Large Scale Aircraft 'in flight' - how ?

[Archimedes]

9 hours ago, Panzerwomble said:

Whilst impressive I think that the plume is overscale for the bomb . Has the Lanc just flown through the plume of water?, or is a ton of water crashing into the tailplane ? Either way that Lanc would be done for .  

 

If you look at test footage the aircraft moves far faster than the bomb , so has long gone when the impact occurs. It also climbs after release . 

 

Totally killjoy of me though , as this is truly a masterpiece of modelling . 

 

 

 

Hi Panzerwomble

 

The plume actually isn’t overscale as several type 464 Lancasters were damaged during the tests due to the water spray from the bomb impact hitting the aircraft. 617 Squadron’s Henry Maudslay’s and Les Munro’s aircraft were particularly damaged. The text and the photos in the link below show it.

 

https://www.manstonhistory.org.uk/dambuster-bouncing-bomb-tests-at-reculver-and-manston/

 

Kind regards,

Paul

 

 

[Panzerwomble]

1 hour ago, Archimedes said:

Hi Panzerwomble

 

The plume actually isn’t overscale as several type 464 Lancasters were damaged during the tests due to the water spray from the bomb impact hitting the aircraft. 617 Squadron’s Henry Maudslay’s and Les Munro’s aircraft were particularly damaged. The text and the photos in the link below show it.

 

https://www.manstonhistory.org.uk/dambuster-bouncing-bomb-tests-at-reculver-and-manston/

 

Kind regards,

Paul

 

 

Always important to be right . 

[Chris Ward]

19 hours ago, MikeMaben said:

A hole just a bit smaller than the ball is drilled in the model so that it must be forced thru the hole with a little pressure but won't fall back out. 

 

 Good luck with yours.

 

Thanks for your help Mike.

 

17 hours ago, Collin said:

Can you send some photos of this set up, sounds interesting. 
 

Hi Collin,

 

Thanks for the inspiration, I can't post any pictures for the usual reasons - I don't have any because I haven't started yet !

 

I'm glad I broke cover and posted, it has been quite useful and motivating. I must say, that I am surprised that more effort has not been directed into this from the manufacturers, given the comparative elegance of a lot of airborne airframes viz their earthbound alternatives.

 

But then, I guess you could say the same about airfield support vehicles, equipment and personnel, but that is a different subject isn't it.

 

Best,

 

C. 

 

 

[easixpedro]

Haven’t had a chance to pile on, but the sky is the limit. Or in this case your imagination. Click on my profile and scroll through the previous posts (by topic), you’ll see that every single build is gear up. I’m dumb enough to do carrier landings with only the tailhooks for support or massive 1/24th Hellcats bagging a Zero akin to box art. Let your mind run…kind of fun and you’ll be excited at the possibilities!

 

Peter

[Rick Griewski]

This is all great method.  Thanks for piling this together.  I want to pose my F-35b in a nose up, take off attitude.  I have some more thinking to do.  

[Chris Ward]

11 hours ago, easixpedro said:

 Let your mind run…kind of fun and you’ll be excited at the possibilities!

 

Or horrified Peter - depends on the mind !  

 

I love the use of forced perspective you have employed there....

2 hours ago, Rick Griewski said:

This is all great method.  Thanks for piling this together.  I want to pose my F-35b in a nose up, take off attitude.  I have some more thinking to do.  

Method/Devilish detail is what this thread is all about Rick. I need to have sound engineering principles in place before I 'unleash the mind' as Peter has so memorably done above.

 

The thread is still young, we may get some more input yet....

 

C.

[MikeMaben]

On 12/5/2023 at 7:26 PM, Chris Ward said:

 I am surprised that more effort has not been directed into this from the manufacturers, given the comparative elegance of a lot of airborne airframes viz their earthbound alternatives.

 

I thot that too back then. Kits could have a crest or a balkencreuz or some other themed base, made from injected

plastic instead of wood, with a decal for the applicque.

I like the idea of magnets , something that didn't exist back when I did mine.

[Chris Ward]

1 hour ago, MikeMaben said:

I like the idea of magnets , something that didn't exist back when I did mine.

Yes, I think that N52 magnets are so strong that they remove the need for piercing the fuselage and offer all sorts of possibilities for post fixing pose-ability, not to mention the opportunity to disassemble the model with the storage advantages that gives as well.

 

Bigger plane - bigger magnet

 

Greater variety of poses - more magnets fixed internally.

 

And presumably you can paint them if you want to.

[Rick Griewski]

Magnets!   Slipped my mind.  I will go with the magnets for my prototype of my F-35B In takeoff pose. 

[ringleheim]

I have copied this technique to great success with 1/72 and 1/48 kits.

 

The principle should work on 1/32 as well, just scale up the materials as needed.  You don't need much "size" to hold up a model aircraft; they are light.

 

Note that you can also present the "base" in a million ways with some creativity.

 

https://scalespot.com/howto/stands/stands.php

[Chris Ward]

Update - the Revell 1/32 Spitfire has arrived to act as guinea pig. Early indications on a taped together wingset and fuselage are that a single 10mm/3mm N52 magnet is probably not going to be strong enough for the desired effect. It works, but isn't fabulous. I have some 15mm/5mm coming.

 

Key to making this work is going to be siting the internal magnet to allow for maximum interface with the outside one.   

[Gazzas]

I like to see all of the ideas and applications.  Of course, it all depends on how much your imagination can blind the detail-oriented part of your brain.  I've toyed with the idea of making the base more art than imitation of real life.  For instance, your aircraft riding a bolt of lightning or stylized national insignia instead of an attempt at invisibility.  I would love to make the opposing magnets thing work...  but I'm sure there are size and balance issues to be conquered.

[Chris Ward]

7 hours ago, Gazzas said:

Of course, it all depends on how much your imagination can blind the detail-oriented part of your brain.  I've toyed with the idea of making the base more art than imitation of real life.  

Absolutely. It is completely acceptable to look upon what we do as Art, prototypical fidelity be damned, but it has to have a solid engineering foundation or it won't work.

[mozart]

And despite what ingenious creative method one comes up with for mounting the aircraft, the elephant in the room for prop planes is the stationary v spinning (or simulation thereof) blades. Good as it is in every respect, the stationary blades destroy that amazing Lanc in my eyes. 

[Chris Ward]

3 hours ago, mozart said:

Good as it is in every respect, the stationary blades destroy that amazing Lanc in my eyes. 

I guess, as previously mentioned Wolfgang (may I call you Wolf ?) it depends on the eye of the beholder and what it expects to see. For myself, I am very intolerant of any attempt to model motion - I dislike figures in 'action' poses for this reason.

 

That said, if the aftermarket were to produce an etch of a representative spinning prop in, say, 20 strands of differing thickness for each of the major scales, I'm sure they would sell lots of them. And if they have, could someone post a link to it here, as it would be a worthy capture for the thread ?

 

Best,

 

C.