discussion Research

[dave]

I like reading, so research informs what I build and vice versa. Sometimes reading a history gets me interested in building a particular subject.
Old photos can be a minefield for colour interpretation, different films representing colours differently, colorisation etc.
Museum examples can also not be what they appear, repainting in different schemes or codes and even some cases two aircraft combined in a way that was never done historically.
all you can do is research as widely as you can, ask questions and then use your own judgement.

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

Something that now I realise is worth saying regards research is:

Know when to stop, because you will always ALWAYS find another extra little detail to intrigue/entice you

 

[Tim Marlow]

I like reading which is why I have a very healthy library

I like reading, so research informs what I build and vice versa. Sometimes reading a history gets me interested in building a particular subject.
Old photos can be a minefield for colour interpretation, different films representing colours differently, colorisation etc.
Museum examples can also not be what they appear, repainting in different schemes or codes and even some cases two aircraft combined in a way that was never done historically.
all you can do is research as widely as you can, ask questions and then use your own judgement.

Reading is a great way of getting this information but it does come with a caveat. If you like it or not you are absorbing the unconscious bias of the author. To get a true picture of the knowledge on offer there are things you need to take into account.

You need to be able to distinguish between witting and unwitting testimony. Basically there will be things that the author puts in there because he/she wants them in there, and things that are there in there unintentionally. No author can eliminate these facets, they are a fact of life for historical written works.

In addition, any thing that is not primary source material (technical manuals, general arrangement drawings, contemporary photographs etc) is a synthesis of other sources. This is called secondary source material, and will be open to interpretation. A good bibliography will help you decide if a secondary source written work is well researched, but unless it is accompanied by a full list of footnotes and endnotes in the text, attributing facts to their proper sources, it is not a rigorous academic work and should be read with a large pinch of salt and your eyes open.

The really big elephant in the room here is that the vast majority of what we read is produced by hobbyists for hobbyists, usually retreading information they have garnered from previous secondary sources. They are not trained historians. It doesn’t make the books any less valid, just that for absolute historical fidelity the academic rigour of a trained historian has not been applied so they must be approached with due care and attention. When I took up military modelling after my break I was actually surprised how hard it was to source decent works drawings at a reasonable price. In the railway modelling world most half decent reference works include a set of works drawings in the references section. Very few military books seem to do the same thing.

Me, I went down this black hole during my railway modelling days, spending longer and longer researching each build and becoming less and less happy with the end result if I couldn’t be 100% sure of absolute fidelity to prototype. In the end I gave up modelling for about ten years as a result. When I restarted I decided not to go down this wormhole any longer, partially driven by the lack of easily accessible information. I now apply the near enough is good enough approach and find my modelling much more enjoyable as a result.

 

[Tim Marlow]

:rolling: Well, it was too difficult for you mate!

Unnecessary sniping I’d say. After all, you still haven’t quoted your source, just a book title. In my experience Steve has been nothing if not helpful on this forum and I don’t think he deserved this response.

 

[Guest]

When I took up military modelling after my break I was actually surprised how hard it was to source decent works drawings at a reasonable price. In the railway modelling world most half decent reference works include a set of works drawings in the references section. Very few military books seem to do the same thing.

I suspect that’s because official drawings of military equipment will be harder to get than those made by commercial companies. Military stuff tends to get “Classified” or worse stamped on it, and remain so for a long time even when there’s no real purpose to that anymore, while commercial companies will want to guard their trade secrets but for nowhere near as long. Plus, companies probably have all kinds of documentation intended for the users of their equipment, which is not secret at all, usually unlike the military equivalents.

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

A little word on general arrangement drawings. While they are, indeed, primary sources, they're not always to be trusted. Famously, many GA of the B-29 released to the press, and still used by some today, were deliberately altered from the originals, apparently as a security measure. The 'official' but 'wrong' ones are still published today
Also, there is a story that Airfix got the GA drawings of the Battle direct from Westlands, after they'd taken over Fairey. What Airfix got were the prototype drawings. Which is fine by me as I've got the old kit to do the first flight of the prototype

 

[spanner570]

Unnecessary sniping I’d say. After all, you still haven’t quoted your source, just a book title. In my experience Steve has been nothing if not helpful on this forum and I don’t think he deserved this response.

Tim, I totally agree.
Steve has helped me out on numerous occasions. His knowledge of aircraft is well known and admired. All with a big helping of modesty too.

Such sniping could well make him change Squadron.........

 

[Tim Marlow]

A little word on general arrangement drawings. While they are, indeed, primary sources, they're not always to be trusted. Famously, many GA of the B-29 released to the press, and still used by some today, were deliberately altered from the originals, apparently as a security measure. The 'official' but 'wrong' ones are still published today
Also, there is a story that Airfix got the GA drawings of the Battle direct from Westlands, after they'd taken over Fairey. What Airfix got were the prototype drawings. Which is fine by me as I've got the old kit to do the first flight of the prototype

True, but they are a great basis for finding fidelity of dimension or for identification of production variations. By no means should they be used in isolation for a truly accurate model though.

Military modellers in general are far less interested in this uber geek stuff than railway modellers anyway, at least in my experience, and probably have a better experience for it.

Evolution of magazines is a case in point. The railway modelling magazines I read when I was cutting my teeth almost always had an article or two on the historical side. It would be a rare one that didn’t have line drawings or “profiles” of buildings, stock, or locos with associated pictures.
Early Milmod magazines were like this. The Hobarts funnies series comes to mind. However, pretty much all modern mags are basically full of pretty pictures with a glib description of aftermarket parts and what finishing product Mig Jiminez has for sale at the moment. “Why“ and “how to“ seems to have drifted away into “look at me” and “buy this” and the modelling world is far less interesting for it.

 

[Waspie]

A very interesting thread. The research side of modelling could be why as a ‘noob’ I have stuck to kits I have personal experience with. That has negated intensive research. Relying purely on my own knowledge, images I have taken or been part of the image process and either course notes or diaries.
Personally I would only do surface background research and wouldn’t want to get bogged down with the minutiae of detail. (That’s just me). It’s the building for me.

 

[Miko]

Personally I would only do surface background research and wouldn’t want to get bogged down with the minutiae of detail. (That’s just me). It’s the building for me.

Wise words, research can be over done leading to confusion, hesitation and stalling of the kit build for fear of getting it wrong

Miko (ignorance 'can' be bliss)

 

[stona]

:rolling: Well, it was too difficult for you mate!

I missed the answer in the book(s). Since you have found it, the very least you could do is tell me where to find it.

I spent some considerable time going through the JaPo books, the Smith and Creek books, the two Crandall volumes and the latter part of Rodeicke's tome, looking for an answer on your behalf, and now you are giving smart arsed replies to a perfectly reasonable request.

Not good.

 

[spanner570]

Steve, please don't take it to heart. Roll with it.

The majority of members know you from old and you are always there to advise and help. Quietly and with no fuss. Just a fountain of modest knowledge. No one knows better than me!
Keep it that way and ignore negative 'Things'

Such below the belt, snide comments are not worth getting worked up about.
For future reference just log in who made them.

Unfortunately, those sort of posts are getting all the more common on S.M. This saddens me, as up until fairly recently this used to be a friendly and easy going forum with a complete absence of prima donna's. Not any more I'm afraid.

Onwards and upwards!

 

[Guest]

A little word on general arrangement drawings. While they are, indeed, primary sources, they're not always to be trusted. Famously, many GA of the B-29 released to the press, and still used by some today, were deliberately altered from the originals, apparently as a security measure.

And then you get ones that have plain mistakes in them. I have (pictures of) original Caterpillar drawings for the D6A armoured bulldozer, and at first sight, they’re excellent — they’re works drawings, after all. But then I noticed that there’s a major mistake in one of them: the hydraulics cylinders for the dozer blade sit against the side of the bonnet, and the driver’s cab is wider than the bonnet, both of which are represented just fine. But in the rear view, the cylinders have been drawn against the cab side walls instead of partially “behind” them … I’m guessing a draughtsman lost track of what was what, exactly, and nobody noticed.

 

[vizenz]

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!

Since the German tanks of the 1939 Polish campaign are my special area of interest and have been researching them for many years, I unfortunately have to say that I have not yet come across a single kit that offers historically correct markings for this campaign!

..but so far one question eludes me;

the Fw190D-11 (& perhaps -13) nose cannon ammo storage - is it the same set up as the Ta152 - ie wrapped around the cannon or is it above where cowling guns used to be?

For those interested the ammo box on top of the vacated cowling bay - as depicted by IBG -is correct.

That's right for the D-13, but the D-11 did not have a nose cannon
You can find a corresponding contemporary drawing from the Baureihenübersicht in: Peter Rodeike, "Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug", page 405, text p.406, Entwicklungsübersicht from November 28, 1944 p.407

 

[stona]

That's right for the D-13, but the D-11 did not have a nose cannon
You can find a corresponding contemporary drawing from the Baureihenübersicht in: Peter Rodeike, "Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug", page 405, text p.406, Entwicklungsübersicht from November 28, 1944 p.407

I did find those, with the position for the relevant parts for the D12/R11 and D13/R11, but they are small and lack detail.

For those interested:



The D-12 was to have an MK 108 and the D-13 an MK 151 'Motorkanone'

German production plans had slipped into the realms of fantasy by the time this was published.

 

[vizenz]

I did find those, with the position for the relevant parts for the D12/R11 and D13/R11, but they are small and lack detail.

:thumb2: This is exactly the overview I meant. The graphics show where the ammunition containers are installed in relation to the weapons.

 

[Guest]

That’s not me upsetting everyone again, is it? :smiling4:


Have a wonderful evening!

 

[Ian M]

And that my friend was that.

 

[PaulinKendal]

Why is he still here? This is precisely the sort of behaviour that should get him turfed out, surely?

 

[Tim Marlow]

Why is he still here? This is precisely the sort of behaviour that should get him turfed out, surely?

That’s one for the mods, not us. He may well have been warned for all we know Paul. Responding like that to a three month old post is slightly unhinged in my opinion….