FliteMetal

What makes for winning documentation in competitive flying scale modeling? What makes one competitor's docs better than another?

This topic crawled onto the monitor in another thread. This has to do with what comprises winning documentation VS the mechanics of published minimum documentation as stated in the rules.

FliteMetal

Interested to know your opinion and the pathway you travel for your documentation.

Why? We're entering a new comp season and its time we get the newbees and the oldbees active. What with the NATs looking like it will have the largest field ever... Its time we get those brain cells jump'n and jiv'n and get your docs in order...

ProfLooney

can we pic more than 1 it is a combination which makes for good docs. the most important in my book is research. If you dont research fully your project how can you get your docs together properly for an award winning package.


Joe

PS I voted for the last one presentation and arrangement but I think a detailed 3VU is needed too especially if you are doing a model that is uncommon you need the detailed view to prove your panel lines or bulges etc.

FliteMetal

After we've gotten a good mix I'd like to see some outlines of the way "your" (figuratively everyone) docs are arranged and what you expect the judges to do with it after you hand it to them.

That last statement is EXTREMELY important!

ProfLooney

I just unload my filing cabinet and say here if ya cant find it all in there your blind lol.

No Seriously theres a good article I use from some site either yours, seans strictly scale or it was scale masters or ama site 1 of those 4 that had a nice article with pics on it of how to set up your docs I try to follow that outline

Joe

FliteMetal

Art's article is a great place to start. I'd like to know what some of our readers use and what your typical score is from them.

ProfLooney

Me too its been abt 6 yrs since i been scored thats why i looking for all this info on ref stuff as i am gonna get back into competing again

joe

clscale-RCU

My Feedback: (7)

Over the years I have been a contestant, scale judge, event director and Contest director for scale contests and here is what I have noticed.

1) people bring to much information about a "typical" airplane
2) people bring detailed books on their subject aircraft

documentation should be broken up into these sections:

introduction about the model and pilot
Overall color photos
detail color photos
3-view (one copy for each judge)
color information (color chips or something)

Other comments:

Only show pictures that show that your model is accurate, if the photo shows a feature or detail that is not on the model...don't use that photo, you will lose points.

Some people show pictures of lots of different airplanes, except the full size one they copied. THe documentation should only show photos or information about ONE PARTICULAR full size aircraft.

the documentation package should be in a 3-ring binder and very straight to the point. Don't show the judges a bunch of information they don't need. If you confuse the judges, the lower your score will be.

Remember the judges will use the information you give them. If you prove to them that you plane does not have the detail that you show in the pictures your score will suffer.

If you don't show them enough detail, your score will suffer. that is if you don't somehow prove the paint and markings for the top of the wing the judges have nothing to compare your model to.

I have not started some projects becuase the documentation is lacking and does not warrent a scale model for competition.

Prepare your documentation before you build, verify the kit or plan you are building from matches your 3-view. Modify the kit or plan to match the 3-view before you start building.

Pick the paint scheme you are going to copy before you build, often the full size aircraft you pick will have modifications that must be on the model to get the good score. Example...Hawker Sea Fury, many restored versions today have longer canopies and 4-blade props. It won't match the 3-view, but remember the photos take precendence over the 3-view.

Fred Cronenwett

ProfLooney

Heres one thing I was always told and recently in threads like this noticed a change and that is on your planes paint scheme. I was always told you do not have to have a color photo of your plane for the paint scheme as long as you have documentation stating what the scheme was. The reason for this is that a lot of WWI and WWII warbird pics are usually in black and white but you can see the patterns of the camo on them and if you have a good ref it will tell what color the plane was. is this correct or not? the only really acessable pics for most planes are black and white and any color ones are usually restorations but most good historical books will tell what the colors of stuff were.

Joe

pittsdriver

My Feedback: (7)

For my docs for my Fokker D-7 I found an expert on WW1 aircraft. He was able to supply me with three views showing the color scheme and also color chips for all of the colors. I had two black and white pictures of the airplane and also a fairly detailed three veiw of the same batch # that the airplane I built was in. I have my cover sheet telling a short history of the airplane and pilot. The next page has the photos, page three the detailed three view for the outline judge, page four the three veiw showing the color detail, page 5has the color chips and he last page is the declaration of the builer of the model rule. My airplane scores in the mid 90s. Only give the judges enough to document the airplane and no more. Look at your plane from the judges perspective from 10 feet and make sure the three veiw matches. It is a lot easier to do this in the construction phase than after the ship is done. The Scalemasters.org website has an excelent guide for documentation. Don

ProfLooney

Thanks Don hey Ed it was the Scale masters site I saw it on lol.

Joe

FliteMetal

Hi Fred:

Long time no hear from! Hope you've not lost any more ground to fly off of! Have they developed more of Fed land opened up in San Bernadeno?

Fred's one of those C/L scale competitors who decided R/C wasn't that bad a deal. Fred's used R/C functions in his C/L planes for some time.

Art Newland's introduction to documentation is on the Scale Masters site at the bottom of the first page.

Fred brings us to an important fact too often over looked. You should use photos of the actual full size you are replicating. Its best to use front, side and top down if possible, however it is rare that you can find the top down. That's why it is good to have a photo taken from the rear on tail draggers. There is enough of the wing visible to "confirm" the aircraft conforms to a published mil spec if its a military airframe.

I'm leaving to go to Galveston this morning to reshoot some walk-arounds I'm not pleased with from the last two years. During the last Lone Star Fly-In it was so hazy I might as well have been shooting black and white:^) I'll post some of these in and on the Giant Scale WarBirds Yahoo site later today.

Hope to see some newbees jumping in with their opinions and questions as well. Its only when you see multiple entries by our peers that you begin to "see" what makes the difference in the scores.

I'll leave you with a quick thought... In flight comp you typically have three additional chances to better your score. In static you only have one chance and there are no opinion perks... :^) Your docs determine yoru static score, period.

ProfLooney

Well Ed and guys I had a brainstorm last night so you might wanna stand back lol.

What I suggest is lets get people to post their docs on their website and put links here and everyone can view each others docs and compare them and comment on them and help each other better them. Also would be a good way for newbies to view actual docs by different people and get a feel for the presentation.

I will be organizing and creating mine for my 4 projects and posting them on my site under the appropriate planes. I have enough I believe for a full set for the Hurricane so I will be starting with that one.

What you guys think this a good idea or a brainfart?

Joe

Condor

I'm a newbie to scale, and not interested in competition--at least not yet. However, I do like the idea of replicating a particular aircraft rather than trying to build a generic model. I am going nuts trying to find the right data, though: Profile publications often give just one side of the aircraft; what about the top? the bottom? the other side? The small markings and labels all over? Also, color schemes on the web, in print, or from photos are just approximations to the real thing; how does one find out which colors (FS or whatever) were at least supposed to be on the aircraft?

I am in the process of doing an AT-6 that flew for the Colombian Air Force and is now in a museum. I took several rolls of pictures from every angle possible, and for the most part, they came out pretty well. However, I still don't know exactly where to put the small stencils and markings, and in many cases don't even know what they say, much less have an idea of what font they were done in. Of course, this is an extreme example because there are no published specs for the Colombian Air Force, but the problem would be the same with better known subjects: Where can a modeler scare up all this data?

Thanks to all the scale gurus for helping us newbies with this type of basic information!

Juan M. Villaveces

ProfLooney

Hi Juan one of the nice things that most people dont understand about scale documentation is that you dont have to compete to do it. when you have a scaled out plane a lot of people like to ask all kinds of questions and get excited over your plane. by having a packet like they use at competitions you will see hundreds of people go through it to learn more thats why I suggest whether competing or not do it for your plane.

On your second choice see the plastic model websites. they are even heavier into scale than we are and they go into very minute detail. a good site is http://www.hyperscale.com/ you can find all kinds of data there especially in forums etc and this place is the ultimate site of all sites http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/ if you click on the walkarounds link it is the best out there. as for your locations of markings etc again we goto the plastic guys. Eagle strike and other graphics sites http://www.eaglestrikeproductions.com/ put out decal sets for like 8 bucks that comes with camo scheme sheets and the decals. now we cant use the decals but we can use them to make our own at our size. usually 1/48th scale give you the best results fo r finding something as it is most common scale. they even include sheets showing where the decals go. Email me offchannel at [email protected] and I will send you one I have for my hurricane so you can see what you would be getting. most sets run between 8 and 15 dollars US and well worth it. They also cover all nationality of planes including columbian stuff


Joe

Wulfman

My Feedback: (5)

The documentation for my current FW 190D-9 project is shown on my web site. The paint chips are not shown (I've kept them seperate because I need them for paint color matching), but they will be added to the documentation package before I compete with the model.

To view my package, click on the link, and then click the documentation button.
http://members.cox.net/wulfman3/3/Page_13x.html

SC

ProfLooney

Ewww ya ruined a nice paint job by putting a long nose on that 190 hahahaha Will look at them more and tell ya what I think of it will be getting mine organized for the hurri later tonight and tomorrow. I dont have paint chips for anything yet still have to get them.

Joe

ProfLooney

I got my docs posted it is incomplete hope to finish tomorrow or later tonight I just have to add2 pages of details and FS plane actual colors http://home.mchsi.com/~jahuntley/hur...stersdocs.html

Wulf I added a link on there to yours also if thats ok with you

Joe

Wulfman

My Feedback: (5)

Joe,

I like how your three views (5 views) match the color and markings drawings!

I agree with your earlier statement, even if you are not competing with a model, it is great to have documentation to support your model at fly-in's or even the local flying field.

No problem with the link.

Oh, as far as the D-9 goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder

SC

pittsdriver

My Feedback: (7)

Sometimes the search for documentation can be expensive. I bought almost every Spitfire book on the market looking for the right one and then found all the pictures I needed in some old magazines I had on the shelf already. I did do a check on my three veiws, I had them blown up to the size of the model and they are almost exact. I didn't do it for that reason but what a way to make sure your outlines follow the documentation.
By the way Wulf, Joe doesn't like pointy rudder Spitfires either. He just doesn't have that eye for nice lines I guess. Don

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Great thread guys... this is a whole new thing to me. I've probably painted myself into a corner here with my SBD, but I'm sticking to the plan. I really like military history, war stories, and especially the stories involving specific heroic individuals that fought for our country in WW2. In my reading, I came across the story of Admiral James Ramage who flew many Pacific sorties in the Dauntless as Captain "Jig Dog" Ramage. Eventually rising to the rank of U.S. Navy Rear Admiral, James Ramage is one of the most decorated individuals in the history of U.S. naval aviation.

Specifically, he flew some interesting sorties in the Phillipine Sea, in the "Sniper" unit of Task Force 58. I decided that I wanted to make my SBD a replica of Jig Dog's "41 Sniper" and began researching and documenting Ramage and his plane.

Here's my dilemna... I know he flew in Task Force 58 as 41 Sniper in the battles of the Phillipines. I know he flew off of the Enterpirse (VB-10). I know that the SBD's on the Enterprise used very standard coloring schemes and markings, not varying from official "sanctioned" standards of the Navy. BUT, there are no photographs of Ramage's SBD anywhere to be found. There are photos of him, but not his plane. I have photos of "other planes" that flew in his flights (18 Sniper, etc.), but not his (41 Sniper). Also, all the photos I have of the flights that flew off the Enterprise in June of '44 are black & white. To get markings from all sides of the plane, I have to use photos of different planes.

The color plates I have in 3 different books are all different, and none are of the same colors and markings that I need for this plane at this time in the war. The plane changed colors and markings a good bit during the war, and different units treated them differently in the field. Therefore I think I'll never have a good doc page that shows exactly what this plane looked like.

So, to make a long story even longer... I really want to honor Admiral Ramage's memory by replicating the heavy metal wonder that carried him through many sorties safely in June of 1944. I'm determined to stick with my plan to build "41 Sniper"... BUT do I have ANY chance of scoring well with the Frankenstein package of photos I'll need to authenticate this plane in competition?

If nothing else, at least it will serve as a decent doc package for fly-ins, and local competitions. It's a shame, 'cause I really hope & plan to make this SBD an amazing piece of scale work with tons of detail.

Neo

Visit my SBD webumentary site at:
http://www.renderwurx.com/rc/SBD

FliteMetal

In a simple word...no. For competitive purposes you must use docs ... that appear to be from the same aircraft


If you have one side only, you have to use what you have with data available which is chronologically correct. Key word is with the time frame or chronological period.

Though the challenges of field operations, both emotional and physical, detract from mil specs, they tend to do so across a specific theater of war at the same time. So you can usually suppliment your short comings with details of the airframe taken from (is he about to say what I think he's about to...?) other air frames such that an observer of your docs can't tell the difference..

Better still is to not get involved with deficit modeling resources from the beginning...emotional input typically results in an Opps quickly.

Documentation should ALWAYS preceed construction for this very reason. How long do you think most people collect docs before they begin their "decision making" processes. Note that I didn't say construction. Gathering doc tends to make several decisions for you unless you are rewarded with excellent search results.

Results of most documentation searches tend to be good if the net is utilized. It permits you to "focus on fact", not emotionally driven GOTTSTA HAVES... Build no model before its docs...like good wine.

Excellent web site by the way! ! ! ! ! I'm adding it to ScaleAero's Docu-U-Link section.

Ed

ProfLooney

Thanks Wulf I found a Hurricane site that is the best i have seen yet. I wished there was one like it for every plane. http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/hurricane/index.htm

and Don the pointy spit just to me ruins a nice flowing fuse line like instead of a smooth flow goes up to a point and stops then the designer said oh hell i might as well continue drawing and starts again lol

Joe

FliteMetal

Believe the pointed fin was to regain stability without mass as the airspeed went up the low pressure void created by canopies blanked out more and more of the vertical fin's air causing them to yaw horribly.

This weekend I did a walkaround of a MK-XVI.

ProfLooney

Welcome back Ed hope you had a fun trip this weekend.

Just got my Mick Reeves 1/4 scale spit back from the scanners man is this gonna be fun one of the files is 84 megs!!!!!!! I had them scanned at a lower dpi 400 than i usually have done which is 600 dpi and compared to my average 1.5 to 3 meg files this ones huge. Tha reason for this is micks plans are actual blueprints and any time you get blueprints done like micks or meisters and the guy that makes the blueprints dont get just the lines but gives you a really blue background eavery backround spot thats blue turns black on the scans adding a ton of useless wasted data that east up megs. I will definately have to completely trace these plans to cad so i can save as nice tiff files which will end up being less than a meg IF my computer has enough memory to open the file other wise I will have to have jesse use his mega memory computer to open them and save them as a jpg with smaller dpi and just put up with the lousey quality just to trace it.

Joe