Meet the Fokkers?

[StephenLawson]

Ok I found this over on the Finescale site... Its an ok build and I don't want to berate the builder but folks the wood grain is a bit...oh well see for yourself.

http://www.finescale.com/fsm/communi...TOPIC_ID=45384

[Brad]

I think he was going for the laminations in the prop, not the wood grain... and he got it wrong. He has the right idea, but doesn't understand how props are made.

[drIace]

At least FSM is giving some coverage to our favorite era.

[John Masters]

Nice streaking paint job, and a clean build, but where's the rigging? Yes, the prop is a bit...hmmm...garish.

From the Factory on the hill,
John

[buzz1941]

Obviously a carefully researched and heretofore overlooked example of Fokker factory-applied streaking finish on the prop. When it spins, it creates a colorful kaleidoscope that blinds attackers. When one X-rays period photographs of Fokker propellers which have been soaked in a tea-and-coffee solution for six hours, similar patterns appear. But only if you have a hyphen in your first name.

[John Masters]

My first name is John. Would I have to spell that Jo-hn? Or do you mean like the name of the famous Irish-German ace Seamus O'leary von Kranken-Schafft? I think he pioneered those famous "Kaliedo-props", as they were called. The inovative design often served the allies due to the refractory effect when the pilot flew into the sun to evade his pursuer. Many a Dr.1 pilot was lost because of this flaw.

But seriously, how tough is it to rig a Dr.1?

From the Factory on the hill,
John

[Ross_Moorhouse]

The sad thing about this whole thread is that the builder can't even defend how he did what he did.

Poor showing chaps.

[buzz1941]

Originally Posted by Ross_Moorhouse

The sad thing about this whole thread is that the builder can't even defend how he did what he did.

Poor showing chaps.

Actually, if you go to the FineScale thread, he's getting lavish praise, particularly for the propeller painting.

And hey, you're right, at least he built a tripe instead of an F-16.

[StephenLawson]

Again not wanting to berate the modeler and having posted the full thread link we look at wood grain duplication. Nice build but the propeller is a grand example of the type of interepretation that misses the mark. We can say that here because it is what we do...WWI aviation. I am all for encouraging the new and the neophyte but with so much of the subject being subjective...ie colours the point here (this venue) is to ask and explain "how to." In this case what not to do to duplicate wood grain.

Paint it purple and green with pink polka dots if you desire. But when you do wood grain...or laminated propellers shouldn't it look like wood grain or laminations? Fabric should look like fabric, metal should look like metal? "Bad show chaps" to point out the errors that we should avoid?

Lets review;"...You agree, through your use of The Aerodrome Forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law..."

Now what I find offesive is a moderator that wags his finger at a thread and posting members that have done none of the above.

[buzz1941]

I think Ross's point is that we're essentially making fun of the guy in a separate forum, while no one has pointed out in the error of his ways in his own forum. On the other hand, he made his build public, and so public commentary is to be expected. Including making fun of doing something dumb or plain odd.

"A" for effort, I guess. But he got other things well-done on this build, so what went kerblooey? Artistic interpretation is one thing ... but this propeller simply calls attention to itself. Has he never looked at the real thing?

Bottom line, of course, is that I'll be quite nervous painting me own Dr.1 prop, knowing that the Scale Police are out there, watching and waiting.