Why aren't civil aircraft interesting.

Along with everything else already mentioned, military aircraft have much more shape and color variety. The basic shape configuration of airliners hasn't changed substantially for 55 years other that variations on engine placement. This is one of those situations where I get the novice input of my wife. She can easily identify an F-16 by shape alone but she couldn't differentiate a 737 form a A320 or or a 707 from a DC-8. Look at heavy bombers, no two look remotely alike (other than the B-1 and the Tu-160). I will spend a great deal of time looking at the aircraft in a display case full of various military aircraft. Fill that same display case with airliners and after a minute I'm looking at the how the display case is designed and constructed.

Boy, I would argue the color variation thing.  Lots of variation in civil aircraft, which is not limited to airliners, but includes private recreational aircraft, aerobatic craft, racing planes (lots of wild color liverys there), business planes, government non-military.

As far as shapes, I think we are seeing that in both military and civil.  It is the result of computer design.  Now that we optimize so much on computers, we see less art and more science.  As long as the computer programs are good, if you design a plane for a given job, optimized for the properties of that job, the answer will come out the same no matter what country or what company is doing the design. I have noticed a real convergence of design lately in air superiority fighters from everywhere in the world!  Same thing in airliners, heavy cargo, etc.  Laws of aerodynamics do not respect national borders :-(

Ya I was thinking the standard gloss white airliner with the only variation being the airline name and logo. The military equivalent would be the all too common variations of grey paint with low vis markings, so I guess I'm countering my own conclusion with that one.

As an aerospace engineer I can tell you a lot of the common solutions for 'computer optimized' design comes out of how restricted the shape is due to other considerations. It has been well known for decades that jet powered flying wings (YB-49, B-2) are more aerodynamically efficient than tubes with wings, tails, and low slug engines that has been the design paradigm for airliners. It boils down to whether the improvements in range and fuel burn offset the negatives of using a new design and how much risk a company is willing to take on.

I'd still advocate that there's a lot more ways to get the bark off the tree when it comes to military aircraft. There's lots of aircraft that have the similar missions but the design is vastly different (A-10 vs Su-25, F-22 vs Eurofighter, F-18 vs Rafael, F-16 vs MiG-29 vs Mirage 2000). I think a lot of fundamental aircraft design hinges on a 'that's they way we always done it' arguments. The French seem to love pure delta wing designs where the US designers largely gave up on them in the 60s.

In the end I can only know what draws my interest but the market does respond (even if slowly) to what modelers want. I just checked Sprue Brothers page for helicopters (an area where similar machines can have both civilian and military markings) 55 for sale where 54 are military designs/markings and 1 is civilian. Assuming that's a good barometer for the market has a whole it does show there is more interest in military aircraft.

I build mostly auto and can see why you may suggest that glossy paint jobs tend to be something you don't look forward to.  Tends to be a time consumer and takes practice to master.

I suppose in the car world your question might read "why don't people find taxis/busses interesting?".  Not to say civie aircraft are as boring as busses but you get the idea.  The more personality a vehicle has the more it gets noticed.  The more you see something the less appealing it can become.

I have a little collection of Air Racers.  I love those due to their liveries and major style they posses. Those are the only civilian stuff I have as far as aircraft.

Cody, where did you get those racers?

I try to get to Reno every couple of years (I used to be hardcore about it) and would really enjoy a few racers in my stash. Are they todays racers or older ones like the BeeGee and Schneider Cup?

CodyJ

I suppose in the car world your question might read "why don't people find taxis/busses interesting?".  Not to say civie aircraft are as boring as busses but you get the idea.  The more personality a vehicle has the more it gets noticed.  The more you see something the less appealing it can become.

I have a little collection of Air Racers.  I love those due to their liveries and major style they posses. Those are the only civilian stuff I have as far as aircraft.

Hey, I'm building the London Double Decker kit from Revell.

And, there are still quite a few air racers around.  In additon to those fighter planes used in post war racing, there are the Lindberg 1:48 series of racing planes, quite a few from Williams brothers, and at least one European kit- forget the mfg but it is the Machi-Castoldi (or however you spell it) Sneider Cup racer (floatplane).

It's a matter of taste.  I wouldn't have titled this thread, "Why Aren't Civil Aircraft Interesting", specifically because it's a matter of taste, and that title makes a declarative statement.  I would have titled it something like, "Why Don't More Modelers Build Civilian Aircraft"

It's a matter of taste.  I wouldn't have titled this thread, "Why Aren't Civil Aircraft Interesting", specifically because it's a matter of taste, and that title makes a declarative statement.  I would have titled it something like, "Why Don't More Modelers Build Civilian Aircraft" Well said Baron :-)

Modelcrazy-  Don's right Williams Bros are the majority.  Here are a few...

Also Accurate Miniatures made/makes a P51 Air Racer and Airfix has a couple Comets (Red and Green Version)

Airfix Comet

Williams Bros

Thanks Cody. Does anybody have any modern (racing today) Reno Racers?

There are a lot of vacu form kits in the U.K. ,but one needs to hunt for them. Many times a modeler would need to modify existing kits to make air racers. Airshow models is a good reference.

I just may have to convert my own.

Like my avatar, it is the cowling of the "Rare Bear" a slightly modified Bearcat. While I cam find a 1/72 of the "Bear" the paint scheme would be a challenge.  "Strega",  "Precious Metal" or "Vooodoo" would be a whole other story.

CodyJ

Modelcrazy-  Don's right Williams Bros are the majority.  Here are a few...

I have the Williams Bros' Boeing Model 247 in my stash, along with the old Monogram Ford Tri-motor.  I have some ideas for how I'd like to finish them, but I'm not ready to break them out yet.  I'm thinking of markings for a fictitious Pennsylvania airline in the Thirties.

For racers, Revell had the P-51 "Miss America" in their catalog, pre-merger.  As I recall, that was their only P-51D in 1/32.

About 20 years ago I built Revell's two 1:48 offerings for Reno Racers ('Miss America' P-51D and 'Miss Behavin' T-6). Gave them away though. I have a partially built Testors 1:48 Gee Bee racer with the decals for one Jimmy Doolittle broke records with in the 30s.  

Just saw on another forum that Round2 is reissuing the 1/48 Stinson Reliant in March : )

Oh, super!  A friend had given me a kit of that- turns out the cowl was missing.  I don't mind scratching a radial cowl without the bumps, but doing all those bumps would have been a pain!  I'll sure pick up that kit as soon as it is available!

Don Stauffer

Oh, super!  A friend had given me a kit of that- turns out the cowl was missing.  I don't mind scratching a radial cowl without the bumps, but doing all those bumps would have been a pain!  I'll sure pick up that kit as soon as it is available!

Don, could you make a mold of a bump (were they for the rocker arms?) out of putty, then use the heat-and-smash method to make a bunch of them?

there was at least one model of that with a smooth cowl.

heepey

there was at least one model of that with a smooth cowl.

Yeah, but the cowl bumps are what gives most Reliants so much character, and I want that one!  The mold would be a female, and I would then have to cast a male, and then draw over that (that method requires a male mold).  Too much work, and my RTV is gone, have to buy a new supply- boy that stuff is expensive!  Basically too much work to get good bumps and then add them to a cowl. It is basically like building a vacu-form, and while I have built a few vuf, I don't relish them :-(

With Execuform gone, the only other way to find civil aircraft is to go with paper, which can be used as a pattern to build plastic models, or left as paper models. Both ways work well as I paln to try doing one that way.

Paper models are awesome! there is a WIP on it in paper models, if you like the challenge paper is the way to go. Many offerings on the web for free.....

My guess would be the primary reason would simply be one's area of interest.  Personally I enjoy studying history, and in particular, military history.  I was in the military and was involved in things of the subject matter.  So that's my personal reason.

I think what others have said about the more widely available options with military subjects makes a lot of sense.

Okay, let's word it another way. What determines people's interest?

I was in the AF, but when it comes to aviation, I prefer to model civil aircraft.  I was a hanger brat as a kid, and maybe it is just that the golden age of civil aircraft had just passed, and there were so many of thse neat craft around on the ramp- Beech Staggerwings, Stinson Reliants, Howards, Waco Cabins, etc.  Maybe I just saw my fill of military craft.

But for us who like civil aircraft, the kit market is a desert with slim pickings other than airliners, and even there it is mostly current stuff, few of the classics.

I am also heavily into military history, but primarily naval.  Again, maybe we just get our fill of what is around us a lot, and are more interested in what is in the other guy's yard.  Yeah, I build an occasional AF jet, especially one from McDonnell (I used to work there) but would far rather build an old F3F or original Corsair.

OK, before this thread, Don, I never even considered building a civil aircraft!

My interest is because I currently work for an Aerospace supplier of GE Aircraft Engines. We do engineering and repair engineering for most of the current line of commercial aircraft engines, and a few of the military engines. My previous company was a supplier for Boeing. They did wire harness routing through the entire airframe and wings of the 787, 777, 767, and 737 aircraft. Plus they did some work on the V-22 and CH-47 rotorcraft.

So, I would like to thank you, Don, for starting this thread. It has opened my eyes to more than just military subjects. Plus I purchase my first airliner and will be apart of the airliner GB.

Going back to the original question:  Why aren't they interesting?

Makers like Minicraft don't do much for realism.  Windows are not cut out, but part of a decal.

Wheels are plastic - no vinyl.

Kit availability in US hobby shops is poor.

Pricing for airliner kits compared to other subjects is unreasonable.

There's a limit or unavailability on sought after airline carrier decals, liveries and logos.

I would love to build airliner kits - but the above observations don't have me rushing to do so.

006

Going back to the original question:  Why aren't they interesting?

Makers like Minicraft don't do much for realism.  Windows are not cut out, but part of a decal.

Wheels are plastic - no vinyl.

Try the Eduard 1:144 Ju-52, civilian version.  Every thing you say about Minicraft airliners (and, they are indeed true) has been fixed in the Eduard kit and the accessory package of PE they sell, with PE cockpit seats AND the passenger seats, plus other detail, including seatbelts!  Of course, the accessory package costs as much as the basic kit.  But then, I suppose it is the lack of detail that lets Minicraft sell their kits for such cheap prices

BTW, I prefer plastic wheels to vinyl.  Too hard to paint vinyl.

006

Makers like Minicraft don't do much for realism.  Windows are not cut out, but part of a decal.

I would love to build airliner kits - but the above observations don't have me rushing to do so.

If you are interested in building a quality airliner kit, I would recommend the Zvezda 787-800.  If you are wanting a kit that has window openings in the fuselage instead of decals then this would be a kit for you.  I am working on this kit as we speak; however, I filled the windows in and am going to use the decal windows that I purchased for the United Airlines version that I wanted to build.  The fit of the kit is really good, only a few seams to fill and they werent difficult at all.  Probably the biggest drawback that I found with this kit was the delicate nature of some of the parts.

I love airliner kits and I suppose I could be inventive with PE, fabricating, etc.  But some kit makers just don't try hard at all - Minicraft being among them.  Yet, they had some good decals and I couldn't find anything TWA or other U.S. carriers from the 60's thru the 80's anywhere else.  I will look into both your recommendations.  I think it would be really cool to build all four liveries for the TWA 727 #4339.  I flew on that plane as a kid from STL to BOS!

I just stumbled on this Thread and I for one would love to build more civilian aircraft. I want all my aircraft to be in 1/72 scale thought o be consistent with the rest of my collection of aircraft. I'm working on a 1/72 scale civilian DC-6 right now in American Airlines livery, and I have a Super Constellation in the wings. I would love to see more 1/72 scale airliners. I also have about 8 single- and twin-engined civilian planes completed in 1/72 scale; mostly the old Aurora and Eidai/Arii kits. I've got an old 1/72 scale Aurora jet Commando I've started as well. I would be thrilled with a Lear jet in 1/72 scale; not to mention a 747!