Jump to content

Whatever happened to raised rivets ??


williamj

Recommended Posts

   Ok..this is just a survey,curious as to your opinion....lets keep it civil so Kevin doesn't have to lock it down.

      Working up some older kits recently,several go back to the early 70's,rediscovering that back then some had wonderful delicately formed raised rivets.

  I like them...lets get that out of the way.  recently there has been a manufacturing doctrine of covering the model surface with a blanket of holes,now we know this

  subject has been discussed ad infinitem, but you have to ask yourself "what looks more the part" holes in the surface or proper rivets. 

 Now of course this applies only to early aircraft that had them,flush rivets have an entirely different look.

  A couple of days ago there was a post of a new Tempest coming,the built model looks like it's covered in tiles with a grid work of holes,and of course just to my eye only..it turned me off as a prospect for purchase.(it had flush rivets not holes)..It's  a simple thing to just not do it.

  Just to take the point farther..imagine HK's Big B-17 with these(pic) scale raised rivets under some polished aluminum instead of holes,would look marvelously the part.

And what I don't understand is all they have to do is reverse them when tooling..they did it way back then and for most modelers it fell out of favor because some was way over done.

  Now turning to flush rivets,we see a lot of small fasteners,small round indented circles in the plastic,so instead of a divot why aren't they doing something that looks more like a flush rivet than a bullet hole.    

   Now obviously my opinion is my own and may not be popular. I'd like to hear yours.

  Sincerely,Williamj. 

 

 

       DSCF7213_zps1j7fgdvk.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but it can become a real PITA when you have to putty and sand your parts. And i think that about 90% of the modellers dont have Archer rivet decals to replace the sanded out moulded raised rivets, and may not even know it exists.

 

Even in your picture example, the riveting looks very good, but the panel lines are raised which is not so good. Sanding and rescribing them without damaging the suberb riveting is almost impossible.

Edited by Zero77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Smitty44

I'm kinda indifferent either way, but true representations of aircraft are what we are after. I would just have to learn to replace all the rivets I sand off. I can't imagine how tedious it would be though, polishing a HK B-17 out, if it were covered with raised rivets.

 

012_1.jpg

Edited by Smitty44
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to see raised detail where appropriate and recessed as appropriate.  Some of it may be fashion and some expediency.  Take the HK B-17 it is an enormous subject and I suspect the there were simply design compromises made in the interest of completing the project at the budget.  Also it is still a new company and there are limits in their project management skills. 

 

I would not be surprised if we don't see an attempt at some point to achieve raised and recessed detail comprehensibly on an airframe.  It is just a challenge for the kit designers and an added cost of design.  We tend to want everything to be perfect, and someone now picks apart every imperfection they can find in every kit.

 

I tend to feel if they got the overall shapes right and achieved great detail and fit the model company has done an outstanding job.  In the last 20 years we have seen enormous change and improvement in the detail and engineering of new subject matter.  I expect that for the foreseeable future as new technology comes along and driven by competition that quality will continue to improve. 

 

I found the criticized pictures of the new Tempest, keep in mind that the appearance of the model reflects the artistic style of the builder.  It would be easy to change the emphasis entirely on the airplane.  If you use a more monochromatic look for each color and don't emphasis the rivet lines and internal framer lines the plane would look much more as many builder expect and less patchwork. 

 

A model is inherently not a real plane made of metal and wood.  It is plastic made to look like something it is not and greatly reduced in scale.  The final result is artistic interpretation and can be very minimal or highly exaggerated.  There is no reality in scale modeling only an attempt to make something resemble reality and if we were too literal the result might look very dull and uninteresting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is plastic made to look like something it is not and greatly reduced in scale"

  Yes I understand all of this cbk57.but just like raised were overdone I feel recessed are being overdone now,  Tamiya have some very shallow, delicate,nicely rendered ones.but they are in the minority.

   Look at the Revell Spit Mk II..too many and too large,most modelers are filling them in.had they simply left them off...I would have bought more than one.  

Edited by williamj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, William. I recently picked up Hasegawa's F6F and the raised rivets are extremely fine - ill have to figure out how to keep them after scribing the raised lines where necessary.

 

Option 1:   A combination of raised and engraved(circles) would be terrific. The manufacturer could include a sheet of Archer rivets, or equivalent, to take care of the raised rivet loss during seam clean-up, etc. It's certainly doable with today's technology. Trump's SBD & TBF/M, Revell's Spitfire Mk II(rear fuselage) come to mind.

 

Option 2:   One could glue appropriate sized solder balls into each divot where desired and have a knockout model. Unfortunately, this would increase build time by a factor of 10, at least.

 

Personally, I go for Option 1.

 

Cheers,

 

D.B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly Hurricane it's a prime example of tasteful combination of raised riveting and recessed paneling . Let us hope that this is the beginning of the new era of surface detail finish.

fly32012reviewjh_9.jpg

Edited by Martinnfb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly Hurricane it's a prime example of tasteful combination of raised riveting and recessed paneling . Let us hope that this is the beginning of the new era of surface detail finish.

fly32012reviewjh_9.jpg

This is a wonderful example Martin....All I'm saying is that it's long overdue.and here's hoping we see more of the same.And these look really good(to scale) Edited by williamj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, William. I recently picked up Hasegawa's F6F and the raised rivets are extremely fine - ill have to figure out how to keep them after scribing the raised lines where necessary.

 

Option 1:   A combination of raised and engraved(circles) would be terrific. The manufacturer could include a sheet of Archer rivets, or equivalent, to take care of the raised rivet loss during seam clean-up, etc. It's certainly doable with today's technology. Trump's SBD & TBF/M, Revell's Spitfire Mk II(rear fuselage) come to mind.

 

Option 2:   One could glue appropriate sized solder balls into each divot where desired and have a knockout model. Unfortunately, this would increase build time by a factor of 10, at least.

 

Personally, I go for Option 1.

 

Cheers,

 

D.B.

 

 

 

I would go with option one as well DB...we see some new kits with overlapping panels (great) ruined with a plethora of holes.

leave the holes and if they won't or cannot replicate recessed flush rivets..don't do anything thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly Hurricane it's a prime example of tasteful combination of raised riveting and recessed paneling . Let us hope that this is the beginning of the new era of surface detail finish.

 

As you may have gathered from my other posts elsewhere Martin, I'm a big fan of the Fly Hurricanes. Mostly for the reasons you mention.

But I also have a small stash of '60s vintage Revell Spitfire Is and some Seafire re-pops and they're equally good.

 

As it should be, the forward fuselage has neatly indented circles of less than 0.5mm diameter representing flush rivets, finely engraved panel lines, and even smaller delicately raised dome rivets aft of frame 10, in the correct positions on the still engraved aft panel lines. The wing root fasteners are slightly larger indented circles with fine screw slots dividing them, and the engine cover Dzus fasteners are similar but with twin circle surrounds. The only 'fault' I could possibly point out is that a slight dishing of the 'skin' where all that detail is applied is missing. This, to my POV is what CAD should be aiming for.- appropriate detail and deformed skin.

 

But in all other respects, it's really an object lesson in applying appropriate surface detail, And it was first issued in 1970, I believe.

 

It does have some serious shortcomings as a scale model - the undercarriage is woeful, as is the interior and the canopy, and the gull wing section is omitted completely. The prop is also a bit skinny. But with those corrections made it stands the test of time very well indeed. So much so my Mk II  and Mk V will use the same fuselage mouldings.

Edited by Chek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Divots" are actually a function if technology. Back then, molds would be carved out if a block of steel using a

pantograph, and rivets drilled one by one in the hard steel mold.

Now the cavity is carved by CNC machines, and the finishing done using a spark-erosion electrode. The electrode, in carbon or copper, is itself CNC-machined as a positive (i.e. looking like the final part). It is a lot easier to drill holes in the electrode shape than to machine it with raised rivets.

Technology (spark-erosion) has allowed a lot if benefits in most intances, but not when it comes to reproducing some surface details.

I guess the 1969 Revell Spit Mk1 will remain for a long time a reference when it comes to surface rendition ;)

 

Hubert

Edited by MostlyRacers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm OK with either. My current WIP (Hasegawa Ki-61), is woefully underdone as far as fasteners are concerned, and that's a shame, as a wash into recessed rivets (especially around the engine area) would give a much more visually interesting result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Divots" are actually a function if technology. Back then, molds would be carved out if a block of steel using a

pantograph, and rivets drilled one by one in the hard steel mold.

Now the cavity is carved by CNC machines, and the finishing done using a spark-erosion electrode. The electrode, in carbon or copper, is itself CNC-machined as a positive (i.e. looking like the final part). It is a lot easier to drill holes in the electrode shape than to machine it with raised rivets.

Technology (spark-erosion) has allowed a lot if benefits in most intances, but not when it comes to reproducing some surface details.

I guess the 1969 Revell Spit Mk1 will remain for a long time a reference when it comes to surface rendition ;)

 

Hubert

Don't forget B17s had overlaping panels. I'm sure other aircraft used the same system. My 2 cents.....Harv

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Divots" are actually a function if technology. Back then, molds would be carved out if a block of steel using a

pantograph, and rivets drilled one by one in the hard steel mold.

Now the cavity is carved by CNC machines, and the finishing done using a spark-erosion electrode. The electrode, in carbon or copper, is itself CNC-machined as a positive (i.e. looking like the final part). It is a lot easier to drill holes in the electrode shape than to machine it with raised rivets.

Technology (spark-erosion) has allowed a lot if benefits in most intances, but not when it comes to reproducing some surface details.

I guess the 1969 Revell Spit Mk1 will remain for a long time a reference when it comes to surface rendition ;)

 

Hubert

Well Hubert,Hasegawa didn't seem to have any problem with it in 1971. just sayin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...