Other modeller's attitudes to Whiffing

[AeroplaneDriver]

One of my favorite aspects of a Whif model is the research.  Yeah, I occasionally slap one together with different colors and weapons and whatnot with little backstory, but for the most part I'll spend as much or more time researching just HOW the USAF could end up with nuclear armed CF-100 interceptors or how the French Aeronavale wold end up with Wyverns in Suez.  There are so many rabbit holes to go down and to me it is more interesting to learn the "What If" or "Could have" history than to rehash aviation and aircraft histories I've been obsessed with since I was a spotty schoolboy carrying a stack of aircraft books around school with me. 

[PR19_Kit]

Exactly so! That's why our houses are veritable libraries of aviation books and our broadbands are screaming to be shut down due to fatigue. 

[The Wooksta!]

The why is more important. Any hack can twin something
- I've seen so many that even the good ones bore me to tears - but few ask WHY they were done in the first place.

[Vulcan7]

The why is more important. Any hack can twin something
- I've seen so many that even the good ones bore me to tears - but few ask WHY they were done in the first place.

Because I like the aesthetics, so shoot me  Full Respect to those modellers who can major on the history/story. If I had the time I would love too as well.
As for Zwilling it does have a well established history. I have never bigged-up my models as being difficult I just like how they look. Is there a rule book I should be following?

[zenrat]

The why is more important. Any hack can twin something
- I've seen so many that even the good ones bore me to tears - but few ask WHY they were done in the first place.

Because I like the aesthetics, so shoot me  Full Respect to those modellers who can major on the history/story. If I had the time I would love too as well.
As for Zwilling it does have a well established history. I have never bigged-up my models as being difficult I just like how they look. Is there a rule book I should be following?

Nah.  Just do what you want mate.  Don't worry too much about what anyone thinks. 

[Pellson]

One of my favorite aspects of a Whif model is the research.  Yeah, I occasionally slap one together with different colors and weapons and whatnot with little backstory, but for the most part I'll spend as much or more time researching just HOW the USAF could end up with nuclear armed CF-100 interceptors or how the French Aeronavale wold end up with Wyverns in Suez.  There are so many rabbit holes to go down and to me it is more interesting to learn the "What If" or "Could have" history than to rehash aviation and aircraft histories I've been obsessed with since I was a spotty schoolboy carrying a stack of aircraft books around school with me. 

Fully agree! 

[zenrat]

Whereas I find research takes away from my valuable modelling time and so often either leave it to a last minute attempt to shoehorn what i've built into an alternate timeline or just don't bother.

[NARSES2]

Whereas I find research takes away from my valuable modelling time and so often either leave it to a last minute attempt to shoehorn what i've built into an alternate timeline or just don't bother.

I normally start off with a reason for why I'm building something, but it quite often gets lost along the way. Probably wanders off up some side track of its own ? I have a reasonable knowledge of history, but most of it is pre WWI, so that doesn't really help with aircraft modelling  . When I get to the end of a build sometimes the digits will flow across the keyboard and a reasonable backstory will emerge, other times I struggle with the title. Does it bother me ? No. However I do admire people who can up with these wonderful backstories    So each to his own and just enjoy whatever it is 

[zenrat]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.  What does research have do with the backstory?      

[NARSES2]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.  What does research have do with the backstory?      

Research ? Nah what Messrs Cox and Barlow taught me at school 

[PR19_Kit]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.  What does research have do with the backstory?      

It gives you openings from which you can add, subtract and modify bits of history to confuse them others.

See 'Meteor PR19' for an example of this.   

[Wardukw]

When I come up with a idea for a build the amount of research I'll admit there's not a huge amount of it really.

Say I'm rearming a tank with a much bigger gun..I'll take a quick look at it's weight ..barrel caliber lenght and it's recoil system to see if will fit...that's about it ..in the model world I could mount a 155mm cannon on a bren gun carrier ..in the RW not a chance ..the 155 weights far more than the carrier ..bloody funny idea tho 😄.
I do tend to try and base my builds in a realm of reality as in could it actually be built not should it be..we all know of plenty of RW vehicles which have been built but shouldn't have ..course that's just fodder for us lot 

That not B-58 I made had a wee amount of research done when I was figuring out the weapons load out..I wanted MK-82 bombs but didn't know if the time line would work..found out that they were made in the early 50s..good to go 😀
Other than that I just let the rattle toy on my neck have a bit of free rane and just go for it.

[NARSES2]

..in the model world I could mount a 155mm cannon on a bren gun carrier ..in the RW not a chance ..the 155 weights far more than the carrier ..bloody funny idea tho 😄.

Could you mount a larger calibre recoilless gun on a Carrier than a standard piece ? Given it's got no recoil system.  Your statement got the brain pondering 

[Wardukw]

..in the model world I could mount a 155mm cannon on a bren gun carrier ..in the RW not a chance ..the 155 weights far more than the carrier ..bloody funny idea tho 😄.

Could you mount a larger calibre recoilless gun on a Carrier than a standard piece ? Given it's got no recoil system.  Your statement got the brain pondering 

Oh most definitely you could mate..107mm recoiless rifle would work perfectly..a 20mm cannon would also work..a ZU-14.5 mm cannon would be fine too.
81mm or 120mm mortars work .
Now for something bloody serious..105mm serious.
Now a bren gun carrier weights in at a little over 3tons..the complete M102 105mm guns weights 1.5tons..now rip the M102 apart and loose 90% of the guns carriage...that will loose a smeg over a ton.
The M102 gun is a much lighter version of the WW2 which weights nearly 2.3tons...the M102 was developed for airbourne troops so needed to be light.
A bren with a reinforced rear end ..stiffened suspension and stabilisers that would work cause the M102 also has a softer recoil than the 101.
Yeah that's got me thinking now   

[Old Wombat]

Research is time consuming & for that reason I tend to build most of my models within my already established "Royal Australian Marines" Timeline (I really should get around to finishing writing the framework for it).

When I build outside that timeline I do try to do some research but not always, sometimes I just wing it or set the model out as its own thing without explanation.

My current build, the Avro Mancaster (Btw, I'm thinking of changing the name to Winchester ... Any objections? ) has involved quite a bit of research, possibly the most I've ever done for an individual model. The aircraft's serial number is not one used by any aircraft in bomber command (it may have been used on a fighter or other aircraft, but not on a bomber), the squadron is an Article XV squadron number (RAAF) that was never used & the squadron code is, to the best of my knowledge after considerable searching, also not one that was ever used.