How is a model evaluated?
Many of the reactions and comments we get when we share a finished model with others are far from constructive. In general, the attitude that is faced is “good luck” and so on. It should not be forgotten that the development of our modeling will be by correcting our mistakes. So how is a model evaluated? First of all, when we look at a model, we need to check the object within the general modeling criteria. You can find the basic evaluation procedures on the subject in the relevant link. In this way, you will be able to distinguish between the beautiful and the ugly, or the right and the wrong model.
The model I chose to show the mistakes made according to the basic modeling criteria in a model that “looks good” is the Hasegawa 1/48 Saab Draken, which I finished in the past months. You can reach the gallery about the model from the link.
First of all, a general pose of our model;
First, we need to look at the alignments, plan views are perfect for the job. If you do not have the chance to examine the model live and it has not been photographed from these angles, what you need to do is try to put the model in perspective in your own mind. Here we will use direct plan views for this work.
Top view; alignments etc;
– Pitot tube facing right in the center axis of the plane,
– Service decals are placed, if this type of application is not available on the actual plane, it means an incorrect placement is in question. In this case, the modeler should be asked whether he has a document on the subject.
– Nationality signs; If the two are not aligned, if there is no document, there is a modeler error.
– Panel aging; The fact that it is obsolete like the American navy planes again show the need for documents. So it’s a deliberate mistake by the modeler to make it look “beautiful”. Being conscious or beautiful or not does not save the model from being wrong.
Bottom view; alignments etc;
– Pitot tube facing left in the center axis of the plane,
– Alignment of the pod on the nose; done right. The centers of the wheels are aligned.
– Landing gear; is true because they are on the same line.
– Fuel tanks; are not parallel, as the pylons outside are misplaced in alignment and angle.
– Bottom aging; Although it seems excessive, it is a correct application as it is seen in more than one Draken photograph taken at different periods on the subject.
Front view; alignments etc;
1- There is no sense of depth in the air vents, at least the floors could be painted black,
2- Pylons are wrong as they are not placed.
3- Props due to wheels; the same asymmetry problem exists, so it’s wrong.
4- Landing gear covers are wrong as they are not placed.
5- Aligning the wings of the plane is a correct application, they are also aligned with the vertical stabilizer.
6- Fuel tanks do not exit the body at symmetrical angles.
Our model has failed with alignments, but what about the details?
Let’s take a closer look at the python, which we know is crooked; Wrong decal application, in this case, painting seems like a better way.
Let’s continue with the details
1- The thickness of the stickers is obvious, a detail that is skipped for the sake of throwing the thin top coat varnish.
2- The orange peel effect of the top coat varnish.
– Negligent aging; The naca inlet is stained, and the dirt that should have flowed from the panel spread in the opposite direction of the flight.
1- Loss of paint due to the motor output turning the model by hand.
2- A bad paint line from masking.
– Stains caused by paint smearing left and right while aging.
– Currents that do not conform to the direction of flight.
1- Stains caused by paint smearing left and right while aging.
2- Tearing of the decal due to mask tape or a similar application.
3- Stains caused by the careless application of aging
– Failure to align the model with the rest of the clean area resulting from the decal leaving the surface.
– Incorrect mask application on the nose pod.
– Overspray of paint on the front wheel.
– Enough to take the whole model by itself
1- Incorrect seating of the transparent tip of the nose pod.
2- The thickness of the decal is evident because of the thin varnish.
3- Overspray in the transition between two colors
1- Smearing of the upper color on the tip of the pylon.
2- Pylon not sitting on the wing.
1- Overspray on the front wheel.
2- The black paint in front of the antenna is irregular.
5- Staining due to the density of the paint used for shading
1- The thickness of the decal is evident because of the thin varnish.
2- The glass mask moves away from a clear line due to the tearing of the paint.
3- Paint leaks on the glass caused by the mask
4- Adhesive trace
– Air intakes that need to be opened must be covered with black paint.
– Leveling mistakes, lines that need to be closed, and details that need to be opened are skipped.
– The thickness of the decal is evident because of the thin varnish.
– The thickness of the decal is evident due to the thin varnish and silvering (air bubbles under it).
As you can see, although the model looks neat at first glance, it falls short when you look and go into details. I hope from now on you can make a balanced assessment before commenting on a model. It should be noted that as long as errors are seen, the probability of recurrence in the next model decreases.
Autor
H.Ufuk AYDINER
Source
http://www.modelsitesi.com/makaleler/modelkritik/index.htm
