Overdone Panel Lines

I think it depends on what's being depicted.  If it's a WWII battle harden fighter or bomber that's seen a lot of action it will generally be dirty and grimy with panel lines that have picked up a lot of dirt.  I would agree that on modern fighters and bombers it can be over done.  The prime example of this is on the cover of the lastest issue of FSM.  This was discussed at length in a previous thread.  I like to keep my panel lines fairly subtle, just enough that they are visible and give the aircraft to depth and character.  If your around commercial aircraft I don't think that's a good reference since they get washed fairly frequently.

Hi Comanche:

You are so right. I was a P-51 Pilot for 4 years and from 20 feet away you really had to look at the plane to see panel lines and not to say rivets. Besides you never looked at your plane looking to see them.

This is being overplayed so much that you find " special articles" on how to enhanse them that the models look more toyish now than ever. If  you reduced yourself to 1/48 or 1/72 panel lines of most models would scare the hell out of you........Oh dirt and oil slicks are incredible.....

Did you see the 130 FSM?

Besides it depends on light, shadows and angle of view.

My humble opinion............

 

This topic's been up a couple times since I've been here. I think one guy's answer (his name escapes me now) was really good. He said that We aren't trying to make carbon copies of the planes we build. we're trying to make our own representations. By making panel lines, we are trying to simulate the real thing. As long as it looks good to the builder, that's really all that matters.

IMHO, modelers tend to OVERDO panels lines.

Look at a photo of a real aircraft from approximate scale viewing distance.  Do you see the panel lines?  If yes, then try to reproduce it on the model.  If not, then don't.

Our helicopters would have lines where the rivets are, because the crewchief would try and wipe off the exhaust soot on the tailboom, sync-elevators and vertical fin, but would not wipe between those rivets, hence lines along the rivet pattern would emerge.

Modelers also over do the paint chips.  Paint gets removed where there is constant maintenance actions, and NOT way out, in the center of a wing, are side of a fuselage. (Japanese paint jobs are the exception)  The aircraft are usually well maintained and not so beat-up as tanks!!

Highly produced panel line looks good to judges at model contest and have "artist qualities", but probably are not accurate.

My 2 cents.

Bo Roberts

There are three questions here:  1) what is the most realistic?  2) what impresses judges?  and 3) what pleases the modeler?

In my opinion, judges have come to recognize a restricted set of timeconsuming weathering techniques as one criterion that distinguishes superior modeling talent.  Once this became established it naturally evolved to an exaggerated extreme - so much so that we outsiders find it over the top.

On the other hand, you could reasonably argue that the most accurate aircraft is the one that looks the most like the real thing at a normal viewing distance.  If that distance is 1 1/2 feet for a model, then that equates to a real-life distance of 72 feet for 1/48 or 108 feet for 1/72.  You have to have sharp eyes to distinguish rivets or even panel lines on most aircraft at that distance.

I personally like to build my models relatively "clean", but to me clean looks the most realistic - unless the aircraft in question has seen hard service in an extreme environment.  Actually, I find graying or whitening the paint for distance effect adds more for realism than do 5 inch (scale)  blackened panel lines.  But then, contests are not my thing.  You probably already guessed that.....

RadMax8.....Yes and no.....
If you are making a "true scale model" you must be totally accurate. You do simulate the real thing, few people do. Not from a plastic kit anyway.

You can make "look alikes" then your words are true. Still if you are making a look alike you can't overdo panel lines. Better without them. Or fairly accurate. If not, it might look good to the builder but what's the idea of modelling "scale models" if they don't look like it is scale

I do not build plastics, ( I do have some stashed away...Maybe I'll do someday...the Martin MB-2, Potez 540 and two or three I have not been able to get my hands on plans. I am doing my own plans from a plastic kit right now...an AradoAr96B) and my models in many cases are look alikes.( see my C-46) .Some are full scale which can easily take me about a year to finish (1:32 scale). In this case you can do 2 flavors. Like museums like....... one comming out of the factory, shinny and sparkling paint job, very accurate panel lines with hardly any dirt, so barely visible...or like a weather messed up and dirty old dog. Here you do work on the panel lines, exhaust smudges etc...but real looking, not overdone to show them like they are not. 

There is a guy in Malta, who builds absolute scale plastics. He beats up and beefs up the kit quite a bit and his models are Unbeliavable, you can't recognize from his pictures if you are looking at a real airplane or a model...

If  someone's static "scale" model with paint and all does not look accuarate, maybe he should go and build flying rubber scale models (What!!!!????)...they are beautiful.

Interesting topic....

Cheers.

Dan,

I agree with you, todays panel lines are way over done. I've worked on Naval aircraft for over 20 years and have never seen all the panel lines that modelers put on their aircraft.

Something to think about, on an average aircraft only about 50% of the panels are removable for maintenance, the other 50% is riveted on and once the aircraft is painted you can not see them unless you are standing six inches away from them. Also, you can not remove those 50% that can be removed all at the same time or you will over stress the aircraft while it is sitting on the deck. One of the major components that is holding the aircraft together is the panels, pull too many of them and the aircraft will warp and may split in two.

Definitely something that can be overdone. A black wash in the panel lines makes it look like there's huge gaps in the surface, but a brownish wash done sparingly can look realistic on aircraft where dirt does accumulate.

I really prefer weathering by depicted faded or chipped paint, dirt and oil streaks, and so on, but overdone panel lines make a model look like a toy.

The server appears to have just eaten my first reply.

I agree with you.  The only time I've seen panel lines on real aircraft at more than 20 feet was on ones that had been out in the sun for decades without much maintenance.

This is a soap box I was on in another thread a few days ago. :)

Bill

I agree, if you compare the panel lines as depicted on most aircraft models, with those found on the real thing, then they are clearly overstated and do not not look like the real thing.

However, do you look at a Monet, or other Impressionist work and say, 'That doesn't look like.....'? Arguably not. What I'm trying to get at, is that to me a model should be much more than just a carbon copy of the real thing. It should surely evoke some of the emotion that real machine does, and much of that is acheived by use of these techniques.

Just my take on matters.

Karl

 

 

 

 

I never do panel lines, other than rescribe what I have sanded off while construction. As far as a black underline, or wash, I simply dont go there..... I do weather my aircraft, but panel lines are not usually seen. I prefer not doing them..

My example is here: First pic. My 1/48 Academy MiG-29UB


The real thing:


I try to get the color and the texture of the paint job correct, and then I go from there..  If you want to get a true reading on the surface of the aircraft, then different colored panels and paint texture is what you should look at.. Not the panel lines..  Panels are what get replaced and wear. Not the lines in between them......

They look nice, but not very accurate?

Chris

I agree with you 100% Dan.  I spent 26 years in the Air Force, all of it on or around fighter type aircraft.  If I saw panel lines like a lot of modelers do, my first assumption would be two to three inch gaps between each panel.  A lot of people today do not realize that modern type aircraft have very close fitting sealed panels and joint connections.  I have disassembled my share of F-4 aircraft when I was with the RAM Team from Hill AFB.  The F-4 is seperated into four main sections, Forward, Center, Tail, and Wings.  The fuselage section joint bolts are covered by a very close tolerance fitting strap held to the main skin by BT 4,000 rivets.  It is a two to three day job just to remove one strap.  After the rivets are removed the strap has to be pried off as the tolerance fit is so close.  If one looks at model kit of the F-4, it would look like the joint straps have a large gap between them.  In actual life, the joint straps are almost invisable on the real aircraft.    

When I was in Vietnam, the aircraft I was Crew Chief on was originally painted gull gray over white.  It was painted in SEA colors at the base and did not get the proper pre treatment prior to painting.  As a result a lot of paint started peeling.  The aircraft also took battle damage over north and some patch work had to be performed.  All sheet metal was was left  un painted as the aircraft was scheduled to go to depot in only three months.  She never made it as she was shot down over North Vietnam on 16 December, 67.

 

I can't believe this has come up again. Every other month we're debating panel lines. If you like the way it looks, do it. If you don't like the way it looks, then don't. Enough already!

Dragonfly

Now, I have never been around jet fighters, except maybe at an airshow when I was a kid, but it seems to me that if the panels were that far apart, wouldn't the jet flex so much you couldn't fly it? This kinda relates to my line of work (metal studs and drywall) When you build a wall and hang the drywall, you have to offset joints on bothsides of the wall and make sure the joints are tight, otherwise the thing will flex when the building settles and bust out the joint. So am I right in my thinking? Wouldn't it be extremly weak with those gaps?

eizzle wrote:

Now, I have never been around jet fighters, except maybe at an airshow when I was a kid, but it seems to me that if the panels were that far apart, wouldn't the jet flex so much you couldn't fly it? This kinda relates to my line of work (metal studs and drywall) When you build a wall and hang the drywall, you have to offset joints on bothsides of the wall and make sure the joints are tight, otherwise the thing will flex when the building settles and bust out the joint. So am I right in my thinking? Wouldn't it be extremly weak with those gaps?

Removal panels are set at very close tolerance and sealed underneath.  This is to prevent moisture from getting in.  Doors that can be opened with quick release fastners are still set at close tolerance but not as much.  That will allow them to be opened up without binding.   Butt joints, where one section, joins another, the tolerance is so close, you have to be very close to see them. 

The aircraft does flex, bend and warp in flight as well as on the ground.  Some panels are refered to as stress panels and once removed the aircraft can not be moved, jacked or on some, the hydraulic system or flight controles operated for maintenence.  Doing so would warp the airframe so much it would be very hard or impossible to reinstall the panel.  I can remember at Homestead AFB when one of our aircraft was towed into a hanger with Pnl 36L removed.  It took maintenance close to two weeks to get the panel back on.  Several months later that same panel was removed again and it took several days to get it back on.    

I understand that aircraft that have seen some hard use will have grease, grime, dust, whatever in the panel lines, on and around rivets etc..  So when replicating that, shouldn't we just be doing a wash with perhaps some artist oils heavily diluted?  The goal is to get dirt in the crack, the gap between the panels.  The pre and post shading technique (no offense to those who like it) makes it look way over done.  If you were to see that same effect on a real airplane, it would be the equivalent of taking a can of gray spray paint and spraying a 2 to 3 inch stripe of paint between each and every panel line.  Makes the model look toyish in my humble opinion.

The thing with pre-shading is you don't want to do it to highlight the panel lines, but by simulating faded, damaged paint and dirt - and it should be subtly done.

If you do something like that AC-130, preshading all those lines and filling them with a heavy, black wash, it looks like garbage.

Desdinova wrote:

The thing with pre-shading is you don't want to do it to highlight the panel lines, but by simulating faded, damaged paint and dirt - and it should be subtly done. If you do something like that AC-130, preshading all those lines and filling them with a heavy, black wash, it looks like garbage.

Would maybe pre shading with white in the center areas of the panels, and leaving the bare, gray model plastic at the panel lines  create the faded paint effect?  Just curious as I've never tried that.

berny13 wrote:

eizzle wrote: Now, I have never been around jet fighters, except maybe at an airshow when I was a kid, but it seems to me that if the panels were that far apart, wouldn't the jet flex so much you couldn't fly it? This kinda relates to my line of work (metal studs and drywall) When you build a wall and hang the drywall, you have to offset joints on bothsides of the wall and make sure the joints are tight, otherwise the thing will flex when the building settles and bust out the joint. So am I right in my thinking? Wouldn't it be extremly weak with those gaps? Removal panels are set at very close tolerance and sealed underneath.  This is to prevent moisture from getting in.  Doors that can be opened with quick release fastners are still set at close tolerance but not as much.  That will allow them to be opened up without binding.   Butt joints, where one section, joins another, the tolerance is so close, you have to be very close to see them.  The aircraft does flex, bend and warp in flight as well as on the ground.  Some panels are refered to as stress panels and once removed the aircraft can not be moved, jacked or on some, the hydraulic system or flight controles operated for maintenence.  Doing so would warp the airframe so much it would be very hard or impossible to reinstall the panel.  I can remember at Homestead AFB when one of our aircraft was towed into a hanger with Pnl 36L removed.  It took maintenance close to two weeks to get the panel back on.  Several months later that same panel was removed again and it took several days to get it back on.

Wow, they flex that bad! I guess that it would be better for them to flex rather than being rigid. Probably makes things like landing a lot easier on them since they can flex to absorb the shock.

Here's my :

I feel it entirely depends on the builder.

It can be argued that to overemphasize some details such as panel lines either more or less accurately depicts "realism", but IMHO, this entirely misses the point.

From my perspective, when I build a model, it is my "work of art", for better or worse.

In art, the artist often "overemphasis" in certain features, as exaggeration, is often seen as better depicting realism. This is true in both paintings and acting on stage. I mean the biggest box-office duds were those that were the least hyperbolic in their presentation of "reality". Go figure.

In looking at the most recent cover of FSM, I agree that the actual plane does not have that degree of ugliness, wherein the panel lines practically look like an exoskeleton, but, they certainly do stand out well under the photographic conditions, which is what I assume what the builder wanted, which I also assume is why he went into all the extra time and effort to do it the way he did.

I mean, if I built a model of Revell's "Phantom Mustang", this almost makes me wonder how many nerdy critics would say "that is not what a real Mustang looks like"

-well duhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I sincerely hope that the volume of critical comments I have seen here regarding this does not reflect a general "sour grapes" attitude amongst builder/members of this forum, lest it discourage any of our more imaginative or creative talent from seeking to see their "work of art" on FSM's front cover.

At least that is my perspective on this subject.

Tom

I do agree with the artwork standpoint being taken here and that the modeler really has to be the one pleased with the final result.

As for the whole idea of panel line shading, if it looks good or not really depends on the techniques that you use. I've never bought into pre shading or sludge washes. If I use a wash, its thinned out drawing ink.

My prefered method of picking out panels lines is dusting the model with charcoal or graphite powder. coloured chalk powder works well for more subtle effects. Here's two photos of an F-111 I did using charcoal dust. I think what I like best about the effect is that at certain angles the light will subdue certain portions of the panel line detail and pick out others. Subtlety is important, you don't need to whack someone over the head with something for them to know its there.

 

As an addendum, if any of you have access to Shep Paine's excellent book on dioramas, read what he says about depicting blood in dioramas: splattering it all over the place shocks nobody and makes the whole piece look amateur; subtlety is the key. A bit here and there, then let the viewer's eye and imagination take care of the rest. I think the same mindset can be applied to the panel line issue.

Pretty much everyone uses black when preshading. If you went white over bare plastic or primer there would be virtually no contrast and you'd need an extremely thin coat of paint to have it show up.

T_Terrific wrote:

Here's my : I feel it entirely depends on the builder. It can be argued that to overemphasize some details such as panel lines either more or less accurately depicts "realism", but IMHO, this entirely misses the point. From my perspective, when I build a model, it is my "work of art", for better or worse. In art, the artist often "overemphasis" in certain features, as exaggeration, is often seen as better depicting realism. This is true in both paintings and acting on stage. I mean the biggest box-office duds were those that were the least hyperbolic in their presentation of "reality". Go figure. In looking at the most recent cover of FSM, I agree that the actual plane does not have that degree of ugliness, wherein the panel lines practically look like an exoskeleton, but, they certainly do stand out well under the photographic conditions, which is what I assume what the builder wanted, which I also assume is why he went into all the extra time and effort to do it the way he did. I mean, if I built a model of Revell's "Phantom Mustang", this almost makes me wonder how many nerdy critics would say "that is not what a real Mustang looks like" -well duhhhhhhhhhhhh. I sincerely hope that the volume of critical comments I have seen here regarding this does not reflect a general "sour grapes" attitude amongst builder/members of this forum, lest it discourage any of our more imaginative or creative talent from seeking to see their "work of art" on FSM's front cover. At least that is my perspective on this subject. Tom

 

I totally agree with this.  The way I figure it, if builder X wants to "over-emphasize" the panel lines, so be it.  It's their model, their money, their time.  Build for you, not for what other so-called "experts" think is right.  If you don't like it, I'm sure that there are just as many models that fit your tast in building.

Desdinova wrote:

If you do something like that AC-130, preshading all those lines and filling them with a heavy, black wash, it looks like garbage.

 

That's a bit harsh, isnt it?

 

Funny thing, I've always thought that the "clean" builds are the ones that look more like toys.  Anyway, the great thing about websites like this is for folks with common interests to get together and share experiences and techniques.  I can;t tell you how much I have learned and expanded my building skills by trying out some of the tips and techniques I have learned from my daily website hits.  I for one will continue to use a thin panel line wash (usually Payne's Grey or black) on my builds...again, I build for me.

 

Take Care.

Brian

 

 

As a former helicopter crewcheif< i have to disagree on leaving soot of the rivet lines, using a clean rag and the proper cleaner I would clean those areas, while maybe not getting it all, most would come off, only around the rivet head might some be left.

Alos at the national the year before in Phoenix, my son and I were looking at a model of a F-14 and I asked him in his three years on the Enterprise, did he never see a F-14 that dirty, his answer was no, he stated they were cleaned daily and if need be, even repainted at sea. Aircraft were to expensive to let dirt and corrosion take hold like that.

At the risk of naming names, take a look at Navyao's F-14.  It looks clean, but with enough accent on the panels to make the subject look realistic and not toylike.  The close shots show panel lines, but the distance shot shows only a hint.  Pixilater's P-47 looks good to me as well - clean but not not toy-like.  These look about right to me.  Just my

eizzle wrote:

Wow, they flex that bad! I guess that it would be better for them to flex rather than being rigid. Probably makes things like landing a lot easier on them since they can flex to absorb the shock.

Aircraft flex a lot.  My father said that the USAAF experimented with gun positions out on the wingtips of heavy bombers in WW II.  The wings flexed so much in flight that even those with the stoutest stomachs got ill and it would have been impossible to hit anything from a gun position out there.

Aluminum skinned aircraft are subject to failure over time because cracks form.  The Hawaiian Airlines 737 that lost part of the top of its fuselage (around 1990) did so because the plane had made too many take offs and landings.  (I was working at Boeing at the time and the Boeing News announced the 737 Convertible the morning of the accident.  The convertible meant that it was easy to convert from passenger to freight, but inevitably pictures of the Hawaiian Airlines 737 with the Boeing News headline started cropping up all over.)

Aluminum has an unfortunate characteristic that steel doesn't.  If a load is put on steel that does not cause it to fail, it will sit there with that load for decades without failure or substantial stress.  If the same non-failing load was put on aluminum, it would eventually fail.

Aluminum is great for aircraft because it is relatively cheap (compared to exotics like titanium) and it is very light.  However, it has some disadvantages too.

Bill

I think the general thread we're discussing here concerns older aircraft, yeah? Certainly a modern jet capable of Mach 2 wouldn't need to have panel lines highlighted. If you scaled up some lines I've seen from 1/48 or even 1/32, the pilot would be punching out becuase his plane would just simply fall apart. I followed a similar thread to this in a car modelling forum some time ago, revoloving  around highlighting the lines on an F1 car. Simple answer - don't do it, for the same reasons. My simple, logical take on the whole thing is this, & it would be the same for most of us I expect: build the model, paint it, decal it - just like a workshop. Then stand back & think about what that craft does, where does it work, how often does it fly, what are the maintenance policies of the respective airforce, & THEN weather it accordingly. You don't see an airframe fitter painting the inside edge of each panel with burnt umber before he attaches it to the frame. Sorry, that last note was probably taking it to the nth, but you see my point.

 

That's a bit harsh, isnt it?

Don't get me wrong, the detail on that AC-130 is amazing, but from a distance, it does not look good thanks to those panel lines.