Information Overload and When the Well Dries Up

Nowadays, I flood forums with many reference images without being asked. Why? Read on...

For decades, I accumulated a huge reference library of old fashioned books and some digital ones. These were used to provide companies with material to improve the accuracy of their products. Eventually, I began receiving requests from modelers in my messaging platforms as well as direct e-mail. Of course, I shared the information but only asked for one thing in return, let me see what you did with what was provided.

Those that did can come back and request more (or different) information but quite a few decided not to comply so they were cut off. Why? I paid for these references and took the time to prepare the packages sent digitally or physically.

However, there were some that simply made no sense in requesting the information then either ignoring it or completely going against it. Let me explain by giving an example.

Someone contacted me after seeing my Hasegawa Ki-84 Hayate started (13 years ago so harder to guess who it was). He/She saw that I had a lot of reference material and requested quite a bit on the cockpit. The person shared how they meticulously detailed that cockpit using the information provided and explained why some details were not incorporated. So far, so good, as some details would require skills or techniques that aren't feasible or available.

Next, that person asked me about 'tin canning' but I replied that the Hayate was designed with thicker skin and didn't have that visible on the cockpit sides. A reply came back showing me photographs of other Japanese aircraft with tin-canning on the cockpit sides so my response was simply to include the skin thickness diagrams of those aircraft, then that of the Hayate, with a challenge to let me see photographs showing that effect on the Hayate. After that exchange, silence...

I wasn't informed of what was done with the information sent and the model was completed with tin-canning everywhere including the cockpit sides.

Months later, a new request for references from that person. I didn't respond. He/She found me on FacePlant and asked me publicly why I didn't reply to the private request. My response was that I spent time sending my paid reference material only to have it and my opinion ignored. That person didn't even show me a follow-up as the result (tin-canning) would show that my recommendation, and reference images/data, were ignored. Defensively, they stated that they build for the art to which I responded; "Indeed, it is beautiful to look at but technically inaccurate on the outside after spending so much trouble making the cockpit as accurate as possible. Next time, make the insides as inaccurate as the outside or spend your own money and time on references. This well is dry."

So now all know why it is easier to flood the references here and allow anyone to do as they please since I am not going out of my way to prepare a specific person or entity a 'package.'

Does this mean that I don't respond to requests? Of course, I do to those I already know. If someone is new to me, I will post 'teaser' references in their threads. If they use that information in the teaser and ask for more, they're in as they showed what they did with the references posted.

Anyway, enjoy your holidays (Thanksgiving in the US is tomorrow) and I am thankful to all here for this community.

Knowing this about you and your reference data surely makes me see you in a different light. I thought you were just a know it all and for that I do apologize. I remember when you came on at Swanny's and I sure didn't see you as a reference library. Now that I know a little more about you, I am sure that I will come to appreciate you and your submissions. Thanks for all that you provide.

Through the fog of time I seem to remember this happening. Happened a couple of times didn't it? Did the name start with a "P"?

I for one enjoy your "IO" Information Overload

Paulw said:

Knowing this about you and your reference data surely makes me see you in a different light. I thought you were just a know it all and for that I do apologize. I remember when you came on at Swanny's and I sure didn't see you as a reference library. Now that I know a little more about you, I am sure that I will come to appreciate you and your submissions. Thanks for all that you provide.

Click to expand...

I don't recall Swanny's but I visited a lot of forums so I may have been there. I usually visited Track-Link, Missing-Lynx, and other armor sites with very few aircraft sites unless I was posting reference materials to Russian subjects since I am fluent in the language and had a good library. Those would be on ARC, HyperScale, and Brit Modeller. On every site, I have always been either Sharkmouth or my own name. Hopefully, either is easy to remember.

As for being a know it all, one of my signatures in the past was "the day I stop learning I have surely died" as it is a philosophy I embrace.

moon puppy said:

Through the fog of time I seem to remember this happening. Happened a couple of times didn't it?

Click to expand...

It did happen a few times but not here. I was glad when Sherman 18 and Shawn Gehling shared their albums. Plenty to learn there!

Sharkmouth said:

I did happen a few times but not here. I was glad when Sherman 18 and Shawn Gehling shared their albums. Plenty to learn there!

Click to expand...

And both these guys are gone. We've lost so many.

Yes Saúl, I love the way you have responded on here with info for folks. In some cases there has been something that I have a subject in the stash and thus "add to" my info stash on it. Problem is I have never kept track of where I get the info. I learned years ago that if I find something online, SAVE IT then and there because it might be gone the next day. You have seen my builds though and I always try and put in the reference that I am matching the build to. Gave up a long time ago on where I found the reference, (which is probably not the best) but set it for others to be able to use the reference even so.

Wow, I never knew this about you Saul; I always loved how you had so much knowledge and information to share and how freely you share it. I just hope I haven't abused that kindness; I don't always follow recommendations, partly because I'm a lazy modeler, or I think my skills are not up to the task; or I don't want to pout in the extra work that would extend the time I work on something. I like getting my models built and on the shelf so I can move on to more. So, my apologies if I ever do such a thing.

Duke Maddog said:

I just hope I haven't abused that kindness; I don't always follow recommendations, partly because I'm a lazy modeler, or I think my skills are not up to the task; or I don't want to pout in the extra work that would extend the time I work on something. I like getting my models built and on the shelf so I can move on to more. So, my apologies if I ever do such a thing.

Click to expand...

You never have! I don't recall it ever happening here. My point was for those that request information, I simply want to see what you do with it. If you go on and state, wow, TMI, I don't have the skills, et cetera, that is perfectly fine as the reference is available to all.

The example I gave was of a very talented modeler, who detailed the cockpit incredibly, then added unrealistic 'tin-canning' to the cockpit sides (which made the build more difficult, by the way) simply because it is art! Had she/he limited to where the skin was thin, the model would be sublime in every way! Personally, I am too lazy to add tin-canning. For me, I try to test my limits of how much detail I can add.

I NEVER thought anything less than brilliant when Shep Paine did his 'gizmology' as that was art. He didn't have the references.

This thread made interesting reading as no one likes to be taken advantage of.

Never heard of the expression 'tin canning' as a model making term though.
Is it the application of some form of metal skinning like Bare Metal Foil ?

Might be known as Oil Canning also.
It's the effect of the metal expanding and contracting while still attached rigidly to the frame of the aircraft. Good example is on a B52, the stresses deform the outer skin.
Not sure that link will work.
I remember our pal Sherman18 did this to a LCVP here on this website. Tried to find it but no go. What he did was use thing strips of styrene then smoothed it out with Mr Surfacer. Also seen someone take a dremel and hollow out between stringers and ribs on an aircraft skin. @Heavens Eagle was that you?

It was an LCM and the photos seem to be gone:

14 year old thread, I'll look in his media to see if it's there.

I looked through Jeff's media and I don't see an album for that.

No Bob I never bothered to try doing the "tin canning" detail. I know Greg was trying to do that with his Missouri build. When done it really has to be done quite subtle or it can ruin the effect.

@Bugatti Fan, let me try to explain it with some images from my recent thread on the Havoc. Many sources state, without verifying, that the plexiglass noses of the converted gun ships were painted over. A photo like this does seem to show that as we see the framing for the Plexiglass panels:


Then, I come across an image like this where one can clearly see bulging outwards from what should be Plexiglass panels being retrained by the framing. Is it, really?


Taking the time to understand what is seen, that the pressure inside (possibly from firing the guns) is greater than the pressure outside has caused this bulging. However, the Plexiglass used is designed to be thick enough for altitude, especially if there is a bombardier inside there at altitude. So, looking into memoirs reveals that the Plexiglass panels are replaced with thin sheet metal (the exception being the optically flat panels at the front which can be used for gun maintenance as they're designed to be replaceable.

So again, that bulging seen in the third photograph is tin-canning (or oil-canning). Will I add it? Well, I lucked out as it is not visible in the first photograph which is the subject of my build.

Happy to explain more...

The thickness of the material could cause it also. Think sheet metal skin will expand and contract far greater than the thicker ribs and stringers because the rate of heat/cold dissipation. Not just internal pressures.

moon puppy said:

The thickness of the material could cause it also. Thin sheet metal skin will expand and contract far greater than the thicker ribs and stringers because the rate of heat/cold dissipation. Not just internal pressures.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that is the main cause. Expansion and contraction due to the different temperatures and pressures of altitude changes.

I am referring to the A-20 Havoc gunship. Gun noses, designed from the start, have vents to release gases. Sometimes, it is not enough so the field applied ones happen (note the bare metal vent on the gun access hatch:



In my original post, it had to do with the fuselage skin on the Ki-84 Hayate. Around the cockpit, much thicker skin was used to help protect the pilot and this also means less of that tin/oil-canning effect.

And I wonder why the A20 is coming up in my youtube feed now. I'm not even searching it, "da man" sees it in my cache I guess.

Some of the submarines that Ian ( @Brokeneagle ) likes to build have severe "canning" to the front bow sides. Even ships like the Missouri, and the newer aircraft carriers have areas where the bulkheads don't give but the hull between the bulkheads caves ever so slightly.