Why aren't civil aircraft interesting.

The Monogram kits were in odd scales, but I have one of each. The Tri-Pacer I converted to a Pacer and the 180 is part of a diorama that I am building.  The Khee-Kha  kit is interesting but I am not ready for vacuform yet.  There are some interesting civil kits out there if you look hard.

Following WWII some military aircraft were turned into civilian hands and there are kits of them available. C-47, C-46, C-119, Beech 18, Grumman Widgeon and Goose to name a few. You just need the courage to paint them gloss white ; )

Khee Kha makes a Cessna 185 and Constanza kits makes a Piper Cherokee  six, both in 1/72 scale.

I think one of the reasons people don't find civil aircraft interesting is that they don't know or consider the range of civil aircraft out there.  Thinking 'civil aircraft' to many people immediately means modern airliner, not firefighter, air racer, aerobatic plane, crop duster, business jet, glider, GA light aircraft, commuter, cargo plane etc.  The lack of available kits could also have something to do with it too.  If you rarely see civil aircraft kits in shops or at model shows, or even hear about civil kits out there, why would you even think of making one (unless you are one of the few who do find civil aircraft interesting)?  

Peter

heepey

Having grown up in bush Alaska, civil aviation is very interesting to me. One of the few ways in or out  of  town was by flying. I lived right off the end of the runway. There were no silver tubes and every plane was a character on its own. I would like to build many of those planes but no one kits a Cessna 185, 206 or Cherokee six.  It would also be great to have a Piper Pacer or one of several Stinsons.

There was a Monogram 180.  And a Monogram tri-pacer. I had been looking for the Tri-Pacer for a couple of years, was fortunate to find one last year at the swap meet at Nordicon.

I grew up in Detroit.  Sometimes on Sundays dad and mom would take me for a drive around Outer Drive (road) which goes past Detroit City Airport.  We would always stop in the parking lot there, and marvel at those giant silver birds, the new DC-3s!  Now a DC-3 looks so tiny :-)  Just love NMF airliners, sorry to see them disappear for painted finishes.

Having grown up in bush Alaska, civil aviation is very interesting to me. One of the few ways in or out  of  town was by flying. I lived right off the end of the runway. There were no silver tubes and every plane was a character on its own. I would like to build many of those planes but no one kits a Cessna 185, 206 or Cherokee six.  It would also be great to have a Piper Pacer or one of several Stinsons.

To get away from white/silver tubes, build some older airliners, like Fokker, SE and Tri-motor, Boeing biplane airliner, etc.  Lots of novel paint schemes, lots of d etails, rigging, etc.

Or Braniff International.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2WlOsi6LLE

Don Stauffer

But what is it then that makes an airplane cool?

Something's just cool.  I love WWII Luftwaffe aircraft and Vietnam era US jets.  Those airplanes look very cool to me.  Modern combat fighters look similar to one another and I don't find them cool.

AdeB

It's all about "character" for me.

Civil airliners are just bland, white/silver tubes.

Give me a weathered, beat up ME 109 any day.

It's all about "character" for me.

Civil airliners are just bland, white/silver tubes.

Give me a weathered, beat up ME 109 any day.

What makes an airplane cool?  It flies!

Myself,  I don't have a problem with civil aviation.  My issue is with the kit manufacturers.

For me, it's too much like being at work.

But what is it then that makes an airplane cool?

The answer is very simple AFAIC.  Civil aircraft is not cool enough.  

Romance...or lack of, associated with airliners, light aircraft, etc. Think of all the model train clubs there are around the world. All different time periods, all different scales. Now think about all the model airline clubs there are, I can't recall any. Both trains and civil aircraft are people/cargo movers but there's something about a passenger train idling at a small town station that captures one's feelings of travel to far away places, of seperation from a loved one, even of the excitement of an elegant  trip.  Compare that with the memory of today's air terminals, like loading cattle for market, not too romantic, eh? Even if the modeler is not a "rail fan" there's something mystical and compelling watching a big steam locomotive passing a crossing grade at speed. It's hard to conjure up the same feeling for a 747 at 30,000 feet, just a speck in the sky, if you happen to notice it's vapor trail.

The only civil aircraft that I find interesting is the stuff from the late twenty's and thirty's. The airliners had interesting paint schemes, wing and motor arrangements, and fuselages. The Connie is a great airliner to model I have a 1:72 kit as well as the old monogram version, the plane looks fast even sitting on the tarmac. Compare that with today's "all look the same' flying buses.

At 1/72 it's huge and much rather have gone with a 1/144 but the decals I'm using are custom made and only available in 1/72. When I do mine I want to use the brass prop blurs to make it in flight. I also plan on using Floquil Old Silver, Bright Silver and Platinum Mist instead of Alclad. Even though the Alclad finish is better, I have a feeling that the old Floquil paints will look almost as good on this large project.

Love the Connie too. I have the Revell 1:144 in my stash- it just hasn't made it to the bench yet, but looking forward to the build.

The civilian ones don't get my attention. I do however, have a long standing love affair with the Super Connie. I think IMO, it's the most beautiful and graceful civilian aircraft. I have a Heller 1/72 scale Super Connie to be built.

I also like the old ones like the J-3, Citabria, Beaver and Otter.

In the past I tried my hand at civie aircraft. I didn't enjoy working with the paint or poor molds. (late 80s early 90s)

I built a 767-300 in AAL livery because I work for AAL and it came out fair. I just didn't get into working with silver and gloss paint.

even a longer time ago I built the old Monogram Tri-pacer with the hunters and dead lion. Again, gloss paint turns me off.

I'd rather make a factory fresh Bradley Fighting Vehicle than attempt to paint a weather beaten 767-300 in silver.

When I check on airshows to go to, these days I  look for those that are typically at the smaller local airports. I really appreciate seeing the old Stinson's, Fairchild 24's, Curtiss Robin's and especially the supremely graceful Stinson Reliant. For the bi-planes I always loved the Stearman, Waco UPF-7, Skybolt and the Pitts. Many others as well, but those just struck a chord with me.

I'm so glad that the dedicated owners and craftsmen who are making sure these beauties soldier on, have the desire, ability and time, (plus deep pockets,) to stay on top of the care needed. It won't be much longer before some of the early types will see the century mark, and they still look and fly beautifully.

So, I know the antique aircraft market is limited for the model manufacturers, they do need to have a return on their investments, but still I would love to see a few more of the above kitted in 1;48th or 1:32. I bought the latest Revell Stearman and it looks to be a great kit.

Maybe a 1:32nd Reliant, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE?????????

Patrick

I would be VERY interested in a 1/48 Extra 300, Super Skybolt, Pits, Etc. if anybody made one. Maybe they do and I just can't find it.

I would even be happy with any of them in 1/72.

I guess one of the reasons for the scale problem- too many scales represented in civil aircraft- may be an indication of the wide range of aircraft types that fit under the category of "civil aircraft."

With military, we have bombers, fighters, recon, and transports.  But civil varies all the way from tiny Formula 1 racers and aerobatic planes like Stits up to giant airliners like the A-380s and 787s.  From crop dusters to biz jets to NASA planes.  And, of course, for any type size varies with age.  Even military has that problem- 1:72 WW1 planes are tiny, modern bombers and mil transports are hugeeven in same scale.

I see Roden has a Jetstar in 1:144.  Sounds like it would be pretty small, but I think I will try one- like to do more business jets (still need to finish my Testors Learjet in  1:48).

Between the draw of the box art & the fact that my Grandfather had served in WW2, when I was a kid I simply couldn't get past the excitement of making something like a Spit of FW-190. This seems to have set a trend through my teenage years & since returning little has changed.

Airliners are generally very sleek & white, once the fuselage has been zipped up & wings fitted there isn't really that much to do or look at, no guns, turrets, camo, pylons or weapons.

The few airliner models that I have made have let me down on the windows side of things, not great fitting & if you can see through them, not much to see. When I was younger the large fuselage length decals were also pretty hard to deal with. I can clearly remember searching for Christmas presents in the house as a child & finding an Airfix BAC 1-11 - I can clearly remember thinking "where on earth did they get that idea from".

On thinking about it, it can't be the sleek / white thing as I had great pleasure in building Trumpeters Tu-160, which is very sleek & white - I suppose it does have swing wings, nukes & huge engines though... 

Maybe people just like flashy things that go fast. I had a collection of airline kits when I was a kid, but now enjoy mostly military craft. I have been interested in trying another commercial aircraft, but hesitate to due the reasons mentioned above. Glossy finishes, complicated decal/paint schemes and the bare metal usually seen on wings.

I had a school friend who's father was an airline pilot, and this kid lived and breathed airliners.His room was filled with with models of them and often went out to just hang out at the airport.  

I remember Art Scholl at the small airshows I went to in my younger years. His act was amazing. Watching him do a lumshevak was an experience! Bob Hover was another great airshow pilot.

I believe Art Scholl died filming "Top Gun"

For those unfamiliar with a lumshevak here you go:

www.youtube.com/watch

That was Art Scholl, Don. He always flew with his little dog Aileron, they departed Earth together while practicing for an airshow, quite a pilot.

Patrick

That Ercoupe sounds fun, Don,,,,,,and I don't know why, but reading your post made me wish there was a Mooney in 1/72. I also always wanted a Navion in 1/72, to complete my "Mustang to Fury" collection, and I had hoped that someone would someday replace the Aurora (?) Air Commander kit (I had that one so long ago that I have forgotten who released it)

 For me it is the scale and numbers.  I like to have more than one of an aircraft that i'm interested in.  1/200 was a fun scale for me.  I had 8 747's and even more of other airliners.  There were also a number of websites that you could get decals from for  a reasonable price.  

      Hasagawa put most of this scale on the back burner , so I made an airport for my son and gave him my models.  I am not a great modeler so no quality was harmed in this action.

       As for the lack of interest,  the comments that have been posted explain much and are really interesting.  My two additions will be about engines and subject matter.

       I find the engines on airliners really interesting,  like the difference between the ones on a 727-200 and a 777,  yet model companies treat them like afterthoughts.  Making the engines a well engineered kit within a kit would help with interest.  ( Maybe ).

       It was considered a risk when Hasagawa brought out their new tool 109 all those years ago because jets ruled.  The risk paid off and the rest is history.  Although it would never reach the interest of other modeling subjects,  well engineered and tooled  civilian/military subject matter might have legs.  I know it would lighten my wallet.

       Thank-you Don for starting this thread.  It has been very informative.

                                                                                                                                 knox

Hmm.  My own dream is to have a Lear.  However, not only could I not afford the plane in the first place, I couldn't afford the operating costs :-)   However, sure would like to be able to buzz around at 40,000 feet right near the Mach corner, and get to destinations in a hurry.

I wonder if the "more military kits available" situation is a chicken and egg thing.  More interest makes mfgs put out more kits, vs more people like military because more kits.

I guess I went to more small, local airshows than the big ones, so I saw much more civil aircraft flying.  Not many of the shows I went to featured Blue Angels or Thunderbirds, but sure saw a lot of Betty Skelton, Art-- forget his last name, my age is catching up to me- with the Dehavilland trainer, and lots of Pitts and Wacos being thrown around the skies.  Maybe that is why I like the civil stuff more.  Hung around the pea patch airports, not the international ones.

Sure wish there were a decent Ercoupe kit available- only plane I ever owned.  Loved it, nice airplane.

part of the reason that there aren't more civil aircraft models is explained in this thread

Civil aircraft include quite a few real hot rods,,,,,,but, most people think airliner when they read civil aircraft.  This ignores the Pitts, the Bonanza, the Lear, the Starship, the Cub,  the Sneider Cup aircraft, the DH 88, and things like Able Cat and Miss America. Heck, even the AG Cat would be a fun civil aircraft to build.  And color schemes are very much NOT limited to Airline livery.

I have been enjoying the flybys during race coverage lately, lots of different civil aircraft and warbirds instead of jets flashing past.