AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

"Quantity has a quality all its own"

In the case of quantity of mass, why does "Big" trump quality for the average modeler?

Lets say you have two guys show up at the field with Monocoupes.

One guy has a 1/7th scale 54" version of a 90A done in museum scale quality. Every minute detail seems to be on the model including a working Lambert R-266 5-Cylinder radial engine.

The other guy has brought a 40% scale 153" poorly built sport scale Monocoupe. This model is covered in Monokote and you can clearly see the single cylinder gas engine in the open cowl.

The 40% one will constantly have 30 guys around it asking questions and saying how great it is, wile the 54" one will barely gets second glance.

I guess that's just the way it is, but it certainly isn't right.

TFF

Yep. The average modeler is like the average consumer. Big and slick has to be better. Also at least at my field, most cant reason the need for all the fiddly bits. If it cant be CAed on they dont want to do it. It actually scares them away.

abufletcher

This is the way I do the math:

If a 1/6 scale model requires X amount of detail to be contest standard, then a 1/3 scale model requires X squared detail to be of the same standard. But what you see (more often than not) is 1/3 scale models with the same level of detailing as the 1/6 scale model...and when you take that amount of detail and spread it out over the larger model, it often looks bare.

For me the only reason I'd be interested in "building bigger" would be to build in a more scale manner, e.g. scale structure. But to each his own.

cocobear

My Feedback: (2)

The advantage of the bigger is a lower wing loading so you can put more stuff on it without ruining the flight charectoristics, that at least is the theory? Bunk, My buddy Sean and I think you can do FAI scale on a 17" model. Size is an enigma.

abufletcher

That's my feeling too. Routinely, it seems to be the smaller models that have more detail. What you can't do as well on a smaller model is scale structure (including things like functional scale fittings).

David Bathe

I agree about the field-fuss surrounding the biggy. I've often been amongst the crowd... but the attention isn't often what you mentally perceive.

abufletcher

David's right. You never really know what's in the mind of the crowd. So, yeah, bigger definitely draws a bigger crowd at the field. But I also believe that most onlookers (including most RC flyers) are essentially blind to scale detail. They don't see it when it's there and don't miss it when it's absent.

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

The simple truth is that many people (most in fact) can't see the difference in quality. In my profession as an architectural model builder I was dealing with this constantly. You could put two models in front of a client, one built to museum quality standards and the other hashed together over a long weekend and 90% of the time they could not see the difference. If the lower quality model was larger or had some sort of attention grabbing feature (working lighting for instance) it would immediately draw the majority of the attention even though their were gaps in the walls 1/8" wide and the paint looked like it was mixed with sand before spraying!

R8893

My Feedback: (20)

Could be too that most of those guys don't have a snowball's chance in #### of ever having the small piece of art and craftmanship, but if there is still a balance available on their Mastercard they can have one of those other things.

scale dail

My Feedback: (8)

Ha! I did not start this thread! At least there is one other in the world that can see it as I do. Do not get me started.

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

What nice about my models is I build them to satisfy myself,, building them large enough or detailed enough to impress anyone else is not my goal

Boomerang1

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, or in this case the flying.

If you say the flying doesn't count in a scale model I'm sure there's a plastic model forum waiting for you
somewhere. There was a thread kicking around with a Japanese guy who had built a P-51 with the most
exquisite detail but it left me unimpressed, sure it was good craftsmanship but he could have buit a great
doll's house too.

All things being equal the larger the model the more realistic it will fly up to the point where it is full scale.
The hard bit is deciding HOW big is best for a model. There are lots of huge models that just stagger around
with almost enough power, big models that fly once a year at the such & such fly in then hide until next years
event because the undercarriage collapses every flight and, as the thread starter Amish mentioned big models
that are as rough as guts.

What would impress me more? I build scale models so the smaller Monocoupe would catch my eye (partly
because I love Monocoupes and would not like to see one badly done at any scale).

BUT, if the 40% job was equally well built, better detailed because it was easier to replicate all the bibs & bobs
at a larger scale and was powered by a 400 cc 5 cylinder Moki radial that sounded like a real radial engine and
flew with the presence that only the larger models can deliver then it would be no contest.

The 1/3 Fokker DVII that placed first in last weekends scale contest was a deseved winner, superbly built, superbly
detailed, superbly (and realistically) flown. Not my favourite DVII colour scheme though!

Build whatever size you prefer but, please, don't rubbish someone because they are prepared to put more money &
effort into building more realistic models than you are or just prefer to build something other than what you like.

David Bathe really should see some jets operated by people who know what they are doing to get the facts.
He must be watching the type of flyer that will run into problems no matter what type of models they fly, the
more complex the models, the more trouble they find themselves in.

I was requested to demonstrate a turbine model for a club holding a scale rally. Despite what the rumour
mongers had spread EVERYONE was amazed how simple & fuss free they are to operate. Unless you are
flying some 'wingless wonder' they are simpler to fly than the average WW2 fighter. - John.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

While this is a Scale forum most RC people aren't that scale. Something else attracts them to models. Especially bigger models. Chad is right. Most don't really know the difference between mostly scale and really scale or even sorta scale.

There are a few people in most flying groups who really have an eye for detail. They will know the difference. The others won't and really don't care to know.

Years ago I build 60sized P-47. Glassed and painted and detailed. Comments I got were "wow that looks great, now if it were only bigger".

Bigger has become a relative word of course. Once 60sized planes were the norm. Then 90-120 and then to the G-38's. Now we have REALLY Big planes. One quarter scale is small in WWI planes with 1/3 outclassing them!

There's a place for everything and every size. If you're happy with your stuff, that's what counts.

Boomerang1

Bob, I know EXACTLY what you are saying! - John.

abufletcher

Even though I'm totally into "super-scale" I love seeing really BIG models at the field. There's just something about them. I suppose it's the fantasy we all have about flying REAL aircraft.

AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

I guess if this really bothers you, make sure only 125 pound medium size planes leave your shop.

I like all sizes but I'm going to make sure I give proper kudos to guys who bring a nicely done scale plane, even to the guys at the IMAA events that bring those tinny little 80" jobs.

I'd still like to do a 2:1 scale Cub one day. With a 12 foot tall, 800 pound pilot in the cockpit.

pmerritt

My Feedback: (118)

"BIgger is Better" has been the rule since man was clubbing gals outside the cave!  "Bigger is Better" has been the rule every since they started putting 3 folding pages in the middle of a magazine!  "Bigger is Better" is the reason I get 2,000 junk emails a day for that pill that gives man three legs.  When you find a way to make life "right", get your buttox in that White House and run this $4.00 a gallon gas rip off country. 
If that 40% had show up with the same detailing as your plane, would "Bigger" been bad?

abufletcher

800 pound pilot? [X(] For WWI times that would have been about 5:0 scale!

AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

Hmm might get one of these 75% AT-6's and slap some serovs in it and call it a day.

dingo9882

I have to say some of these guys that are able to go so true to scale on some of these smaller models is amazing. We have a guy at our local field that when he builds a smaller plane if you were to take a snap shot of it in the air you would not be able to know the difference between the real thing and a model. Somebody on this forum posted a P-47, and I cannot tell what size it is because it is very nicely detailed. I would much rather have a smaller scale plane that looks fantastic then say a large scale plane that isn't as detailed. It just takes more effort to make a plane look more scale then anything else in my mind. Look at these guys at Top Gun. They build the plane is like 6 months then all the detailing takes another year and a half.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

When you guys gona realize the only people that under stand and even care what it takes and the effort to do something right are those that do it. The rest are "HACKS" and don't and will never under stand.  ... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What really counts is the "Opinion of Your Pares" and of course the Scale Judges. But Judges can be "HACKS" at times too.

smithcreek

My Feedback: (25)

Just as drinking beer does not make me a brew-master and going to a museum does not make me an artist, flying rc planes does not make someone a modeler. No offense meant to those that only fly planes, that's what they choose to do, that's what interests them. Modeling doesn't, so most of them are not much different from the general population that couldn't care if the plane has little rivets or not. Take away that aspect and of course bigger is more impressive.

dingo9882

Good point smithcreek. It takes a certain kind of person to do the actual building and modeling aspect of this hobby. I have a guy at my field that is always making comments about everybodies plane. Its always negative and it always starts out as, "why did you do that...you should have done this." And guess what...he doesn't build. He is a very good flyer and everything, but comments like that arent needed. I really hate to say this, even going out on a limb, but it seems almost anybody can fly some of these models to some extent. When you have to build the thing, thats when its a challenge!!

378

My Feedback: (4)

I would be one of the guys admiring the 1/7th scale bird, but I would be the one flying the 40% version. Scale detail is nice, I absolutely adore small replicas of engines that actually run, but I build my planes to fly, and I don't want to put thousands of man hours into machining a picture perfect, running scale radial only to auger it into the tarmac on the third flight. I'd rather risk a $250 DLE 30.

abufletcher

That's it in a nutshell. Photographer Ansel Adams once said (complained) that most people can't "see" a "fine print" by which he meant the subtle tonalities that distinguished his work from ordinary black and white photographs. Same with scale models. For most RC fliers, if it looks generally like a P-47 (or a DrI) is IS a scale model. Only people who DO rivets (or rib stitching) really see this level of detail. What they typically see are things like roundels and machine guns and bombs...that is, detail that is often just glued on.