Get 'em while you can!

[Mike1158]

I believe that there is a certain amount of instant gratification needed by many people in 2018 which I think is demonstrated by the growth of so called social media. I have model I want to build but it will have to be scratch and I am still researching the project. I will get it built having had a recent breakthrough but material and method are being considered too. I think a mixed media in the end.

[gomidefilho]

Originally Posted by RickPink65

In my humble opinion, I have always thought that all models should include formers. The reasons are mainly twofold: a) It gives the model correct shape which is important if you are making an accurate replica and b) it also simplifies 100% assembly. When a model has no formers, it comes out flimsy not accurate and much, much more hard to build it accurately and straight. They also help to hold wing spars, landing gears and other structural parts of the model. If a guy dislikes formers, well, if they are included just throw them away.

I'm not against the formers. I do not think I understood. Nobody starts out in modeling knowing everything. There are beginner modelers who do not like formers, I have more than ten years of role modeling and stop after twenty years of plastic models, the formers really give precision but complicate the assembly, I know many people who became enthusiastic about role modeling, being extremely active in this forum that after some frustrations with complex montages have disappeared. So I say again the discussion here is not simplicity / complexity versus price. The discussion is that designers have different editorials.

[RickPink65]

Originally Posted by gomidefilho

I'm not against the formers. I do not think I understood. Nobody starts out in modeling knowing everything. There are beginner modelers who do not like formers, I have more than ten years of role modeling and stop after twenty years of plastic models, the formers really give precision but complicate the assembly, I know many people who became enthusiastic about role modeling, being extremely active in this forum that after some frustrations with complex montages have disappeared. So I say again the discussion here is not simplicity / complexity versus price. The discussion is that designers have different editorials.

You are partially right. No doubt formers hinder a little assembly but if they are well designed, the complication is not big and the results well worth the trouble.
Models come out very accurate and strong. My opinion, at least!!

[Falco]

Well for one I am for and against formers at the same time... for me it depends on how well the model was designed. I have built some Model Art with and without formers and sometimes it makes no difference and the model comes out looking the same. Some other models require formers due to the complex shape of some parts. I have build models where I omitted formers in certain areas to ease the build while I included them in other areas to get an accurate shape. I build models like water flows... which ever way that particular build goes, sometimes even straight to the trash bin LOL

[umtutsut]

I wish there were a simple way -- yeah, ha ha -- to make formers for models that don't have them. For example, Aaron's AJ-2 Savage and A-5A Vigilante both have squarish fuselages that could really benefit from formers.

I don't know any way to create them for specific models other than by trial and error. Anyone have a better idea?

Les (The Voices of Authority)

[Texman]

Originally Posted by umtutsut

I wish there were a simple way -- yeah, ha ha -- to make formers for models that don't have them. For example, Aaron's AJ-2 Savage and A-5A Vigilante both have squarish fuselages that could really benefit from formers.

I don't know any way to create them for specific models other than by trial and error. Anyone have a better idea?

Les (The Voices of Authority)

I think, in my mind, I have a better idea!

I search for plans, usually R/C, that have the cross section fuselage shapes shown on the plans.
If I don't know the scale, I find some common piece I can measure, then rescale the "now" formers to what I need.

I've done that with several aircraft, most recently the Dday A-10.

[Butelczynski]

Originally Posted by umtutsut

I wish there were a simple way -- yeah, ha ha -- to make formers for models that don't have them. For example, Aaron's AJ-2 Savage and A-5A Vigilante both have squarish fuselages that could really benefit from formers.

I don't know any way to create them for specific models other than by trial and error. Anyone have a better idea?

Les (The Voices of Authority)

I had the same issue with B-18 Bolo . Next one I'll do will get formers copied from RC plans+some guesswork.

[RickPink65]

Originally Posted by umtutsut

I wish there were a simple way -- yeah, ha ha -- to make formers for models that don't have them. For example, Aaron's AJ-2 Savage and A-5A Vigilante both have squarish fuselages that could really benefit from formers.

I don't know any way to create them for specific models other than by trial and error. Anyone have a better idea?

Les (The Voices of Authority)

It is not at all easy to design formers. Perhaps that is why several designers stay away from them. One way would be to copy formers from similar aircraft printed by other companies, case in point: The A-5A Vigilante. GELI has a Vigilante in 1/33 scale. Probably the fuselage sections don't coincide but at least you can get an approximate shape of what you need. Anyway, the best solution is that designers do incorporate formers to their aircraft.

[Rata]

Originally Posted by RickPink65

Anyway, the best solution is that designers do incorporate formers to their aircraft.

For sure. I'm with Falco- sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't. It's good to have them on the sheet whichever way you go.

[nebeltex]

Babes in the woods....lol!