Panel lines why use them ?

True. Except on larger scale models such as 1/32 & 1/24, they are pretty much out of scale. But they do add visual interest to an otherwise plain surface. I think the current trend of recessed lines and rivets is often overdone. Many vintage aircraft had overlapping skin panels and raised rivets, yet that is seldom replicated accurately in any scale. Nearly 50 years ago, Revell was repilcating flush rivets on some of their 1/32 kits with embossed circles around the rivet head, rather than as simple divets. This produced a far more accurate looking flush rivet. If it could be done with the mold technology available then, why not now?

THANK YOU! My thinking also. Bob

Mine too.

I've yet to see the real deal with recessed panel lines.

I would be in heaven if someone made a 1/48 DC-3 with all of the overlapping panel joints, strengthener plates and so forth molded on. Of course at some point, after some service, every a/c is a little different.

This is the wing join on a C-47, just outboard of the engine nacelle. I would love to see that done properly in 1/48 as well. I dont see anything recessed or butt joined... well maybe down teh center of that external rib with all those protruding bolts... The rivets are not exactly perfectly aligned either... Rosie must have had a late nite before she worked on this one.

Agree. Except for those of us with experience around real aircraft, I suspect most model panel lines have little significance for the viewer. In 1:72 I usually fill and remove most panel details, seems no loss of appreciation by others examining, For airplanes with tight tolerance sheet metal skins, like Gulfstream and Falcon exec's, the paint completely conceals virtually all details. Good post, I found it relevant.

Stik- you really are a lovely man! I've boarded more than a few 737's with some hours on em, and been fairly appalled by the amount of reinforcing plates that get added around the corners of the doors and windows.

Thats not a rib son, thats a flange!

When I was a "tad", I got pretty good at running the tip of a very sharp lead pencil along raised panel lines. I thought it looked very good, at the time.

This conversation really makes me miss you-know-who.

I was on the fence with panel lines but now I'm one of the guys who likes them.  Especially recessed panel lines.

I am now warming up to panel line washes.  I'm in the finishing stages of a build right now on which I used an enamel panel line wash...Ammo of Mig to be exact.  I thought the results were great.  I feel like it gives the model a constructed look as opposed to a solid look.  Plus, having the panel lines opens many more doors when it comes to weathering.

Do panel lines they exist on the real planes?  No, not really.  But in the modeling world there is no doubt that they bring much more visual interest.  In my minds eye a build that has no panel lines, although accurate, looks like an obvious model or even toyish.  I don't mean that as an insult to anybody's work but that's just how I feel.  The panel lines make up for something that is lost in the scale, I believe.

When I see a model with no lines I see a solid piece of plastic.  But when I see panels I think "Hmm, I wonder whats under that access panel on the wing?"  With the lines I tend to mentally see inside the plane as well as outside.  When I see a model with no lines I see just a model.  But when there are lines I tend to see all the parts of that model.

This is all especially true for me when I see models that are also weathered well.

Fortunately bipes don't have many, if any at all.  However, I do find them useful as guidelines for weathering the panels they border around.

I like the surface detail.  I feel it does just give the model a bit more character than a bare piece of plastic.  

I'm with Mike and Fly-in-hi on this one.  I realize full well that these aircraft are not "precisely" the way the plastic kit represents the panel lines.  Just the way the right tool for the job is crafted a particular way, these panel lines are as such so as to trap a wash or paint of some kind in an effort to represent a border or framework or a pop of color where it's needed to help convince the eye of what it's trying to see.  Of course everyone here realizes that already.  But I still think it's important to verbalize the significance of suggesting a shape with a color or a shadow to help create the illusion of something that's maybe too difficult to mold or shape.

Now, I won't argue that with newer technologies available...that perhaps one of these big companies needs to cowboy up and slide mold us a new G@# DAMNED kit that's been plagued with issues in the past.  I might guess that it costs a lot of money to invest in a kit that may not make that money back.  Soooo....  There's my 2 cents.  =]

How epic would it be though if a C-47 or B-17 came out with a true to life construction?  Even as AM add ons?

I find working with a recessed PL is easier to get a visual break but I find a well done pre shade/post shade on a raised PL can yield a very real result.  Here's an example of raised Pl's that I think looks more realistic, perhaps due to the non-highcontrast of bare metal vs the typical dark panel wash of recessed PL's

I absolutely agree Reasoned.  =]  I haven't sanded off any of the raised surface detail on the Revell/Monogram P-40B that's currently on the bench.  I'll drop an example here perhaps as soon as I can get past the engine detail and put a coat of primer on it.  But certainly a raised panel line should be nothing to worry about.  I think all it requires is a slightly different touch when trying to leave whatever wash/pigment/etc you're bringing out.

I'm just waiting for the forced perspective to come into vogue. Then I'll have to figure out the sun angle and adjust for shading....

Mine is another vote for panel lines and rivets.  I reckon they look great when done well.  Like on the recent Tamiya 1.32s for example... some of the stunning weathering on the planes you see online wouldn't be the same without that detail in the molds.   Like this one by Marek Vrzak , for example...   (apparently this plane took him years to finish).

Perhaps manufacturers wil just give us a kit with "smooth" parts, with foil, adhesive and a rivet tool and say "Have at it!".  It would save them a lot of time and money on detailing ( and kill the debate on raised or recessed panel lines).  Might bring up some other interesting debates, however... 

I think the key to panel lines, raised or recessed is "subtlety".  From no panel lines, you get the other extreme of over-emphasised panel lines that make the model look like a jigsaw puzzle!  I guess that's what modeling is all about.

Gary

Ok, so who remembers the "good old days" when Airfix's planes were covered in a forest of rivets and Matchbox's had trenches a 1/72 scale hand could fit in without touching the sides?

HOLY CRAP really?!?

Phil_H

Ok, so who remembers the "good old days" when Airfix's planes were covered in a forest of rivets and Matchbox's had trenches a 1/72 scale hand could fit in without touching the sides?

Yeah, the boiler-plate rivets!  They made the model look like a steampunk subject!

Not just Airfix, early Fujimi and Revell kits had those in 1/72 scale also.

the Matchbox trencher only hit about 1/2 of their kits, almost as many had very fine raised panel lines as had the trenches, and a few had NO panel lines, just control surface outlines.

As for the rivets,,,,,,,Hasegawa had the same plague of them on their earliest Phantom tooling.

I took a photo of a "weathered and getting more weather every day" F-4C Phantom that is here locally,,,,,,,and even when you get close enough to that plane that it is bigger than a 1/48 model looks at 2 feet,,,,,,you can't see the panel lines. Since I model in 1/72, I would prefer that they be the size of a hair or PE razor saw blade,,or not there at all. If you can't see them in 1/1 scale at 72 feet, they shouldn't be seen at 1/72 scale at 1 foot.

But, my vote doesn't count, lol. I also see a lot of footprints/boot smudges far out on model A-4 wings that were in the "don't you darrrrreeee walk out there" area of the wings. (I guess you'd have to know how A-4 wings were built to understand that one)

Rex

This is just my opinion soo.... I can agree with the need for panel lines and rivets on larger scale models. But on tiny ones, they can get too busy. My "problem" is that I've spent a long time around aircraft. Pops was career Air Force growing up and I spent almost 25 years building them. I can see the "visual interest" point of view, but also the nice and smooth one. We had to use the "ten foot" rule on Boeing parts back then also. Two cents guys... Bob

Interesting opinions, fairly across the board with all bases covered. My preference to remove most panel lines and all rivets on the smaller scales, is due to the difficulty of actually replicating anything that would be true to scale and seem realistic. Somehow, to me rivet heads that look like golf balls sawed in half and glued on the real airplane actually detract from a models appearance, and panel lines that are about like concrete divisions in a driveway really take away from the craftsmanship construction appearance, of just about any airplane produced. Strictly MY feelings, everyone should build for their own satisfaction, nothing at all wrong with whatever another prefers.

1:48th and larger the surface details become an important and integral part of the model, but the supersonic performance of the modern jet fighters absolutely requires a smooth surface for aerodynamic efficiency. Disruptions of the skin of a fighter carry a major penalty for aerodynamic performance, and slow it down appreciably. With that in mind, I do minimize the surface details even on the larger scales.    

One exception, I saw a masterpiece 1:72 ME-262 at an IPMS event in London, the builder had removed all surface details, then re-scribed to what seemed scale appearance. Stunning and brilliant workmanship, absolutely awesome. But you had to be VERY close, with perfect lighting to even see those details. From one or two feet away, it all just seemed to disappear into the flawless camo paint.

Best to all.

Patrick  

I won't mention models from the 50's and 60's which had the positions for decals (eg. national markings) moulded on in raised lines.

Oops, I just did..

Aren't we glad that era has passed?

Phil, one of my models from the very end of that era, and near the  beginning of my own airbrushing era almost didn't survive.   I had removed all the "markings" from whoever had the 1/72 A-26,,,,,and I had sanded smaller and smaller in grit until I was sure those lines were gone. Then I sprayed a very fine coat of paint on the model.

The markings showed back up as "ghosts" in the paint. I wound up painting a fairly heavy primer coat on and sanding it smooth, and then another coat. Then the "markings" stopped showing up, so I went ahead and painted and finished that model.

But, when they showed through after both the coat of paint and that first coat of primer,,,,,,,,I almost had a USAF Kamikaze with terminal orders for the nearest wall.

Fun times, lol. I have been tempted to slice the rivets off instead of sanding, on one of the Antique Fujimi  Crusaders I have, just to see how full they make a Testors paint jar.

It is funny, though,,,,,I have a Frog B-17E to build for Anne (her Dad's plane in WW II) and even though it is far older than the Fujimi F-8, it has very petite raised panel lines on it, just enough to catch a very subtle wash if I choose that route. So, the rivet and lines and the age of the kit don't always track in a straight line.

Rex

I have that kit too without the fuselage halves.

Frog was pretty good, I built a 1/72 Whitley, a very nice model.

In 1/72 i use postits to mask off lines kind of free hand while i ghost a little paint on with the A/B.

I find panel lines most visible on real planes on bare metal aircraft.  Paint does tend to fill in the seams.  Of course, there are two types of panel lines- panels that are riveted to the panel where the seams are only there because those were the size of sheets of metal they wanted/needed to use, and removable panels, removable for access.  The later are far more visible on full-scale aircraft, even on painted ones.

Many years ago I started scribing directly into the paint because I felt (and still do) engraved panel lines are way out of scale.  Here are a couple of examples...

http://paulbudzik.com/models/clipper.pdf

http://paulbudzik.com/models/b25.pdf

Paul

I personally dig the recessed lines and rivets at the moment if only to help in where to pre-shade. That may change as/if my skills improve.

Maybe the manufacturers anticipate that most modelers will primer, paint & clear a model before applying a panel wash.  That seems to be the norm these days.  Adding all that paint can fill a gap almost level depending on the paint type and application.  My guess is that they overdo it a bit to let us build it the way we want.  Much easier to spray on a few coats of filler/primer to eliminate some panel lines than to re-scribe an entire aircraft.

Even if the details were wrong, most anything can be repaired/simulated with a creative paint job. That, for me, is where a model can really shine.

"In painting, you have unlimited power. You have the ability to move mountains. You can bend rivers. But when I get home, the only thing I have power over, is the garbage."    -Bob Ross

Interesting discussion. I recently got the Hasegawa 1/32 F-86 Sabre kit. It's got all the mid 70's modeling technology you could want! Raised panel lines. I've been thinking about how to approach this. It will be NMF, so I'm thinking I'll just post shade along the panel lines with some flory and/or a coat of Tamiya smoke.

Being around airliners all the time at work, I've been paying closer attention to the panel lines since I started modeling again. I've noticed the real deal is entirely random. Some panel lines look like they're pretty worn, while 20 feet back along the fuselage, for instance, there is no "contrast" between the panels. It's almost always a subtle sooty black look too. Rarely any browns, unless that's near the engine nacelle or wheel wells. Of course, we're not taking off out of improved fields on the Eastern Front either, but you get the picture!