than no decal at all!

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[Casey]

7 hours ago, ckw said:

tendency toward silvering

I found it an fun exercise to understand why a silvering happen in a first place, and find a ways to avoid it.

 

As far as I am aware, it is happening because air is trapped under the decal, but the real problem is not that something is 'trapped' under a decal, but because that something has a very different index of refraction than decal film itself. Seeing a border between mediums of two different index of refrations is very common - it is the same effect that lets us see transparent air bubbles under water as 'silver shilouettes'.

 

There are two solutions: a) avoid air bubbles fully or b) Find a substance that will sit between decal and model and has index of refraction similar to the decal.

 

First solution requires smooth paint and careful decal application, that's why a lot of modellers use gloss coats just to facilitate that. While this works, it is an attempt to not to generate the problem in first place than solve it.

 

Second solution, is to place decal on a layer of wet acrylic polymer. I saw people using floor polish

Humbrol decal fix is actually a liquid that works like Klear

 

There is caveat too - this type of solution is a substance that does not evaporate fully - you cannot simply slap it roughly over the model then position a decal - if you use it on a matt surface you will get glossy patches.

 

It is still topic about decals, I am not derailing it too much riiight?

Edited July 22, 2022 by Casey

[binbrook87]

Not off topic at all 👍👍 any tips and tricks are always great to hear. Silvering decals are also a pain and I'm experimenting with using Klear on some stubborn decals too 🤔 I've never tried Humbrol decal fix as I thought it was like Microsol 

Edited July 22, 2022 by binbrook87

[ejboyd5]

I'm taken by the logic embodied in, "Model viewing distance = approximately 2ft x the scale of the model. In 1/48 that's a hundred feet away." It seems a practical way to determine the degree of detail to be applied.

[Giorgio N]

Are there stencils on the real thing ? Then I apply the stencils on the model. A model without stencils would be bare, more so in 1/48 scale.

Regarding the perceived realism, the main problem really is in the quality of the decals: many companies print their stencils way too large, however when well designed and printed stencils are applied they make the surface of the model much more interesting

The matter of the "viewing distance" is one of those I always found a bit excessive... sure, I can look at my model from 2 ft. but is anyone preventing me from looking at my model ? No, I can look at my model from much closer than that and all of us actually do it during the various steps before the model is completed. If I have stencils that I can't see from far away but I can see from close-up, then I'm pretty happy. Not adding the stencils would mean that if I look at my model from very close i can not see something that is on the real thing.

If I had to apply the same logic there are a lot of other things I would not have to add on a model, like many small external details, yet nobody has yet suggested to omit a pitot tube because it would be hard to see at a 100 ft....

[Tojo72]

If I cheat by leaving some off,it would be the bottom of the plane sometimes.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Tojo72

[Pete F]

In 1/72 I generally do all of them unless they are tiny and I am getting bored. On a recent Zero there were some that were just tiny single lines on the Printscale sheet. As Printscale causes me headaches at the best of times I ignored them. Come to think about it I really started to dislike Printscale on that project.

 

I was once driven nearly insane by the fuselage numbering decals on an Airfix bf109E. I still shudder when I think of them. You may know what I am talking about.

 

I do find that a good set of stencils seems to add something, even at a distance when the individual markings are not obviously discernible.

[Casey]

2 hours ago, Pete F said:

Airfix bf109E. I still shudder when I think of them. You may know what I am talking about

I did Airfix McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR.2...

[Pete F]

20 minutes ago, Casey said:

I did Airfix McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR.2...

 

I've just looked at the stencil plan in the instruction sheet on Scalemates. All I can say is that you are a braver person than I. The diagram is completely mad. https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/9/7/1121397-16-instructions.pdf

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

I tend to do about 1/2 to 2/3rds of them just enough to make it look busy. The exception being modern Japanese aircraft. They're absolutely covered in stencils and no matter what you do you cant really hide that fact. 

[Mike]

Late to the party as usual, but I'm in the camp that uses them all, as I think that stencils add important detail to your model, and detail = realism.   I can remember doing all the many stencils for my Mig-31 Foxhound some years back, and I was so glad I did in the end

[Mycapt65]

Nope. I only put on the large important ones. On a F-4 that would be the rescue arrows, ejection seat triangles, the jet intake warnings and the likes of these. IMO all the other ones clutter up your canvas and look terribly out of scale. Even if they are technically in scale the colors or too stark and the print would be triple bold in real life. Look at photos of the real plane and only put the obvious stencils on your model. I did a 48 scale f-4b decades ago and put on the commensurate nine million stencils. It was a miserably task that didn't look right when done. Now I only put on the larger important stencils. My life is easier and I think my builds are fine without every little stencil. 

 

It's a personal choice. This is mine

Edited August 1, 2022 by Mycapt65

[jackroadkill]

4 hours ago, Pete F said:

Airfix bf109E. I still shudder when I think of them. You may know what I am talking about.

 

I assume you mean these little darlings?!

 

I'm finding that as my decalling skills increase and my methods evolve I'm developing more patience, so more tend to go on now than did previously.  I posted a similar thread a while ago and the consensus among the responses was "do what you decide is best for your model", and I took that and ran!

[PattheCat]

Too many stencils and if I may paraphrase Henry Ford the fact that "Any customer modeller can have a car plane painted any colour that he wants, so long as it is black grey." are my main reasons for building very few modern military aircraft.

 

I sometimes wonder if one day they'll add a warning stencil saying "Don't cook here" fearing this: