Real or Model Redux

[Matt Bacon]

Real or Model?

best,

M.

[crazyjim]

Real

[Ace-Garageguy]

Model. A real beauty, but it's a model.

No helo crew chief would allow all that dangling wire under the belly. Never. Ever. And if one did, he should be removed from duty.

Aviation people are the most anal-retentive folks on the planet...for good reason.

And...that's a British-built Westland Wessex turbine-engined development of the old radial-powered Sikorsky H-34 / S-58. The screen in the front air intake is very obviously a scale-model part, at least to anyone familiar with the real machines.

The fit of the cockpit glazing gives it away too, and some of the details in the rotor hub are a little heavy.

Beautiful, beautiful model though.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[Matt Bacon]

"dangling wire'?

External load sling on the Wessex HU.5

;-P

best,

M.

[Ace-Garageguy]

That's not the way I read the random, kinked looking stuff under the belly of the top photo. 

But I've been wrong before, and if I am again, it's OK. Really.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[dw1603]

A very impressive example of model making I think.

[Hotrod 97]

This is a tough one, but I’m gonna say a very well built model. 

[bobthehobbyguy]

My first impression was that its a model. I say model.

[Matt Bacon]

OK... time to bring this one to to a close. This is a MODEL (and as many have pointed out, a very well built and photographed one). The Fly models 1/32 Wessex, built by "Reebo":

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235053766-fly-wessex/&tab=comments#comment-3319266

Well done to Bill, Bob, Tyler and Dave.

After the discussion, I hoped a few more would play. If we did it again, I'd suggest that either people only reply Real or Model in the thread until it's done, and give their rationale after it's declared, or that replies are sent by message to the setter, with explanations if you feel like it, and the result and who got it right are reported at the end, like in the Autoquiz. Bill was right, but his convincing rationale may have stopped other people entering since they felt the game was up, despite my best efforts to muddy the waters...

I would say that I only set this one because I thought that was such a realistic looking photo when I ran across it; it's not easy to find such convincing ones to order. This, for example:

is bloody amazing modelling, but without sailors busy around the decks and the brass-mounted full hull display, it'd never pass in a RorM quiz. Finding models of convincing quality in a setting that could pass for 1:1 is a big ask...

best,

M.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Matt Bacon

[Jantrix]

1 hour ago, Matt Bacon said:

Finding models of convincing quality in a setting that could pass for 1:1 is a big ask...

 

Which, as I believe I've mentioned, was why Harry nixed the idea back when he started working for the mag. A huge time sink.

[Sixties Sam]

I'll say model - a really well done model!

Sam

[Ace-Garageguy]

3 hours ago, Matt Bacon said:

...After the discussion, I hoped a few more would play. If we did it again, I'd suggest that either people only reply Real or Model in the thread until it's done, and give their rationale after it's declared, or that replies are sent by message to the setter, with explanations if you feel like it...

Excellent points. Sorry I kinda spoiled it.

That ship is another spectacular one. Shot in daylight, maybe with her deck gun and fire-control radars (I presume) removed, she'd be pretty convincing without sailors as a mothballed unit. Maybe a drydock diorama to justify the full hull, and a real background?

The slight movement of the main and tail rotors, the daylight, and the just-right depth of field of the helicopter shot had me still doubting my decision up until the end. Modeling like this and photographing it so beautifully really is an art form.