Author Topic: Martin Mariner 2010  (Read 7710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cliff strachan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
    • Cliff
Martin Mariner 2010
« on: November 03, 2010, 10:30:30 AM »
I've finally finished my Martin Mariner. Mariner 55P3, the bigger of the two with a scale of 1/126 or 1" = 10.5', is the primary model displayed in that it was an attempt to mould a plastic canopy together with "seats for the ghost crew" and plastic bubble turrets. I also attempted to replicate the retractable wingtip floats. The other aircraft Mariner 56P6 is in a scale of 1/167 or approx 1" = 14'. The smaller of the two was actually a complete remake of one that I had built about 60 years ago.
[
[http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=4699

The first image is intended to show the older style squadron markings. The following is a shot of the aircraft (models) in formation:
http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=4700

Now on approach and landing in a bay near Gimli:





http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/Gallery/displayimage.php?pid=4701
Finally at dock
Cliff


lastvautour

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6199
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2010, 10:50:01 AM »
Excellent Mariners Cliff. It is interesting to build two model but in different scale. It does give depth to the image and makes formation flying realistic. Excellent work.

lou

dave_t

  • Guest
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2010, 11:13:26 AM »
I really like the scene of the docked Mariner. What set of plans did you use for these models?

cliff strachan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
    • Cliff
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2010, 12:02:28 PM »
Hi Dave,
The plans for the later Mariner were xeroxed and enlarged from a very old copy of Jane's. The earlier one, I think, was probably enlarged using a pantograph from the simple black and white "identification" 3views as provided in a wartime aircraft ident book.
Cliff

Balsabasher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2010, 12:07:14 PM »
Very realistic Cliff,the sky background looks really good as well.
Barry.

Mark Braunlich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 536
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2010, 07:42:00 AM »
Very nice Cliff.  I had the Revell plastic model built by my grandfather when I was a 7-year-old kid and it was a favorite model.  Much later, a friend of my parents who had been a radio operator on PBM's during WW2 was given a stack of black and white 8"x10" photos of Great Lakes 2T1s by his post man.  I wanted them.....so, a trade was made and my beloved Mariner was gone.  Still have the photos!

Mark

cliff strachan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
    • Cliff
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2010, 11:28:28 AM »
A really interesting note, Mark. I don't pretend to know much about pastics but I'm surprised to learn that there was a plastic kit version available.
Cliff.

Lars_Opland

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2013, 06:10:31 PM »
Hi Cliff,

The Mariner has been done in plastic 5 times now, that I know of. They are: Revell, box scale; Execuform vac, 1:72; Rareplane vac, 1:72; Mach2, 1:72; Minicraft, 1:72.

Of these, Execuform & Mach2 are the worst, Minicraft is a gem but is molded as a PBM-5A amphibian, & the Rareplane vac is still in some ways the best of the lot; it's the only one that can be built as either a PBM-3 or -5 as molded & is quite detailed & accurate. The old Revell kit is still quite good for it's age.

-Lars

cliff strachan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
    • Cliff
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2013, 12:38:36 PM »
Thanks Lars for your very informative remarks. But I suppose that it goes without saying that, being from the "old school" I'm pretty much ignorant of the various commercial kits available to today's modeller and the almost complete selection of perfect aircraft available to that consummer. In fact that idea seems to be the basis for my continual disillusionment with model building in general. Or in other words: What place does Solid Scale have today? Apart from those other bad things that I did years ago (and now wish I could remember them clearer) the advent of plastic models was the impetus to get me to quit modelling altogether. I'm hoping to somehow stirr our members to answer my question. To which I'm willing to admit that I need help.

Cliff.

Peter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2013, 05:47:09 PM »
Hi Cliff it may be better to discuss the future is solid modeling in it's own thread. But I will quickly put my two cents in here (which isn't worth much seeing they got rid of the penny) I think the problem with solid models in the modern world is two fold.

First in the modern world we live in offers a lot of competition especially for the younger instant gratification generation. This problem isn't specific to solid models but just the reality of it. I just experienced this when I explained to my sons, that we're going camping in an area with no cell phone reception for three days. The look of horror!

The second is I think very few model builders or wood carvers even know solid models ever existed. Also there is an intimidation factor. I would probably never of laid a knife to wood if it wasn't for Lou walking me through it. Many wood carvers I have spoken to feel they don't have enough knowledge about airplanes or ships to do a
decent job. Plastic modelers are set up with the wrong tools and don't know how to begin.

Maybe we should develop a solid model awareness campaign. I have a few ideas maybe we should start a specific thread for it.

Peter

cliff strachan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
    • Cliff
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2013, 01:13:51 PM »
Hi Peter. Thanks very much for your thoughts. Personally I think that your last opinion was the greatest. Your idea concerning developing a solid model awareness campaign has, to my mind, a lot of merit. It brings to mind a similar concept from another organization that I belong to: "If not us, Who?"

But Solid Scale has a number of problems. As you've mentioned is firstly, the problem involved in the "instant gratification generation." Also there exists the problem of "time required to properly construct a replica of an aircraft." Then, I believe the whole concept of Why Solid Models at all.

But if you Google: "DOXAERIE" or do a search for <www.collectair.com/woodason.html> you will agree that Solid Models have been around in very superior form for a long time.

Personally, being aware of just how much time is involved and the great number of very talented builders there have been in past years I have thought that there must surely be a place in the Art World for some modelers.

We must work on this. Somehow.

Cliff

Balsabasher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2013, 03:24:23 AM »
I think the longevity of built up solid models goes very much in their favour as opposed to say plastic models which by the very nature of the material goes brittle with age and glue joints fail,I can speak from experience on this as many of my old plastic models have suffered in this way,last week I shipped a beautiful old Airfix plastic model of the Bristol Freighter model in the post to a collector,the model was some 50 years old and despite adequate packing by the time it reached its destination it had disintigrated ! the thing had literally come apart at the seams,on the other hand solids and ID models travel well by comparision with non of these problems.
I am just this minute looking at an old galleon model I built in wood some 50 years ago and despite fading and a bit of missing rigging it will restore up nicely,the thing to remember when completing a solid is to drill a breather hole underneath somewhere to release moisture in the wood,wood by its nature always contains moisture and the worst case scenerio is for it to become trapped and damage your finish.
Sorry I have just realised that I have strayed from the original purpose of this thread but it seemed a point to mention,about 'Why build solids anyway' as being in our favour,yes we always need to work on promoting our hobby for the future generations and make people see what can be achieved from a lump of wood given the right skills and nimble hands,that task is never going to be an easy one with no set solutions but for one I will never give up in its promotion.
Lous wonderful poster he did of our completed models created so much interest on the various groups it was shown,if it gets one person interested then thats a real winner.
Whether it be turning wood on a lathe,making old farm cart wheels etc keeping these skills alive is so important,otherwise they will just fade into oblivion,for the moment the best thing to do is keep building and showing the stages of the work here where the whole world will see it ! that in itself is the finest tool out,scattered we may be but united we stand ! right Barry now step down from your solid model orange box,just keep showing that passion for what we do best and enjoy the wonderful skilled company here.
Barry aka Balsabasher.

cliff strachan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
    • Cliff
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2013, 10:49:37 AM »
Hi Peter and Barry. And thank you for the very challenging thoughts concerning the future of solid models. As I have interpreted your ideas it seems to me that Solid Models have primarily the following deficiencies or strengths:
                    First to strong points:
                    Relative to plastic models wooden models are  definitly more durable - at least in the sense that they will withstand the normal ageing process.
                    Again relative to plastic alternatives solid models inherently contain the potential to model any aircraft that has been built in the past regardless of how popular that aircraft may have been. The concept of a consumer demand is not a factor. This lends to purposefulness in an historical context that is sometimes absent with respect to Plastics. And, of course, there are probably many other factors.
                    There exists an ability to impart a certain degree of personal ability, energy and imagination into your choosen model -
an element of art that is absent in a store-bought "kit". A learning process in itself that militates against conformity and "instant gratification."

Probably this may be a good place to stop for now.

Cliff.

cliff strachan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
    • Cliff
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2013, 09:57:33 AM »
Further to what has gone before. The principal deficiencies to solid models, as I see them are:
          - Time: to make a model that may in general respects be a real attention getter or in other words be 
             competitive as to a plastic equivalent - which is not impossible - requires a great deal of personal dedication.
           - The requirement for time and dedication detracts from other activities whereby a unit of time could be more productively spent. An example is a need for exercise. A need to read. The need to be community involved.
At the moment I'm unable to adequately come up with any other significant deficiencies and am standing by for input from our vast membership. (Otherwise I may proceed.)
Cliff.     

cliff strachan

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
    • Cliff
Re: Martin Mariner 2010
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2013, 11:50:47 AM »
Further to further:
It seems to me that the chief deficiencies of solid models vs the very detailed plastic models is in terms of the "time" taken to achieve similar results. One way, but when greater minds tackle this problem it will likely remain only one way, is for a group of solid scale builders, after a theme has been agreed on, to each build a model of an aircraft representative of the period proposed or accepted. For example, say the theme is early transatlantic flights. Then one member may propose to model Lindberg's aircraft - taking as much time as he deems necessary - only hoping that the result will be of highest caliber.

To  encourage a greater participating membership we could hold an annual open competition. A member or members might volunteer a said sum as a reward or prise. The only obligation to any nonmember is that he or she join SMM. This may lead ultimately to a very small fee to belonging to such an esteemed group. Over time such a monetary commitment may ultimately put a value on Solid Scale models lending to their prestige and acceptance in the Art World.

Finally, it should be necessary to relate the efforts of some of our most dedicated members' work to at least one of the most universally accepted problems of the age. Just what this may be should prove of interest to all current and prospective members. Possibly one of the reasons that people are not flocking to smm is because  we have become irrelevant. After all try as we might it is not 1928.

Cliff.