Acrylic discs to replicate props in movement?

[[SC] Arachnicus]

I had the the idea of cutting acrylic disc to replicate the effect of a blurred moving prop. Cutting the disc is easy but airbrushing the blurred props is a bit harder.

Is there a company that makes them pre made?

 

[mikewint]

Check with Terry (Airframes), he had a post on this a while back as I recall

 

[Airframes]

A forum member used some pre-painted photo etched 'blurred' props, which go under the name of 'Prop Blur' or something similar. They look OK in photos, as that's the only time you'll see blurred, individual prop blades, but personally, I think they look silly otherwise.
Clear discs look passable, but again, they're not totally convincing, although I admit to using them once or twice in the past, for 'in flight' displays. Don't bother to try to paint the prop blur as individual blades - as mentioned, the only time these ar ever seen is in still photographs, where the camera shutter speed 'freezes' the prop.
If you really want to add some 'movement', then an overall, very thin, misted tint would look better, just to give the impression of the complete prop disc, rather than a clear disc.
It's all down to personal choice of course, but on those rare occasions when I model a spinning prop, I just omit the prop blades and, if a spinner is involved, fill in the holes where the blades would be, and paint the complete spinner.
Unfortunately, in modelling, there are some limits, and portraying movement of any kind, such as props, smoke, etc, is one of these areas.

 

[meatloaf109]

I have to agree, I've tried discs before and they just don't do it for me. Blank off a spinner or round off a hub, it just looks better to me.

 

[[SC] Arachnicus]

Blank a spinner? Round a hub? Please explain. I'm not going to bother if its not worth a nice result. I'm making a Battle of Britain airborne diorama. Acrylic rods' planes at a angle. A 303 polish hurricane chasing a 109.

 

[N4521U]

Ooooooo, kinda Not. I'm attaching a photo of a Halifax I repaired for a golf buddy, it was built by his father, who was a bomb aimer on the Kelly Gang. Although it was build in the 50's, and not the best piece of clear I think in the minds eye this is what one sees when looking at a plane with clear disks. It is your choice.

Bill

 

[stona]

Blank a spinner? Round a hub? Please explain.

Do not fit the propeller blades and fill the spinner to cover where they would have been. You will get something like these in flight poses that I've built.

As Airframes said in most views and lighting conditions a spinning propeller is virtually invisible. To my eye stuck on acrylic disks (or even the photoetch propblurs) look like just that.....stuck on bits.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Wayne Little]

Like those Steve!

 

[stona]

I'm a big fan of in flight poses. I build quite a few.
Some modellers (and all competition judges) seem to view it almost as cheating,hiding cockpit detail or a lack thereof and not showing wheel wells. Personally I find that many aircraft look their best posed as if in their natural element.
I don't do competitions,I build for myself and suit myself

I did one model with the best of both worlds,in flight,wheels down,but it's a jet....no props to deal with!

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Some people think that discs or blurs look great. I don't,but it is definitely a case of each to their own

Cheers
Steve

 

[Airframes]

I have to agree with Steve, but also admit it is down to personal choice or preference.
As I mentioned earlier, in a photograph, the clear or tinted discs, or the metal 'Prop Blurs' look fairly reasonable, as the viewer is only seeing a 2D image, which looks familiar as photos of real aircraft may look similar. But in 'real lie', viewing the actual model in front of you, they look exactly what they are - bits stuck on the front.
There's a very well-known, in fact famous, aviation artist, who produces superb work, who has been criticised for including what one art critic rightly described as 'cast iron props', as the artist paints in a rather heavy prop blur of individual blades, in a dark colour. To me, that's what added prop blur effects look like on a model.

 

[Boa]

A friend of mine used clear disks, then he carefully used some sandpaper from the Spinner and out (to replicate the blades) on 3 places and painted the "groves" black (Painted the disk and wiped it of). he got the illusion of 3 blured propblades, he also painted som yellow on the edge.

 

[Airframes]

Back in the early 1960s, 'Frog' produced a 1/72nd scale Hawker Tempest V with just that sort of disc, with instructions to lightly paint the grooves, in grey, and wipe off. It looked fairly effective, but the disc itself was rather too thick.
Even earlier, another company (Skybird I think) provided, in their balsa 'solid' kits, a thin metal, wire coil, rather like a clock spring, which looked good when it vibrated, as it looked a little like a spinning prop, but otherwise it looked like a clock spring !!
One method I tried out - only once- was to add individual segments of slightly tinted clear acetate, to replicate the arc of each blade. Again, it looked good in photographs, which was the reason they were added, but looked awful otherwise.

 

[[SC] Arachnicus]

I dont quite understand why its taboo to have the gear up. If you have two planes with the effect of one chasing the other I think it looks a bit silly with the landing gear down.


I may go "propless". Ill worry about it when i get to that point. Thanks for the reference stona.

 

[stona]

I dont quite understand why its taboo to have the gear up. If you have two planes with the effect of one chasing the other I think it looks a bit silly with the landing gear down.

I couldn't agree more! I love to see an aircraft posed in flight.
Most kits do not have a pilot supplied as standard and many also will present a challenge when positioning gear doors closed and undercarriage up. They are made to be presented gear down. Many pilots,supposedly in the same scale,will vary greatly in size and may not fit a kit without some radical surgery.
That doesn't mean that you can't pose them in flight,I wouldn't say it's taboo,just not the way to win a competition.....if you're bothered. I know I'm not
Cheers
Steve

 

[Airframes]

Nothing taboo with having 'in flight' models. Once upon a time, that was the only way static model aircraft were built.
I've got a couple myself, and in fact I'm in the process, (off and on) of planning and building a few boxed dioramas of specific incidents or actions, showing aircraft in flight, and in some, using different scales to simulate depth and distance. (known as 'differential diorama').
Model manufacturers started including undercarriage parts which were very basic, in fact quite crude, in the early days, and then started including more detailed parts, so that models could be built and displayed complete, on a shelf, or in a diorama setting, rather than have to have them hanging from the ceiling, or on the plastic stand which almost every manufacturer once provided as part of the kit. Airfix now market separate packs of single, or multiple stands for 'in flight' models.

 

[[SC] Arachnicus]

Tap Plastic makes acrylic clear rods, pretty cheap too.

 

[mikewint]

Terry, we're showing our age here but after you mentioned it in your last post I thought back to some of the earliest models I ever built, probably mid to late '50s and they all came with clear plastic stands with a clear arm that was glued to the bottom of the plane and held it at a 30 - 40 degree angle upwards. No landing gear whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that they still came with props though

 

[Airframes]

Yep, they had props - and the manufacturers always proudly stated that the props could spin!
Of course, I never made the prop spin, or made 'Vroom' sounds, or 'Tak-a tak-a' sounds. Honest .....

 

[mikewint]

Sure, sure, tell another one. And those tubes of thick plastic cement that oozed out of the joints when you put the parts toether. Then usually got on your fingers and then on the model leaving glue fingerprints

 

[Airframes]

Bringing back memories!
I'm currently working on a 1/48th scale Monogram F-84F, and I suddenly remembered building one as a kid, probably aged about 9 at the time. The kit was, as far as I remember, by 'Aurora', to an odd scale somewhere in the region of 1/48th, but possibly slightly larger, but this kit was special!
It had the 'Stars and Bars', and serial numbers etc moulded in, and a hole in the end of one wing tip - as this was the special 'Whip Flight' model!
Once built (with a pilot already moulded into the cockpit, no landing gear, but the shape of the gear doors moulded onto wings and nose), a metal ring, provided in the kit, was inserted into the hole in the wing, and the length of cord provided attached to this ring.
The model then 'flew', by the simple expedient of swinging, or 'whipping' it around and around!
Heck, I must have had hours of fun with that model - even though I'd painted it light grey, as I didn't have any silver paint at the time!
Hmm. Maybe that's where the idea for the current light grey camouflage came from .......