Is it just me, or are AFVs easier/faster to buld than Aircraft?

Well, if you make a mistake and gouge your AFV-it's battle damage. Bad paint job-cover it with weathering. I always put a better 'polish' on planes than AFVs.

QUOTE: Originally posted by trowlfazz Well, if you make a mistake and gouge your AFV-it's battle damage. Bad paint job-cover it with weathering. I always put a better 'polish' on planes than AFVs.

I never thought of that, I guess you could build an A-10 like that though.

AFV kits are easier/faster to build than aircraft because there is little detail painting. You can assemble the kit easily and then paint the thing with one solid color, or a simple camo scheme. There are also a lot fewer markings to apply. The hardest part about AFV models are indy tracks that require major clean up.

Don't forget about the dreaded syndrome of 'canopy anxiety'. I can zoom through a plane build and crumble at the final paint and canopy masking phase.

Not to be rude, but I think it's just you. Admittedly I get to the painting stage faster than with AC, but the weathering process I use takes about 2 weeks to complete. Also, most of my armor projects are not OOB, so it takes much longer. For my T-34 for example (not started yet) I will have to first assemble and paint resin interior, then do normal outside work/ attach Aber PE than paint and weather. IMHO they can take just as long as AC.

Tankmaster-did not mean to slight AFV builders-I was just saying how I build kits. I don't use interiors-resin or otherwise because I usually have the hatches closed. The interior detailing you hard core types do is amazing but it's something beyond me. I generally model things to have a type-specimen (generalized) just to acquaint myself with it's form and have a 'pretty' representation of a piece of history. I put most of my work into figures.

I'd lean toward the "it's just you" crowd. However, ANY modeling genre can be as easy or difficult as you make it. There are numerous tangible factors to consider; scale, manufacturer, aftermarket accessories, and finish just to name a few. Then, you have to consider the intangible factors such as the modeler's skill within a genre, energy, care in construction, and desired quality. I don't believe anyone can make a blanket statement regarding the relative ease or difficulty between any two modeling genres.

I agree with tanky. While it may be easier building and basic painting, Weathering is a big challenge.

I think they are pretty much both even though. I mean you got conopies on planes and something for armor (all armor is different, some need zim, some indy links etc.)

In my experience AFV can be build faster (I not saying it's easier, just faster)
Cockpit, landinggear and ordenance are elements that make a aircraft build slower because they can/should/are (choose one) treated like seperate models.

Then again, if you choose to open your AFV all up and show the interior, this difference is non existant.

QUOTE: Originally posted by RemcoGrob In my experience AFV can be build faster (I not saying it's easier, just faster) Cockpit, landinggear and ordenance are elements that make a aircraft build slower because they can/should/are (choose one) treated like seperate models. Then again, if you choose to open your AFV all up and show the interior, this difference is non existant.

You should try the latest dragon kits

QUOTE: Originally posted by ryanpm AFV kits are easier/faster to build than aircraft because there is little detail painting. You can assemble the kit easily and then paint the thing with one solid color, or a simple camo scheme. There are also a lot fewer markings to apply. The hardest part about AFV models are indy tracks that require major clean up.

You're kidding right? Easier to paint? In as much as you can paint an AFV in a solid colour, you can an AC as well, and they'll both look the bad paint job. Have you seen an afv? There are a LOT more composite shapes, nooks, and crannies, and all of this stuff is really easy to make look like crap without a half-decent paint job.
IMHO, no one is easier than the other, especially when it comes to painting.

I build far more Aircraft kits than Armor because that's my main intrest, but I wouldn't say either genre is easier. Both require the same or very similar modeling skills. Aircraft have the dreaded clear canopies & Armor has the dreaded Indy tracks. Armor kits tend to have considerably more parts to clean up & attach while Aircraft require more care in filling & smoothing seams. I'd say they are about equal in terms of difficulty. As far as speed of building, I think that's more a factor of the individual modeler & the complexity of the particular kit.

Regards, Rick

Man, I oppened uo a can of worms, along with something else!

QUOTE: You're kidding right? Easier to paint? In as much as you can paint an AFV in a solid colour, you can an AC as well, and they'll both look the bad paint job. Have you seen an afv? There are a LOT more composite shapes, nooks, and crannies, and all of this stuff is really easy to make look like crap without a half-decent paint job. IMHO, no one is easier than the other, especially when it comes to painting

I've built far more aircraft than tanks. Tanks don't have an underside color, just top side color(s). Tanks don't come in NMF. Tanks don't have fuselage bands, checkers, and invasion stripes to paint. I build WWII aircraft and tanks. WWII tanks are easier to build and paint than WWII aircraft. You may have a complex paint scheme on a tank such as the mottling on a King Tiger, but you have more complez mottling on the warplanes of the Luftwaffe. On a tank you also don't have a canopy to paint, or landing gear bays to mask. You may have an interior to mask, but its easier to do on a tank. If you have small inperfections in the paint job on a tank, you can cover it up with something such as supplies or weather it with some mud, snow, or shrubs. None of that would look right on an aircraft unless it is in a diorama being hidden, or it has crahsed. Although some tanks have independent tracks, I really don't find them hard. Just my opinions.

Personally, I model historical miniature figures, and I would say that as far as careful assembly, detailing, conversion, and painting, they are the most difficult models of all to produce, and take the most time.

RM

I think we all can agree with Robert. I also think old ship building is hard due to lack of kits and details on the kits. Nearly ever ship model you see looks excellent and has had tons of work put into it from scratch built sails and rigging, the beautiful wood finishes, and the many other extravagnat details.

QUOTE: Originally posted by ryanpm The hardest part about AFV models are indy tracks that require major clean up.

You forgot the tedious cleaning and painting of the roadwheels, especially those with rubber tires. Oh how I hate that one.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. I have seen stunning aircraft, AFVs, ships, and autos. I hope no one thinks I was implying that figure modelers are in any way superior, or that building figure models are more difficult.

I do feel that painting figure models is less forgiving than the painting of other types of models, as capturing the subtle shades of cloth and skin tones can be downright maddening.

I really believe that building any model, and enjoying it, is always a good thing no matter the subject matter.

Kind regards to all!

RM

QUOTE: Originally posted by ryanpm I think we all can agree with Robert. I also think old ship building is hard due to lack of kits and details on the kits. Nearly ever ship model you see looks excellent and has had tons of work put into it from scratch built sails and rigging, the beautiful wood finishes, and the many other extravagnat details.

Hellicopters are harder than Planes

QUOTE: Originally posted by Captain Caveman Hellicopters are harder than Planes

No kidding, I think I've given up on them!

It all boils down to skill and preference.