propellars

I liked the article in that it seemed like the best one I've ever read on the subject. Personally I saw a plane at a show in Calgary (sorry my aircraft knowledge is very limited, but it was a 4 engine bomber) that had motorized spinning props on it. It amazed me. Once I saw that, I knew that if I was going to build something with spinning props, it would have spinning props...

Murray

I think it is a matter of personal taste, but I plan on giving the technique a try. The way I see it, it's a little investment time and materials. If I don't like the results, I'll try something else. What the heck?!

I can see some room for improvement, so maybe my attempt will turn out more satisfying results (or not). For instance, the edge of the clear disc in the article was the result of a straight cut and very little was done to finish the edge. I would imagine that sanding the edge to a round profile would more accurately reflect the rounded prop blade tips.

Depicting spinning props has been a problem in model building for decades. It is problem of personal preference and everyone will have an opinion. I'm sure that if it were a problem that could be solved using technology, someone like Tamiya would have done so by now.

I almost forgot. Thanks to U-96, Max, and Paul for the comments that help me to formulate my "attack plan" for my projects. I understand the blur may or may not show up depending on the shutter and film speed. (Or does film speed only have to do with how much available light? Obviously, I'm not a photographer. My dad would now.)
Anyway, even though I am not recreating a specific photo, I want to recreate the visual effect of the photos I have seen - which includes blur. It's just what I am going for in these projects. It won't always be what I want.

Also, additional thanks to Paul for the explanation of the "curtain" shutter, and asymmetrical propellor images. I followed the explaination pretty well, but still didn't quite follow the connection. But, I appreciate it. Upon rereading it, you mentioned a "bending" appearance. This may be different than what I meant. Maybe I can get a scan of the photo in question to illustrate the asymmetrical positioning I meant. I hope it won't violate copyright laws, considering this a public forum, and I'm not looking to profit from the distribution of the image.

Well, I prefer the discussion rather than the debate. A few of you have made comments along the lines of the beholder. I agree. With the projects that I'm looking into, I'm looking at "capturing a moment": like on film. I suppose it comes down to what you are trying to convey. Even though the models are not only 3-dimensional, but tangible objects, they can be a form of art to represent anything. For my projects, I'm looking at them representing a photograph. Having a way to simulate a spinning prop, captured at a moment (motion blur,) will help towards that.
If I just wanted to represent a scale replica, static model, I wouldn't want to simulate a spinning prop. I would just "park" it on the tarmac as though it's up for inspection at an airshow.

Okay, once more with feeling. . .
These are models were talking about right? No offense Rob, but a 1/48th scale model is imaginary, though a replication of the real thing. Thus, an imaginary spinning prop is not out of place. We know the model isn't really flying even if it is motorized.
But then again I subscribe to the TLAR method of modeling.

fellow hitchhiker,
Don

I don't care for any simulated spinning props. After spending so much effort making the plan lookj real, why put on something that clearly looks imaginary? In real life, either a prop is spinning, or it's not. Same should be for models. If you want 'em to spin, motorize.

A number of years ago I built up Revell's B-17G in 1/48th scale. The small town house we were living in at the time did not allow any place to display it except from the living room ceiling. I decided to pose it "in flight" with three of the props spinning and the fourth "feathered" as if it been shot up. I located a firm called "Spinning Props", I believe they were out of Arizona, and purchased a set of clear acrylic discs. They are out of business, I believe. The blades were removed from the props and painted a light mist of yellow around the edges and I used fine sandpaper to lightly scratch the acrylic discs to simulate the spinning blades. In addition, I added battle damage to the -17. A P-51D, with spinning prop, was also hung from the ceiling as an escort. While the wife was not wildly enthusastic about this project, she went along with it and only put her foot down when I mentioned that another P-51 or a P-47 as escorts would look nice. I am by no means a professional model builder, although I do some contract building, but I liked the looks of the project and a number of relatives and friends commented on its realism. I guess the subject of whether or not to incorporate spinning props into a project is all in the eye of the beholder.

I liked the article enough to give it a "spin."
I suppose I will have to practice alot before I get it right. . .

Don

The one thing I noticed in the FSM article was the thickness of the plastic disc. I would think that a thinner clear plastic should be used. On real props you can't really see the thickness at the tips while the prop is spinning, especially at high RPMs.

Thanks for your observations, folks. Obviously, there is no perfect way to simulate prop motion with a motionless form, but I feel my method "looks better" than bladeless or the awkward photoetched parts. No blades look exactly that -- a spinner or hub with no blades on it. The photoetched blades are opaque and have to be painted with something, and to me their "blur" or "smear" is phony looking.

I agree with some of your observations -- the blade simulation may be too narrow while the yellow smear too wide, but when we look at a moving propeller, our brain registers the yellow ring as a complete ring, and the reflection of the blade as being in one place, so my method was a compromise.

On photos of moving propellers, the assymetrical appearance in some photos is due to what is called a focal-plane shutter. This was commonly used in high-speed shutters such as those on the "Speed Graphic," a common 4"x5" (negative size) "news" camera used into the 1970s (tell me about it, I used them plenty in the USAF!). It's difficult to describe, but instead of the usual blade shutter that consists of thin collapsing sections of metal, the focal plane was a curtain that travelled across the back of the camera right in front of the film (at the focal plane, hence the name). Depending on the speed selected, the curtain opened let's say 1/2", and this 1/2" aperture travelled across the film from left to right (or was it right to left?). During the exposure, no area of the film would get more than let's say 1/500 of a second exposure, but the travel might take something like 1/50 of a second to cross the film. During that time, the propeller is moving either in the same direction or in the opposite direction of the moving shutter, depending on the position in the arc. This is what causes the grotesque bending appearance in many photos. If you have a picture where all the blades are symmetrical, then it was taken with a blade-shutter camera.

OK, enough of Mr. Wizard for today.

CorMak,
You will see that the blades look different from the side than the front due to the way that the props are shaped; they look thicker from the side than the front. My experience working on the flight line launching flights for US Airways (Beech 1900 and DeHaviland Dash 8 aircraft)with props confirmed this. Also, if you blink your eyes while looking at spinning props you will see that they do not "blur" but that you catch "freeze frames" like a camera shutter does. The "wiggly fire" that U-96 refers to is the fact that bullets don't run one behind the other like a sewing machine laying stitches. Each bullet reacts to wind, recoil of weapon, amount of gunpowder used to discharge from shell and barrel as well as varying weights of projectiles themselves. It may be barely discernable to the naked eye but it surely happens.

You know, I'm sure there was something scratching at the back of my brain about shutter and film speed. But, as most of the WW2 references show that blur (probably strurdy, but slow cameras, as well as the film stock of that era;) that's where I'd be coming from. It's something to try, anyway, to see how it'll turn out. The props won't be all that central to the overall projects - just might add more to that captured moment I'm looking for, so I can try them and change my mind if I need to.

Thanks for the added info, things to consider. I'm not too sure how grand the projects will be. Big for me, since I've done little modelling the past. But, it'll be just 5 aircraft total for the two projects, with just the He. 111 having damage. I am looking at doing some detail work, as I want to make these as close to show quality as I can. And still have research to do. The biggest thing is that I think I may be coming up with a new way of mounting the planes in-flight. At least I haven't seen it before. I'll let you guys know when I get to that point. And of course, I will make sure to get pics.

Cor

QUOTE: Blur is the only way to simulate the image of a moment in time.

Anyone that has taken a photo of a prop/rotor at 1/500th sec or faster will know that they do not blur. The blur is entirely down to the limitations of our eyes and brain (or slower shutter speeds) to update fast-moving objects. I'm happy with "frozen" props, rather than trying to model a visual quirk of my simian brain

I've seen similar discussions about flight sims that show "wiggly" tracer fire - apparently this effect is a camera artefact from archive footage and cannot be seen with the naked eye. As far as the pilot/gunner sees, they go in a straight line.

Having said that Cor, sounds like a grand project you've got lined up, I hope you post some pics when you get going!

I could never moterize the prop, I thought it was the most convincing spinning prop I have ever seen. Now, to make it... I need to really ppractice with my airbrush, get my hands on some clear plastic sheet, and get the plastic cutter. Wait a minute, wasn't that all the metrials?

I'm glad someone brought this up. The projects I'm looking at doing are to be in-flight viginettes. I had just finished reading that issue when I starting forming the idea of these projects (I'm currently reading a book on the Battle of Britain - that combined with a just arrived issue of FSM seems to have fired inspiration.)

Because this article was fresh in my mind while I began brainstorming my projects, the idea of "simulating" spinning props figured prominently. I agree with one of the first things that the author says: "...our models are three-deminsional snapshots of machines..." Motorized props are not "snapshots." And looking at the picture on the front of the book, as well as some photos inside, a bladeless prop would not look right either. Blur is the only way to simulate the image of a moment in time.

But, I believe his method was a little off. My problem with it is the painting. The yellow warning stripes are spread out to far along the circumferance. And the blur of the blades' positions are too narrow. But, a nice clear disk may still be the best method (I haven't seen the photo-etched type.) I would just see about improving the painting of the blurs.

On that note, while looking at some photos of Spits in flight, I notice that with the 3 blade versions, the blurs appear to be asymmetrical - as in that they are not evenly spaced at one-third of the circumferance each. It may be the angle of the photo I was looking at, but not sure. Does anyone know about this?

Also, does anyone have an idea on what spinning blades look like from the side? Are they noticeable? Is the apparant thickness the same as motionless props, or thinner / fatter? Just wondering, because that should play into the thickness of the plastic disk, as well as whether the edge should be painted at the blur positions.

This will be important to my projects, as I want them to have that "moment captured" look. I also want to simulate falling brass as well as debris flying in the slipstream from damage.

Cor

I wouldn't do it myself, but keudos to the gent for using some creativity to come up with something out of the ordinary.

I commend the thought that went behind the spinning prop, but I dont care for the looks of it

I like the photo etched version I've seen better although I don't know if their available to be had anymore.

It looks toy like. I saw the article and it doesn't improve the looks of the kit at all. It makes the model look worse. Spinning prop blades and flames are two items that just don't look good when attempted on a model. The only time I have seen spinning prop blades that looked good was in very small scale and was used on a WW ll aircraft carrier. Most of the ships aircraft had spinning props and one was headed down the deck for takeoff.

I agree with Merlin.
I haven't seen the article in question, but the attempts at simulating spinning props that I have seen always seemed to fall short, if not just look plain ridiculous.

I agree with Pete: Nothing looks more like a spinning prop than a spinning prop.

Just opinions!

I've never seen a simulated spinning prop that didn't just cheapen the look of a model (IMHO). It looks like something that should go on Snap-Tite kits.
But like Max said, personal preference is what it's all about. Which is true of anything i guess!

I would say personal preference should be the deciding factor; it probably looks better on a photographed model than on a "Live" static display.

looks like we are in agreement then!
:-)
some of us like it and some of us don't.
that's what makes this forum interesting.

i am curious to see how it looks live, as opposed to on the glossy pages of FSM.

ed.

I tend to agree with the PIT. I thought it looked tacky.

I dunno, I think as a disply in flight it's effective without the need for extra parts and electronics.

It does not look bad at all for 1/72nd scale, and seems to look like it would be effective for larger scales.

I received my copy of the October FSM through the mail yesterday and, as always, dove right in. Good issue! However, when I got to that article, I couldn't believe that they bothered to devote space to that method of simulating spinning props. It looks awful! [:0] This looks like something you might see on a grammar school project. I can't see any serious modeler doing this to their painstakingly built model.

The only effective method that I've ever seen is to actually motorize the prop. And that would have to be for a very special display.

Pete

I'm thinking of using my Photoshop spinning prop & printing it on inkjet transparencies.

I think it's worth a try and probably will make an attempt soon

i thought it looked interesting and worth a try.
but i am wondering if my feeble airbrushing skills will yield something as convincing as the pics in FSM.
or at least something i can live w/.