Also, there is a miniature SF Chronicle sitting on top of the instrument panel.
Ted's had one of those in just about every TP he built. I sure don't know how
he gets them that small without any distortion to the words?
Jim Pollock :o
. . .
I'd like to point out that there was motivation for a lot of cockpit detail back in the day. Back when appearance points meant something (like 40 points in the era shown), it was worthwhile to spend a ton of time on this. . . . get ready for a lot of . . . simulated canopies . . ..
It would be interesting if appearance points were categorized to something like 18 + 2 for canopy. Appearance points aren't necessarily integers, so the difference between a .9 canopy and a 1.8 canopy would be worthwhile? I can imagine a simulated canopy getting a 1.1 out of 2?
Or maybe a 19 + 1 split?
Larry Fulwider
The old time analog photography with REAL FILM had a lot better resolution than today's pixilated digitized gizmos. As in microfilm, microdots, and other James Bond props from Q. I can get my hands around the pubs inside the canopy.My favorite "fine print" of all time was on a Don Bambrick plane. His stuff was always georgous and lots of people would do close orders on them He printed the following along the fillet under the stab in 1/16" letters: "If you can read this, you're looking too damned close"
I'm curious about all the fine print on the outside of the planes.
Also most RitzeeDyed acetate and fragile canopies..that are exposed to both sunlight and exhaust residue not only fade and end up with a drastic color shift and even worse, can quickly reduce any advantage extra appearance might have had when it was shiney and new?
With that in mind... :! :!perhaps in the long run....a beautifully simulated canopy could be the best choice. H^^