Accuracy conundrum - settings

[red Dog]

Quote

A modeller who had done a beautiful WWII fighter, and then depicted it with a bicycle leaning against it (surely a no-no in any air force at any time!)

 

 

Quote

“RBF Tags” – the large streamers attached to safety pins, covers, etc, that need to be removed before flight – that are inappropriate for the air arm concerned.  For example, those in use on US aircraft have the caption “Remove before Flight” in white on red, on British they are usually red/white diagonal stripes.  Although there are exceptions.

 

 

Quote

Aircraft parked in an inaccurate configuration, eg flaps deployed when irl they were always parked with flaps up (See ”Spitfire”).

 

 

Even if you know it and have experience, you can always be proven wrong !

Exceptions and mistakes were done and will be done again...

 

Of course some go overboard, but does it really matter? In the end, it's their model.

The guy here who never made a mistake throw the first empty paint can

 

The opposite of the argument is true as well

I have seen people questioning an aircraft weathering because some ppl think aircraft are always pristine and a pilot would not board a aircraft in such a bad shape. 

Well operational realities is a hard fact and intensively used aircraft are filthy. 

It is a shame IMHO that a modelist has to provide the pictorial proof of his work to justify his choice.

 

I have heard judges at contest (as well as spectators commenting models) judging historical accuracy as something not possible and dismissing a model for it. 

So lack of knowledge is not only on the side of the builder, but also on the side of the viewer - and we are all viewers here on this board

 

So nobody know it all, regardless of the experience level of everyone and It goes both ways IMHO.

We thus need to leave room for improvement - on both sides.

I also don't think anyone built a historical accurate model right at his first build - so when you judge a model on the forum or on the contest table, do you take the experience level of the builder into account ? 

 

And at the end of the line, the guys looking the most at a specific model or diorama is the builder, no ? Not the forum or contest crowd - so who should it please in the first place? 

And finally, isn't this about enjoying what you build? 

 

I reserve my right to be wrong when it suits me

 

 

[mozart]

Great post Red Dog! 

[Christa]

Agreed, agreed and agreed, over elaboration equals clutter, however, good dioramas, e.g. Kent Karlsen's, may or not be minimalist, but they tend to be magical, imho. The quality of the model is key to the magic e.g Mozart's latest DH 82 images. Also, display space is an issue.

 

Chief consideration is builders enjoyment and satisfaction, at least for the time being.

[mozart]

3 minutes ago, Christa said:

Agreed, agreed and agreed, over elaboration equals clutter, however, good dioramas, e.g. Kent Karlsen's, may or not be minimalist, but they tend to be magical, imho. The quality of the model is key to the magic e.g Mozart's latest DH 82 images. Also, display space is an issue.

 

Chief consideration is builders enjoyment and satisfaction, at least for the time being.

Germane to this thread Chris, it was my original intention to have a female pilot ready to fly in the Tiger Moth and a fitter tinkering on the starboard engine, so panel raised. But in the end I decided “less is more” and just did the plane. I’m happy enough with the outcome. 

[MikeC]

1 hour ago, red Dog said:

 

 

Yes, indeed, but that's against a tyre, relatively resilient compared to aircraft skin (metal or fabric).  And I still would not like to be that guy when the Flight Sergeant sees him.

 

1 hour ago, red Dog said:

 

I vaguely recall that I said "there are exceptions", so you score no "clever" points for that one

 

1 hour ago, red Dog said:

Even if you know it and have experience, you can always be proven wrong !

Exceptions and mistakes were done and will be done again...

 

Indeed.  It happened, that doesn't make it right according to SOPs at the time.  But did the pilot get away with that, or was it a round of drinks, a fine, or whatever the penalty was on that unit?

 

Of course some go overboard, but does it really matter? In the end, it's their model. 

The guy here who never made a mistake throw the first empty paint can

Of course it doesn't matter, not one jot.  And I've done it myself.  Please reread my OP: I am not complaining, simply seeking to understand the inconsistency inherent in wanting to get the aircraft itself  "correct" down to the smallest detail, then ignoring exactly that in the "ancilliaries".

It is a shame IMHO that a modelist has to provide the pictorial proof of his work to justify his choice.  Nobody is forcing you to.

 

I have heard judges at contest (as well as spectators commenting models) judging historical accuracy as something not possible and dismissing a model for it. 

So lack of knowledge is not only on the side of the builder, but also on the side of the viewer - and we are all viewers here on this board

 

So nobody know it all, Absolutely true regardless of the experience level of everyone and It goes both ways IMHO.

We thus need to leave room for improvement - on both sides.

I also don't think anyone built a historical accurate model right at his first build - so when you judge a model on the forum or on the contest table, do you take the experience level of the builder into account ? I model for pleasure, I don't do contests.

 

And at the end of the line, the guys looking the most at a specific model or diorama is the builder, no ? Not the forum or contest crowd - so who should it please in the first place? 

And finally, isn't this about enjoying what you build? 

 

I reserve my right to be wrong when it suits me   As is only right and proper, I have no disagreement with that.  And I reserve my right to try and understand inconsistencies, which is what this is about.

Nobody has any need to be defensive.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by MikeC

[red Dog]

Michael,

 

Sorry if you felt my post what in any way defensive or reactive to yours. It wasn't the idea at all

The point I was trying to get is that it goes both ways by giving a little bit of the other side of that coin.

and rather general broadband at that, not to you personally at all.
I quoted your post to illustrate that one can always be proven wrong with pictures (and you didn't mention resting against tires didn't count)  

 

By the way, does any one know why the spitfire never were parked with flaps down? I recall there is a specific reason for that. And it's nothing to do with parking, it's rather something to do with taxiing

 

[Oldbaldguy]

6 hours ago, thierry laurent said:

The tip of the wing of that F-16 looks weird to me...!?! Bomb launcher behind the tip!?!

You are looking at the horizontal stab in bright light.  The wing is in darkness and you can barely see it.

[MikeC]

23 minutes ago, red Dog said:

Michael,

 

Sorry if you felt my post what in any way defensive or reactive to yours. It wasn't the idea at all

The point I was trying to get is that it goes both ways by giving a little bit of the other side of that coin.

and rather general broadband at that, not to you personally at all.
I quoted your post to illustrate that one can always be proven wrong with pictures (and you didn't mention resting against tires didn't count)  

 

By the way, does any one know why the spitfire never were parked with flaps down? I recall there is a specific reason for that. And it's nothing to do with parking, it's rather something to do with taxiing

 

I was probably somewhat defensive myself.  No harm done to anyone, I hope.

 

As for the Spitfire flaps thing, I think it was two-fold.  The flaps affected the airflow through the radiator and oil cooler, and thus you could easily overheat and damage an engine.  It was OK in flight at landing speeds, as there was sufficient then, but not at taxying speeds or stationary.  I also have a vague memory that the flaps were pneumatically operated, and once down and the engine off, could not be raised until the air pressure was recharged.  It's possible that I'm not remembering that correctly at all, others may know more.

 

 

[mozart]

13 minutes ago, MikeC said:

I was probably somewhat defensive myself.  No harm done to anyone, I hope.

Mike opened this interesting thread for debate and opinions, and fortunately that’s what’s happening, there have been many valid points raised giving various interpretations and thoughts. Thank goodness that we, at LSP, can have such a reasoned and friendly discussion without people getting on their high horse and throwing their toys out of the pram! (Sorry about the mixed metaphors, but you know what I mean!). 

[red Dog]

1 hour ago, MikeC said:

I was probably somewhat defensive myself.  No harm done to anyone, I hope.

 

As for the Spitfire flaps thing, I think it was two-fold.  The flaps affected the airflow through the radiator and oil cooler, and thus you could easily overheat and damage an engine.  It was OK in flight at landing speeds, as there was sufficient then, but not at taxying speeds or stationary.  I also have a vague memory that the flaps were pneumatically operated, and once down and the engine off, could not be raised until the air pressure was recharged.  It's possible that I'm not remembering that correctly at all, others may know more.

None at all !!

 

the flaps affecting the airflow in the radiator is what i remember too.

I feel like this kind of information is the real important bit. 
Once you know the fact you see the logic and why it was done so and why then the aircraft should be in this configuration when parked.
This would be the kind of constructive criticism I would love to get after doing the unthinkable  

(and I confess I did)

 

 

[D.B. Andrus]

Beautiful Spitfire photo, Red Dog. What mark is it?

 

Cheers,

Damian

[mozart]

38 minutes ago, D.B. Andrus said:

Beautiful Spitfire photo, Red Dog. What mark is it?

 

Cheers,

Damian

It's an intriguing picture seemingly full of contradictions.  It seems to have the additional "flaps" on the undercarriage to give full streamlining on the underside reminiscent of the prototype K5054, but it has a retractable tail wheel.  The serial number starts with an "N", again denoting a fairly early Mark but it appears to have squared wingtips.  The tall tail flash is very late 1939/early 1940 (Battle of France) era.  No squadron code letters at all and because of the light it's difficult to make out the camouflage pattern, if there is one.  PRU? (but with squared wingtips?)

 

Spitfire Mk III

 

 

First flown in March 1940, fitted with a Merlin XX engine and a two speed supercharger.  Only limited numbers of Merlin XXs were available and priority was given to fit them to Hurricane II's in order that it could remain effective as a front line fighter.  The Merlin XX was to be superceded by the Merlin 45 which when fitted to a Spitfire earned it the Mk V designation.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by mozart

[Finn]

As for the F-16 pic posted earlier, it's probably the ALE-50 housing that can be barely seen:

 

 

Jari

[steinerman]

Just one statement. I build for fun and enjoyment. To me, it's a hobby and something I find relaxing. 100% accuracy comes a distant second.

[D.B. Andrus]

2 hours ago, mozart said:

It's an intriguing picture seemingly full of contradictions.  It seems to have the additional "flaps" on the undercarriage to give full streamlining on the underside reminiscent of the prototype K5054, but it has a retractable tail wheel.  The serial number starts with an "N", again denoting a fairly early Mark but it appears to have squared wingtips.  The tall tail flash is very late 1939/early 1940 (Battle of France) era.  No squadron code letters at all and because of the light it's difficult to make out the camouflage pattern, if there is one.  PRU? (but with squared wingtips?)

 

Spitfire Mk III

 

 

First flown in March 1940, fitted with a Merlin XX engine and a two speed supercharger.  Only limited numbers of Merlin XXs were available and priority was given to fit them to Hurricane II's in order that it could remain effective as a front line fighter.  The Merlin XX was to be superceded by the Merlin 45 which when fitted to a Spitfire earned it the Mk V designation.

 

Thank you, Max! Wouldn't have figured it out on my own.