Hosted by Darren Baker
Diorama Probables
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 01:06 PM UTC
Acknowleged diorama guru Shep Payne once said that 'artistic licence' is completely allowable in dioramas because you can not portray something in action without showing the cause and effect in the same scene. Here is a vignette describing just that. What do you see wrong with the scene?
slodder
Joined: February 22, 2002
KitMaker: 11,718 posts
Armorama: 7,138 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 01:38 PM UTC
I'll bite to get things going,
Three guesses -
1. The black heart is not the appropriate marking.....
2. You can't take the engine cowell off without taking the prop off...
3. The figure is in the wrong uniform...
I agree with the artistic license notion..... Unless you have hard and fast evidence of a situation, which usually means photos, then artistic license is definitely a factor.
Three guesses -
1. The black heart is not the appropriate marking.....
2. You can't take the engine cowell off without taking the prop off...
3. The figure is in the wrong uniform...
I agree with the artistic license notion..... Unless you have hard and fast evidence of a situation, which usually means photos, then artistic license is definitely a factor.
Longshanks
Joined: February 19, 2004
KitMaker: 191 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:46 AM UTC
WW1 is'nt reallly my strong point but.....
...The only 2 things I would say are........
1. The 'black heart' is a german sqn marking not French.
2. The aircraft looks to be british not French.
...The only 2 things I would say are........
1. The 'black heart' is a german sqn marking not French.
2. The aircraft looks to be british not French.
AJLaFleche
Joined: May 05, 2002
KitMaker: 8,074 posts
Armorama: 3,293 posts
Posted: Friday, March 05, 2004 - 03:00 AM UTC
Quoted Text
WW1 is'nt reallly my strong point but.....
...The only 2 things I would say are........
1. The 'black heart' is a german sqn marking not French.
2. The aircraft looks to be british not French.
Nope, :-) this is Charles Nungesser's Nieuport with the correct markings.
Nungesser
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Friday, March 05, 2004 - 03:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'll bite to get things going,Three guesses -
1. The black heart is not the appropriate marking.....
2. You can't take the engine cowell off without taking the prop off...
3. The figure is in the wrong uniform...
I agree with the artistic license notion..... Unless you have hard and fast evidence of a situation, which usually means photos, then artistic license is definitely a factor.
As General AJLaFleche has pointed out; it is the correct marking. The cowling can be removed on this machine as the top quarter section of the cowling is attached to the fuselage and the rest of the cowl just unbolts from it. See Gen AJLaFleche's posted image. Finally for Nungesser, the uniform is correct.
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Friday, March 05, 2004 - 03:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
WW1 is'nt reallly my strong point but..... ...The only 2 things I would say are........
1. The 'black heart' is a german sqn marking not French.
2. The aircraft looks to be british not French.
Greetings Longshanks
The black heart was Nungesser's personal marking and used in various styles on most of his Nieuport fighters and the machine he tried the tranatlantic flight that he lost his life on.
The Aircraft is a French Nieuport 17 C.1 Though in the image posted the 'N' not on this machine's rudder.
FAUST
#130
Joined: June 07, 2002
KitMaker: 8,797 posts
Armorama: 4,190 posts
Posted: Friday, March 05, 2004 - 03:44 AM UTC
Ola People
As I`m absoltely not in WW1 and also not in Wingy thingys and I`m definately not into WW1 Wingy thingys but......
When comparing the plane in the dio with the Image Ajlafleche posted I notice the plane in the dio carries another gun on top of the wing while the Drawing of the Same plane has the gun (Different type) Under it`s wing
Just a guess don`t know if it got anything to do with the question about Artistic license
As I`m absoltely not in WW1 and also not in Wingy thingys and I`m definately not into WW1 Wingy thingys but......
When comparing the plane in the dio with the Image Ajlafleche posted I notice the plane in the dio carries another gun on top of the wing while the Drawing of the Same plane has the gun (Different type) Under it`s wing
Just a guess don`t know if it got anything to do with the question about Artistic license
staff_Jim
Publisher
Joined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 12,571 posts
Armorama: 6,599 posts
Posted: Friday, March 05, 2004 - 04:08 AM UTC
Hmm....well the pilot is leaning at an odd angle. 
Jim
Jim
Plasticbattle
#003
Joined: May 14, 2002
KitMaker: 9,763 posts
Armorama: 7,444 posts
Posted: Friday, March 05, 2004 - 04:22 AM UTC
I actually wrote this post and then deleted it as I thought it was stupid ... and not what was being looked for.
As the plane is only a one-seater ... the pilot would have to stand up to fire the gun, therefore not being able to fly the plane at the same time.
I had also noticed that the guy standing up was at an odd angle ... lined up more with the slope angle than the ground. As for markings and aircraft types ... it all looks good to me .... as I havent a clue what would right or wrong! Another thing... the cockpit side panel is removed for show but not sitting around anywhere.
Quoted Text
the plane in the dio carries another gun on top of the wing while the Drawing of the Same plane has the gun (Different type) Under it`s wing
As the plane is only a one-seater ... the pilot would have to stand up to fire the gun, therefore not being able to fly the plane at the same time.
I had also noticed that the guy standing up was at an odd angle ... lined up more with the slope angle than the ground. As for markings and aircraft types ... it all looks good to me .... as I havent a clue what would right or wrong! Another thing... the cockpit side panel is removed for show but not sitting around anywhere.
AJLaFleche
Joined: May 05, 2002
KitMaker: 8,074 posts
Armorama: 3,293 posts
Posted: Friday, March 05, 2004 - 04:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Textthe plane in the dio carries another gun on top of the wing while the Drawing of the Same plane has the gun (Different type) Under it`s wing
As the plane is only a one-seater ... the pilot would have to stand up to fire the gun, therefore not being able to fly the plane at the same time.
Top wing gun is okay:
and an example with cowl and wing guns (also flown by Nungesser)
See the link for more info.
Nieuport
keenan
Joined: October 16, 2002
KitMaker: 5,272 posts
Armorama: 2,844 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 01:07 AM UTC
Okay, I give... What is the answer...
Shaun
Shaun
bilko
Joined: April 22, 2003
KitMaker: 584 posts
Armorama: 241 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 01:49 AM UTC
OK, if cause and effect is the clue then 2 things;
1. as already said the panel/section beside the cockpit is missing with no corresponding piece on the ground; and
2. the top wire to the rear flaps appears slack and even with the flaps lowered this should not be the case;
or a late third thing - no wine bottle to cause the figure to have such a lean.
Otherwise I surrender.
Brian
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 03:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
the plane in the dio carries another gun on top of the wing while the Drawing of the Same plane has the gun (Different type) Under it`s wing As the plane is only a one-seater ... the pilot would have to stand up to fire the gun, therefore not being able to fly the plane at the same time.
I had also noticed that the guy standing up was at an odd angle ... lined up more with the slope angle than the ground. As for markings and aircraft types ... it all looks good to me .... as I havent a clue what would right or wrong! Another thing... the cockpit side panel is removed for show but not sitting around anywhere.
There were two guns on this a/c during June 1917 Syncronized Vickers (infront of the pilot) and the Lewis Gun om the moreau mount (The pilot accuated the gun using a bowden cable and changed drums as it was mounted on a rotating hinge. The gun could be pulled down reloaded then put back up and the front mount would clasp the front barrel in a flex
clamp... The Tulip wood cheek fairing is removed and this is the focus on what were looking at. The concern that the fairing is not in the photo or on the ground lends to the idcea that there are no mechanics or tools laying around either, so....?
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 03:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
OK, if cause and effect is the clue then 2 things;
1. as already said the panel/section beside the cockpit is missing with no corresponding piece on the ground; and
2. the top wire to the rear flaps appears slack and even with the flaps lowered this should not be the case;
or a late third thing - no wine bottle to cause the figure to have such a lean. Otherwise I surrender. Brian
Yes, the panel is missing, but no panel on the ground or mechanics with tools....why?
The wire is not attached to the 'flap' or aileron its a rigging cable that runs from the top of the rear interplne strut leg down andat an angle to the fuselage. The aileron accuateors were operated by bell cranks and cables that ran from the fuselage infront of the cockpit up inside and ran internally in the top wing.
Bottle of wine he's got it behind his back.
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 03:47 AM UTC
Maybe that the panel/fairing can't be removed with the wings on the aircraft? The point is not what you want to see but what is the builder trying to show you. In this case the internal structure can't be viewed without some artistic licence to the build.
It is a little like a 'red line cutaway'. This is a view of the exterior removing the skin that normally you could not see otherwise. Where ever the outer skin has been removed a red border line is present to denote the the cutaway rather than an open access panel or battle damage. Usually we see this predominate on tanks or an intact blg.
Most people don't know that it is out of sequence to have the fairing removed before the wings are. So its a fine line between a repair scene and a cutaway. As a diorama doesn't have to have figures to tell a story. So it can conversely be that even if a build has a figure it may not tell a story. The key is there are no tools, no cheek fairing, no mechanics. Note the original acess panel is still apparent on the kit. It is the areas around it to the cockpit and forward to the firewall that are gone. This type of build would be classified by IPMS as simple a display. Simply putting a figure down next a build won't make it a diorama.
It is a little like a 'red line cutaway'. This is a view of the exterior removing the skin that normally you could not see otherwise. Where ever the outer skin has been removed a red border line is present to denote the the cutaway rather than an open access panel or battle damage. Usually we see this predominate on tanks or an intact blg.
Most people don't know that it is out of sequence to have the fairing removed before the wings are. So its a fine line between a repair scene and a cutaway. As a diorama doesn't have to have figures to tell a story. So it can conversely be that even if a build has a figure it may not tell a story. The key is there are no tools, no cheek fairing, no mechanics. Note the original acess panel is still apparent on the kit. It is the areas around it to the cockpit and forward to the firewall that are gone. This type of build would be classified by IPMS as simple a display. Simply putting a figure down next a build won't make it a diorama.
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 03:56 AM UTC
To remove the tulip cheek fairing you have to remove the lower wing first. The lower edge of the fairing is not cut out for the lower wing it is sandwiched between the lower wing root and the fuselage airframe. Though removing the lower wing was not difficult it still had to come off first. This last photo I took after the build was 'completed made me realize 4 months ago that I had forgotten the bugee shock absorber chords. That was a trick to go back and do without bending da brass etch. Man I was kicking myself hard, right around Thankgiving for that...
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:56 PM UTC
Here's one for you, What is wrong with this model of a Fokker Dr.I replica?
AJLaFleche
Joined: May 05, 2002
KitMaker: 8,074 posts
Armorama: 3,293 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 01:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Here's one for you, What is wrong with this model of a Fokker Dr.I replica?
It has a radial, not a rotary engine, whose cylenders spun around a central shaft. In this engine, the cylenders ar stationary and the pistons move up and down inside them.
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 03:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
It has a radial, not a rotary engine, whose cylenders spun around a central shaft. In this engine, the cylinders ar stationary and the pistons move up and down inside them.
Actually, yes this one does have a radial but thats not what is wrong. The 'original replica' had a radial.
jrnelson
Joined: May 23, 2002
KitMaker: 719 posts
Armorama: 566 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:23 AM UTC
OK... hehe
A wild stab in the dark..... my guess is that the prop is reversed. The pitch should be angled the other way.... unless the prop turns counter clockwise when viewed from the front?
?? close ? :-)
A wild stab in the dark..... my guess is that the prop is reversed. The pitch should be angled the other way.... unless the prop turns counter clockwise when viewed from the front?
?? close ? :-)
AJLaFleche
Joined: May 05, 2002
KitMaker: 8,074 posts
Armorama: 3,293 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:35 AM UTC
Is the lozenge camo an underside pattern?
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 01:07 PM UTC
Quoted Text
OK... hehe A wild stab in the dark..... my guess is that the prop is reversed. The pitch should be angled the other way.... unless the prop turns counter clockwise when viewed from the front??? close ? :-)
NOPE
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 01:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Is the lozenge camo an underside pattern?
NOPE
bilko
Joined: April 22, 2003
KitMaker: 584 posts
Armorama: 241 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:33 AM UTC
It's not blood red. The prop/airscrew was made of wood and these were usually varnished not painted (a colour) - possibly the same applies to the struts.
The ground cover is out of scale and the wrong colour for Europe?
Brian
JackFlash
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 04:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
It's not blood red. The prop/airscrew was made of wood and these were usually varnished not painted (a colour) - possibly the same applies to the struts. The ground cover is out of scale and the wrong colour for Europe?
No its not blood red but this one's not supposed to be. Original Triplanes had wood laminated props but this is.... a model of a replica triplane... hence the radial engine so the prop was painted metal. ( and shorter that the original too.) Your close with the ground cover thing but its notr that is out of scale it is that.....oooppps almost gave it away!
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.