Thoughts on Accuracy

[RAA188]

Hi all-

Y’know, having stumbled over the innumerable comments in the 1:144 27 thread from 2024, I have an honest question for the crowd.

It’s long been known that the oft-vaunted 1:200 Platz SP was “awesome” (to use one member’s word). Someone to remain nameless actually offered me over $1,000 and to fly up here to buy my one production kit. Tho to this day I cringe at what looks right & what doesn’t, in spite of having drawings, photos from a couple feet away, and a walkthrough with a tape measure and a square of one rather ignominiously being scrapped in Oklahoma.

As I’m doing this entirely by hand now as a one-off in 1:72, I’m flashing back to the question, first commented upon (in my life) in an old FSM article. To wit:

Some things just plain don’t look right when they’re “perfect” in scale. This is after all as much human perception (Hi, Color Police! 😁) as it is being dimensionally accurate to the infinite level. FSM used the example of an automotive model fender, that was proclaimed the best available, but when taken up to full scale it was off by visible measure.

Or as we said in my engineering program in college, “Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe.” Then again, it was the 1980s, with a goodly amount of beer between the CAD workstation and the wind tunnel…

IOW, if it *looks* “right” or “perfect,” does it matter whether or not it truly is? Just as colors shift, so do angles, curves, light, all the rest. I still remember the folks who were floored back in 2016 when I gave my Beatles PA 07-320 seminar when I showed that the aft lobe crease on the Heller kit is almost 17mm longer on one side than the other, and that the flight deck is a mere 2mm too high, and looks great…Until you slap on a cheatline.

So after all this blathering on, what really is “perfect?” And in the grand scheme, does it matter?

I’m sure there are lots of opinions on this one, but I’m pretty thick skinned about it, so let the fun begin 😜

Rob in AK

---

Shoot for the stars, reach your new flight level and fly true.

[Convair990A]

Well, i’m not a rivet counter, but if something doesn’t “Look” right on a model, i’ll evaluate how much work it will take to fix.

For example, the old, rivet encrusted, yet fondly-loved Revell 727. Just about everybody builds these more or less out of the box, but as you alluded to it, all it takes is a cheatline that doesn’t line up somewhere to spoil the fun.

In the Revell case, the cockpit was too high, so i lopped off the front end, lowered the cab, sanded everything smooth, and now i’m happy.

I know it seems like a draconian measure, but it’s not hard…. if you have the right tools.

And even if things went pear-shaped, the cost of the kit is negligible.

There are other things i did to this kit to improve it, but the nose cab is a clear -and dare i say it dramatic- example.

---

Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.

[RAA188]

Well, there you have it. All I can do is the best with what I have, and take it on faith there’s *way* more DC-3 WBF designs than you think 😁

That 27 is gorgeous; I’d love to scale it up to my 1:32 fascination (IMO it’s the best airplane Boeing ever made) so keep up the good work. Build what you like, how you like it, and in the words of Jim Messina “Follow your dreams, and do what you love to do.”

Rob in AK

---

Shoot for the stars, reach your new flight level and fly true.

[RAA188]

Funny enough, both the 07 & 27 “classic” models like the Revell & Heller kits are dead-on accurate with the Boeing drawings. Right down to the 43 Section quirk.

Which makes me wonder in a chicken/egg way, in all the years before CAD, etc. just how were these birds built to fly? Never ask me to make another VC-10–they were all hand built, as BA & the RAF came to realize…I converted an Airfix 1:72 Nimrod back to the penultimate Comet 4 years back in Raspberry Ripple colors, and was astounded to find the fuselage contours nearly perfectly fit a standard (USA, anyway) French Curve. So was it a cheat on Airfix’ part, or did DH follow Kelley Johnson’s old adage that if it looks right, it’ll fly right?

Who knows…But that model, and my innumerable 27s sure look good to me…

Rob in AK

---

Shoot for the stars, reach your new flight level and fly true.

[LH707]

Two observations on this:

1. Our eyes are good at recognizing certain shapes quickly and will notice if they’re wrong. Things like right angles or straight lines. Spotting a wavy cheatline is easier than spotting a 1-degree error in wing sweep. There are things like the Revell 727 or Heller 707 noses that thus become obvious when you put a cheatline on them, but remain subtly “off” in their absence. Those things are IMHO worth correcting. The lobe crease difference on the Heller 707 nobody sees until you point it out, but even then you can’t see both at the same time. For me, that’s a stronger contender for the “don’t bother with it” category.

2. We often don’t see shapes as they really are. Straight lines often look concave. A great example is the Parthenon, where the designers made adjustments to make it “look” right even though the steps are bowed out and the corner columns are fatter. I’m sure you could make an argument for an airplane model “looking” better even though some proportions are slightly off.

---

Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.

[RAA188]

BTW, that’s a beautiful 27 shorty…My favorite airliner ever, she’s way overbuilt like a battleship, but flies like a rocket (M0.83, IIRC was the usual cruise) & was the first airplane outside of a wind tunnel I saw a transonic shock wave sitting right perfectly at quarter chord on a flight from KATL to KTUL. It’s beautiful (yeah, I’m an engineer geek) to see hand-drawn and built theory come alive. And with no CAD, no “modern” conviences–Just the intuition and imagination of those who knew how to fly even more awesomely than my roommate, an African blue parrot who went bats**t crazy when I took her up in my right seat. Nothing freaks out ATC than hearing the scream of “Bluu Flying!!! Fly!!! Oh, hold on!!!” when you vector back to PAMR over Fairview in Anchorage (and dodging a few military fields and mountains…At twilight. ‘Nough said 😉

At least there were no phone numbers to copy after I rolled out. Oy.

Keep building what you love. That’s the best feeling of all.

Rob in AK

---

Shoot for the stars, reach your new flight level and fly true.

[RAA188]

Ka-ching, Merlin. One of the things I’ve learned from people with lots of letters after their names is that we, broadly, as modelers see things most people don’t. I still remember over 25 years ago laying out a garden parallel to my house, and driving others insane when I said “That far end needs to be about 7 inches to the right.” From 30 feet away. Yikes.

Then again, if it gets me there (safely) and with enough integrety to take a bit more than it was meant to do, any little model of the real thing is just frosting on the cake, IMO.

Rob in AK

---

Shoot for the stars, reach your new flight level and fly true.

[JC White]

Good day to all.

Longtime voyeur and lurker here with his first post—

With regard to accuracy, I think it is a matter of abilities vs. expectations.  Well, maybe just a part of it…there are many considerations.  We all strive to produce perfection in modeling; I believe that we want stellar results and some modelers achieve spectacular results and some produce so-so results.   I fit into the latter category.  When first eyeing a kit in its unadulterated form, I would first test fit to see if it looks right, making various mental notes on what I’ll need/want to modify when the first bits of cement hit the surfaces.   We know, almost immediately, that something doesn’t look right and we apply our acquired skills and knowledge to make it look right.

I see examples of highly-skilled craftsmanship here and sit in absolute awe and wonder (and, admittedly, sheer jealousy) at these examples.  Years ago, when my spare time was consumed with building nothing but scale model airliners, I often would get frustrated to the point of anger because something didn’t look right, regardless of how many times I’d break off the offending piece(s) and start over again.  In particular, I had beefs with models of B707s and B727s whose engines do not include the inlet vanes in front of the fans of the JT3Ds and JT8Ds respectively.  I tried, in 1/144, 1/100 and 1/72 scales, to no avail. They just do not look right to me without these vanes.  Something is off, perhaps due to my seeing them present on the actual aircraft and my overly-keen eye for detail.   As a result, and not just because of missing inlet vanes, I abandoned modeling and see boxes of several opened and unopened kits on closet shelves saying ‘Hi there…remember us?’   I don’t answer them.

Instead, I’m now devoting all my time to constructing a home cockpit of a Boeing 727-200, with fully interfaced OEM indicators and instruments from retired 727s with X-Plane.  The education I’ve received with electronics and coding, starting with no knowledge of either proves equally frustrating at times but seeing my OEM indicators coming to life again, matching what is displayed on my screens with what X-Plane is doing is nothing less than orgasmic!

Still, those boxes call out to me.

Accuracy also brings into thought the differences between the subtle vs. the dramatic in paints and finishes.  Take the wings of a Boeing, as an example.  The coroguard in combination of adjoining silver/metal on the wings; there are very subtle changes in varying lighting conditions.  In the past, I’d been satisfied with a light gray coroguard with a polished silver surroundings on my wings, an example of the dramatic.  And then, I see the incredible work of @convair990a and I suddenly become very jealous and the abandoning of model airliner building is further reinforced as I know I’d probably never reach those levels of craftsmanship.  Self-defeatist, yes, but facts are facts.  To my eyes and thus, to my mind, his work, devotion, skills and end results are perfection.

In short, I am of the opinion that if it looks right, it is right…and I had let it go at that.  I cannot always improve on construction, given the choices of models as they are right out of-the-box but if it represented a reasonable facsimile of a plane I was doing, I was somewhat happy.  Oh, if only to take the real thing and shrink it down to fit in a display case!   But then again, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

All my very best always—

Jay

---

Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.

[RAA188]

JC-

Congrats on multiple levels; knowing what to “fix” & what to let go…And for not falling into the trap that I witnessed firsthand at an IPMS show when a visitor blurted out “Oh, that’s amazing! I could never do that!” To which my good friend Ralph quietly commented, “You’re right, you can’t. Because you’ve convinced yourself it’ll never happen.”

Every artist invariably sees the flaws in their work. But life has taught me that what *I* see I keep to myself, and let those who love the result have their moment.

Keep the blue side up…

Rob in AK

---

Shoot for the stars, reach your new flight level and fly true.

[Author]

Posts