Why is space so unpopular!!!

Bgrigg wrote:

You're missing the point of space exploration. Which is no different than Columbus sailing around the globe, or Hudson trying to find the Northwest Passage. The majority of technological advances of the past 50 years are direct descendents of the quest for space. I'm repeating an earlier post, but the entire Apollo mission cost less than American women spend on cosmetics in one year. If you are serious about solving starvation and genocide, then you should join the chorus of people lobbying for further expansion into space. It is by pushing the boundaries that our civilization grows and matures.

I understand your point...but theory and reality sometimes cannot be bridged...our tax dollars are not paying for womens' cosmetics, so I don't care...and there are differences in exploring the North American continent (where there is oxygen and food to sustain life) and sending three of four priveliged astronauts to a place that won't support human life...and I disagree with your figure that "most" major tech advances are a result of space...most are actually a result of military conflict...  

 

You're missing the point of space exploration. Which is no different than Columbus sailing around the globe, or Hudson trying to find the Northwest Passage. The majority of technological advances of the past 50 years are direct descendents of the quest for space. I'm repeating an earlier post, but the entire Apollo mission cost less than American women spend on cosmetics in one year.

If you are serious about solving starvation and genocide, then you should join the chorus of people lobbying for further expansion into space. It is by pushing the boundaries that our civilization grows and matures.

ww2modeler wrote:

My dad is an engineer and we were having a discussion when one of the shuttles burned up, He said that from an engineering standpoint, its a miracle that we've only lost 2 of the shuttles, but most people don't understand space exploation beyond what they are taught in school which is very little because most of it is about space. Also, look at the past and now, kids used to listen to Rock and Roll and now they listen to RAP and Hip Hop. Also, kids nowadays seem more interested in fantasy and fiction instead of history. At my school, on December 7th, there was not a single acknowedgement that today was when Pearl Harbor took place but there was announcing who one the Superbowl! That goes the same for space, theres nothing big on the news, maybe an article in the newspaper. Alot of people look at space exploration as just another thing, overshadowed by cars, fashion, and millions of other things. I think another reason is that somebody said "I saw the first man on the moon, I never thought I'd see the last one" I think alot more interest will be generated when NASA goes back to the moon in 2009. David

...I believe they plan on a trip to Mars; haven't heard about the moon shot...as far as I'm concerned more wasted tax dollars so a few people can get off by riding on rockets and walk on another planet...and the 500 lb gorilla no one wants to acknowledge is that space travel is impractical and far too expensive when we haven't tackled the "small stuff" on earth, like starvation...and genocide...

My dad is an engineer and we were having a discussion when one of the shuttles burned up, He said that from an engineering standpoint, its a miracle that we've only lost 2 of the shuttles, but most people don't understand space exploation beyond what they are taught in school which is very little because most of it is about space. Also, look at the past and now, kids used to listen to Rock and Roll and now they listen to RAP and Hip Hop. Also, kids nowadays seem more interested in fantasy and fiction instead of history. At my school, on December 7th, there was not a single acknowedgement that today was when Pearl Harbor took place but there was announcing who one the Superbowl! That goes the same for space, theres nothing big on the news, maybe an article in the newspaper. Alot of people look at space exploration as just another thing, overshadowed by cars, fashion, and millions of other things. I think another reason is that somebody said "I saw the first man on the moon, I never thought I'd see the last one" I think alot more interest will be generated when NASA goes back to the moon in 2009.

David

RO,

Growing up on Long Island you herd about the old "missle" sites nearby, that my older brothers would talk about, but by the time I was in High School they were all torn up and decommisioned. They were in our back yards, built durning the hieght of the cold war. There was one in particular we use to hang out in when we were teenagers, but never gave it much thought. When I found out what they were, it grabbed my interest, but by then they were torn up and sold to real estate developers. Not many people can say they grew up around such places.

 Like I said before, I would Love to see it in 1/35, I'm sure it would make for some good modeling, a subject of the cold war you don't see anybody discuss, espcially in these forums.

Tamiya you listening?

It's interesting that I found this topic. My wife and I were talking about this the other day. I was born, gre up and still live in Florida. I was born here in 1970, so I'm not really old enough to remember the man on the moon. My mother did however save the newspapers back when it happened and I did read them all when I was older.  I still remember watching rockets launch from my home.  I live in the middle of the state and can see the launch about 30 sec- 1 minute into launch.  It's amazing still to see it.  I have been able to instill that facination into my 3 year old son also.  But we are a VERY SMALL minority.

The Space Program has lost the ability and the will to capture the imagination of the masses.  When most people talk about Space, it's to ask questions about why we are even still there.  Back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, it was all new and exciting.  Now, it's the same old thing.  When I get into a conversation about the space program, it really ticks me off.  I really don't think we have what it takes anymore to "get the job done".  Ex. The computer I am typing this message on right now, has more raw computing power than was used to put a man on the moon.  We have become too "safe and Protected" to be able to get back into exploration.  When the first manned mission burned up on the pad during preflight rehearsal, they carried on.  Yes, they had inquires and investigations, but they kept moving forward with the program.  Now, when they find a seal that MIGHT cause a problem, they shut down the program for months or even years, have a full Senate investigation, get rid of the people in charge of the program(even if they were not even there in the beginning of the issue) and put the program back years.  We are too sensitive now as a society to be able to do what needs to be done.  Spcae exploration is dangerous.  We forget that until something bad happens, then, there is a huge public anc political outcry.

We just don't know how to "Deal with it and move on" like our parents did.

Hello, guys. Greetings from Brazil.

First of all, great topic. I read through most of it and would like to contribute with my couple of cents .

I was born in 1970, so I never really saw Apollo 11 and was too small to remember the other Apollo flights. I remember when Skylab fell from the sky (it was all over the news for a few days) and I was amazed by the images from Voyager I and II.  But one of the more vivid memories of the space program I have, is Columbia's first flight and landing. So, I have to say, I just love the shuttle. I think it's a fantastic machine from an engineering point of view but I think it never really fulfilled the expectations of it being a workhorse craft that would allow frequent and inexpensive space flights (at least, I remember reading as a kid that re-usable rockets were supposed to be cheaper than the disposable ones). But it does look really cool, in my opinion.

Apollo on the other hand, is one of the greatest things mankind ever accomplished. It was something epic that will probably never happen again in our lifetime.

When I talk to my friends about the Shuttle, Apollo or the russian space program, most people are just superficially interested. Some of my engineer coleagues also share the admiration I have to these really amazing human endeavours. But for most people, I think they cannot relate to that. They never dreamed about becoming an astronaut or being part of this somehow.  And I think it reflects on the modelers interests as well.

As far as modeling interests goes, I am very open-minded. I build anything, but my main interests are around airplanes, space, sci-fi and navy ships. Most of my airplanes are soviet and russian or german WWII fighters. I grew up in the 70's and 80's. So, although I live in a country that was not directly involved in the Cold War, it was a recurrent theme in all the movies, TV shows or comic books that I had contact with (most originally from America). Soviet/Russian aircraft were misterious. There was not a lot of information available. The pictures I saw were all grainy, black and white, blured. Russians were usually portrayed as the "bad guys". It all contributed to my interest on them.  And I think the same is valid to WWII german airplanes. With the addition of very cool camouflages. Building "bad guys" models is somehow attractive. I wonder if there is more interest among Star War fans in building Tie-fighters or Star destroyers as opposed to X-wings or other rebel crafts.

 I currently have a 1/144 shuttle project on the way and I am almost finishing a 1/288 Buran. I still have 3 other shuttles stashed in my closet waiting their turn on my workbench, togeteher with a 1/144 Saturn V and a 1/32 Apollo CSM.

Regards,

Luis 

 

 

 

I think the generation gap has alot to do with it,as alot of modelers were born into a world with a space shuttle.I remember vividly as a child listen to walter crankcase,coach the eagle in for a landing,and watched Neil take his step on a small black and white t.v.,every kid on my block had the john glenn flattop haircut,and you drank tang even if it tasted like fishtank water.I also remember these silly putty like things,they called space foodsticks,which weren't the greatest but no worse than MREs!LOLThe space program was big and people were proud to be Americans over it,in a very bad time in american history as the late sixties were not so hot.I think that is the only single moement in my life that the whole world watched in awe as Neil walked on the moon,or in the desert as my great-grandmother said until her death bed.lol,she never bought the fact that man walked on the moon.I think it was a family thing too,building the gulf station,cardboard LM with my father,it was something that everybody could relate to,now adays it's paris hilton going to jail on the news,my hemorrhoids weep for her.I think we had better start looking back to space,because we have about wore out mother earth.Pay no attention to the raving of a middle aged man,at 4:00a.m.,where's my walker?lol

sb36 wrote:

To begin with I would ask myself what is it that draws my attention to this subject. Launch vehicles? Space Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini ect. For me it was the space race that got me. As a small boy I remember my grandmother taking me to kennedy space center and looking at the Skylab Saturn V on the gantry. I remember being in such awe at such a huge machine. From that point on I was hooked. I remeber following very closly the upcoming Skylab shots and missions. Watching John Chansolor on NBC giving all the details. Then Apollo-Soyuz, and that got me very interested in the Soviet Space Program.When I was in the Marines I had the oppurtunity to study Soviet short and medium range missles. Good stuff. So to get back to your question, what kits? Well there are the traditional Apollo Saturns, a recently re-issued 1/32 Apollo command mod. In resin, there are allot of different choices from Launch Vehs, to exploration spacecraft, to ICBMs. They are more money, but usually worth it. Exceptional detail in the resin. There were allot of different Soviet armored vehs that were used from transportation of ICBMs, to moble lauchers of various types of missles. Only after Desert Storm did we see a moble scud launcher in 1/35. I would Love to see more of these. Nike missle launchers in 1/35, good missle stuff from the 50's and 60's, but you don't see much in 1/35. Take your time and reserch, then go online and search! Cheers, Steve

Steve,

I am just completing an Apollo CSM from the recent reissue by Monogram. I have an older Monogram CSM that I bought from Ebay a while back but it was missing all the clear parts.  It was original factory seal, I think they never made it into the box at the factory.  Before the CSM, I did a version of the LEM from Monogram.  Cool kit with the moon surface and coupla dudes in suits. :)  I also built a Nike Hercules with launcher kit and I have the Nike Ajax with launcher kit on my shelf, along with the Revell History Makers V-2 with launcher.

Normally, I am into WWII airplanes and some armor - though in real life I am an astronomer and witnessed the Apollo landings etc.  But what got me back into this area of modelling was my wife.  She started taking classes in space studies and had no clue about any of this stuff.  Being 9 years younger than me, she just missed all of it.  She only vaguely knew about Apollo, had no idea what the "LEM" was and had never, ever heard of the Nike defence shields.

Now, that particular thing - the Nikes - allowed me to give her some real field research and first hand experience!  There's two old Nike sites within a couple of miles of our home.  One of them, a launch site, is almost completely intact still - and it's open to public access.  The field next to it is a soccer field for the kids.  My wife had never known that these places ever existed nor what they were, so we went out there a couple weeks ago and climbed all around, taking pictures of the missile silos, the old air shafts, the missile assembly and armory buildings, the old barracks, old lights, gates, roadways, fueling areas, etc.  The buildings are falling apart but they are cool in their own way.  We had a lot of fun exploring and the wife learned a bit about local history.  I will be posting pictures on my website soon.  We will be heading out to the other nearby one soon to check it out.  I haven't been to that one in a very long time so I am not sure about its status.  Of the 12 that were around here when I was a kid, I know at least 5 of them still exist and are in varying degrees of intactness. 

These Nike sites existed around a number of the major cities back in the day (1957-1974 or so).  Many of them are still there, abandonded.  They make for interesting places to visit and see, first hand, some of our history and, in this case, where some of the models we build actually existed in real life.

-Ro

...something to consider: I feel that space subjects are overshadowed by many things. Many military modelers served in the military themselves, so building a jeep or tank is close to that person's life experiences...very few people are lucky enough to travel in space, by comparison. In addition, the population as a whole has lost a lot of interest in the space program that seemed to peak, in my opinion, in the late 60's...the promise didn't meet what was delivered...in a pragmatic sense, space travel on a large scale will always be too expensive, dangerous and impractical...

...also, German tanks kick butt...(sorry, couldn't resist)...

To begin with I would ask myself what is it that draws my attention to this subject. Launch vehicles? Space Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini ect. For me it was the space race that got me. As a small boy I remember my grandmother taking me to kennedy space center and looking at the Skylab Saturn V on the gantry. I remember being in such awe at such a huge machine. From that point on I was hooked. I remeber following very closly the upcoming Skylab shots and missions. Watching John Chansolor on NBC giving all the details. Then Apollo-Soyuz, and that got me very interested in the Soviet Space Program.When I was in the Marines I had the oppurtunity to study Soviet short and medium range missles. Good stuff.

So to get back to your question, what kits? Well there are the traditional Apollo Saturns, a recently re-issued 1/32 Apollo command mod. In resin, there are allot of different choices from Launch Vehs, to exploration spacecraft, to ICBMs. They are more money, but usually worth it. Exceptional detail in the resin. There were allot of different Soviet armored vehs that were used from transportation of ICBMs, to moble lauchers of various types of missles. Only after Desert Storm did we see a moble scud launcher in 1/35. I would Love to see more of these. Nike missle launchers in 1/35, good missle stuff from the 50's and 60's, but you don't see much in 1/35.

Take your time and reserch, then go online and search!

Cheers, Steve

---

---

Gosh, I remember building a V2 complete with rocket launcher back when I was a kid.  Are there any modern kits of the V1 or V2?  Or are e-bay and model clubs the only option.

Question for you space fans out there.  If you were just getting started building space subjects, what are good kits to build?  Star Trek?  Star Wars?  Any real things like a Saturn V available?

So, seriously, while I agree there is a plethora of German armor/aircraft etc....let's take this thread slightly back to the Space arena....

How many of you have built a model of the V-1 Buzz Bomb and/or the V-2 (or A-4)?  Both very important weapons and predecessors of the modern space age.

Tamiya has a cool little V-1.  It's like 12 parts but is a fun build.  Revell had a decent version of V-2. Both are in my collection.

As a note of interesting trivia, Werner von Braun, the man behind these and other weapons - and also the man behind our Saturn V rocket that helped get us to the moon was a Nazi party member and supporter.  He has the dubious distinction of being the only known person in history to have worked directly with both Adolf Hitler and Walt Disney.

Go figure!

-Ro

Time to kill this thread boys.

Well said, Bgrigg! 

Sorry guys, ever since the word 'politics' was raised in this discussion (not by me) it's jumped on that horse and galloped away.  I've tried to rein it in and back to my point but I lack the skill with words to get my point across.  Never mind, it was all a bit vague anyway...

I have no objection to other people building models of German WWII subjects - I just want to know why they are so much more popular than anything else!

I don't take offense at anything said above, I think some very good points have been raised, but I admit it, I'm idealistic and I do tend to look at the world in terms of black and white.  I think fondly back to the 60's; peace, love and flowerpower etc (I'm an ageing hippy, man!!)

If there were a good model kit of a tractor you can be sure there'd be one in my stash, I can think of some great diorama possibilities.  Currently I have a number of sailing ships (plastic and wood), a Star Trek Enterprise, a drum kit(!), a guitar(!!), several cars, a wooden farm cart, a Forbidden Planet spaceship and a model of Neuschwannstein castle to name only a few, but not a single German, Israel, Chinese, Russian or even US tank.  There is, strangely enough, a U-Boat, but that's reserved for a special project.

What brought me into this discussion in the first instance, apart from my cynical view of the world, was the fact that I, too, have no (real) space related models in hand.  I did build a couple of shuttles way back but the interest seems to have waned.  A good kit of the Apollo LEM wouldn't go amiss and I'm on the lookout for the Airfix version which I built way back when and reckon was the best one.

It seems we might be testing the patience of other Space forum users (odd, considering the dearth of post herein), but while we've covered a fair bit of ground, I don't think we've lost the 'thread'.  Anyhow, I'm gonna drop out - have fun.

Michael 

...oops, I think I am in the wrong thread---excuse me!

That's supposed to be the story. Germany remains at fault though, as the original German mission that went awry was still an act of extreme agression and war, with no guarantees that civilian life would be spared. There is ample evidence that the Nazis didn't frown on massive extermination of civilians.

Sadly, civilian deaths are a sad fact of life, and it's only been recently that there has been a supposed aversion to innocent casualties. I so note that the insurgents in Iraq don't shy away from killing civilians, or destroying holy artifacts. I also note that the bombing of Normandy in preparation of D Day resulted in 10,000 French civilian deaths, yet the invaders were still welcomed and hailed as liberators. It's an odd world.

Regardless, that shouldn't stop people from modeling Nazi subjects, if that is their want. It's disappointing to me that there is a preponderance of German armor compared to US or Allied, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying my chosen hobby. I admit that I have four armor kits in the stash and only one isn't German! There is just a single Sherman to try and stave off the dreaded Blitzkreig!

Equally, if you don't wish to model German armor, then no complaing that your choices are limited, just because a majority of people don't share your view.

All of which illustrates why there should be more kits about space. That way we could get 'above' all the politics. (Yeah, right!)

 Again, just trying to get the facts straight in my own head.

Can anyone clarify this for me?  Wasn't the first time that London was bombed an accident by a wayward He 111 crew that had some "navigation" issues?  I remember reading that somewhere, or seeing it on the History/Military channel.  If I recall correcly, the Brits retaliated, and then Hitler ordered the bombing of London. 

Unfortunately, bombing of civilian targets became a harsh reality of warfare in WWII... terrible.   Hundreds of thousands of Germans civilians died from allied bombers.  The human catastrophe that was WWII is almost unimaginable today.

Well said, Scott!

 

espins1 wrote:

By the way, I'm not attacking you or your beliefs.  Just curious as to your thought process and why.

..and for the record, neither am I, Michael, although, based on the content of some projects I've completed, they have been questioned (rather harshly) by individuals outside of our modeling community. If I implied in any way that I was then you have my sincerest apologies, as it was not my intent to do so. 

MJH wrote:

Finally, I personally cannot respect any man whether he agreed or disagreed with the Nazi government in principle while carrying out its wishes on the battlefield, invading another country, attempting to enslave people and murdering civilians by indiscriminate bombing such as Rotterdam and London.  Max Aitkin, son of Lord Beaverbrook, who was an RAF fighter pilot during the Battle of Britain expressed no such chivalrous respect for his foes - he hated them and said so, and that would have been my attitude.  For that reason, while I might build an aircraft, tank or ship to honour a particular warrior or group, they would never be from the aggressor's side, in that war or any other.  Michael

Everyone has their reasons for choosing or not choosing what they build.  Just out of curiosity, how to you feel about building a Russian T-34/85 or a JSIII?  Does building a T-34/85 indicate an affinity for Communism?  Does building such a thing mean that one is supporting the occupation and brutalization of Eastern Europe?  Or does it simply mean you like the tank, think it looks cool and want it to be a part of your armor collection?

What about a MiG15?  Chinese Markings?  North Korean?  What subjects interest you from say the Middle East, Israeli?  Egyptian?  None of the above?  If we use politics as a reason to choose the topics we build, then the list of available subjects becomes very small indeed.

I'm curious how building a Tiger Tank glorifies or in any way indicates support for the Nazis or what the Germans did as an agressor nation.  I'll be willing to bet that a large part of what people choose to build boils down to aesthetics.  Let's face it, Tiger tanks look great!    It was a tough, hard hitting tank.  A tankers tank.  Then take a look at British armor in WWII... mediocre at best, and about as attractive as a farm tractor.  LOL

By the way, I'm not attacking you or your beliefs.  Just curious as to your thought process and why.  There is no black and white, just many shades of gray. 

And just for the record, I have the following tanks proudly displayed in my display case:

Sherman M4A3
T-34/85
JagdPanther
Panther Ausf. A

Oh, and someday soon I'll have a Space Shuttle in the case.  A good friend on the forums is hooking me up with a 1/72 Space Shuttle kit, who knows, maybe I'll get the space bug and build some other space subjects. 

Whoa there guys!  Let's backtrack a moment; I didn't say, or intend to imply, that this predilection for WWII German models was in any way related to admiration for the Nazi Party or any of its odious doings, though to be sure the German armed forces were willing participants for the most part, at least when things were going well. <>The idea of anyone using our hobby as a means to pay homage to such an abhorrent cause is creepy indeed.

No, what I'm trying to say is that I think there's some sort of mystique (and I'm sorry to keep harping back to that word but it's the only one I can find that comes close to describing it) attached to whole subject.  Perhaps it's awe at the speed and success of blitzkrieg, or some kind of misplaced respect for a nation and economy absolutely dedicated to war and conquest. Or is it (as I suspect) a sneaking, never-to-be-admitted fascination with the idea of totally throwing off the moral shackles of civilization and returning to the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest (or at least the strongest) - which was, after all, the basis of Nazi philosophy?  

This is getting a bit deep and psychological and I'm afraid I'm out of my depth but it seems to me, and once again I'm quite open to correction, that German WWII military models make up at least 50% of armour models one can find on the local hobby shop's shelves, far outnumbering those of any other nation.  The marketplace responds to demand - we all know that - therefore this obsession is driven by the consumers and what they want.  It can't all be aesthetics, it can't all be respect for individual courage.

Finally, I personally cannot respect any man whether he agreed or disagreed with the Nazi government in principle while carrying out its wishes on the battlefield, invading another country, attempting to enslave people and murdering civilians by indiscriminate bombing such as Rotterdam and London.  Max Aitkin, son of Lord Beaverbrook, who was an RAF fighter pilot during the Battle of Britain expressed no such chivalrous respect for his foes - he hated them and said so, and that would have been my attitude. 

For that reason, while I might build an aircraft, tank or ship to honour a particular warrior or group, they would never be from the aggressor's side, in that war or any other. 

Michael 

Michael, first I'd like to say that I'm enjoying this discussion immensely!

You bring up some interesting points. Without knowing the inner workings of each modeler, it would be impossible to say with no uncertainty if their subject choices are politically motivated. Believe me when I say that some of my luftwaffe subjects, when seen by friends who are not involved in the hobby per se, receive negative comments that question my motives behind the build. I tried to assure them to the best of my abilities that what I model is based solely on what I find attractive from a visual standpoint. Just the variety alone of work we see here from the members who build military models seems to me a good indicator that the builds are not politically driven. I would also like to say though that I do see builds that are 'nationality' motivated. I find these two types of motivation to be totally different, simply because not everyone from the same national background embraces the same political views, yet taking pride in one's nationality and honoring those who fought to defend their freedoms by immortalizing them in plastic seems to me an acceptable way of showing respect for what they did.

You say here "I still think it's the association with the war that accounts for its attraction to the greater masses however." I cannot dispute that. I myself find military subjects very interesting, but mainly from a human standpoint. What I mean is, for example when I build a P-38, I will specifically build Richard Bong's P-38. It's more about the individual who made the ultimate sacrifice for his/my country (I'm a transplanted NY'er living in Canada). One project I have planned is to build a Sopwith Camel with Canadian ace Barker's markings, again for the same reason. I honestly believe that there were Luftwaffe pilots did not embrace their country's political views and fought soley because their first duty was to their home. To go against the political flow of your country's leaders and at the same time be willing to die because of your governments mistakes says an awful lot to me about the character of an individual. I feel they should not be forgotten either.

Hi Michael,

It is interesting that there seems to be such a great interest in the German Military from WWII.  I think a lot of it has to do with the stunning successes they had in the beginning which revolutionized modern warfare.  It's not unhealthy to build German subjects, unless one is also spouting off Nazi ideology and all the disgusting horror that goes with it.  

If we were to use the political ideology as a rationale to deside which subjects to build then is building a series of T-34 tanks an endorsement of Stalin and his madness?  After all, Stalin had one of the most ruthless and brutal regimes in all of history.  Would modeling a British warship during the age of their empire be espousing imperialism?  I'm sure the subjugated people of that time view that issue much differently than say you or me.  What about a Spanish Galleon that was used during Spains conquest of the native people in the Americas?  Something to think about....  

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.    I personally think the Bf109 is gorgeous, and so is the Spitfire, but the Bf109 interests me far more than the Spitfire.  Not sure why really, I just am fascinated with the Bf109.  What interests each and everyone of us is totally subjective however.  We each like what we like, be it space, aircraft, WWI, WWII, German, British whatever. 

p.s. yes, there are a lot of messed up priorities in modern society by the way.... 

 

Like yourself Mike, I don't stick to a particular genre, cherry-picking what I like or what appeals to me from any or all of them.

I can understand your point about the aesthetics of the Tiger tank, it's appeal is interesting considering the designers were in no mood to make concessions to appearance.  I don't like it but I appreciate it's attraction.  Not so the '109, to my mind definitely among the uglier aircraft of WWII.  Like the Tiger it was built to a purpose yet the Spitfire, built to exactly the same purpose, is undeniably beautiful.  The necessities of streamlining and drag reduction give aircraft a head start because the sweeping lines appeal to the eye, but somehow the 109's square canopy and the inverted V engine contrive to ruin it in my eye.

I still think it's the association with the war that accounts for its attraction to the greater masses however.  Is there the most insignificant machine or weapon of the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe that has not yet been modelled?  One company, Tamiya I think, even model a German field kitchen, complete with waggon and horses!  Where is the model of a British or US field kitchen?  Non-existent as far as I know (I'll be happy to be corrected).

There is a following for the Nazi war machine that I find disturbing and unhealthy and as for the so-called "Luftwaffe 1946".....  If that goes any further we'll be seeing space shuttles with 30mm cannon and Swastikas on the tail!!!!!

Sorry, I haven't had a good rant in ages, I just think the human race has it's priorities wrong.

Michael 

MJH wrote:

Why is the Tiger (or Me109, or any of the other loser's hardware) so popular it get's modelled in every concievable position, condition and environment?  Why are people interested in what were, after all, failures?

Very interesting and thought-provoking questions, Michael. I do not presently have the answers to all you posted (but I am going to give them a lot of thought), but to the above quote, yes, I can explain why I myself model what I do. It has a lot to do with aesthetic appeal. If the Tiger was as successful as the Sherman and built in the US it would not increase or lessen it's appeal in my eyes. If all 109's were painted olive drab and neutral grey, I would probably build one, maybe two if a NMF was an option. I'd like to add that a subject does not have to be military in nature for me to admire it to the extent that I'd want a scale reproduction of it sitting on my shelves. I've built race cars (not many...only the ones that really caught my eye), figures, boats, dollhouse furniture, whatever I find visually pleasing, and like Scott, I do much research, as it combines my love of reading with my thirst for knowledge and desire to produce as accurate a replica as my abilities permit me to do.

espins1 wrote:

The realities are that most people are more interested in the Tiger, even though from your view points it's been done to death.  I have 3 in the stash, what can I say, I like them.  When the kit manufacturers produce Tigers, people buy them.  They sell a lot of Tigers.  When they produce a Space Shuttle they sell only a handful compared to the Tiger.  You can't change peoples interests.  They're interested in what they like.  It really is that simple.  The market just isn't there for space subjects as it is for tanks and aircraft.  People will complain just as much about the quantity of WWII subjects that there are out there compared to modern stuff.  Well, more people who build models are into WWII than other eras.  Kit manufacturers produce what sells, bottom line.

Call me a cynic but this is precisely my point, isn't it?

Why is the Tiger (or Me109, or any of the other loser's hardware) so popular it get's modelled in every concievable position, condition and environment?  Why are people interested in what were, after all, failures?  The Tiger had a negligible effect on the the course of the war and was plagued by problems; the 109, whose only equal in 1940 was the Spitfire, went downhill from there (cue indignant retorts from 109 fans) despite its numbers, yet both bathe in the warm glow of the 'mystique' of war.

Add to this 'mystique' the enormous range of scenarios offered by the war environment and it's plain why these subjects are so popular in the marketplace.

I bet you a missile-armed shuttle would outsell the standard model 10:1.

And yes, I think that's sad. 

Michael 

espins1 wrote:

Eventually, I'm sure I'll have a Space Shuttle in the collection.  I have to admit I'm getting a bit interested in some Star Trek kits as one of the guys in our model club brought in a completed Romulan Bird of Prey or something like that which was really cool.  Makes me want to build one.

PM inbound........ 

Eventually, I'm sure I'll have a Space Shuttle in the collection.  I have to admit I'm getting a bit interested in some Star Trek kits as one of the guys in our model club brought in a completed Romulan Bird of Prey or something like that which was really cool.  Makes me want to build one. 

I have to agree with you, Scott. From the years I've spent in this hobby, certain subjects have appealed to me on a much greater scale, and a lot of that has to do with the variety of ways they could be built, with the research involved only adding to that appeal. I may actually try a model of the space shuttle someday, but it would be a one-time thing. The need for variety and diversity in anything we do is only natural.

ruddratt wrote:

I would think that much of the appeal of the Tiger (and armor in general) is the many different conditions it can be modeled and displayed in, whether it be different degrees of battle damage or weathering, off the assembly line, full or partial interiors, in their natural element (the battlefield) enhanced with accessories, undergoing different types of maintenance, etc. Those, coupled with the number of actual makes and variants, create almost endless possiblities and guarantee a much greater possiblility of uniqueness to each build (at least that's how I see it).

Well said Mike.  For me, I research the crap out of everything I build.  When I'm building a Tiger or a Bf109 for example, I'm modeling a particular moment in time, a snapshot from a big historic battle, or a plane flown by somebody famous (like Werner Molders).  Also, since I read a lot, mostly WWII subjects, the books I read also influence what I want to build. 

There were hundreds of tigers built (and over 36,000 Bf109s) and there is a wealth of information out there, pictures, stories, facts etc.  The participated in some of the key turning points in history.

If you look the Space Shuttle (very cool by the way) there were only a handful of them.  And they pretty much look the same each mission.  It's like once you've built a space shuttle kit, you've built them all.

Although again, I can certainly understand why some of you are bit disappointed.  I'd be bummed too if there were just a few kits out there of my favorite subjects.