Trumpeter RA-5C Vigilante 1/72 FINISHED

[JamesPerrin]

Not an aircraft I know w a lot about, though more after reading Tarkas’ post. But always impressive looking. You’ve got a great model there

[jamesaw]

Lovely job. I had to check the scale again when looking at the cockpit detailing you did. Impressive isn't a strong enough word!

[Softscience]

Beautiful build! Your details in the cockpit are really impressive, and I like the finish.

[vacant]

Very good looking model. The pin wash lines and black dots are immaculate - a real winner.

I struggle, however, to understand why the use of such detailed pin washing on a 1/72 scale looks effective! Photos of the real aircraft show little or no signs of these black lines. and dots. Check out this one,, for example https://www.skytamer.com/1.2/2007/7151.jpg;
So what is going on in the modeller's brain to make us like them. Is it something to do with a sub-conscious desire to exaggerate some details in a scale model to compensate for their small size?

[Navy one]

So what is going on in the modeller's brain to make us like them. Is it something to do with a sub-conscious desire to exaggerate some details in a scale model to compensate for their small size?

I think it's to show off all the details that are on a model. It is exegerated but you can not compare it with a museum bird. They are always in a factory new paintjob.
They look often more like models then a model. Look at the Tomcats on display, all perfect in paint, not quite what you see in the pictures on board while in combat.

[vacant]

Showing off the details on the model may be what's at the bottom of it, but it is an exaggeration that seldom relates to reality, either for a service aircraft or certainly not for a museum painted one. There is something going on that lets us suspend 'reality' in favour of exaggeration, giving us the illusion of a degree of detail that is simply not visible at that scale. I would never argue that modellers should not do it because it is so effective. I'm just curious as to why.

[Tarkas]

I think the original idea was to represent the fading of paint in the centres of well- or even not-that-well-worn panels as opposed to the edges which tended to attract grime, grease, etc., and so looked darker. That may or may not be valid, but the idea of pre-shading caught on, and the usual way of achieving that led to the exaggerated darkened panel edges and lines that are de rigeur these days.

Part of the problem is the need to let the pre-shading show through the paint, so a delicate balance has to be struck between there being too much contrast -- which is the usual situation IMO -- and not enough, so that the panel lines disappear. I've always thought that using an airbrush for pre-shading usually leads to over-wide dark edges around the lighter centres, and have though about trying a pen to emphasise the lines and edges rather than spraying. Will it work? If I ever try it, I'll let you know...

[Dazzled]

Absolutely stunning and inspirational build. Thanks for sharing and for a guide through the process. I'll certainly be referring back when I build mine

[celt]

Regards
celt

[Purplethistle]

Always good to see another one of the flock of Gull Grays. especially so well done. I love the detailing.