Toy Pilots

[Peter Miller]

A few points. Fine. If you don't like pilots leave them out. Personally My models are built with the concept, "You can't see it at 50 feet." I can't see a plastic pilot but I can see a figure in the cockpit while it is in flight.
I always objected to a Teddy bear in the cockpit of a 1/3rd scale Sopwith Pup. However I do understand the owners who do that, I am sure that they remove it after flight and take it to bed with them at night so they don't feel frightened in the dark.
Until we can all have Hank Clark's pilots we will have to make do with little plastic or latex ones.
Oh, and wait until you see the next model that I am going to design, I have something special lined up for that pilot.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

We're going to run a feature in the Sept issue having collected all the pilots we can find. The good bad and ugly!

[Flanker .]

OK check out the contents page of this month's comic , photos for p86 and page 82 you can see STRAIGHT AWAY that the pilots are toys, esp the Spitfire, compare those images with those of the Chrislea (air to air). There is no doubt as to the realism of the humans within and you can hardly see 'em. The point is that at 50' or 200' feet you can still see the deadness of a toy pilot.

What I find really ODD is that the model pilots in jets always look super wrong too, and yet they are all "helmet visor n flight suit" or just all helmet, there are hardly any human cues to give em away at all, and yet they always look wrong. I rest my case.

[Terence Lynock]

Dont you think these plastic pilots are too 'fat' or perhaps the wrong scale for the aircraft like squeezing a 1/10 into a 1/12 because it was the closest they could get?.
Even in a full sized Spifire there is plenty of space around the pilot even for a 210 lb lump like me but when I see models the pilots look like they were shoe-horned into them like F1 racing drivers without a bit of space to spare.
Perhaps if the pilots looked a bit more anorexic they would look better, I think when you look at an aircraft in flight you shouldnt notice the pilot until ytou look for him as he should be part of the whole not standing out like some work of art or cartoon character.
If you must stick a cartoon character in the seat then make it Yogi Bear or Tigger.

[Flanker .]

I think you have it right there Terence, a nice scale model flying sans dolly looks great because there is nothing there to draw the eye to the "wrongness" of the toy human, you see the whole thing as a unit.

[Peter Miller]

You say that even a jet pilot looks wrong hidden under masks and bonedome etc. I think that this may be the answer. You look at a pilot in a model and feel that he is "wrong" even when he shouldn't be because of being hidden under the equipment. i.e pilot in model is wrong no matter how realistic he is.

[Flanker .]

Thanks Peter you have solved my problem for me! I was mentaly defective all the time, suffering from a pathological hatred of ALL model humans! What a relief! All I need to do now is get some heavy medication and counselling.

[Bustergrunt]

What a lot of Victor Meldrews there are...Who cares what's in cockpit of the planes/model/toy/whatever... as long as the owner is happy?
Next we'll be getting told that 'Your Wot 4 is the wrong colour'... for gawds sake...
GET A LIFE!!
Surely there are more important thing to twist on about?
You're obviously not going out flying enough as you seem to have forgotten that this hobby is supposed to be fun...
Guess what...our planes aren't real, they're toys...so get out and play with them.

[Flanker .]

So what colour is your wot 4?

[Peter Miller]

Actually I have to tell you that I prefer female pilots.

Oh, and that used to be a very common expression back in our club in Aden. "It'll never fly, its the wrong colour." Green models never did fly as well as other colours.

And talking of such superstitions, have you ever noticed that models fly much better if you accidentally cut yourself and bleed on them? It must be accidental though.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[001]

I knew somebody (definitely NOT me) who was running a Rossi 61 clamped onto a Workmate, the bench fell over onto his forearm, the prop ran down his arm, leaving 40 deep cuts, it stopped him flying for 6 months. Despite being showered in blood - like a scene from Kill Bill, the Workmate, as far as I know, never flew.

[Peter Miller]

Ouch! I use a cheapy type workmate with a test stand on it but I do tie it to a tree so it can't come forwards.
I remember back in the 50s a Mcoy 35 coming out of the club test stand and going right across the club room, luckily no one was in the way.

[Tony Jones]

'Toy' pilots may not be very realistic up close, but they are not intended as perfect scale items to be examined at close quarters. If we demanded the same standard of our models, we wouldn't have any!

Pilot figures are there so that when the aircraft is in the air, the cockpit appears to be occupied. What could be more unrealistic than a plane flying without a pilot?

Is it not illogical to expect a non-scale or semi-scale model to be equipped with a sculptured masterpiece in the cockpit?

But then my own pet hate is so-called scale models that have enormous amounts of scale detail in lavished on them, but have cylinder heads and silencers ruining the scale profile. To me, that's completely pointless but it doesn't seem to bother the majority.
Best wishes
Tony Jones.

[Flanker .]

Tony. If you go back through my posts on this thread you will perhaps understand my objections better. The nub if it is that most (not all) model pilots DESTROY the illusion.

Since Peter accused me of an unreasoned hatred of Toy pilots (LOL :) ) after I said that it is odd that toy jet jockeys look wrong even under all their gear, I have been doing more research . I have not yet reached a solid conclusion but it seems that light may be a big part of the problem, ie the amount of it reflecting off the pilot through the glazing and reaching the eye. Looking at the Spit in the current mag and comparing it to photos of real Spits shows that the pilot in most canopied aircraft is pretty indistinct esp in jets. I feel that in part it is the clarity of view (as in July's Spit) that totally gives the game away and draws the eye to the crude doll in the cockpit. I guess that a partially smoked canopy might solve this ie we need scale reflection. As Far as WW1 goes I wrote in another post that it is perhaps posture and scale inaccuracies that causes the most trouble here. I fly a Flair Pup Sans Dolly. Nobody has EVER mentioned this, why ? Coz my club mates were so polite ? No way ! It is because there is nothing there to draw the eye. When we watch a plane we watch the WHOLE PLANE not one little bit of it. And Yes Tony all or part of the motor hanging out notices too. Electric motors solve this perfectly, YUK!!!!

[Tony Jones]

Sorry Flanker, but NOTHING draws my eye more than an empty cockpit in a FLYING model. That totally destroys the illusion for me.
The answer with open cockpits is perhaps to make the pilot figure removable, so that his imperfections don't distract from the illusion when the plane is being studied close-to, but avoid the 'ghost pilot' appearance when flying.
I did try this once with Velcro but the poor girl was thrown out during a flick roll.
Other than that, an imperfect pilot figure in an imperfect model - which all but the very best scale jobs are - seems quite reasonable to me personally. But we all have our foibles and bees in bonnets.
IMHO the answer to the second problem can often be minimised, if not totally overcome, but careful engine choice, sensible orientation of the engine within the cowl and a few bob spent on a non standard exhaust. E.g. many 4-strokes can have their silencers routed inside the cowl and fuselage with the use of flexipipe. Surely a small price to pay after all those hours (weeks?) spent on other, far less obvious detailing?
Best wishes
Tony

[David Ashby - Moderator]

In our Sept issue we're going to bring together all the little pilot figures we can find, to compare them and show what's available out there.......a treat for some of you ;-)

[Tony Jones]

David,
Before I reply in greater depth to your post, are we talking here purely about non-scale sports models or also about semi- and above scale ships?
IMHO the former are 'toy planes' but the latter are 'miniature aircraft' - and the two categories are quite different.
Best wishes
Tony

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Hi Tony

We're talking about general retailer products. Not the sort of items you'll put in a Top Gun contest model.

Appreciate all the views here but at the mag' here we get asked quite often by fliers as to how they can get hold of such and such a pilot.... that we thought we'd bring them all together so people know what's out there in the shops.

David.

[001]

Personally, I think that any scale or semi scale aircraft with an open cockpit looks complete with a pilot figure in the cockpit(s). A one third scale Tiger Moth flown with no pilot looks very wrong, for example.
If the cockpit is enclosed and the scale is small, then fit a pilot or pilots head or a profile (not a snoopy) if you must, but often there is radio equipment fitted where the occupants sit. Dark tinted or blacked out windows look fine on small modern scale cabin semi scale models.
For larger scale models, with fully enclosed model engines, and no exposed non-scale controls, snakes, clevis, dangling aerials etc. then fitting a pilot makes the whole item look like the work of a skilled builder who cares about fidelity.
As I understand it, in competition, FAI scale rules demand that a dummy pilot be fitted or the flight score is reduced by 10%.
For non scale models, sports or trainers. Does it matter?

[Tony Jones]

David,
Sorry, I seem to be missing the point here.
A 1/4 scale Pitts special that attempts to mimic the appearance of the full size and is flown in a scale manner, falls into which category? And what, in modelling terms is a 'useful function'?
I'm not trying to be arsey or catch you out here - I genuinely don't know what you mean.
Cheers
Tony

[Alistair Taylor]

Excellent discussion guys

David

I take your point that a model plane that is designed to fly reasonably well, and that more or less resembles e.g. the Red Baron's Fokker Triplane (apologies Flair, but it's an obvious one) is closer to a "toy" than, e.g. a high performance pylon racer, designed to compete, but I don't think the "performs a function" argument stands up to scrutiny. Ultimately all models serve no greater purpose than amusement/ leisure/ relaxation/ excitement, even if this takes the form of high performance competition.

The only "model" planes I can think of that perform a function are UAVs, used for surveilance and dropping bombs on the unwary.

I do think more credit should be given to scale modellers, some of whom, particularly those at the top of the game (Pete McDermott, Mick Reeves) put a great deal of effort into ensuring not only that their models don't look like models at all, but that they also don't fly like models i.e. the wing loading, wing section, motor, prop and wing/tailplane incidences are all very cerfully set up so that the model, in flight, closely resembles the original, not only in appearance, but also in movement/response (you'd be right to ask "how do they know?", but there are still WWI types flying with the shuttleworth collection).

I think the choice of pilot/no pilot ultimately comes down to personal choice and the intentions/taste of the modeller. Whether or not you don't want a pilot, or want a realistic pilot, or snoopy/barbie in your plane seems to be (for the vast majority of people) a completely subjective decision, based on "it looks right"/"I don't like it" type irrefutable arguments.

Who am I to argue with the chap that decides his spitfire should have snoopy in the cockpit? or barbie? or the honey monster? Or the person that buys a high performance pylon racer and covers it in random graffiti? It's personal expression, just like fitting a massive stereo in a Corsa and raising the dead with 2000DB at 2am in the morning.....oh hang on....



AlistairT

[Peter Miller]

I have to say that Dave's definition of a miniature aircraft goes back a long long way, I seem to remember reading it in Aeromodeller in the late 50s.
Yes, non-scale aircraft are miniature aircraft designed to do a specific task, maximum duration, maximum speed, precision aerobatics or what ever.
To call a scale model a "toy" is utter codswallop! About the same time as I read the definition of "Miniature aircraft" I also read another definition. A toy is something that a child pushes along the floor, a model aircraft is a working replica of the full size. (Solid, or static models excepted of course but even they are not "Toys", They are scale replicas.)
It should fly in a similar way to the prototype. I know we are all guilty of flying aerobatics that the full size could not perform.
Now the interesting thing is this. Look at any really big railway layout, they are normally populated with figures, look at the slot car tracks, OK, they don't exist now but in those days no one said that the figures of spectators should not be there, they added to the atmosphere.
Some years ago I designed a scale PT boat. The photos of that tearing round the pond didn't look realistic until I added a compliment of crew on the bridge and round the guns.
Oh and Snoopy should only ever be fitted to a flying dog kennel for complete authenticity

[Tony Jones]

David
Ah, now I understand what you mean by a 'miniature aircraft'. I have always associated the term (probably erroneously) with small versions of REAL aircraft(i.e scaleish), and used the term 'model aircraft' to encompass all varieties. If you had asked me the term for non-scale competition models, I wouldn't have had an answer. However, isn't there a class of aerobatics called IMAC - or something similar where the MA stands for Miniature Aircraft and the models must be very close to scale and only carry out scale manoeuvres? Not that that makes it right.
As Alistair says, it's all down to personal preference in the end. Except that 2000dbA at 0200 should be a capital offence - and I will brook no argument on this one!
Best wishes
Tony

[Peter Miller]

I am not sure how you would execute anyone who likes 2000 DB at any time as they must be brain dead anyway.
But think of this, they will never complain about the noise of models because they will be deaf anyway.