Historic Accuracy vs. Aesthetics: A Quandry

[Garth]

I'm being a bit indecisive on one of my current projects, and figured I'd poll my friends and model-building colleagues on their thoughts.

 

The project is an F-102 Delta Dagger circa late-1950s. Markings will be those of the 327th FIS prior to it deploying to Greenland.

 

The 327th FIS markings prior to going to Greenland (and getting the high-viz artic-red paintjobs) are really cool. Overall ADC gray, tail is white with red outline trim and contains red lightning flashes.

 

However, the rest of the marking really suck. The F-102 Generally wore it's bort number and "US AIR FORCE" designation on the fuselage over the wing, with the national insignia planted on the intake. However, the 327th had the national insignia on the nose forward of the intakes, with "US AIR FORCE" covering only the forward 20% of the wing, with the remainder extending onto the intake. To make matters worse "US AIR FORCE" actually curved downward onto the intake.

 

To my eye, the markings look downright toyish ... like something you'd see on a diecast or plastic airplane, not on a model.

 

So, I've been thinking of just saying screw it and doing the markings how *I* would have done them (retain the tail flash, but switch over to the "normal" F-102 bort, "US AIR FORCE" and national insignia positioning.

 

Of course, while that would look better to me, it wouldn't be historically correct. And with the exception of my F-111B in VF-74 Desert Storm markings I've always striven for historic honesty, if not perfect accuracy. So what I'm thinking of doing goes against my grain a bit.

 

Then again, it's not like 99.9% of the people who actually see my models would know that I "fudged" the markings.

 

So, thoughts on what I should do?

 

--Garth

[Jacques]

Best advice is to do what will give you the most satisfaction....historical accuracy or what looks good to you? I think that some creativity is preferable, but I also do not get as much joy out of either "bolt-counting" nor "extreem historical accuracy". my .02 anyhow

[ShotMagnet]

I like to model what I like to see. I recently transgressed against the gods of armor modeling by putting split TC hatches on a Pz IV H, because I liked the look of the split hatches as opposed to the single hatch. I also put an AAMG on it, again transgressing, again because I wanted one on my model.

For a contest, you want to be accurate. For anything else, you want to make yourself happy.

 

Shot

[Gennady I. Beregovoy]

Which ever you'll have more fun and satisfaction with. My .2-cents.

[Brad Sallows]

Historical accuracy. Otherwise, you will have endless, sleepness nights of anxiety worrying about your conflicted model-building ethics because _you knew_ there should have been 5 bolts along that one panel line rather than 4, and you failed to sand them down and add new ones...

[Jacques]

Originally posted by Brad Sallows:

Historical accuracy.  Otherwise, you will have endless, sleepness nights of anxiety worrying about your conflicted model-building ethics because _you knew_ there should have been 5 bolts along that one panel line rather than 4, and you failed to sand them down and add new ones...

 

 

heh heh heh...oh the sleepless nights....I ge the feeling you just might be talking "tongue in cheek"?

[Michael Eastes]

To me, part of the fun would be explaining that the AF actually did deploy planes with that squirrelly paint job. I personally try to go for accuracy, but it's your model.

 

Have you done GWBs Tex Air Guard jet yet?

[Garth]

Well, too late. I did the markings this afternoon (stayed home from work with a really wicked sinus headache thanks to the bad temperature fluctuations over the past week) in the non-squirrelly hypothetical layout. Thanks for everyone's input tho!

 

It looks pretty good, to my eye. Only issue is that I had to make the bort number myself (the one included in the decal set wasn't the same size as the non-squirrelly "US AIR FORCE") and the shade of dark blue doesn't match exactly (funny enough, the bort blue looks better than the manufactured decal blue).

 

I'll put some pictures up when I'm done. Oh, and I'm not going to do Dub'yas jet. At the point he flew the TX ANG markings were incredibly plain-jane and boring.

 

--Garth

 

Originally posted by Michael Eastes:

To me, part of the fun would be explaining that the AF actually did deploy planes with that squirrelly paint job. I personally try to go for accuracy, but it's your model.

 

Have you done GWBs Tex Air Guard jet yet?

[Garth]

Allrighty then ...

 

Here are a couple of pics of my nearly-complete deuce (need to add the ejection seat and other warning stencils, but she's good enough to show off).

 

Funny thing about the pictures. First, the blue in the custom bort number looks much lighter under flash photography than it does to the Mk.1 eyeball. It has an underlay of white, so I'm thinking the blue is just transluscent enough to allow the white to show through more.

 

Second is that the "US AIR FORCE" and bort on the side of the plane look all wavy - again something that looks completely different (STRAIGHT!) to the naked eye. Must be a trick of perspective between the coke-bottle fuselage and pretty severe curve on the top side of the delta wing.

 

Anyway, enjoy!

 

--Garth

[Garth]

One more pic of my Deuce, with a NJ-ANG F-106.

 

--Garth

[EW]

What did you do to create such shining surface, especially on the port wing? Did you add clear coat or/and polished up the color(s)? Can't see that you have much of a problem with that "old airbrush" of your's now

 

As for the decals, I don't really understand what you refer to. Can't spot anything wrong with those. So overall, I think you have managed to reproduce the aircraft in question very well Your attention for details can be spotted on the missiles for example.

 

EW

[Gennady I. Beregovoy]

Very pretty planes. BTW, is that really a heart decal on the end of one of those planes? If so, why? What's the story on that one?

[Garth]

Thanks, EW, Gennady.

 

The gloss overcoating is Future floor acrylic. I truly love the stuff - it's an absolute wonder product that can be used for all SORTS of interesting things. Been using it for a couple of years now, after hearing about it out on RMS and the HyperScale discussion group. The only problem that I've had so far is that even sprayed at 15psi I have to coat the entire model at one time for the stuff to level off properly, otherwise I get "pebbling". I'm goint to try thinning it for my next model.

 

As to the heart on the tail ... there is a story behind that: the 327th had four sections, each of which differentiated itself by carrying the markings of a card suite (hearts, spades, clubs, diamonds) on the tail.