What is the most fun/interesting part of building What ifs?

[tigercat2]

For me, one of the most enjoyable aspects of this is determing which decals to use; under the rules of the What if World, at least my rules, are any markings from any country on any aircraft.   For example I just purchased a Hobby Boss F-84E (on sale at Squadron for $3.99).  It has an excellent and very colorful decal sheet that I would have paid $7 - $8 for it alone - the F-84E model is a bonus.  Now its way too easy to use the kit decals on the intended kit, so I am thiniking about what other aircraft I can use them on where they will look more or less normal.

It may be a while before a kit comes along, although I am thinking of another Mirage F.1 with F-104 tip tanks; using the F-84E decals on those tip and underwing tanks, and perhaps some third world country for national markings.  Will let you know.



Wes W.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

For me it's placing the project in a historical context. I had great fun writing the back story for the ANR Me262 & DAF Meteor. Similarly the RNoAF A-7 that I've got on the bench just now. I VERY rarely - if ever - build any What If without finding/creating an alternate history for it to inhabit.

Also:-

I enjoy planning and drawing-out the camouflage schemes and loadouts'

Ian

[B777LR]

For me it's placing the project in a historical context. I had great fun writing the back story for the ANR Me262 & DAF Meteor. Similarly the RNoAF A-7 that I've got on the bench just now. I VERY rarely - if ever - build any What If without finding/creating an alternate history for it to inhabit.

Yeah, me too

[NARSES2]

Similarly for me Ian - I like working out the why's and wherefores of my build even if it sits in my fairly well established alternative WWII scenario

[Damian2]

At the moment its the profiles I'm doing

[pyro-manic]

If I was to build a real-world aircraft, I'd have to be constantly checking references etc. to make sure I was getting it right. And I really can't be arsed with that.

Plus a lot of aircraft (modern ones especially) are never seen in anything other than light grey. That is deathly dull, and does not make for an interesting model IMO. I just want to build things that look good.

[kitnut617]

For me it's the planning, I spend hours just running it through my mind envisioning what it would look like, doing some research and testing fit-ups, and then having the pleasant surprise that the parts I had been thinking of using actually fit quite well once the plastic gets cut.  And as Ian says, trying to fit it into history goes a long way towards a happy conclusion.

Robert

[Hobbes]

For me it's the kit modifications/scratchbuilding. Research can also be fun. Actually finishing the model, however 

[upnorth]

The best part for me is a toss up between making it work historically in the timeline and making it work physically as a model.

I'm very happy with my recent bubble top Hurricane project as it worked very well on both fronts.

I also like staying a bit subtle with the whiffs while still making it clear that a whiff is there.

(Mind you, those who remember my two seat RAAF nightfighter P-40 project might disagree with the last comment!  )

[ChernayaAkula]

Hard to decide what's best.
Coming up with a backstory is a lot of fun. Letting your imagination run wild, while trying to make it appear reasonably plausible (in most cases) or just completely bad-donkey wicked!    But modelling itself is also lots of fun. Not necessarily painting cockpits, but the rest of the painting and decaling. And then there's fooling people. "Did that really exist?"

At the moment, I think I like the backstory part just a tad more than the others.

[Captain Canada]

I like the beer. And flying my models around the house, pretending Canada actually has an air force !

[Damian2]

I like the beer. And flying my models around the house, pretending Canada actually has an air force !

That's quite an imagination you have there then

[sequoiaranger]

I like that imagination is rampant in all stages of a "whif" project. I think it contrasts with the excruciating LACK of imagination when doing exacting detail on RW subjects. I know, I know, many RW projects require imagination to match up materials, scratchbuild, and construct and paint a worthy model, so maybe I am being a *LITTLE* harsh, here, but not much.

Though I have to admit I often have a letdown when I finish a whif. I think it is a certain sadness that the imaginative process of the project has come to an end.

Though I do not generally work on more than one "live" project, my mind is often "distracted" by possibilities of other whifs. I often "stew" over a solution to a concept and/or put it out of my conscious mind (maybe like "minimizing" your computer screen) and let my mental "librarian" subconsciously pore through my stash looking for shapes, sizes, etc.

I also **LOVE** mixing paints to get the "right" color and/or color combination for a project.

So I think the mental challenges of the imagination fused with one's own artistic talents and modeling skill are what drive my pleasure payoff.

[wow, this marks my 800th post in a little over a year of membership]

[braincells37]

I like to suck people in to my alternate reality by trying to make my whifs as plausible as possible. Creating the backstory is as fun as building the model. I usually try to publish the information on a mainstream model board in addition to here. I know my story is successful when I get a response asking if I have any more pictures or where did I find the information for a particular model I've built, like my Israeli P-47. I received numerous requests for my sources on that one, including one person trying to figure out which issue of Airpower the picture he saw of the Israeli P-47 actually appeared in!
My favorite though is the fact that The Hook magazine, published by the Tailhook Association, a well respected journal, actually took an article I wrote for Internet Modeler(April 2004) on the U.S. Navy testing of an F-104 and PRINTED IT AS FACT! It appeared in the Winter 2009 issue and they had to print a retraction in their Spring issue. Since it was published in a mainstream magazine a lot of people took it as fact and I had a lot of fun on several boards, letting people know that what they read was not real. This is the article as it appeared in The Hook. Of course, it left out a few vital clues that it wasn't real, such as names like A.P. Rilfool and I.B. Fulinya...



Even my most recent whif, The Lockheed Pogo in Vietnam, generated a number of responses, including one from a friend of mine who was in the Navy in Vietnam and thought he remembered it being there!

This is, of course, the Pogo in action on the Mekong river on its only mission. Actually it's a picture of my Lindberg model taken on a rainy February day in Seattle and photoshopped into a picture of a burning boat on the Mekong river.

Terry 

[philp]

I too enjoy "fooling" the masses.  My Israeli S92 (Me-262) generated several emails regarding my sources and some gentleman at the Whiff table at the 2007 US Nats gave Leigh a hard time telling him they didn't really have those (wish I had been there, I mean, he was standing at a table full of What If builds).  Probable ideas are great to play with but there is also the freedom of the Alternate Universe, whether it is yours or someone elses.  I am looking forward to the response of my Mormon Air Force build(s), course, I may have to move out of the state afterwards...

The other thing I like is seeing stuff in schemes they will (probably) never wear.  The Bermuda F-16 is a great concept and who knows, maybe someday, we will see Iraqi Vipers, or Honduran, or...