forum.ww1aircraftmodels.com
WW1 Aircraft Modeling => Under Construction => Scratch builds => Topic started by: abufletcher on September 01, 2016, 06:00:46 PM
-
As a total outsider to the world of plastic modeling I've always wondered why model at such tiny scales. All of the most popular scales, e.g. 1/72, 1/42, 1/32, 1/24 result in quite small models. I'm particularly wondering about why modelers choose to scratch build at these scales. I mean, why not build a 1/12 scale model or something like that?
I'm honestly just curious. Is building small actually part of the appeal? Is it a matter of available materials?
-
Hi Abufletcher,
to be honest it is usually a matter of space - making the models bigger scale means that you need more space to collect them and this is usually an issue.
yeah I can see someone building a 1/12 or 1/6 model for years and at the end occupying the same shelf space as a random number of models built for the same amount of time, BUT I would prefer to build several smaller than one bigger scale as I may lose my interest in it in teh middle fo the build.
best regards,
Sasho
-
I can certainly relate to that! ;D Do most scratch builders use commercially available decals, for example, for lozenge fabric, markings, etc.?
One "advantage" of building flying models is that I don't have to worry about the "collecting" problem, since I tend to destroy them at something like the pace that I build them. :'(
-
I do a lot of scratch building and do all of mine in 1:32 scale, why, because it is a good size for my aging eyes and fingers plus they fit into my available display space. As most of my scratch builds are of unusual types there are no available decals so I print my own when needed, but a lot of the early type aircraft did not carry any markings.
Des.
-
The Wingnut Models at 1/32 look like a very nice size, particularly the 2-seaters. I've looked in a couple of the 1/32 builds in the scale forum and that definitely appeals to me.
-
I think 1:32 is the best scale, because you can use lots of things from 1:35 military scale, for dios. Figures, cars, cranes...
Manni
-
As Sasho wrote, space is a major consideration.
A 1:24 scale Spitfire for example isn't easy to find shelf space for & multiply that by a few more models & you have a problem unless the modeller is lucky enough to have a very large house! A 1:12 version would be huge.
Modern jet fighters are relatively large compared to their WWII equivalent & 1:32 is about as big as most people want to go with these aircraft.
WWI fighters tend to be on the compact side but even so a 1:24 single seat fighter needs an alarming amount of display space - without even going near 1:12
Again as Sasho mentioned the build time is also an issue. 1:32 is a good compromise scale where it's large enough that lots of genuine detail can be added but also small enough that the eye can be fooled into thinking that there's even more detail than in reality via skilful painting or modelling to give a suggestion of extra detail.
When you get to 1:12 it's almost like looking at a real aircraft & you expect to see everything - any shortfall in detail makes the model looks less like a real aircraft that a well done 1:32 one will. Hence 1:12 scale models can end up being such a lengthy project that the enjoyment goes.
As regards materials & decals I think scratch builders use anything they think is suitable or can be modified to suit - it's part of the fun. Even when building mainstream kits like those by Wingnut Wings many modellers add little scratch built details often sourced from scrap plastic or bits of wood, brass etc.
For some superb scratch built models have a look a those by Des on the main website.
Regards
Russell
-
There's nothing from my side to add to the aforementioned arguments, just maybe one: the matter of taste. I once built only 1/72 models because i wanted them so tiny. Bigger models looked like toys, I thought then. This has changed fundamentally in the meantime... ::)
One "advantage" of building flying models is that I don't have to worry about the "collecting" problem, since I tend to destroy them at something like the pace that I build them. :'(
That's the sad reason why I don't built flying models. Once I built a tissue and balsa rubber powered Guillows Nieuport 28 and it was a huge fun. But when I flew it for the first time, it crashed and was ruined (probably I shouldn't have painted it with normal modeller's acrylic paint, so it got too heavy). It was my first and my last excursion into flying modelling... :'(
Borsos
-
My issue is time
I have recently come to the conclusion that if I am to take a year or more to scratch build something (that is about the time it takes me to do this, though there are others who seem to knock them out pretty quick) there is no point spending all that time on something that is only a few inches long unless it is a pretty striking subject. In future I will scratch build only large stuff in the smaller scales like airships in 1/72 or in the case of 1/48 subjects with a 48' wingspan or more.
Alan.
-
Quote from Des " and do all of mine in 1:32 scale, why, because it is a good size for my aging eyes and fingers plus they fit into my available display space"
.......and I too model in 1:32 Scale mainly for the same two reasons. I started in 1:72 Scale as a youngster, switched to 1:48 in my late 30's and then as old age reared it's ugly head moved on to 1:32 Scale. I won't be going to a larger scale as space requirements are at maximum with this one, and also the variety is somewhat limited above 1:32. I dabbled in flying scale as a young fellow as well, but like you found my destruction rate pretty well matched my building rate and wanting a collection of sorts I abandoned the sport!
Cheers,
Lance
-
I also built all of the Guillows stick and tissue WWI models, most of them only as display models to be hung on my bedroom ceiling as a kid. A few I attempted to "fly" which basically meant a loop into the ground. Some I packed with matches, hung from a string, and "shot them down in flames." :P I can imagine getting into freeflight scale in the future, but even there I'd be building models with a 1-2 foot wingspan.
I can appreciate the "space" argument for building small. My house (aka field hanger) is quickly filling up. Time to crash a model or two? (Oh, and I do have a 3 meter wingspan Paulistinha P-56 that will serve as a test bed for a 7 cylinder Seidel/UMS engine. Man, that is huge!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II1A3hNj9kc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II1A3hNj9kc)
-
BTW, it's ironic that these same arguments about "which scale" can be heard echoing through the RC scale forums (regarding WWI models). "One-sixth scale is too small." "One-fourth scale is about perfect for most fighters." "One-third is great but it's hard to do that much detail." "I don't have space to store one-fourth or one-third scale models." And then there are the crazy modelers doing 1/2 and even 3/4 scale "models."
-
Here my two cent as a guy who only does scratchbuilds in 1/144 - I my case the choice of scale and scratch was driven by purely subjective impression. I simply enjoy scratchbuilding and the feeling that my showcase contains models that may be no one else in the world has bulit in this scale (or maybe has, of course...).
On top it is fair to say that the WWI fighters (which were rather compact even in 1:1 scale) look simply sweet in 1/144. :)
Cheers
Ondra
-
I not only love building, but also collecting WWI models, so space is most definitely an issue. I build almost exclusively 1/48 scale, but I have built a WNW Sopwith Triplane and I have a WNW HB W.12 on the bench. I have a stash of around 300 1/48 scale WWI kits and 22 WNW kits, all of which I intend to build (yes, I plan on living to 120). My 3 Ikea display cases are nearly full, so I'm in the process of modifying them to double their capacity. For me, having these cases full of these visually appealing wood and fabric aviation pioneers is a treat. I get a lot of satisfaction looking at the models I've built. It's sort of like having a miniature museum at my disposal. I can't imagine spending a year or more and hundreds of dollars detailing a huge model only to wreck it (which I'm sure I would). It would break my heart. So, I steer clear of RC modeling, although I truly love seeing other people's models and watching them fly and I look forward to seeing yours. That radial engine is spectacular, by the way.
Cheers,
Bud
-
Bud,
Any chance you could post a photo or two of your Ikea Display Cases and what their name/product number is? I am officially out of space in my smaller home made ones with the completion of the Nieuport presently underway, and have to go shopping for an "expansion" cabinet in the next several weeks. It's also time to make a decision on staying in my "limited" space in our den or moving the whole operation into a spare bedroom downstairs. Decisions, decisions............ :P :-\
Cheers,
Lance
-
I have three of these:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/10119206/
and they currently house 37 1/48 scale WWI models, 2 seaters and scouts, plus 1 WNW Tripe. Still have room for maybe 6-10 more.
Cheers,
Bud
-
Like others for me it comes down to space . Something which I really lack . My main scale is 48 but I also build 72 scale and 32 scale aircraft . 32 scale is only my favorite craft . I know I will never build all of the stash and over the past year have been down sizing the stash and only subjects that interest me while trying to stick in 48 scale or I try my very best too . Really depends what the subject is .
There is more out there for aftermarket in 48 scale , 32 scale is gaining ground fast with WW 1 and WW2 aircraft . So far I finding 32 scale to be very comfortable . WNW Se5a was a joy build , two Tamiya 32 scale and a Revell . Now I'm not sure if I'm turning over to the dark side but I agree with the others when it comes to detailing and the final out come of ones efforts .
I also do fair bit of scratch build and plan on starting another WW 1 subject . Either a Caudron G-3 or a Caproni Ca3 and this will be in 48 scale .
Terri
-
Thanks a lot Bud, that's very helpful! :)
Cheers,
Lance
-
In the outstanding model shops in Tokyo and Osaka (which seem to have almost everything) I've held many of the Wingnut boxes in my greedy hands. But I can never make myself commit to the price...and know that I don't yet have the building and painting skills needed to do one of these premier kits justice. Way back in 1984 I was passing through Tokyo, when the yen was 215 to the dollar, and bought one of the Hasegawa 1/8 scale museum quality DrI kits for the equivalent of $150. It was amazing. But at the time I had just accepted a teaching position at Kuwait University and knew that I wouldn't be able to commit the time and resources that the kit deserves. The job in Kuwait was followed by university jobs in the Sultanate of Oman, then Mexico, then Japan (where I have been a tenured professor for the last 20 years). Oh, and there were three kids in there somewhere. For most of that time the DrI kit sat underneath the bed in my grandmother's house in California.
Then in 2003-2004 I had a sabbatical which I spent as a visitor scholar at UCLA. During that time I happened to walk into a hobby shop and saw a RC radio set for sale for only $120. Last time I had checked (before heading overseas) radios cost upwards of $800 and I had written off RC modeling as entirely beyond my resources. But for $300 I could get all the radio gear, a basic trainer, and the required field starting equipment. So I pulled out the Hasegawa kit, put it on eBay, and got $600 for it!
I promised myself that I would one day build a museum quality flying DrI to replace it. Several years ago I started work on a somewhat experimental scratch-built DrI at 1/6 scale the goal of which was to see if a model could be both 100% scale (or as close as possible) and still be lightweight...and still fly. I used 3mm bamboo for the fuselage (because steel tubing in these diameters costs an arm and a leg). It's still only in the early stages.
That's entirely functional cross-bracing on the fuselage, by the way, done with 0.6mm music wire.
-
It's also my belief that a scale airfoil will indeed fly. I mean, why not? So I made three absolute scale box spars where each spar was composed of 4 tapering internal spars (as per the original). The ribs are also 100% scale.
But then I got massively sidetracked on three other RC projects, namely the kit prototypes for the Snipe, the CI, and the SE5a. Eventually, though, I want to get back to this. The DrI was one of the smallest WWI fighters and at 1/6 scale that's "only" at 47" wingspan. It might look big on the workbench but once you take it out to the field (let alone in the air) it can seem teeny.
Actually, I'm glad I held off, since after these other three builds I now the skills to continue with the DrI. Oh, and I'm building on 1/6 scale enlargements of the Joseph Nieto DrI drawings (which I also ordered from the Smithsonian when I was 12).
-
BTW, I do have a "stash" of a half dozen odd-ball aircraft kits, for example a Ukrainian kit of the Russian Polikarpov Po2. I occasionally pull them out and look at the parts. Can it still be called a stash if you have no intention of ever building them? :P
-
Another question about scale if I may. Is there any real cost difference between scratch-building at, say, 1/32 scale and 1/72 scale? I ask because at typical RC scales it is exponentially more expensive to go to the next larger scale.
PS. Des, I was just looking at your Caudron G3 build and, man, is that ever impressive AND enticing!
-
A stash is a stash regardless of you intend to build them or not, my 'stash' continues to grow and is now getting a bit out of proportion to the time I have left on this planet.
Once you have the majority of the materials needed to do a scratch build the cost to build further models is relatively low, I always have an abundance of left over materials to build quite a few models, this would apply to what ever scale you are building in.
Yes, the Caudron G3 is one of my favorites, you have probably guessed by now that I like rigging, I find it a challenge and once completed it gives me a real sense of satisfaction, the more rigging the better.
Des.
-
A stash is a stash regardless of you intend to build them or not, my 'stash' continues to grow and is now getting a bit out of proportion to the time I have left on this planet.
I totally agree. As to me, my beloved 1/72nd scale is the best for its ratio space/quality but as already said eies and hands are aging, not to mention spare time that is vanishing more quickly every day...
Ciao
Giuseppe
-
Another question about scale if I may. Is there any real cost difference between scratch-building at, say, 1/32 scale and 1/72 scale? I ask because at typical RC scales it is exponentially more expensive to go to the next larger scale.
PS. Des, I was just looking at your Caudron G3 build and, man, is that ever impressive AND enticing!
Definitely. I have almost sold off my own stash as I have no intention of building any of the kits that I had. I have to model on a shoe string so some of the money from selling the kits will go into buying some bits and pieces, but I can build a model for less than a quarter of the price for a kit. I also find it more satisfying to thin that I have really made a model rather than assembling or converting one - but that is a very personal view.
I wholly agree that Des' Caudron is inspirational - it inspired me to have a go at a G4! And like Des for me the more rigging the better!!
-
Scratch-building is, to me, the pinnacle of scale modeling, whether it be plastic, paper, or RC. While doing justice to a kit also requires considerable skill (more skill than I currently have), it's this scratch-building forum that I visit first.
-
Scratch building is true modelling. I myself half scratch build parts and modifications but I have never completed a scratch build. I plan to do a 100% scratch someday. It is definitely the pinnacle though as opposed to a kit assembler. Which many guys are. Although there are so.e guys that go above and beyond and do much additional work to lots to make them more like a miniature work of art than a model
-
I should admit that my Snipe, SE5a, and CI are all from kits. In the case of the Snipe and the CI I was building and documenting the prototype kit from a small Germany company. But, and I'm sure it's the same with plastic kits, building "the kit" for a flying scale model is no more than 20% of the effort (and maybe as little as 10%). I can build the basic structures in a couple of month or so but could spend the next year or two doing the rest. As the old joke goes: "The model is 90% done with 90% left to do." But more and more I just can't stand kits because of all the scale compromises made for the sake of "commercialization."
There aren't more than a dozen or so WWI RC kits that even have scale outlines, much less scale structure.
-
I too started in 1/48 but I always cast an envious eye at the 1/72 guys. To me the sheer smallness, when combined with rigging, struts, etc in this scale, simply seemed like an amazing piece of modelling. A good 1/72 biplane is far more impressive to me than a slap and dash Wingnut Wings kit in 1/32. Indeed I find myself not even looking at the next WNW build log on the forum, dare I say it. Even if they are very nicely done, they just don't impress me as much as the guys that build in the smaller scales.
As time passes by I find myself more and more impressed with the scratch builders out there. To me, that really is the pinnacle. After 20+ years of modelling, i've finally decided to have a go at my first full scratch build. The skills of these guys impresses me even more now that i've started to have a go myself...!
I think at the end of the day we all build in a scale that we are happy with and that works for our constraints and what we want to achieve.
Cheers
BC