Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
04-29-2003, 06:48 PM
#26
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newark, OH
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
Ed,
Thanks for the advice... Next time I'll know better. No big deal though, since this is my first scale attempt, I'm more concerned with doing something I want to do "for me", and learn the techniques as I go. It probably will have enough other mistakes that it wouldn't be a national contender anyway! ;-)
I'll think of this as an opportunity to get my feet wet (all the way up to my neck) and not worry about trying to make it to Top Gun... yet! I'll still go ahead and put together my documentation, just makes a nice conversation piece at the field, fly-ins, warbird events, etc.
Next time (assuming I still want to do another one after I finish this one), I'll have the docs & presentation done before buying my plans & sticks.
Thanks,
Neo
Thanks for the advice... Next time I'll know better. No big deal though, since this is my first scale attempt, I'm more concerned with doing something I want to do "for me", and learn the techniques as I go. It probably will have enough other mistakes that it wouldn't be a national contender anyway! ;-)
I'll think of this as an opportunity to get my feet wet (all the way up to my neck) and not worry about trying to make it to Top Gun... yet! I'll still go ahead and put together my documentation, just makes a nice conversation piece at the field, fly-ins, warbird events, etc.
Next time (assuming I still want to do another one after I finish this one), I'll have the docs & presentation done before buying my plans & sticks.
Thanks,
Neo
04-29-2003, 07:03 PM
#28
Thread Starter
Did he just say what I thought he said?...
Hi Neo:
Go re-read my reply to your inquiry to me... Note the color red provides your escape valve for your current docs.
Remember the judge's point of view is entirely within your docs. They don't have any other resource for comparison. Re-read the red ...slowly :^)
Go re-read my reply to your inquiry to me... Note the color red provides your escape valve for your current docs.
Remember the judge's point of view is entirely within your docs. They don't have any other resource for comparison. Re-read the red ...slowly :^)
04-29-2003, 07:15 PM
#29
Pointy Rudder
Originally posted by pittsdriver
Joe, Don't forget to show the pointy rudder. We need to have a choice on the version to build. Don
Joe, Don't forget to show the pointy rudder. We need to have a choice on the version to build. Don
Joe
04-29-2003, 07:36 PM
#30
Docs
Neo let me throw my 2 cents worth in also. This goes into what Ed is trying to explain to you also.
When we get our docs together we cannot always find enough detail on the plane we want to do. Myself I start by looking for a really cool paint job I want to do. The problem we come into is that there was hundreds of thousand of individual planes and we cannot always find the exact plane we want to model for all our docs. Take for example my Hurricane since you can see my docs on my webnsite and all the other info. The plane i just happened to choose I got really lucky with because after I picked my paint scheme there was a ton of photos out there of an actual restoration of the plane. Now there is one slight problem here that anyone sitting at their computer on the web could find if they were scrutinizing enough and that is the reproduction pleane is a MK VIII !!!!!!!!! whys that strange its because the original plane is a MK IIa. there is no outline differences but armament is different. Now I have all the docs 5 views with matching color plates in 5 views that wulf noticed :0) and all the other docs of the original plane. Well i do not have any color pictures of the original plane or detail shots but I have all the important info for scale authenticity for it. So what I have done (and the doc pages not posted yet) Is took the walkarounds of the reproduction and cut out pictures of various areas I wanted for my docs to show scale highlights for the judges. Now the judges wont know that they are pics from the MK VIII because they will see the paint colors etc which I have documented. Most planes have common details on them for example your dauntless you have a pic of the paint scheme but need detail shots. your camo scheme will be a "Standard" sceme more than likely with the exception of nose art and other personalized details. So say you have a 2 tone paint scheme dark blue over light bloe underneath. You get pictures from a walkaround of a plane with the same color markings. Now all dauntlesses have the same type dive flaps they all have 356 holes in them and all I have seen are painted red inside. So now you get a photo with the closeup of the dive flaps. It will be dark blue on top red inside and light blue underneath. Now when the judges look at your package they see your detail shot has the same paint colorings as the model you are doing so it appears to be from the plane you are doing. you get closeup of a bomb release it is mounted on a light blue underneath plane. the judges see a light blue belly with a bomb rack but they cannot see any other markings to tell it isnt your plane. that bomb rack could have come from a plane with a plurple fuse with light blue underside but they can only see the underside so they dont know the fuse is purple so yes its a pic from the plane you are doing.
I hope that helps. I would also like to make a note here that we are not saying judges are gullible or stupid so any judges in here dont take it that way. we are just saying judges go by what they are presented. they cannot know the details of every aircraft they rely on your documentation to convince them this is the model created exactly like it should be. We all know and so do jusdges you will not find color fotos of your actual plane since most WWI and WWII aircraft photos are in black and white. what you have to do is convince the judge the color photos are of your plane thus if your plane has a blue belly and the detail shot you are showing is to say hey this is on my plane then it better be on a blue bellied plane and not a grey bellied plane or whit bellied plane etc.
I hope this explained things a little better I tend to get long winded.
Joe
When we get our docs together we cannot always find enough detail on the plane we want to do. Myself I start by looking for a really cool paint job I want to do. The problem we come into is that there was hundreds of thousand of individual planes and we cannot always find the exact plane we want to model for all our docs. Take for example my Hurricane since you can see my docs on my webnsite and all the other info. The plane i just happened to choose I got really lucky with because after I picked my paint scheme there was a ton of photos out there of an actual restoration of the plane. Now there is one slight problem here that anyone sitting at their computer on the web could find if they were scrutinizing enough and that is the reproduction pleane is a MK VIII !!!!!!!!! whys that strange its because the original plane is a MK IIa. there is no outline differences but armament is different. Now I have all the docs 5 views with matching color plates in 5 views that wulf noticed :0) and all the other docs of the original plane. Well i do not have any color pictures of the original plane or detail shots but I have all the important info for scale authenticity for it. So what I have done (and the doc pages not posted yet) Is took the walkarounds of the reproduction and cut out pictures of various areas I wanted for my docs to show scale highlights for the judges. Now the judges wont know that they are pics from the MK VIII because they will see the paint colors etc which I have documented. Most planes have common details on them for example your dauntless you have a pic of the paint scheme but need detail shots. your camo scheme will be a "Standard" sceme more than likely with the exception of nose art and other personalized details. So say you have a 2 tone paint scheme dark blue over light bloe underneath. You get pictures from a walkaround of a plane with the same color markings. Now all dauntlesses have the same type dive flaps they all have 356 holes in them and all I have seen are painted red inside. So now you get a photo with the closeup of the dive flaps. It will be dark blue on top red inside and light blue underneath. Now when the judges look at your package they see your detail shot has the same paint colorings as the model you are doing so it appears to be from the plane you are doing. you get closeup of a bomb release it is mounted on a light blue underneath plane. the judges see a light blue belly with a bomb rack but they cannot see any other markings to tell it isnt your plane. that bomb rack could have come from a plane with a plurple fuse with light blue underside but they can only see the underside so they dont know the fuse is purple so yes its a pic from the plane you are doing.
I hope that helps. I would also like to make a note here that we are not saying judges are gullible or stupid so any judges in here dont take it that way. we are just saying judges go by what they are presented. they cannot know the details of every aircraft they rely on your documentation to convince them this is the model created exactly like it should be. We all know and so do jusdges you will not find color fotos of your actual plane since most WWI and WWII aircraft photos are in black and white. what you have to do is convince the judge the color photos are of your plane thus if your plane has a blue belly and the detail shot you are showing is to say hey this is on my plane then it better be on a blue bellied plane and not a grey bellied plane or whit bellied plane etc.
I hope this explained things a little better I tend to get long winded.
Joe
04-30-2003, 01:58 AM
#34
out of control
haha pitts i guess its that dreaded "Lackabuilding" disease my hurri is waiting on legs and I am waiting for Darrell at Sierra to ship me his normal hurri kit to build for him and Jesse to send me the 3 FW190 kits to build for them. I wanna get them out of the way while waiting on my retracts they should build up pretty quick as I just mainly have to goto the framing and sheeting stage on them.
Joe
Joe
05-01-2003, 12:56 PM
#35
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newark, OH
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
Prof,
Thanks for your explanation... that makes great sense. I think I can do a good job of "authenticating" the appearance of my plane with a combination of closeup shots, wide shots, color plates, etc. from different SBD's that were all of the same model and markings as mine. Will ALL of the photos be taken from the exact same plane... no. I find it very difficult to find a plane to model that has color pics of all views of the plane, unless it is a restoration. They just didn't take pics like that of planes in the field during wartime.
That's the problem with scale competition. If everyone is forced into modeling "restorations" or copies from the same color plates, it severely limits the number of planes you can choose from. You end up with 50 SBD models out there, and they are all of the same 2 full-scale planes! At present, there are only 2 or 3 restored SBD's in existence. I don't like building/having the same plane as every other guy, I like having a "one-of-a-kind" ship. There are some great historic aircraft out there, like Ramage's 41 Sniper that DESERVE our recognition and tribute. That's much more interesting to me than building the same #36 SBD restoration that everyone else is building. Besides, I find most of the restorations to be very "inaccurate" in their coloring and markings based on FS codes, and historic pics of planes during the war.
I'll just do my best at documenting my plane with what's available and let the chips fall where they may. Bottom line is this... I build the plane for ME, not for the judges. I may or may not EVER enter it in a major competition. But, I will have it at my local field and fly-ins every chance I get. That's when I want to have a unique plane and an interesting history behind it.
Thanks,
Neo
Thanks for your explanation... that makes great sense. I think I can do a good job of "authenticating" the appearance of my plane with a combination of closeup shots, wide shots, color plates, etc. from different SBD's that were all of the same model and markings as mine. Will ALL of the photos be taken from the exact same plane... no. I find it very difficult to find a plane to model that has color pics of all views of the plane, unless it is a restoration. They just didn't take pics like that of planes in the field during wartime.
That's the problem with scale competition. If everyone is forced into modeling "restorations" or copies from the same color plates, it severely limits the number of planes you can choose from. You end up with 50 SBD models out there, and they are all of the same 2 full-scale planes! At present, there are only 2 or 3 restored SBD's in existence. I don't like building/having the same plane as every other guy, I like having a "one-of-a-kind" ship. There are some great historic aircraft out there, like Ramage's 41 Sniper that DESERVE our recognition and tribute. That's much more interesting to me than building the same #36 SBD restoration that everyone else is building. Besides, I find most of the restorations to be very "inaccurate" in their coloring and markings based on FS codes, and historic pics of planes during the war.
I'll just do my best at documenting my plane with what's available and let the chips fall where they may. Bottom line is this... I build the plane for ME, not for the judges. I may or may not EVER enter it in a major competition. But, I will have it at my local field and fly-ins every chance I get. That's when I want to have a unique plane and an interesting history behind it.
Thanks,
Neo
05-01-2003, 02:37 PM
#36
Thread Starter
Authentic reproduction is the game...
Currently there are fewer than 5 SBD's in competition in the US. Its important to understand this is of little consequence unless you found yourself being static judged within three or four planes of another one:^)
The only point to documentation is it provides the point from which the accuracy of your model is determined by judges. The judge doesn't bring any knowledge of what a real SBD looks like to your static session.
In fact...to be removed as a static judge only requires being overheard saying something like "that isn't correct because I know what that looks like on a whatever". That's been heard from several people in the past four years... They don't have a clue as to why no one asks them to judge any more...
Getting back to your SBD.
Kent Walters has campaigned that airframe for 12 or more years.
He won Scale Masters last year with his 90 size SBD. 
Now, one might ask why, after all this time....would this change?
True it wasn't the same airframe all that time but essentially the same.
Wonder what Kent changed in his docs that made the difference. I'll bet he'll never tell anyone:^)
Ah...like Dave Platt's favorite hat says... I love this .......
The only point to documentation is it provides the point from which the accuracy of your model is determined by judges. The judge doesn't bring any knowledge of what a real SBD looks like to your static session.
In fact...to be removed as a static judge only requires being overheard saying something like "that isn't correct because I know what that looks like on a whatever". That's been heard from several people in the past four years... They don't have a clue as to why no one asks them to judge any more...
Getting back to your SBD.
Kent Walters has campaigned that airframe for 12 or more years.
He won Scale Masters last year with his 90 size SBD. Now, one might ask why, after all this time....would this change?True it wasn't the same airframe all that time but essentially the same.
Wonder what Kent changed in his docs that made the difference. I'll bet he'll never tell anyone:^)Ah...like Dave Platt's favorite hat says... I love this .......
05-01-2003, 02:49 PM
#37
Member
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Snoqualmie,
WA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
Neo,
As far as shots showing the detail. They do not have to be the same plane or even have the same color scheme. Like it was noted in other posts, the dive brakes have 365 holes in them, the number did not change due to the plane being a diffrent color. The point to rember is that the detail photos are for craftmanship points and not for color and markings points. Ideally it would be great to have all of the photos from the same plane but as was stated before that limits you to doing present day restored aircraft, which is not the intent of the rules.
My Tiger Moth documention has six walk around shots of the plane I modeled, but has four detail photos of a camo TM I shot in London. Paint is nothing like my model but shows the common detail well.
Jeremy
As far as shots showing the detail. They do not have to be the same plane or even have the same color scheme. Like it was noted in other posts, the dive brakes have 365 holes in them, the number did not change due to the plane being a diffrent color. The point to rember is that the detail photos are for craftmanship points and not for color and markings points. Ideally it would be great to have all of the photos from the same plane but as was stated before that limits you to doing present day restored aircraft, which is not the intent of the rules.
My Tiger Moth documention has six walk around shots of the plane I modeled, but has four detail photos of a camo TM I shot in London. Paint is nothing like my model but shows the common detail well.
Jeremy
05-01-2003, 03:36 PM
#38
My Feedback: (2)
Docs
Jeremy, are you going to make this years Scale Master at Dayton?.. You probably dont remember me but I met you two years ago (before you were the champ lol) at Dayton. I spent about half a day with all the Proctor bunch.. Really nice group of guys!!!.. Hope to see you again this year. BobH.
PS I hope your Jeremy F. ? lol
PS I hope your Jeremy F. ? lol
05-01-2003, 03:43 PM
#39
Senior Member
My Feedback: (32)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Pasadena, MD
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
A couple of months ago I sent the following email to Jeff Foley, Patrick McCurry, and Frank Tiano:
"Hi:
I have a question about documentation. I am building a Hellcat that I want to finish in the Target Tow color scheme. I have contacted the Naval Museum Library and received printed material describing the color scheme (along with ANA and FS color numbers) and photo copies of pictures of the plane. I also received drawings that show markings and colors from the
profile view. There is one photo showing markings from above. There are no photos or drawings showing markings from below. Do I have enough material to properly document the airplane?"
The following are answers I received:
Jeff Foley:
"Sounds like you have been doing a good job on your homework for the model. As you many know, the AMA rules specifically say you do not have to prove the "other side", bottom, etc., Although I certainly try to do so whenever possible. Does any of your written info describe the bottom? If so, that is certainly acceptable. If not, I would copy as closely as possible the areas that you can see in your photos and interpolate the rest the best that you can. Also, never quit looking for more info on this type of aircraft."
Frank Tiano:
"Yes you have more than enough! The AMA and FAI rules are very specific in that they realize that getting pictures of all views of a real aircraft, especially one from years ago, is about impossible. With that said,the rules say that it is NOT the responsibility of the modeler to PROVE more than one VIEW of the subject aircraft. Just use your common sense and configure it the way you suspect it would be done based on data of other aircraft or other written info."
Patrick McCurry:
"In short, yes you have everything you need to properly document
your model. If you need, you can call me at" (I deleted his number for privacy ).
I really appreciate these guys being accessible and answering questions from a newbie.
"Hi:
I have a question about documentation. I am building a Hellcat that I want to finish in the Target Tow color scheme. I have contacted the Naval Museum Library and received printed material describing the color scheme (along with ANA and FS color numbers) and photo copies of pictures of the plane. I also received drawings that show markings and colors from the
profile view. There is one photo showing markings from above. There are no photos or drawings showing markings from below. Do I have enough material to properly document the airplane?"
The following are answers I received:
Jeff Foley:
"Sounds like you have been doing a good job on your homework for the model. As you many know, the AMA rules specifically say you do not have to prove the "other side", bottom, etc., Although I certainly try to do so whenever possible. Does any of your written info describe the bottom? If so, that is certainly acceptable. If not, I would copy as closely as possible the areas that you can see in your photos and interpolate the rest the best that you can. Also, never quit looking for more info on this type of aircraft."
Frank Tiano:
"Yes you have more than enough! The AMA and FAI rules are very specific in that they realize that getting pictures of all views of a real aircraft, especially one from years ago, is about impossible. With that said,the rules say that it is NOT the responsibility of the modeler to PROVE more than one VIEW of the subject aircraft. Just use your common sense and configure it the way you suspect it would be done based on data of other aircraft or other written info."
Patrick McCurry:
"In short, yes you have everything you need to properly document
your model. If you need, you can call me at" (I deleted his number for privacy ).
I really appreciate these guys being accessible and answering questions from a newbie.
05-01-2003, 05:29 PM
#40
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newark, OH
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
Guys,
This is encouraging. I think I can come up with accepatable, scorable documentation based on your input. In either case, I'm sticking with my plan and hope the late Admiral Ramage approves of my work!
Thanks,
Neo
This is encouraging. I think I can come up with accepatable, scorable documentation based on your input. In either case, I'm sticking with my plan and hope the late Admiral Ramage approves of my work!
Thanks,
Neo
05-01-2003, 05:35 PM
#41
docs
Neo check out my color scheme docs. you will find color photos of the paint scheme is not necessary if you can find other sources to prove the scheme such as those used by the plastic modellers. eagle strike productions may even have the info you need. the way my 5 view drawings and my 5 view paint scheme documantation matches each other that sets me up for max points possible from them.
check out my docs page http://home.mchsi.com/~jahuntley/hur...stersdocs.html
Joe
check out my docs page http://home.mchsi.com/~jahuntley/hur...stersdocs.html
Joe
05-01-2003, 06:13 PM
#42
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newark, OH
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
Prof,
Yeah those 5-views of yours are great! I can't find anything like that at all on my SBD5. I checked with Eagle Strike... not available.
Neo
Yeah those 5-views of yours are great! I can't find anything like that at all on my SBD5. I checked with Eagle Strike... not available.
Neo
05-02-2003, 02:52 PM
#43
Thread Starter
OV-10D NOGs Documentation
I've been swamped with real world & Flite-Metal processing...not able to get back sooner.
The image accompanying all my RCU posts is the North American NA-300 now Rockwell Intern'l OV-10D+NOGs. In the early 60's the DoD issued an RFP to manufacturers to submit design proposals for a Light Armored and Recon Aircraft (LARA). LARA was intended as a Tri-Service project to bring the Navy, Air Force and Marines a highly maneuverable ground support/FAC airframe capable of extended on station cycles. What was desired was an aircraft version of the Army's 50 cal. toting jeep.
My FAI project was "planned" to fly last weekend...a year ago! However, the business world changed my plans radically:^( 911's effects were wide spread.
Not familiar with this airframe? Here's an up close and personal view of the full size s/n155395. Its a huge full screen image from my docs http://www.scaleaero.com/OV-10D_155395_FB_3a.jpg
Scale Masters, Top Gun, & AMA documentation requirements are stated as "minimum" requirements to compete. In an earlier post to this thread...several scale competitors replied to a "minimum photo doc inquiry"...telling the inquiror a single photo was "acceptable". Their replies were intended as encouragement rather than to discourage based on the "minimum" requirement.
I found this most interesting...and typical of what has been the direction pilots have driven the course of competitive flying scale modeling in the U.S. VS the rest of the modeling world. Slowly but surely over the last five years, pilots have proposed & voted a change in the ratio of static to flight comprising the total score. Also the value of individual scoring elements comprising the static score has been adjusted to reflect a desire to reduce critical analysis of airframes.
Recognizing this, I included judge's and pilots points of view in the NASA Scale Road Show seminar series. These are two distinct points of view and opinion and must be looked at seperately if you expect to be successful in competitive flying scale modeling. That in itself can be a seperate discussion later:^) For now, if you expect to do your best... come to play the game "better" than what is considered the minimum requirement...
You must prepare docs so the scale judge sees your airplane in its best light. That simple sentence explains the entire process! Lead your judge around your airplane, don't let them wander through your documentation looking for things that don't match your model;^)
This mandates use of multiple photographic docs of the "same" airframe. Yes, there is "minimum acceptable documentation", and no you don't "have to" have multiple photo docs of a single air frame. Did you come to play or play the game well?
Those are but a few of s/n155395, one of the original NA-300 airframes born in 1963... s/n155395 and s/n155396 were used to test every revision of the original OV-10 proposed for the DoD. If it was thought of with respect to the NA-300 airframe, 155395 and 155396 had it mounted on them for real world testing and evaluation.
The rev I chose to replicate is the final DoD version. The version used for a brief period the first time around in Iraq. If it could be mounted and launched from a hardpoint, it was launchable from 155395. If in your face ground support were called for GE's M-197 20mm 3 barreled Gatling Gun could lock on and destroy a target by way of the FLIR (Forward looking Infrared Radar) and laser target acquisition/tracking unit) mounted under the chin.
The image accompanying all my RCU posts is the North American NA-300 now Rockwell Intern'l OV-10D+NOGs. In the early 60's the DoD issued an RFP to manufacturers to submit design proposals for a Light Armored and Recon Aircraft (LARA). LARA was intended as a Tri-Service project to bring the Navy, Air Force and Marines a highly maneuverable ground support/FAC airframe capable of extended on station cycles. What was desired was an aircraft version of the Army's 50 cal. toting jeep.
My FAI project was "planned" to fly last weekend...a year ago! However, the business world changed my plans radically:^( 911's effects were wide spread.
Not familiar with this airframe? Here's an up close and personal view of the full size s/n155395. Its a huge full screen image from my docs http://www.scaleaero.com/OV-10D_155395_FB_3a.jpg
Scale Masters, Top Gun, & AMA documentation requirements are stated as "minimum" requirements to compete. In an earlier post to this thread...several scale competitors replied to a "minimum photo doc inquiry"...telling the inquiror a single photo was "acceptable". Their replies were intended as encouragement rather than to discourage based on the "minimum" requirement.
I found this most interesting...and typical of what has been the direction pilots have driven the course of competitive flying scale modeling in the U.S. VS the rest of the modeling world. Slowly but surely over the last five years, pilots have proposed & voted a change in the ratio of static to flight comprising the total score. Also the value of individual scoring elements comprising the static score has been adjusted to reflect a desire to reduce critical analysis of airframes.
Recognizing this, I included judge's and pilots points of view in the NASA Scale Road Show seminar series. These are two distinct points of view and opinion and must be looked at seperately if you expect to be successful in competitive flying scale modeling. That in itself can be a seperate discussion later:^) For now, if you expect to do your best... come to play the game "better" than what is considered the minimum requirement...
You must prepare docs so the scale judge sees your airplane in its best light. That simple sentence explains the entire process! Lead your judge around your airplane, don't let them wander through your documentation looking for things that don't match your model;^)
This mandates use of multiple photographic docs of the "same" airframe. Yes, there is "minimum acceptable documentation", and no you don't "have to" have multiple photo docs of a single air frame. Did you come to play or play the game well?
Those are but a few of s/n155395, one of the original NA-300 airframes born in 1963... s/n155395 and s/n155396 were used to test every revision of the original OV-10 proposed for the DoD. If it was thought of with respect to the NA-300 airframe, 155395 and 155396 had it mounted on them for real world testing and evaluation.
The rev I chose to replicate is the final DoD version. The version used for a brief period the first time around in Iraq. If it could be mounted and launched from a hardpoint, it was launchable from 155395. If in your face ground support were called for GE's M-197 20mm 3 barreled Gatling Gun could lock on and destroy a target by way of the FLIR (Forward looking Infrared Radar) and laser target acquisition/tracking unit) mounted under the chin.
05-22-2003, 01:14 PM
#44
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newark, OH
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on SBD5 documentation dilemna
A few weeks back,, I posted a question in this thread regarding naval aircraft designation numbers. Specifically what number belonged on the SBD-5 that I am building. Great news... I have been fortunate enough to actually locate the pilot of the SBD which I am building!
Rear Admiral James "Jig Dog" Ramage was the pilot of my SBD flying in Task Force 58 off the Enterprise in the Phillipines during the summer of 1944. While his historical accounts have him using the callsign "41 Sniper", all photos of his plane used the a/c number "10" on the side. I spoke to RADM Ramage (alive and well at 87 years old in Coronado, CA) yesterday and he said...
"The callsign 41 Sniper was used to designate the strike leader in our bombing formations, it had nothing to do with our a/c number. 85 Sniper designated the strike leader for torpedo plane formations, and so on. While I flew a/c #10 most of the time, I also flew other planes from time to time depending on aircraft status, maintenance, etc."
RADM Ramage and I spoke for quite a while and he gave me tons of great info on the SBD, explained flight manuevers, how to execute proper dive bombing runs, etc.. It was the pinnacle of scale modeling for me, getting to talk to an actual WW2 hero and he's the actual pilot that bravely flew the full-scale warbird that I am modeling. I even found Dave Cawley, who was the aircrew gunner that flew back seat with Ramage, but unfortunately his health prohibits him from helping me at this time.
"Jig Dog" recalled information about flying SBD's to me like it was yesterday. What an experience listening to him recall his love for the plane, the dangerous missions, and how the "Slow but Deadly" got him safely home every time!
Neo
Rear Admiral James "Jig Dog" Ramage was the pilot of my SBD flying in Task Force 58 off the Enterprise in the Phillipines during the summer of 1944. While his historical accounts have him using the callsign "41 Sniper", all photos of his plane used the a/c number "10" on the side. I spoke to RADM Ramage (alive and well at 87 years old in Coronado, CA) yesterday and he said...
"The callsign 41 Sniper was used to designate the strike leader in our bombing formations, it had nothing to do with our a/c number. 85 Sniper designated the strike leader for torpedo plane formations, and so on. While I flew a/c #10 most of the time, I also flew other planes from time to time depending on aircraft status, maintenance, etc."
RADM Ramage and I spoke for quite a while and he gave me tons of great info on the SBD, explained flight manuevers, how to execute proper dive bombing runs, etc.. It was the pinnacle of scale modeling for me, getting to talk to an actual WW2 hero and he's the actual pilot that bravely flew the full-scale warbird that I am modeling. I even found Dave Cawley, who was the aircrew gunner that flew back seat with Ramage, but unfortunately his health prohibits him from helping me at this time.
"Jig Dog" recalled information about flying SBD's to me like it was yesterday. What an experience listening to him recall his love for the plane, the dangerous missions, and how the "Slow but Deadly" got him safely home every time!
Neo
05-22-2003, 01:42 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: derry,
NH
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
Neo,
That is awesome! I have found the last living crew member of the B-17 I am doing and it is a real treat to hear things right from the people that were there.
I thrilled you found RADM Ramage. I'm sure it will make the model all the more special to you.
Hans
That is awesome! I have found the last living crew member of the B-17 I am doing and it is a real treat to hear things right from the people that were there.
I thrilled you found RADM Ramage. I'm sure it will make the model all the more special to you.
Hans
05-22-2003, 03:19 PM
#46
Photos In Documentation
Hi all,
Its great to see this topic going around. I would like to add to the photo debate if I may. In both AMA and Top Gun rules, Photos take accendancy (did I spell that right?) OVER all other information in your documentation. This means that a color picture in particular can defeat outline drawings AND color Chips within your own documentation. The judges are instructed to always go by a photo over all other documentation.
So what this means is for example, if you have a Corsair that has the typical dark blue (sorry, not to knowledgable about the type) paint scheme and have paint chips with your documentation that you have faithfully used to paint your model BUT you include a color photo that may show the paint as looking darker than it Really is: A judge COULD very easily mark your color as wrong EVEN if it matches your chips perfectly simply because the photo is living proof!
I saw someone mention earlier that the photo be be used for one purpose only in a documentation. Well yes and no. All judges can gleem any information they choose from a photo. An outline judge could easily pick up the photo and find an anomoly present that may not be on your three view and penalise you for it, this happens all the time. Craftsmanship judges can look at a close up of a photo and determine that you weathering is too much or not enough, this just happened to me at Top Gun.
Color Photos are double edged swords in my opinion. I would never use a color photo on anything other than a subject that is either very recent or a restored bird that is pristeen, but this is just me.
Its great to see this topic going around. I would like to add to the photo debate if I may. In both AMA and Top Gun rules, Photos take accendancy (did I spell that right?) OVER all other information in your documentation. This means that a color picture in particular can defeat outline drawings AND color Chips within your own documentation. The judges are instructed to always go by a photo over all other documentation.
So what this means is for example, if you have a Corsair that has the typical dark blue (sorry, not to knowledgable about the type) paint scheme and have paint chips with your documentation that you have faithfully used to paint your model BUT you include a color photo that may show the paint as looking darker than it Really is: A judge COULD very easily mark your color as wrong EVEN if it matches your chips perfectly simply because the photo is living proof!
I saw someone mention earlier that the photo be be used for one purpose only in a documentation. Well yes and no. All judges can gleem any information they choose from a photo. An outline judge could easily pick up the photo and find an anomoly present that may not be on your three view and penalise you for it, this happens all the time. Craftsmanship judges can look at a close up of a photo and determine that you weathering is too much or not enough, this just happened to me at Top Gun.
Color Photos are double edged swords in my opinion. I would never use a color photo on anything other than a subject that is either very recent or a restored bird that is pristeen, but this is just me.
05-22-2003, 04:47 PM
#47
Photos
If I remember correctly it was dave platt that said never use a color photo in your documentation always use black and white photos presumably for this same reason
Joe
Neo I will see what I can do for you sdb views
Joe
Joe
Neo I will see what I can do for you sdb views
Joe
05-22-2003, 05:29 PM
#48
Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canal Winchestor ,
OH
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed Altair and scale doc...
Alright guys im new at this whole scale doc. thing and im looking at wanting to build a Lockheed Altair specificly the "Lady Southern Cross". This project originaly started out as a Lockheed Sirus but due to lack of documentation i scraped that and moved onto this plane.
I have a few questions...
Almost all my source doc. is coming from a web site i'm posting the links so you can check it out and let me know what im missing for scale compitition. Since the plane crashed in the pacific there is no real plane to go off of.
Color Drawings
Color Chips
pictures most showing very good detail all non-color
Altair 8E specs sheet
The one thing i would be missing is a good 3 view
Next since i have no color photo's will that hurt my score? how could i improve my doc in your opinion? if i e-mailed lockheed do you think they would have old 3-views of this particular plane? (HAHAHAHA...ya right!!!)
Before i go farther i want to make sure I have the right doc. before I proceed. I also have a copy of Revolution in the Sky: The Lockheeds of Aviation's Golden Age coming in the mail. This supposedly has some good stuff in it that i can use.
Any thoughts, opinions, will be appriciated, that and if you happen to know where I could get plans that would help to.
Thnks,
Matt
I have a few questions...
Almost all my source doc. is coming from a web site i'm posting the links so you can check it out and let me know what im missing for scale compitition. Since the plane crashed in the pacific there is no real plane to go off of.
Color Drawings
Color Chips
pictures most showing very good detail all non-color
Altair 8E specs sheet
The one thing i would be missing is a good 3 view
Next since i have no color photo's will that hurt my score? how could i improve my doc in your opinion? if i e-mailed lockheed do you think they would have old 3-views of this particular plane? (HAHAHAHA...ya right!!!)
Before i go farther i want to make sure I have the right doc. before I proceed. I also have a copy of Revolution in the Sky: The Lockheeds of Aviation's Golden Age coming in the mail. This supposedly has some good stuff in it that i can use.
Any thoughts, opinions, will be appriciated, that and if you happen to know where I could get plans that would help to.
Thnks,
Matt
05-22-2003, 05:50 PM
#49
Altar
Matt those drawings will be plaenty for the color part of your docs. they dont have to be actual pictures can be artist renditions, plastic model boxtops etc. remember not every plane was in an era where color pictures of the actual plane was available.
here are more pictures and info for you for your project I did a search with webferret you can download it at http://ferretsoft.com I use it for all my online ref and find stuff normal search engines cant:
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/lscphoto.htm
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/table.htm
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...rgo/c2/c23.htm
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/altair2.htm
http://www.aero-web.org/specs/lockheed/y1c-23.htm
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/ (has a basic 3 view)
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~ue626/plans_pdf/altair22.pdf (nice info)
http://www.aerofiles.com/_lock.html
http://www.ajjcollection.co.uk/l1.htm
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~ue626/dwgb...ockheed_Altair
theres a start for you seeing all the info out there 1: yes you could write lockheed and most of the time these aviation corporations will help modellers out they are very much enthuesed to do it as its good pr especially when tyhey have replicas of their planes where people can see them. 2: Bob Banka probably has what you are looking for as far as 3 views or SARS out of canada may.
Joe
here are more pictures and info for you for your project I did a search with webferret you can download it at http://ferretsoft.com I use it for all my online ref and find stuff normal search engines cant:
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/lscphoto.htm
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/table.htm
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...rgo/c2/c23.htm
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/altair2.htm
http://www.aero-web.org/specs/lockheed/y1c-23.htm
http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/altair/ (has a basic 3 view)
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~ue626/plans_pdf/altair22.pdf (nice info)
http://www.aerofiles.com/_lock.html
http://www.ajjcollection.co.uk/l1.htm
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~ue626/dwgb...ockheed_Altair
theres a start for you seeing all the info out there 1: yes you could write lockheed and most of the time these aviation corporations will help modellers out they are very much enthuesed to do it as its good pr especially when tyhey have replicas of their planes where people can see them. 2: Bob Banka probably has what you are looking for as far as 3 views or SARS out of canada may.
Joe
05-22-2003, 11:51 PM
#50
Scale Documentation Playing The Game Well
Yep, Dave has known not to use color photos for a long time and even made it one of his TEN rules of scale modeling. Normally when you tell a new guys this though it doesen't make sense, it's always good to give the reasoning as to why.
