Prop Blur

[MikeC]

As some may know, I always think the most effective means of portraying a spinning propeller on a model is to simply remove the blades, and let the viewer's mind fill in the prop which they "know" should be there.   Others think that some means of showing blurred images of the blades is essential.  And yet:

 

Every photo of a spinning prop does indeed show blurred blades.

Every film one sees shows blurred blades.

So that's how they often get depicted in model form.

 

But it occurred to my whilst watching some real aircraft yesterday: you don't really see blurred blades in real life.  I guess photos freeze the very fast motion, and films have a strobe effect, so you do see blade images then; but in real life? 

 

I'm not trying to be controversial or provocative, just wondering what other people think.

[Gazzas]

I think you usually see something even if faintly.  However, I don't think any of the AM blurred props look any better from all angles than no prop at all.  The best option IMHO is the e-motor turning the prop.

[red Dog]

IMHO , the prop should be visible. There is always something visible enough when a prop is turning

If you don't place the prop, the viewer often has the feeling that Something is missing.

 

To me no prop and blurred prop are no good enough compromises.

 

That's the Reason why I prefer for the prop to turn whenever it is necessary for my model, most of the time, I put a small motor in there

 

 

 

[chrish]

I once took a video from the right cockpit seat of a turbo Otter during takeoff, I could see what the camera could see (digital camera) when played back several hours later there was a prop blade not moving and stuck at about the 1:00-1:30 position on the camera viewer. By eye I could see nothing of the prop during take off and flight... weird

[MikeC]

44 minutes ago, chrish said:

I once took a video from the right cockpit seat of a turbo Otter during takeoff, I could see what the camera could see (digital camera) when played back several hours later there was a prop blade not moving and stuck at about the 1:00-1:30 position on the camera viewer. By eye I could see nothing of the prop during take off and flight... weird

 

My point exactly!  In real life, you're looking at continuous motion.  A picture is a "freeze frame" of an instant in time: in that instant, a prop blade travels in a small arc and is the camera captures a blur for that arc. 

@red Dog great models above, but of course the camera captures exactly what it would capture on a real aircraft.  I must admit I'd put a small motor in any models where I wanted a moving prop if my skills were up to it.  In the meantime, I'm happy with the trompe l'oeil effect of no blades. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by MikeC

[Pascal]

So basically, it's all a bit blurry.

[R Palimaka]

Small motors make sense. Some of the clear disc attempts can look ok too, but I'm not so convinced by the photo-etched versions. I overheard a comment once at a model show that the photo-etched prop blurs looked like someone had attached a fern to the front of the aircraft, and I haven't been able to get that out of my head now.

 

Richard

[chrish]

26 minutes ago, Pascal said:

So basically, it's all a bit blurry.

story of my life....

[R Palimaka]

5 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

Props are three dimensional. PE is flat.

 

There is that too.

[cbk57]

I don’t like the look personally of the PE or film approach.  My norm is to not worry and build static.  I have never had a fascination with making things work only building them.  Thus I am a lifetime Plastic modeler and never could get the bug for any type of RC, plane tank or car.

 

 If I wanted the look of a moving prop though I would defiantly go motorized.  The big plus is that you can shut if off and have a static prop also.  Unless really small scale, leaving the blades off would bug me.  

[ChuckD]

A friend of mine sunk all of his summer work savings into an RC glider during his senior year of high school.  He bought it from someone that had built it from scratch.  It essentially looked like a Grob glider.  The upper canopy lifted off for access to the battery and controls and there was a small eyelet at the extreme nose for a tow rope.  The problem lay with the fact that the nose section - containing the battery and the tow eyelet - was a separate piece from the rest of the airframe.  So, one day, my friend prepped for his maiden flight.  His other friend grabbed the tow rope, got the slack out and started running along.  Before long, the glider was soaring under her own lift.  Just when our friend was ready to release the tow rope, disaster struck.

 

The nose/canopy piece separated from the remaining airframe under the strain from the tow rope.  The battery immediately disconnected from the controls as the nose piece fell to earth.  The glider, with its center of gravity completely out of whack and its controls frozen due to lack of power, rapidly pitched vertically up, stalled, and smacked the asphalt at about 50mph, shattering it into thousands of pieces of wood, plastic, and my friend's tears.

[Out2gtcha]

Yep, dad was into quarter scale (actual 1/4th scale vs what others so incorrectly informally call 1/48th) R/C for most of my childhood. I saw him build lots and LOTS of giant scale R/C ships. That was back in the days when you could get away with making a quarter scale R/C ship for under a $1000 USD.

Not so today, as you can buy working 5, 7, 9 and even 18 cylinder engines starting at around $1,500.

 

Back in the day, dad had a quarter scale P-47 and it was BIG. It had Eaglestons markings, with full (old school hydrolic) retracts and even charcoal filled dummy bombs that he could release over the field on a run.   I distinctly remember back in those days, unlike today, you had "flags" at the flying field with your frequency (today's R/C radios all have oscillating frequency generators, so you never have to worry about being on someone else's "frequency") on it you put up, so you wouldn't get mixed signals and crash with someone else flying on your frequency...............One day dad put his frequency flag up on the flying fields display rack for all to see, observing another new pilot there he'd never seen before had a different frequency up on the rack. Dad put the P-47 in the air with confidence as the other pilot was still prepping his training model for flight.

What did didn't know is that pilot had mistaken his frequency for another and put up the wrong flag, thinking he had another radio than what he actually had. Of course it was on dads same frequency, and as soon as the guy turned his radio on, the big Jug when immediately to full throttle, and while the guy on the ground went through his flight control checks, the dads P-47 did the same, going up and down yawing right to left and finally a burst of full throttle and down elevator about 10 feet from the ground sent his jug into the asphalt, and a MILLION little silver and yellow pieces. 

 

After that day, I was old enough to understand the amount of time and money my dad lost that day, and I have stuck to my plastic static models ever since. 

[GrahamF]

I've seen it done very successfully with a laser etched disc where the faint blurred prop blades are drawn up and raster etched. 

Graham 

[ScottsGT]

2 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

Same here.  I saw too many cases of people spending thousands of dollars on an RC model only to have it smashed to bits when something went wrong.  I attended in RC invitational in Palm Beach one time, and a guy had a gigantic (must have been like 1/8 scale maybe?) DC-3 decked out in the Otis Spunkmeyer cookie color scheme.  The meet was held at the Palm Beach Polo Club, and when he was on short final to land it, something happened and the thing nose dived into a canal.  Never had any desire to waste my money like that.

 

Seriously? Otis Spunkmeyer?  I had an old friend lose the same (almost) plane at the same fly in. Might have been a different year though.  Was it the Frank Tiano invitational Top Gun?  Roger Young was flying his Ziroli AC-47 (Puff decals and all) design when his went in and was destroyed.  It was powered by two V Twin Enya 4 cycles.  He gave us a flight demo at the field I learned to fly at.  Looking out of place until he brought the stick back to half throttle and slowed things down a bit.  man, that was realistic!

Roger never made it back to Top Gun. Cancer took him from us less than a year later. 

[MikeC]

5 hours ago, R Palimaka said:

... I overheard a comment once at a model show that the photo-etched prop blurs looked like someone had attached a fern to the front of the aircraft ...

 

I wish I'd thought of that, it does look exactly like that!