That's awesome Chris!

__________________
John
YORF #003
SAM #004

For the discriminating modeler.

Enjoy!

Attached Thumbnails

           

Great pic, But that’s bird crap.

Yep. Pigeon Poop.

__________________
I love sanding.

Yes, thanks for those.

I have seen the one (or a very similar one) of the Nike fins that appear to have been painted with rattle can spray paint (and may very well have been!) and realized then — along with some of the sounding rockets I have seen on display at places like Wallops and at Goddard Spaceflight Center in Greenbelt, MD — that there was not always great care in the ‘appearance’ of the vehicles, as readied for flight. Does make it a bit problematic if one is aiming to have a ‘nice looking’ scale model, as compared to an accurate scale model.

Earl

__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970

I agree; I think that dilemma gets resolved by the preferences of the modeler, as to how "real" the modeler wishes to go. And I think in scale competition (at least in our hobby), most Judges I've run into are usually looking for a well finished, accurate model, but without all the weathering. So my recommendation for scale competition, for what it's worth, is to build the model as accurately as you can, and give it the best finish you can. If it's a Sport flyer, finish it the way you like, and that suits your timeframe. In the end it really only needs to suit the modeler.

I'm reminded of a discussion I was in a few years ago about authentically finished WWI plastic aircraft, and the lengths some modelers would go in those competitions. To Tim's point, the aftermarket details are perfectly rendered with no signs of wear, and the decals are crisp with no brush strokes. Yet for the prototype, beyond the factory finish, which in of itself was brushed over doped linen, most of the personal and unit markings were hand-painted at the field, with paint of questionable quality. No airbrushes, no HVLP guns, just a TLAR (as GH would say) approach, with the best artist on hand. So sometimes the model becomes more "perfect' than the real thing, and so we've seen a real swing towards weathering techniques in that hobby.

I'm personally not a big fan of weathering on models, but I'd hardly discourage anyone so inclined. Perhaps that's the challenge that motivates the modeler. And in scale competition I wouldn't consider the absence of weathering a factor in the scoring, even if it was obvious in the documentation (those various smudges, etc, although I would look for the cradle marks. They reflect how the prototype was finished). But for those that made a point of attempting to weather their model to match their photo, I would indeed judge it on that basis.

__________________
John
YORF #003
SAM #004

I think live hummingbirds would would work well for duplicating that finish in 1/10 scale.

Back on topic.

3 different flight rounds.

Attached Thumbnails

       

Nice! Thank you Chris!

No takers on the "free" parts? I'm surprised! That's well over $60 worth of stuff!

The Nike picture that John Brohm reference earlier. From the NARTS Aerobee 350 scale package.

Chas

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Charles Russell, MSgt,USAF (ret.)
NAR 9790, Lvl 1
SAM "Balls Three"