Research

[tr1ckey66]

Hi everyone

Just wanted to share a few thoughts on the subject of reference material and research in general. This seemed to be quite topical given the fantastic research Tony (yak face) put into his 1/72 Blinder corrections. This topic also brought to mind a conversation some time ago between members about the merits of reading v internet research.

I personally use both books and the Internet to research my subjects and can say from experience that just because it's printed doesn't necessarily make it fact. The number of books I have that contradict other literature and (in some cases) even their own research is staggering. As an example, I recently purchased a book on the 116 pz division Panthers in Normandy. 2 photographs of a knocked out Panther are captioned as the same vehicle. Clearly this isn't the case as one is a Panther A the other a G! As a lot of these publications are translations from French to English I do think that sometimes this contributes to the confusion but cannot explain all the errors.

I'm not really stating anything new to those that thoroughly research their subjects regularly, Steve (Stona) is undoubtedly more of an authority on the Luftwaffe than I am and I know there are lots of other equally well informed members out there on other subjects. This (rather rambling) thread is simply meant as a caution to anyone researching their subjects. In my opinion it's always best to seek various research sources and try to uncover the truth from all available material (this sometimes isn't as easy as it sounds). Even then you may discover that afterward you may be proved wrong, annoying if the project has been completed, but you can only go on the best information available at the time.

Anyway, I hope this is of interest.

Cheers

Paul

[yak face]

Couldnt agree more paul! Its always good to get as much info from as many different places as you can, then try and sift through it to get as near to the facts as possible. As yourself and steve (stona) have said its best to try and work to a photo of the actual subject if available , and take a lot of things on the internet with a pinch of salt until corroborated (wow ,big word!) cheers tony

[spanner570]

Then of course there is the old and very true saying waiting to trip up even the most meticulous research:-

Even when all experts agree, they could still be wrong!

Ron

[Guest]

Found that one of the great aspects Paul of model making is the research. It is fascinating & such a wonder that there are so many people who put stuff on the net.

Having a career which spanned over 50 I found that research for my work was at the same time as interesting at times misleading in the extreme. This is not helped with some of the programmes on television.

A short programme a couple of days ago on TV gave a precised glimpse into the Vulcan attack on the Falklands. So many errors it was ridiculous & worse was the fact that a lot of the loose facts will have been hoovered up.

They had lunch time a piece on the Belgrano it being 30 years to the day she was sunk. You would have thought that Britain was at fault in sinking the Belgrano the way it was presented. No mention was made that the Belgrano was cruising on the edge of the exclusion zone but most important on the edge of the extensive Burwood Bank over which she would have dashed leaving the Conqueror stranded on the edge due to lack of depth over the bank & unable to follow. Poor reporting leaving out the most important issue.

Laurie

[tr1ckey66]

Cheers Tony/Ron

I would add though that to dismiss expert opinion (to me) is equally wrong, if accuracy is your thing (I'm not against anyone building a 'what if' or a representative vehicle for instance) and you want the best interpretation of historical events. Overwhelming expert opinion suggests that the earth is spherical (I'm pretty much in agreement with it!), but I think it's wise to consult a few opinions when researching more difficult subjects. I'm attaching a pic of some of the books and mags that make up part of my 'research library' and whilst not being the most extensive source material it has proved useful over the years.

Cheers

P

[ATTACH]44857.vB[/ATTACH][ATTACH]44858.vB[/ATTACH][ATTACH]44859.vB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]48013.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]48014.IPB[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]48015.IPB[/ATTACH]

[tr1ckey66]

Hi Laurie

I watched that program on the Vulcan raid. I wasn't aware of the inaccuracies and, as you've said, I'm taking what was portrayed as fact. This perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about and, whilst this thread is not intended to be a rivet counting rant, it does highlight the need for caution.

Thanks all for contributing to what I find equally fascinating and frustrating subject in equal measure!

Cheers

P

[Guest]

They had lunch time a piece on the Belgrano it being 30 years to the day she was sunk. You would have thought that Britain was at fault in sinking the Belgrano the way it was presented. Laurie

It wasn't on the BBC by any chance, was it? I've seen a few news items on the Falklands War, and can't help but be irritated by the use of the term "The British", like it was some foreign power involved.

Tony

Sorry to the OP, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread.

I think a lot of TV docs throw in generic war footage, knowing that most people won't know the difference. "War Hero in my Family on channel 5 told the story of someone's grandad who was RAF ground crew for a Spitfire squadron. "The squadron took up ground attack duties..." Cue footage of Typhoons.

[colin m]

Research.......Sometimes I sit down to do a bit of work on my latest build and often decide to have a quick look for a pic on the web, and spend the rest of the night surfing / reading and getting no work done at all !!!

[Guest]

It wasn't on the BBC by any chance, was it? I've seen a few news items on the Falklands War, and can't help but be irritated by the use of the term "The British", like it was some foreign power involved.Tony

Sorry to the OP, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread.

I think a lot of TV docs throw in generic war footage, knowing that most people won't know the difference. "War Hero in my Family on channel 5 told the story of someone's grandad who was RAF ground crew for a Spitfire squadron. "The squadron took up ground attack duties..." Cue footage of Typhoons.

Yes it was TV lunch time. Agree with you Tony stupid "The British" very annoying. Like the Historians who "moan" on about he would have done this they would have done that. How do they know what they would have done & all as if they were there in person.

Say Tony was the Typoon a WW11 or the present day one ? I could believe either !

Laurie

[tr1ckey66]

Research.......Sometimes I sit down to do a bit of work on my latest build and often decide to have a quick look for a pic on the web, and spend the rest of the night surfing / reading and getting no work done at all !!!

Colin - I hear you buddy! But to me it's all part of the fun!:badcomputer1:

[stona]

I always research my models,the history is important to me.

ALL reference books contain errors,there has yet to be one printed which doesn't. I know personally of one case where an erroneous caption went under a photograph despite the author of the book (who I know) pointing out the error before publication and I'm sure there are many more similar stories.

Some books have stood the test of time very well ( Prien's Messerschmitt F,G,K book,Rodeicke's Fw190,Freeman's history of the 8th Air Force,Price's Spitfire Story and many more) others have faired less well,we shan't name and shame here. It is always important to seek more than one reference and when they disagree make an educated guess!

I've been looking at a well known Fw190D and there are profiles in Jerry Crandall's Dora book and the JaPo Dora publication. These are both well researched and reputable publications drawing their information from the same series of photographs and yet the two profiles are VERY different. I'm going with Crandall but it would be hard to explain why. If I ever get around to building the damned thing I will try and explain in the thread

Of course some people will build OOB with the markings provided by the manufacturer and that is absolutely fine. Many of the schemes featured in kit instructins and decals are already meticulously researched for you. Be aware that some are not!

Cheers

Steve

[stona]

The answer isn't in Crandall, Smith and Creek or the JaPo books as far as I can tell. The last chance is Rodeike's tome, which I will dig out. The problem with that is it very much concentrates on the A series types.

Ideally, someone would have the parts list for the D-11, but they were so rare that maybe none survived.

[scottie3158]

Personally I just like to build the kit, I like to get the physical part of the build right within reason, but as to markings, location and the finer detail I don't let it worry me to much. I do have some reference books at home but tend to use "walkarounds" and the internet pictures.

[Guest]

The answer isn't in Crandall, Smith and Creek or the JaPo books as far as I can tell. The last chance is Rodeike's tome, which I will dig out. The problem with that is it very much concentrates on the A series types.

Ideally, someone would have the parts list for the D-11, but they were so rare that maybe none survived.

I have to admit that I’m much more interested in where the answer is as opposed to where it isn’t. There is a
Dora-13 and that would be airworthy if not for the fact that it’s the only one left. Museums normally won’t touch the final existing exemplars for obvious reasons.

[stona]

Actually the answer was in Crandall - and I suspect if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be anywhere else.

It would be helpful if you said where. A volume and page reference would not be difficult.

Since I missed it, so too might others.