As one who has no datafiles on hand and only a limited amount of time/money in my day to day life to build and research WW1 models I largely build OOB and rely on the kit makers to help me with colour choices/accuracy, decal schemes etc. I thought I would ask what the goals of other builders on here are.

Is it the challenge of modelling or the aircraft being modelled that drive us on to create from these kits.

If you could have someone produce an extremely accurate model(possibly an exact miniature replica from original blueprints) on a 3d printer, and I believe this will be possible in the not too distant future, would you still build models?

The challenge of modeling depends upon each person, their desire, and the resources available, as well as time, money, and space available as well.

While there might be some who would gravitate toward the use of a 3d printer and build the most accurate models, I think that there will still be others of us who, while availing of the various accessories and what not, and try to continue doing it "the hard way", because for a lot of us, it is more than simply ending up with as accurate a model as possible, but in the building or it, and even in the preparation of building the model, the research, and the interpolation(because many people can look at the same set of photographs and come to many different conclusions).

This hobby, nay, this set of hobbies, for there are many other aspects to this than just aviation, such as architecture(what is as hangar but just an example of architecture?), as well as some civil engineering(airfields, anyone?), and other, seemingly unconnected aspects, all of which come together in that curious synergy called the diorama.

No, it is too big for 3d printers, CAD/CAM production, or any other technological advancements to cause any of this to fade away.

I mean, Guillow stick and tissue kits are still being bought and built, and a long time ago, someone once told me that Guillow kits will finally disappear.

Try WingNut Wings kits - you get excellent model, full color plates, historical photos, text and instructions that cover colors via both photos | illustrations... They also provide manual books as PDF for free for all of their models.

Majority of kits now a days are built as 3D models from plans, though certain details are gotten wrong, omitted or altered to create an accessible kit to general market | meet production requirements. Not sure what 3D printing adds, other than increased cost and time to manufacture - challenges of reproducing real objects in miniature are plenty.

3D printing adds exciting opportunities and advantages (especially rapid prototyping), but I see more of 3D printing entering / competing in the market, rather than providing at-cost alternatives... Especially if you want excellent OOB experience - quality of decals, manual design, advertising etc - all costs money and somebody's time.

So would you say that the hobby is partly about the finished article but in a large part about the desire to create something with your own two hands (and brain) that you can sit back and feel proud that you created and that says something to other viewers of the model about the wonder of these fragile constructions that men took up into the unknown with little certainty that they would return?

The thing I do find quite fascinating is the impression I get that so many people in modelling are extremely caught up in a desire for total accuracy in build but at the end of the day the finished article will still only be a representation and not a miniature copy until the day it is possible to perfectly replicate wood, metal, bolts, thread, fabric, screws, leather and a host of colours and textures in miniature.

Surely the real goal should be bringing the aircraft to life for the viewer, the creation of a diorama full of life or those little artistic touches that spark a connection in the mind of the viewer to the men who flew these aircraft.

Basically I personally see the aim as artistry and illusion over technical perfection. I don't myself lose sleep over whether an inspection panel is in the correct place etc. but I marvel at the personal touch, if say, a circled, patched bullet hole with date of incident is replicated convincingly on a wing. The little things that the artist puts in place to hint at the sense of humour and personality of the pilots and their maintenance crews.

That is not to say that I don't lust after the perfect model but for me the perfect model would be made of canvas, metal and wood, on a scale of 1:1 and I could take it up into the wide blue.

Canvas! Linen, surely.

Ummm... Sorry I am using my own terminology. Linen cloth may well be the more appropriate term. I am no materials expert but I have always referred to the fabric as doped "linen" canvas but I am happy to be corrected as every correction is an addition to my knowledge.

[img]" BORDER="0">

If I could afford a 3D printer I would use it for;

1)... Building a model I cannot get (Curtiss D, or Wright B) but I would make the parts and build it.
2)... Making those mod parts you cannot get. (1/28 Camel Comic parts)

Just getting a program to build a solid would soon grow boring, but to learn AutoCad or equivalent that would suit me. Too see the handiwork of my work... that is where we get the satisfaction.
...I have scratch built a Curtiss F boat, modified a lead Ironclad for accuracy, currently I have made aircraft for a coloring book; I would like to try 3D modeling.

there is nothing wrong with the new, only the the FEAR of the Idea of new tech for and old hobby.

Enjoy modeling any way you want...

Captn Tommy

I too build mostly OOB relying on the kitmaker to do thorough research, and, to provide reasonably accurate USABLE decals.

I prefer to model WW1 aircraft, or at most up to WW2 (Golden Age civil aircraft)

To answer your question directly, I would still build models even if models could be produced by 3D printing. Mostly I enjoy the painting and marking, but I do learn a lot from the construction of a kit. I like put my personal stamp on a model,my own interpretation or 'spin', highlighting some aspects more than others. Though I do not consider kit building an art, it is a craft IMHO.

If 3D printers became widely available at a reasonable price, I think that kit parts could be made by the hobbyist in their own home, on their own printer. The program for a kit could be ordered and received via internet, and then assembled the same as we do today - eliminating the distribution part of the business, and make a wider variety of kits available.

For a second I thought I was in the movie "Gone With the Wind". ". . .I have always relied on the kindness of others. . ." Build what you want its your kit. We all have limitations in time and finances (especially these days). There is so much information here and willing people to offer their help you can't hardly go wrong. I started dropping in here because I heard about this place from others. I even questioned the master hizzelf, Mr. Lawson and the deeper I dug the more I found he was right.

Modeling philosophy aside, If you don't get better at the stuff you enjoy where is the reason to build in the first place? This site is a resource. I may even post one of my builds here in the future. But if you don't have Datafiles, books, lots of decals, or your not a member of the historical societies you will always be on the fringe. Jessica is right in her assessment. To put it in a common vernacular - in for a Penny in for a Pound (Sterling).

Yes linen surely!

Are there any people on here who have worked with WW1 era biplanes? (The real thing rather than the models) If so I would actually really like to know what the real material is like. Is it a coarse woven linen (In trying to visualise this I think of coarse looser woven artists canvas(referred to as canvas although it is made of linen rather than hemp)) or a medium weave like "Duck" canvas or finally the very tightly woven very smooth fine linen that is used in linen suits and shirts etc. When looking at the texture on the surface of many WW1 models it looks like it represents a quite coarse loose weave but I would have thought this would have a fairly high drag coefficient even if heavily doped.

This is an interesting topic. I had some time to do an internet search and I came up with information on the Vintage Aviator' website.

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/reference/working-irish-linen

Then, fabric was attached to the airframe by sticheing and then doping. Now, synthetic materials are glued and then doped with with a special type of dope that is less flammable. Check Youtube.

TGIF. Cheers.