An informal poll regarding a new 1/32 RFC figure coming out...

[Maxfinn]

Hi all,

I posted a couple weeks ago looking for some reference suggestions for RFC uniforms and flying suits in preparation for commissioning a sculptor to sculpt masters for a new line of pilot figures I'm going to roll out.

I've got my first two figures about to begin, and I'm looking for your input on the pose of one of them.  It will be an RFC pilot wearing a Service Dress Jacket, and putees/boots.  Right now both arms will be at his sides, with a cane/walking stick in his right hand.

But...in the interest of making the figure more interactive with an airplane, I'm considering having him posed with his right arm raised and holding onto the propeller.

What do you all think?  Should I leave the right arm down so that the figure can be placed anywhere in relation to the model?  Or should I go ahead and have the arm raised to be grasping the prop, which would limit where the figure could be placed?

If everything goes right, I hope to have the first two figures, both British, out by mid-summer, and I'm really hoping to have them for sale at the IPMS USA Nationals in mid August.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and votes!

Mike

[kornbeef]

My personal opinion, It would be nice to have more interactive poses I think. Almost all available figures are rather detached in appearance even when posed with aircraft.

Of course as you say it limits use but possibly having a seperate arm a small amount of variation could be achieved making the rang of uses a little wider. Holding onto handholds, wing etc too.

Just my two penneth.

Keith

[Dave W]

Another vote for interactive poses. They bring a diorama to life.

Also a figure holding a camera, taking a photo which would then explain why the pilot was posing with his arm raised on the prop or cockpit sill - and you would sell two figures instead of one! 

cheers

Dave Wilson
Gold Coast
Australia

[Nigel Jackson]

Hi All

I'm with Justin and Keith on this about the need to avoid the detached, expressionless approach and I like Dave's approach.

That said, I'd look to push the boundaries - unrealistic I know, but then that's only me being me. The interaction doesn't have to be with the aircraft. Even though it remains the principal focus, I'd like to be challenging to viewer to think; what a beautifully made model! Oh and also I wonder what the aircrew standing with their backs to it are talking/laughing and joking about or pointing at.  The figures should always complement the principal focus and never upstage it , but in other fields I'have had great fun trying to create such interactions, even with something off base that the viewer can only guess at.

My plea then Mike would be interactive, yes, though not necessarily always directly with the aircraft by way of touch. 

Best wishes
Nigel

[Des]

Interactive is definitely the way to go, we have too many ''statues" just standing there doing nothing and don't fit into a active diorama scene. Holding the prop is a good possible pose, or how about standing in front of the aircraft leaning on the wing with his helmet, goggles and gloves sitting on the wing?

Des.

[mike in calif]

Interactive poses are the best. hand on side of machine, checking wires, rudder, pointing ETC.

[Marco]

Interactive.

Checking a map; climbing into the cockpit ...

[pepperman42]

Leaning,legs casually crossed as if posing for photo. Hand on prop is good too. Interactive is the way to go.

Steve

[lawman56]

I would have to agree with interactive poses. One of my primary issues with aircraft modelling, especially 1/32, and compounded with WWI aviation in particular, is the lack of natural, or active, poses. I would love to see more poses showing pre-flight checks, pre-flight briefing, ground crews, etc...  

[Maxfinn]

Thanks guys!  It sounds like I'll be contacting the sculptor and have him change the pose to be holding the propeller with his right hand.

And FYI, the second figure will be in a flying suit, leaning against the fuselage, holding one glove and pulling the other on.

Mike