You would be surprised .I didn't think I could either . first one was an airliner .It looked almost plastic like when done .Don't cast this media aside . You are closer to the source than I . Check out schreiber on line if you can .Their planes are awesome . Thye have quite a few civil aircraft .

I would always give positive comment, but even where criticism is well intended it can be wrongly construed, so I avoid that these days.

I have the attitude that if somebody is held up as some sort of modelling God or worse, acts like one, I'll tear them to bits. If someone is just good in a humble way, I'll praise them from the rooftops and if they are struggling, I'll always help wherever I can.  I figure that's the least I can do after so long in the business.

Martin

I agree.  We need more comments like "hey, look at how neat that model is, it even has the right rivet count", and less of "well, I guess it is okay, but it has the wrong number of rivets."  Rivet counting can be okay if it results in more positive comments than negative.

And then there are the folks who add internal detail to a completely enclosed area.  This can be done inadvertently- I have done that myself.  But when I notice an area will be completely enclosed I don't bother to put anything in there anymore :-)

I just want to say that i didnt mean to give the impression that any one of those posts actually ticked me off, because they actually didn't, i just got all soap boxy for a bit, but I would like to say that my comment regarding rivet counters was aimed at the people who actually dont add anything positive to a meeting or a model contest, rather just spend their time insulting or bickering about rediculous things like, thats the wrong kind of turf to use to represent an Afrikorps scene. I too am a "do the right research and get the details right" perfectionist...which is why my builds go slowly,and Im more than willing to listen to the advice or ideas of the rivet counters who add a positive HELPFUL bent to the process because yes, their knowledge is very valuable...but I also let go of stressing about the stupid crap that i know is going to take every bit of the joy I had, out of the process and project.

There are some kits that I arm to the last tooth with rediculous unnecessary details( to everyone else but me) and there are some that I just chose to do a very clean and meticulous sanding, puttying and nice paint job on, out of box. It varies.

My statements were not meant to throw insults out, so I apologize if they did. Happy Modelling.

Today civil aircraft don't drive aviation technology as much as they used to.  But in the golden age of civil aviation- late 20s and 30s, civil aviation was ahead of military.  Boeing 247, DC-3, Northrup Alpa and things like Cessna Aeromaster and Beech staggerwing were cutting edge.  Without civil aviation the big round engines that helped us win WW2 would have died on the drawing boards.

In essence, there is a lot to be agreed with in the above two posts.  Firstly, I wasn't insulting military aircraft fans, or even the aircraft, but I still maintain many are ugly and I still maintain that cowpat cammo doesn't improve anything.  But that's my view, obviously and I neither expect or need anyone to agree.  If you drill right down in my liking for civilian aircraft, I don't like white either!  So modern civils are struggling to appeal to me, but that's maybe nit-picking a bit.

Ultimately it really has no effect on the day-to-day business of living apart from my having to do some patterns for models of subjects I don't like...or starve!

Of course it's subjective, by definition it has to be as we all do this lark for individual personal reasons, almost a definition of the word subjective.

Rivet counters...depends how you come across.  I AM a rivet counter, in tat I love to have all the info to hand when I start a project and yes, that includes the numbers, sizes and pattern of rivets, please see here:-public.fotki.com/.../m8f_112th_step-by-step

If, as mentioned in the above post, you mean a picky fool, as described in that post, then no, I am NOT one of those.  I know a lot of stuff about a lot of things, but am an expert in none of them by some way.

So-called experts blight our lives.  But there are some whose astonishing knowledge, however gathered and achieved, is so useful that they cannot be ignored.  Why would I trawl though the net for the chord of a Waco's lower wing, when a pleasant e-mail to Lars Opland results in my receiving a fantastic line drawing and photos, encouragement and an interesting insight into how he does his patterns?

When i did some F1 car patterns recently I actually did put the rivets on via the excellent Archer decals.  they looked fantastic!  When I made a 1/35th master of an Alvis Scimitar light tank years ago (see I DO do military when pushed!) i drilled 350 holes and inserted brass wires in each, soldered them (it was an all brass master) filed them level and then filed them hexagonal!!  It didn't take that long, but looked amazing.  Lifted that model above the opposition.

But as mentioned elsewhere, I am so busy with such patterns that I can't come up with a model of what I prefer just like that without upsetting somebody.  However I AM doing a small set-piece which, rather perversely, is a perfect crossover between military and civilian, in that it is K5054, the Spitfire Prototype on the occasion of its first flight. It is in that mysterious patchy zinc chloride finish, with no guns and I am portraying t about to roll out for take-off, being photographed by the local gentleman of the press with his old bellows camera on an oak tripod.  It is a purely civilian scene featuring a VERY military aircraft, but before it WAS military and certainly before it was spoiled by being painted cowfield style and fitted with guns.

This little chap was scratchbuilt in Milliput with a styrene brim to his Trilby hat. The camera is styrene and resin lump, filed as bellows and the tripod is 1/2mm square brass wire I picked up at a show years ago, soldered together with a temperature controlled soldering Iron my dear wife just bought me. how did I manage for so long without!?

How's that for a compromise?  BTW, when I find a suitable proof, I will also do a bubble cockpit Spitfire in bare metal, because they look gorgeous!

So let's not all fall out over our preferences.  In another place is a selection of photos of the finest kit building I've ever seen. Most of the subjects are decidedly in my "personal ugly" category, but I absolutely loved looking at them because the modelmaking was so very fine and ultimately that is what blows my frock up, even after all these many years of doing it for a living.

Cheers,

Martin

I don't know which post sparked that last entry,,,,,,,,but, just a subtle FYI for all the people that seem to be so vocal about hating the experts

you have two choices of people that will answer any given question YOU ask for help with,,,,,,,one is the guy that doesn't know why an A-1E was NOT called a SPAD, or a Cessna military plane from a Cessna Civilian plane,,,,,,,,,and the other is the subject matter expert (SME, sometimes also called a Rivet Counter)

I think that everyone that actually knows the answers should pick a week and all shut for for that week together,,,,,,,no matter what question is asked,,,,,,,,,,and just let people flounder around until some of the loudest "anti-accuracy" nuts learn to be just a touch more polite

the silly loud mouths don't even know what is wrong about "declaring" that both the Fujimi and the Airfix Skyhawk are "equally accurate" in outline shapes, lol, but they will say it at the drop of a hat (hint, they are different shapes, so one or the other shouldn't be the "declared one")

Rex

In the future, how about if someone who prefers civilian aircraft over military, doesn't feel the need to insult military aircraft as most of them being ugly anyways. That's just BullS*** and an opinion best kept in the head. Admittedly there is some hideous designs out there, but it's subjective.

And how about in the future how about if someone who appreciates Military aircraft over civilian, doesn't dismiss civilian aircraft with an equally enthusiastic personal opinion and insult.

There are designs in both genres that are incredible and beautiful or strong or fluid and sleek,and there are designs that just plain give you eye herpes to look at...once again subjective....even from fan to fan within the same genre.

I Love them both. I have a good list of favorites from all eras in military airframes, as well as a list of civilian / light/ experimental planes that i think are amazing...and those that just plain suck, aesthetically.

I totally agree on the guys you see at modelling clubs or contests though, that can be overheard completely devaluing someones amazing work, because they're super geeks who are *** sure that that grey he used on the FW 190, wasn't used in some certain theater. Everyone HATES rivet counters...........seriously...... we REALLY DO.

I overheard two guys doing exactly that at a Seattle show. I overheard them just picking the crap out of peoples hard and very beautiful work. So I asked them what perfect and completely accurate project they brought. Nothing. Then shut the ....... UP and leave if you cant just shut up and let US appreciate those who DO the work, so we dont have to listen to the diarrhea of those like you who cant do the work so all you do it B....about OUR work.

Nathan T

Sounds like some pretty cool childhood experiences Don. Now days, all those cool civil classics are gone, and hanging around small airports all you might see is a few newer cessnas and crickets...haha. But I do live around small airports, so those in the cities are probably more active.

For some of the bigger civil airports that is true, but you have to go to some of the outlying peapatch fields.  Lots of old birds still around sitting on the ramp.  Even though it is a bigger field, I am lucky in that the nearest airport to me is the Anoka County Airport (Janes Field). It has so many old classics there that it was written up in Air & Space mag several years ago.  Had two museums there, one had to close.  Still, has a Stinson Trimotor, several old Beech D-18s, a Czech jet trainer, and lots of older Cessnas, Beeches and Pipers.  More exotic birds are in hangers, but you sometimes see folks rolling them out to work on them, occasionally fly them.  Even saw an old Mig taking off a couple of years ago.  Oh, another neat one was a war-surplus T-craft L2.  That really interests me 'cause my dad bought one after the war.

I run the local airport and have been around and worked around light aircraft for 40 years and I'm only 52. my pref is military 1/72, but I have an admiration for certain light and larger civil aircraft and there are many that I'd like in 1/72. some are vintage aircraft, some are more modern a/c that I have flown, or would like to fly, just once 'cause for one reason or another, I really admire them, as much or more than some military birds. Since I'm not extremely picky about my modeling media, and I have a fondness for 1/32 as well, many, many models on my shelves are wooden display models. Granted, I didn't build them from a kit or scratch, but I have painted them or added details. One thing with civil aircraft, one could paint them in whatever scheme they'd like, since it could be of their very own aircraft! most times I prefer a standard factory scheme, but others I may embellish as if I owned a real one, I might want it painted as such. A couple of favs of mine are the Beech Twin Bonanza and Queen Air. Years ago, I converted a Rareplanes King Air 200 to an earlier straight-tailed Queen Air and also used the same cast cowls (I used an old Aurora 1/65 Piper Apache for the cowls) and used that Apache's fuselage to modify the King Air wings to make a Twin Bonanza. i painted these as US Army U-8s but they're civil a/c in the Army. Likewise a made a Beech Baron from an Eidai Bonanza, which again I painted as an Army T-42, but again, it's a civil a/c in the Army. A few years ago Gremlin Models made a number of cabin class twins in 1/72, I have several but not built them yet. My late dad was a cropduster pilot and I like those a/c too. I've scratchbuilt a couple in 1/72, and scratchbuilt a 1/48 Thrush for a guy here at the airport. I have several in 1/32 that are those wooden display models. I think civil a/c would be more popular than many manufacturers think, especially where there can be military cross-overs.

I agree with you entirely, Gamera.  And I would indeed do exactly that if I weren't o busy making patterns for everything from model railway locos to slot racing body shells.  My efforts to spread into aircraft is a purely personal thing. My son has built a home made vac-former and I want to encourage him to use it for a variety of things, so came up with the 1/48th scale aircraft kit idea.   And I hope we'll be seeing some results in the next few months.  First in a reordered schedule is indeed a Waco ZQC-6 Custom Cabin Biplane.  Mainly because it stands a chance of selling enough to finance the next model!

But that's a good point, well made, sir.

Thankyou.

Martin

As a guy who does very little other than military subjects may I jump in here to offer my two cents? Frankly I've gotten bored by so many German subjects. Going to shows and seeing mostly Bf109s and Tiger tanks I used to gripe about not seeing more Allied and Japanese models. Eventually it occurred to me if I want to see something different then build something different. Rather than complaining inspire people! I was drooling over the gorgeous Waco that Don posted- just looking at her makes me want to build one!

My two bits here- build some cool civilian aircraft, inspire people, show then how awesome civilian aviation is. Maybe you'll convince some people in your club and here to give something non-military a whirl!

Sorry about the bold face! 

Some of those are remarkable pieces, but I wouldn't know where to begin!  It's a very different discipline and I salute anyone who can make a half decent job of a paper model.  For me card is for model railway buildings!

Martin

I carefully search all the sights like E-BAY and others .

  I have come across some fine civil aircraft there .The trick ? thay are all papermodels .There is a fellow in the northeast U.S. that does a few , but I fear he is getting on in years and may stop producing them

  his planes have full engines and interiors too !  Tanker-builder .

Nathan, I'm lucky in that living in East Anglia, we have many of the old Wartime airfields dotted about, now used by small flying groups who own some wonderful old aircraft and also have hangars where they restore stuff.  For instance an afternoon out now can get me to Seething Airfield, where a unique Percival Q6 twin is being restored to flight, near that is Flixton Museum and my old flying group, Felthorpe, where a covered canopy Tiger Moth and a Hornet Moth are residents.  So my fix is easily had!

Martin

If I were at an airport day in, day out (and it seemed that way when I was travelling a lot for work) I would probably give up aircraft altogether!  You have my commiserations!

Don, I too was taken to airfields as a kid, but only over the fence-looking with a nice picnic.  A family afternoon on a Sunday on the rare occasions my Dad wasn't remodelling the house or fixing the car.

North Weald (RAF) was a special treat, but usually it was Abridge, where all sorts of tail draggers were to be seen.  Also the Ercoupe, which I didn't even realise was an American kite, but would like to do a model of.

Familiarity, when the subjects are varied doesn't always lead to contempt.

Martin

Sounds like some pretty cool childhood experiences Don. Now days, all those cool civil classics are gone, and hanging around small airports all you might see is a few newer cessnas and crickets...haha. But I do live around small airports, so those in the cities are probably more active.

Nathan T

True, most aircraft modelers gravitate towards military subjects. Afterall, the posibilities in kits and decals and paint schemes is endless. The reason I like Military subjects is because I'm around civil aircraft all day for my job as an aircraft mechanic and pilot. I see them everyday and while I can appreciate them, I much more love the older military subjects that arent' around anymore that you just dont' see everyday. I'm sure most people have their specific reasons for liking thier favorite subjects.

I think I see more variety of color and markings than when I am at an air base.

I can see how someone who works at an airport day in and day out might want to build something different.  With me it is the opposite. I can visit civil airfields any time and find various classic planes.  True, since 9/11 I have been questioned more when I visit local airports than in the past but it is still do-able.  So it is easy to get scale documentation.  Since I have been retired for a long time, it is much harder for me to get to a military base, and most of the bases around here feature only one or two aircraft types anyway.  So it is easier to build civil types.

As a kid I was a hanger brat.  Dad's idea of family time was to take me to an airport and turn me loose while he hanger flew with his buddies. I remember so many of those old classics- Wacos, Fairchilds, Beech, and the Stinsons, Pipers and T-craft.  So I really like to build them now whenever a kit is available (or I do a very occasional scratch build).  Loved building my Roden Staggerwing!

Nathan,

I'm glad you don't have that attitude where you are.  It did spoil things for me.  I did try to join in by making a Spitfire, but because it was in silver finish they poo-pooed that too!  And that was a special request from my father-in-law who was in the RAF!

Cheers,

Martin

It sucks to hear about your snobby local model club, but I don't see that attitude around here, I just see civil aircraft being a bit less popular, but surely not for war-mongering reasons.

My reference to warmongers was purely aimed at those I knew at the model club, not anyone here that I obviously don't know.

And, I was answering a post that raised the matter of civil versus military in a way that I have every right to express.

As to what is or isn't attractive is so subjective that it isn't even worth discussing as it would be never ending.

Why is it OK for you to be mildly offensive in the tone of your post and not me to simply express an opinion and a real-life observation of a particular group of people I actually knew first hand?

I have made this point (rather than a tirade as you call it) elsewhere and received a much more balanced response.

Finally, to show that civil aviation is my purely personal preference I am currently engaged professionally in a conversion set to turn a Junkers Ju 88 into a Ju 388, because in the end we all have to eat and a shape's a shape.

Absolutely no offence intended.  Life's too damned short.

Martin

I'm not actively anti-war; these things happen unfortunately, but I am anti-glorifying it.  And it seems to me that the bulk of cammo modellers are doing those aircraft because of the war element and not because of the aircraft themselves, considering so many are so ugly.  Even the beautiful ones like Spitfires and Mosquitos are hardly helped by being painted like a muddy field.

I was also so very put off at my local model club by the abject nerdiness of the war mongers, showing their umpteenth Bf 109 G or T34 tank and poo-pooing any attractive colourful pre War civil aircraft shown.

That, above all, cemented my tangible dislike of militarism.  Even as far as portraying a 6 Squadron Hurricane IV with rockets because that's what my Dad did in the War.

Martin

True, most aircraft modelers gravitate towards military subjects. Afterall, the posibilities in kits and decals and paint schemes is endless. The reason I like Military subjects is because I'm around civil aircraft all day for my job as an aircraft mechanic and pilot. I see them everyday and while I can appreciate them, I much more love the older military subjects that arent' around anymore that you just dont' see everyday. I'm sure most people have their specific reasons for liking thier favorite subjects.

I am not an anti-war protester, and in fact was once an officer in USAF. I do build military models.  But I do feel civil aircraft are undervalued, and even sneered at by many modelers.  Even at contests the judges often award a military subject a higher score than a better-built civil subject.  In previous discussions on this topic a frequent comment is that civil subjects are "just boring."

" but nothing to click on apart from a long list of kit manufacturers, which is helpful"

I don't understand this

I get a page of aircraft types on the left, sorted by country, with model companies and kit numbers for each type on the right side

for example, clicking USA includes

Beechcraft 17 Staggerwing           Sword 7210

clicking Beechcraft 18 gives me

18                        Hobbycraft 1388, PM Model 304

AT-7                   PM Model 304

AT-11 Kansan             Matchbox PK201, Pioneer 2 4009, PM Model 303, Tyson FJTHC001

C-45A                 Pioneer 4003, PM Model 304, Tyson SMCCBC002

C-45F                 Hobbycraft 1355, 1388

C-45G                 Hobbycraft 1357

C-45H                 Hobbycraft 1357 , 1389, Tyson SMCCBC002

JRB-4                 Tyson FJTEFN002

JRB-5                  Tyson FJTEFN002

SNB-1                  Tyson FJTEHCN01

SNB-5                  Tyson FJTEHCN01

the only warning about using that Census, is that the list is supposed to be that person's choice for the BEST kit of each subject, not a list of all kits released of a subject, which of course is subject to opinion and cost considerations

(it doesn't help to know that Aurora produced the "best" _fill in the blank_ if 11 other kits got skipped and Aurora is OOP)

Thanks, Tarnship. A potentially interesting site, but nothing to click on apart from a long list of kit manufacturers, which is helpful.

The pity of it all is that if you look at the civil sections of these big forums, you get endless modern airliners, which all look the same to me.

And the responses to civil of any kind are few indeed. Such a shame.  

I now have to decide if there's any point in my continuing with my plan for a small range of vac-formed light aircraft kits at all.  Plastic prices have rocketed and with support so poor I might as well make the same kinds of masters for resin, which involves me in far less work, albeit resulting in a higher priced kit.

Or, I could just give up on the whole scheme and scratchbuild the odd kite just for me!

Martin

I build some Civil aircraft now and then, including some military types that ended up in civilian hands for various reasons, I have a Pitts in 1/72, and a few others

I don't know of a specific forum, most that I have belonged to just run a Civil group build now and then (which is something that you could do on here)

Just on the off-chance that you don't have this link, and that you build in 1/72, here is a link

www.72scale.com/menu.htm

go to Aircraft, then General Aviation, and then the country you want to look at, you could also glean some Civil aircraft out of the various military models on there, if you needed one

I hope this helps in some small way

Rob, I'm in England and as you say, we tend towards what we know.  For me that means De Havilland, Miles, Percival, etc.  More Kings Cup racing than Reno, maybe.  And all the small aircraft at my local clubs, like the above plus Austers, Chipmunks and of course all the usual Cessnas, Pipers, Robins, Emeraudes, Rallyes and Pitts that abound at any club.

Don, as you can see I've posted in that section, but without much response.  It seems we non cammo fellas are in the extreme minority and getting fewer, unfortunately.

I think everyone ELSE is missing a hell of a lot.

Martin

There is a civil aircraft forum in the "modeling subjects" hiearchy, just below aircraft.  Lots of discussion of just this point.