Art of Damage - comments please

G

gajit

Guest
Hi Guys

Im just messing about trying to add some damage to the wings on this repaint.

What do you think? Any advice/suggestions? Me thinks that the bullet holes might be a bit small.

dam1.jpg
 
looks ok to me for straight forward bullet holes. Cannon or explosive shells would obviously do more damage, but for bullet holes they are a good size and look consistent with what i'd expect them to look like.

looks good
 
The bullet holes look about right to me, too. I really like what you did with the boot scuffing/paint chipping on the step area - it looks very convincing. What color primer was under that camo paint? I'm not familiar enough with RAF painting procedures to know. It seems as though we'd see a bit of that by the entry area as well.
 
LOL Spotlope - the scuffing is supplied by Just Flight's paint schemes :salute:
 
I would think the bullet holes would walk a straight line. As close as they are, it seems to me they all came from the same gun. So, seeing as how the bullets come out at the same feed rate you should have them walking the wing in a straight line.

Other than that, I think they look excellent.

JMO. Don't know if it is right.
 
Most bullets fired from the enemy behind you will strike your plane at such low angles (except high deflection shots) that the holes should be more oval shaped. Some bullets would even just crease the skin without penetrating. Your Spit has metal skinned wings-- fabric wings, and/or fabric control surfaces would react differently to enemy fire. But the end effect would be pretty close:holes!
Due to the ballistics and physics of air combat, those holes should be more random and scattered, unlike the Hollywood "sewing machine" effects.
Also that "battle damage" would only be good for a plane returning from a mission. Once that plane landed, it would be inspected for structural damage, and repaired.
 
Very little damage will actually look like a bullet hole. Piglet's descriptions are apt in that the most you'll get is a sort of elongated oval. They will not be spread evenly either...both the target and the gun are moving very fast and at differing angles.

Exit wounds will normally appear larger than entry wounds, and will be affected by ricochet off internal surfaces as well as flattening out of the round. ALuminum surfaces will often extrude (even on entry strikes), and will appear as torn paper. The aluminum will bend before it tears, so there will be distortion in neighboring surfaces around the hole.

Fabric surfaces will rip away until they reach the next attachment point, where they may still rip, or partially rip.

Plexiglas will crack, at high altitudes may shatter completely

No airplane will be allowed to fly following any sort of battle damage until a thorough inspection is done and repairs made.

Some good battle damage photo's to go by....


View attachment 10880View attachment 10881View attachment 10882View attachment 10883


Note the wear along the wing on the 3rd photo....significant wear along the entire upper wing surface....interesting.....

Patches will be square riveted panels, usually off color from differing paints, levels of weather exposure, or simple lack of painting. Fabric will be painted (doped) but will be differing color as the paint wears quickly under UV. Plex will normally be completely replaced.
 
Here's what happens to a Spitfire after it's been hit with 30mm cannon fire!

[YOUTUBE]ZoLLDi-M3fk[/YOUTUBE]
 
I want to make a comment on modeling versus reality. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Gajit's depiction of battle damage. In the model he's trying to convey that the aircraft has been hit and this he does with something recognizable to all of us in the form of bullet holes. Not one of us said..."gee, what's that?". I personally don't think it's realistic, but I immediately understood it.

Hollywood directors routinely display the "sewing machine" effect to convey the idea of what is happening rather than simply have chunks of the fuselage or wing just fly apart, which is what actually happens. Most of the audience would not understand what was happening. Those that would accept it for what it is, a little poetic license and move on ( most of us do -- don't ever go to a war movie with a bunch of soldiers).

A model depicts reality through conveying an idea or a concept of the idea rather than the thing itself (a Barbie doll looks grotesque full size, as a diminutive little doll it looks reasonable).

I think Gajit has achieved his idea. If he wants to depict that idea more realistically he may lose something in the translation.

Of course, it's his idea, so he's the one he has to please....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top