thierry laurent Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Derek, Forget the rivets! I've pictures of F-4Es showing them as very obvious even on an European 1 camo whereas I've many pics of Brit ones whick looked liked full scale glued model kits without visible screw heads! This has mainly to do with grime and light. I'd say that generally, they are at least visible on the front fuselage side of Phantoms but leave this choice to the modeller! I'm always amazed by this rivet war... There is no hard rule gentlemen! Look at the specific airframe you want to replicate and check if they were visible or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Derek, Forget the rivets! I've pictures of F-4Es showing them as very obvious even on an European 1 camo whereas I've many pics of Brit ones whick looked liked full scale glued model kits without visible screw heads! This has mainly to do with grime and light. I'd say that generally, they are at least visible on the front fuselage side of Phantoms but leave this choice to the modeller! I'm always amazed by this rivet war... There is no hard rule gentlemen! Look at the specific airframe you want to replicate and check if they were visible or not. Thanks Thierry. I think that on balance, I will leave the rivets off the vacform parts. Cheers Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougN Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Just as a counterpoint to the rivets - when it comes to kits I prefer to have them, and then fill them in if I don't want them, as I find that easier than putting them on if I want them. For example, I've got a Hasegawa Fw109A6 build waiting to commence that is held up because I don't have the energy to add all the rivets. Now, for conversions, the common sense approach would be that you match the kit parts - if they have rivets, then your conversion parts should have rivets. If the kit parts don't, then your conversion parts should not. Simples Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) Just as a counterpoint to the rivets - when it comes to kits I prefer to have them, and then fill them in if I don't want them, as I find that easier than putting them on if I want them. For example, I've got a Hasegawa Fw109A6 build waiting to commence that is held up because I don't have the energy to add all the rivets. Now, for conversions, the common sense approach would be that you match the kit parts - if they have rivets, then your conversion parts should have rivets. If the kit parts don't, then your conversion parts should not. Simples Doug I agree Derek. and Doug, I have the same kit, and haven't built it yet for the same reason......Harv Edited March 6, 2012 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 I agree Derek. and Doug, I have the same kit, and haven't built it yet for the same reason......Harv Harv/Doug, ...I don't know at the moment...I'll have to see? Many kits that do portay rivet detail rarely get it right in any case when compared to the full sized airframe? Cheers Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougN Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Harv/Doug, ...I don't know at the moment...I'll have to see? Many kits that do portay rivet detail rarely get it right in any case when compared to the full sized airframe? Cheers Derek As I said above, for conversions, you should just match what the kit has (rivets or no rivets), regardless of whether it is "right". It's enough effort to just tackle a conversion, and the builder doesn't need the additional headache of trying to replicate the surface texture of the main kit parts onto a conversion part. From a business perspective, anything that means more unpleasant work for the modeler/customer equates to one more hurdle to sales, and you need to be thinking of how to remove these potential hurdles if your goal is to make money on your venture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 As I said above, for conversions, you should just match what the kit has (rivets or no rivets), regardless of whether it is "right". It's enough effort to just tackle a conversion, and the builder doesn't need the additional headache of trying to replicate the surface texture of the main kit parts onto a conversion part. From a business perspective, anything that means more unpleasant work for the modeler/customer equates to one more hurdle to sales, and you need to be thinking of how to remove these potential hurdles if your goal is to make money on your venture. Also Derek, if its not that much more research, why not correct the rivets, if they are that far off. If close leave it up to the modeler...IMHO.....Harv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Doug/Harv, I'll have to see how rivet detail comes out in vacform? Panel lines are no problem, but I do not know exactly how the rivets will turn out?...We'll see I suppose? Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I agree, that is a very good candidate (why has it not been covered in 1/32 before now?). I have never seen this variant before - mind you, I do not know a great deal about the 262 in detail (apart from the fact that I want to 'borrow' a couple of sets of RM4s and launchers from one for my scratchbuilt Me 163A, pretty much in the same way they originally did it back in '44!). Looks like I now need a 1/32 Me 262 kit and reference for the U3 to add to my ever (rapidly) expanding list! (I bet there are other AM accessories needed for this aircraft as well? - is the Trumpeter 262 the best kit to use as a base?) Derek Derek, Yeah, IMO the Trumpeter is what most people are building in 1/32. The Hasegawa is OK but getting a bit long in the tooth. I should be able to get you some reference material if you need it, been beefing up my 262 library as of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 Derek, Yeah, IMO the Trumpeter is what most people are building in 1/32. The Hasegawa is OK but getting a bit long in the tooth. I should be able to get you some reference material if you need it, been beefing up my 262 library as of late. Cheers Mike, that is very good of you (and thanks for confirming the Trumpeter kit as the best one to work with - I only have the elderly Revell two seat 262 night fighter variant!). Best regards Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOTR Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Just a suggestion here Michael, but it would probably be cost effective for you to let Tigger (John Wilkes) use his industrial sized sheets and vacform equipment do all the hard work for you - all you need do is provide him with the pattern shapes to pull over? (balsa wood would work well here). Hm, outsourcing is of course another possibility. Gotta get in touch with him when things become clearer. Might be a good excuse for a travel to the UK (P.S. A 1/32 Pan-Am trolley dolley scratch build would be well worth watching!) I might order some female heads from Hornet, soon... It does not require a lot of imagination to realize that such a thread would have a couple of followers. And a lot of constructive criticism, when it comes to proportions: "I have added some additional material on four occations. I think she's already a little top heavy" - "Naw, still too skinny!" Not Pan-Am, but TWA, and a few years earlier than what I have on my mind, but for all those contemplating a Connie, how about this hilarious scene from flight attendent training in the early '60s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kagemusha Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 A Mig 21Bis vac spine would be very welcome for the Trumpeter MF kit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Ray Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 A Mig 21Bis vac spine would be very welcome for the Trumpeter MF kit... Oooooo.....seconded!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Oooooo.....seconded!!! Andy/Ray, Another thing for me to look at then! - Thanks. Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Paul Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Ok Derek, you asked and I'll add my two and half cents. Having built more then a few model airliners in 1/144 from Welsh Models ( truely great kits most of the time), I can say that what motivated me to purchase was subject matter. The only way to get "name your less commmon commercial aircraft" was to go Vac and dig for spare parts for landing gear or alternate engines etc. I had fun but it was a pain at times and certainly took up more modeling TIME then I always had to get one done..and I KNOW I built more of the injection molded airliners in the same scale several times over in some cases in different paint jobs just because all I had to source were alternate decals and I could have a few weekends of work to finish one or two. I think if you could produce the "guts" ( floor and sidewalls ) in Vac for the Beaufighter for example and it looked as crisp as the details you currently have on your master patterns, I'd buy more then one set just for the ease of use/weight savings and COST in that order and probably end up owning 3 Beaufighter kits as a result ! All the best in your projects my friend, Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now