Some thoughts on the cover article B-2 Spirit in the January issue

Thanks for the kind remarks, Stinger.   I tried to address some of the un-due criticism of John Vojtech fm my own experiences.  And isn't that what this post was about - Vojtech's B-2 Spirit?  The B-2 does in fact look multi-colored and weathered on many photos I have of it.  I've actually seen the B-2 in person.  While some may think Vojtech over-did the weathering, they should look at his website where there are other photos of his model in different lighting. I think it was worthy to be an award-winner.  It's so easy to criticize and make smart-alec remarks when the critic has never done a B-2 model himself, whether a physical model or a virtual one.  To all the smart-alec complainers, if you've done a B-2 model, real or virtual, then let's see your photos.

As anyone who's ever modeled a B-2 knows, whether a plastic or virtual, the Spirit  is NOT an easy one to model accurately -- plus the USAF doesn't just park these babies at every flight line at every airshow, and how many of us have gotten up close to one?  I've written USAF public affairs officers at the 509th for help on non-classified stuff, and never received a reply.  So kudos to John Vojtech --- I can appreciate what he went through researching his model.

glcanon - My apologies if my remark offended you, and perhaps I should have made myself more clear in my last post.

My point was, that you have shown examples of a virtual B2, whereas others have expressed their arguments by showing pictures of either a real B2, or models of such. This is a modeling forum for those who build physical models, not virtual, so what value is it to display pics representing an entirely different realm?

I admire those who are able to obtain realism to the high degree that I have seen in flight sims, and indeed, I like having as much in my own sim games, but again, I fail to see how your pics add to your argument regarding modeling in this forum.

No, I have not built a B2, but if I do, I will choose to side with accuracy over theatrics, as I do with all my builds. My remark was not about Vojtech's build, but about your posting of unrelated pics. It appeared to me that you were attempting to add validity to the accuracy of Vojtech's model by showing examples of something entirely unrelated to this forum.

 stinger

Don't want to add fuel to the fire, but to have fair discussion, we should take a look at Mr. Vojtech's website with his pictures of the B2

http://www.umm-usa.com/mygallery/galleryB2.html

The weathering effect is much more subtle than that depicted in FSM's article. Since I haven't seen it in person, I'll without comments as I'm not sure how much of we are seeing is simply due to lighting.

Stinger, you apologize with one breathe, and offend again in the next.  Can such really be considered sincere?  I posted 2 real photos of the B2 in support of my argument of un-due criticism of Vojtech.  Perhaps you mistook those for the virtual model as you certainly didn't mention those.  Or you just failed to see the connection between the two hobbies I tried to draw.  But I'd let others judge for themselves if the photos were interesting.  My grandmother once said there's always someone in every crowd who has nothing productive to add, but nonetheless has to have the last word.  Perhaps you are that person on this forum, there's one in every forum.  For some people that's their sole raison d'etre.

glcanon wrote:

Stinger, you apologize with one breathe, and offend again in the next.  Can such really be considered sincere?  I posted 2 real photos of the B2 in support of my argument of un-due criticism of Vojtech.  Perhaps you mistook those for the virtual model as you certainly didn't mention those.  Or you just failed to see the connection between the two hobbies I tried to draw.  But I'd let others judge for themselves if the photos were interesting.  My grandmother once said there's always someone in every crowd who has nothing productive to add, but nonetheless has to have the last word.  Perhaps you are that person on this forum, there's one in every forum.  For some people that's their sole raison d'etre.

Settle down, it's easy to tell which ones are real. You've been here for five posts, and you're judging people without asking for an explanation. I actually don't see why you're mad at Stinger. What's up with that?

Oh, and the pics on John's site look far more real than FSM.

Boycott FSM.

Lufbery wrote:

However, I've not seen any photos that show the heavily accented panel lines that are current in vogue.

 I just stumbled upon this thread, and felt I had to "set you straight". :-)

Here is a link to such a photo of a Royal Danish Air Force F-100F which is probably dating from mid-to-late seventies. In 1968 (coinciding with the introduction of the Draken, I think), RDAF introduced overall olive green camouflage as a replacement for green/gray NATO and NMF finishes used until that point.

I am unsure of the exact shade of that green, probably somewhere between 34102  and 34079. The point is though, that it probably wasn't too standardized to begin with, and further more, and relevant to the topic of this thread, it faded tremendously. I have a picture book from 1980 (when the F-100 was in the process of being replaced with F-16) showing airframes with all kinds of shades, some being as light as a khaki sand color, some (on a Draken) being a bluish (!) gray. (That, however, might just be another case of bad color reproduction, although I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.)

As you will note from the linked picture, the panel's edges are generally much darker than their centers. This is probably due to patchup painting - dragging a paint brush along the panel line? - not because they fade that way. However, the engine section, as is normal for the F-100, is faded in the typical pattern, which incidentally also seems to follow panel lines. I suppose, the panel edges, being supported by ribs, can dissipate the heat differently than the middle of the panels, thereby locally reducing the fading.

 I was going to say that perhaps John Vojtech should build a green, Danish F-100 next time, but then I saw the links to his own pictures. From these, it becomes obvious that the cover page of the 01/07 FSM issue leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to photographic reproduction. Looking at the pictures in the article confirms this. I don't want to blame anyone, but clearly something must have gone wrong. Someone much have clicked the wrong buttons in Photoshop for sure. Perhaps sharpening has resulted in an erroneous enhanced contrast, which badly affects the subtle shading.

 I hope FSM will figure out how to avoid this the next time. Faithful reproduction is essential whether we want to look at pictures of reference objects, or the models that are made from them.

 I still think Vojtech's C-130 was fairly criticized for being overweathered, though.

 -Lasse

Hey Lasse,

No need to set me straight, I pretty much agree with you .

I may not have been clear in my earlier posts, but I was referring to C-130s (I think). I even posted a few links to photos that show prominent panel lines on a C-130.

I think my comment was simply to say that most photos of C-130s I've seen do not show the very heavy weathering on panel lines that I see on many models.

It all comes back to checking the references for the specific plane one is building.  If the photos of that plane show heavy weathering, then try to match that photo. If the photo doesn't show heavy weathering, well ... try to match that photo.

If photos aren't available, make a best guess.

In the end, the important thing is to build it the way you want to. Nothing else really matters.

Regards,

tomgoetz wrote:

The variations in color are subtle but distinctive.  If you saw something like that on, say, a blue Corsair from World War II, you would conclude that the plane had been out exposed to the blistering elements in harsh enviornment of the Pacific Islands.  Since B-2s stay as far away as possible from harsh environments, it is, to my mind, an overdone and un-realistic effect.   Again, every picture I've ever of operational B-2s shows a very uniform, uninteresting overall dark gray color, broken only by the various stenciling lines and insignia.

The B-2 has regular rotations to support the Pacific Commands continuous bomber presence on Guam.  They spend 3 - 4 months at a time there.  While there, they spend most of their time outdoors.  So yes the B-2 is exposed to sun, wind and rain on a regular basis.