To Fly, or Not to Fly?

[19RAF]

Let me tell you where this comes from - I had an idea for a WWII Airfield Diorama where a section of Spitfires are being scrambled (pilots running for their aircraft, chairs scattered across the grass, magazines thrown to the ground, ground crew starting engines, etc etc) andthen wondered if it would be possible to model the next stage of this process, where the Section lift from the ground and soar into the air, just clearing the hedgerows and house at the end of the runway...

That got me thinking how most models I have seen on here are displayed standing around on lonely airfields, instead of how they should be seen - in full flight soaring above the clouds! I see airfix are releasing a set of clear plastic stands for displaying flying aircraft, so there must be a demand for this.

In my opinion I much prefer models that look like they are flying - obviously the difficulties with modelling/displaying an aircraft in flight, lead I think most people to model their aircraft standing around on imaginary airfields.

It is my opinion that some aircraft look better 'in flight' than on the ground (Fw 190, Bf 109, Hurricane for example) , and it's a rare aircraft that looks good better on the ground than in the air.

I know there are a lot of you who specialise in fine cockpit work, and prefer to display their work with open canopies etc, and for that I understand the need to display an aircraft at rest, but I was wondering which style you Britmodellers prefer, or in your opinions which aircraft look better at rest and which look better in the air!

[Adam Maas]

I'm of the opinion that while some aircraft may look better in the air, few models do, especially of propeller-driven aircraft. The issue really comes down to the fact that a believable representation of a prop in motion doesn't yet exist and that most scale-sized pilots look awful.

Personally, if I want to see an aircraft in flight, I fire up a flight sim and go flying.

[19RAF]

I'm of the opinion that while some aircraft may look better in the air, few models do, especially of propeller-driven aircraft. The issue really comes down to the fact that a believable representation of a prop in motion doesn't yet exist and that most scale-sized pilots look awful.

Personally, if I want to see an aircraft in flight, I fire up a flight sim and go flying.

I do tend to agree with this, (as I fly Spits in the online flight sim WWIIOL) but having seen this

prop blur!

I think it's a really good effect. I have been known to break the props off my aircraft in order to display them 'in flight', so I'll be trying this out.

[pigsty]

I'm of the opinion that while some aircraft may look better in the air, few models do, especially of propeller-driven aircraft. The issue really comes down to the fact that a believable representation of a prop in motion doesn't yet exist and that most scale-sized pilots look awful.

I'd agree with this. Further:

• too few kits are engineered for their undercarriage doors to be closed, so it creates more work;
  
• jets don't have a problem over propellers but they have a parallel problem with afterburner glow; and
  
• no way of mounting an aircraft "in flight" has overcome the problems of string / wobbly stands / general vulnerability to damage. An aircraft with its wheels down has at least a fighting chance of being stable, even the way I build them.
  

[Nick Millman]

I'm of the opinion that while some aircraft may look better in the air, few models do, especially of propeller-driven aircraft. The issue really comes down to the fact that a believable representation of a prop in motion doesn't yet exist and that most scale-sized pilots look awful.

Yes, well. Here is one of Tango India Mike's models. And personally I think that's better looking than any flight sim, pilot and all. His superb compositions are absolutely believable and the animated pilots excellent.

[Adam Maas]

Yes, well. Here is one of Tango India Mike's models. And personally I think that's better looking than any flight sim, pilot and all. His superb compositions are absolutely believable and the animated pilots excellent.

That's one of the best in-flight representations of a model I've seen, but I'd disagree that it looks better than any flight sim, it's not quite up to what Wings of Prey can show, but is definitely better than older sims like IL-2. The biggest reality-breaker is the disconnect between the background and the model, they have different 'rendering styles' and so there's a disconnect that you don't see in reality (or in a sim where the background is rendered by the same engine as the aircraft). It's something that's incredibly hard to fix with the limitations on models & backgrounds since photo backgrounds have the same issue as painted ones (this background appears to be painted)

Edited February 24, 2011 by Adam Maas

[Doug Rogers]

But surely firing up a flight sim isn't what we do here. An aircraft in a flight sim doesn't exist, It's just a bunco of pixels, or some lines in a computer program. What Tim Prosser has made is a work of art that he's made with his own hands, painted and positioned to get that image of a real three dimensional object. Don't get me wrong, I'm very impressed with the level of realism that some of the latest sims achieve, but when I wander into my modelling room and look at the planes I've built on my shelf, it just makes me smile.

Dogboy - With regard to your original post, I like to see planes in flight too and always try to make my models with the ability to have them appear like they are capable of flight;

Edited February 24, 2011 by Doug Rogers

[Mikey58]

The seaplane above looks amazing,the water has been so well done-that in itself gives the impression of moving.The Hurricane above looks great,has the stand been photoshopped out?

I also like to show planes in the air,the question of props is always an issue.I think that most people try to recreate what they see in photos so there is always a blurry prop whereas in reality there is hardly anything to see-just a hint of a circle.I normally take the blades off and paint a faint darkened band where the blades would be.

Mike

[Doug Rogers]

Yes, I removed the stand, but the prop is spinning.

[andym]

Let me tell you where this comes from - I had an idea for a WWII Airfield Diorama where a section of Spitfires are being scrambled (pilots running for their aircraft, chairs scattered across the grass, magazines thrown to the ground, ground crew starting engines, etc etc) andthen wondered if it would be possible to model the next stage of this process, where the Section lift from the ground and soar into the air, just clearing the hedgerows and house at the end of the runway...

That got me thinking how most models I have seen on here are displayed standing around on lonely airfields, instead of how they should be seen - in full flight soaring above the clouds! I see airfix are releasing a set of clear plastic stands for displaying flying aircraft, so there must be a demand for this.

In my opinion I much prefer models that look like they are flying - obviously the difficulties with modelling/displaying an aircraft in flight, lead I think most people to model their aircraft standing around on imaginary airfields.

It is my opinion that some aircraft look better 'in flight' than on the ground (Fw 190, Bf 109, Hurricane for example) , and it's a rare aircraft that looks good better on the ground than in the air.

I know there are a lot of you who specialise in fine cockpit work, and prefer to display their work with open canopies etc, and for that I understand the need to display an aircraft at rest, but I was wondering which style you Britmodellers prefer, or in your opinions which aircraft look better at rest and which look better in the air!

The biggest problem I think is that to display them they need a stand attached to them and that just detracts from the effect. It doesn't matter whether the stands are clear or not. Propellers can be easily dealt with as there are a lot of very small motors availible now which can be used to spin them and simple jet glow can be done using led's, though afterburner effect is a bit more difficult.

One thing I have often seen though and is a particular bugbear of mine (along with magically attached stowage on AFV's) is models displayed in flight; climbing, landing, taking off, turning etc. with all their flight surfaces in the neutral position!!!

Andy

[Davec_24]

I'd have said that most model aircraft can be made to look good either "on the ground" or "flying". Obviously, propellers do present a problem compared to jets (where you don't always see much to indicate that the engine is running, unless you can see the turbine face or there is smoke or afterburners are on), but there are creative ways around this. Most of these solutions are designed to look as a spinning prop would on a camera still; they look different on video footage and different again "in the flesh".

I usually model my 1/48 stuff "on the ground" because I like to display extra detail in the cockpit, undercarriage bays, etc., but then again I can appreciate that many arcraft really do look better in their element, and in some cases having the aircraft "dirty" with canopy open, gear down etc. simply mars the shape of an otherwise stunning aircraft. As long as the modeller is happy with his/her model, I think there's a case for both schools of thought.

As for when I want to see an aircraft "in flight", I go to the local airfield*...

* Disclaimer: when the weather is like it is today (overcast at 200ft AGL, 4.5km visibility), this isn't so viable!

[Enzo the Magnificent]

In my opinion I much prefer models that look like they are flying

In my experience, military aircraft spend 90% of their time on the deck, flaps dropped, canopy and panels opened, usually with a group of blokes stood nearby scratching their heads and muttering "Wot the bluddy 'ell is wrong wiv it now?" So that's how I build 'em!

[andym]

In my experience, military aircraft spend 90% of their time on the deck, flaps dropped, canopy and panels opened, usually with a group of blokes stood nearby scratching their heads and muttering "Wot the bluddy 'ell is wrong wiv it now?" So that's how I build 'em!

Very true

[Chris Hewitt]

very clever ,looks real

[Colin S-K]

Interesting subject.

Must admit I am a fan of displaying an aircraft model on it's wheels, but thought I'd add a post illustrating a couple of ideas that I have seen and thought were quite novel.

Not quite WWII, but I hope it adds to the subject and gives some thought to all that see this.

Bit of a Swiss theme here as well, firstly a display many of you may have already seen "in the flesh" at Telford.

Seb in the background, nice idea I thought using the smoke to cover the supporting structure, and yet giving an imposing display.

The second, is something again some of you may have seen in years gone by..

A display that when I, and others saw it, could not believe. Throughout it's display on the Recce SIG stand in 2006, people were looking for the wires supporting it. Believe me there are none.....

The SR71 does indeed have a steel pole supporting it at the rear of the model, but the KC135 is supported only by the steel in the refuelling boom. Yes just the boom, look closely and just marvel at the thought of the structure, engineering, and modelling skill required..

Closer image, just look no bending....... and that is supporting the weight of the KC135 model....!

Of course all the weight goes back through the SR71 model, which has a supporting structure within it, and is then transferred through the upright to the base.

Amazing....

Made by, (hope I have this right?), Andy Nydegger of the Swiss IPMS, a group of modellers who, in my opinion make some of the nicest models I have seen.....!

Colin

[Stonar]

I like to do both,though only occasionally "in flight". It does often require some fettling of gear doors etc. I choose to remove propeller blades and fill the spinner.

An airplane can climb with all the control surfaces in a neutral position. It can be in just about any attitude with neutral controls as well,even if "caught" in a moment of transition. Noones going to see the throttle position when the models on my shelves!

Cheers

Steve

[Mike W]

I mount my aircraft, wheels up or down, on an Airfix 1/24 scale stand, painted gloss black. All the propellor driven aircraft are motorised with a small electric motor.

Arcraft are designed to fly, not sit on the ground. That is not to say that I am not incredibly impressed by the skill and patience of many of the modellers on this site who display their kits with panels open, engines removed etc. I also wish that firms like Trumpeter would offer two versions of each kit, a 'clean' airframe and a detailed airframe, or perhaps with a detailing set for those who do wish to expose as much of the workings of their model as possible. I would love to build some of the larger scale kits, but with Trumpeter and Tamiya 1/32 kits costing around £100, can not justify the cost. Revell offers much better value, their Eurofighter costs half as much as the Trumpeter version, and their new BAE Hawk is a real bargain at under £20.

Happy modelling,

Mike