When Does A Model Become The "Real Thing?"

There are some monstrous model rockets and RC aircraft that just seems silly to call them 'models' anymore. Where is that dividing line?

Steven said:

There are some monstrous model rockets and RC aircraft that just seems silly to call them 'models' anymore. Where is that dividing line?

Click to expand...

FAR 101

Steve Shannon said:

FAR 101

Click to expand...

Here I was trying to come up with some philosophical answer, but you nailed it in six characters!

People made similar comments when we built the V2.

It is still a model rocket!

If you are copying a previous design... it's not an original design.

The "real thing" is when you design it, build it and fly it... all from scratch, all on YOU!

Steven said:

There are some monstrous model rockets and RC aircraft that just seems silly to call them 'models' anymore. Where is that dividing line?

Click to expand...

Check this out

For R/C aircraft, AMA has rules that allow models up to 125 pounds for prop-driven and 100 pounds for turbine. Models over 55 pounds require independent inspection and demonstration. https://www.modelaircraft.org/large-model-aircraft

I would say "the real thing" is something purpose-built around a mission. Normally the mission is scientific, commercial or military.

I say I build "models" because I do it for the fun of it; it's a hobby not a business.

JohnCoker said:

I would say "the real thing" is something purpose-built around a mission. Normally the mission is scientific, commercial or military.

I say I build "models" because I do it for the fun of it; it's a hobby not a business.

Click to expand...

Yet many a model has been built for movie effects. Aircraft restoration can be done for the 'fun of it' as well.

I'm of the school of thought that says they are all "real". It's just that most "model airplanes" and "model rockets" are generally small-scale airplanes or rockets. To me if it actually operates as airplane or rocket—that it flies using the same principles—it's real, it's just a miniature airplane or rocket.

Static models are models to me.

Interesting discussion.

I see upon re-reading this doesn't really address the OP's question, though....

Many of the things under discussion in this thread are models to be sure, but they are not Model Rockets.

BEC said:

I'm of the school of thought that says they are all "real". It's just that most "model airplanes" and "model rockets" are generally small-scale airplanes or rockets. To me if it actually operates as airplane or rocket—that it flies using the same principles—it's real, it's just a miniature airplane or rocket.

Static models are models to me.

Interesting discussion.

I see upon re-reading this doesn't really address the OP's question, though....

Click to expand...

I agree. There's still the question that remains regarding what defines the difference to call one one thing and the other something else. I think it's going to be more difficult than people initially think.

BEC said:

I'm of the school of thought that says they are all "real".

Static models are models to me.

Click to expand...

Good points!

However, aircraft on display in museums are static too.

True, but those aircraft weren't originally built for static display.

And let's not go down the Plastic Model Conversion rabbit hole....

So the Saturn V rockets on display at KSC and Houston have never flown. Are they models or the real thing?

BEC said:

True, but those aircraft weren't originally built for static display.

And let's not go down the Plastic Model Conversion rabbit hole....

Click to expand...

Neither is a flying model. So the point is moot as to whether something is static and/or flying. It doesn't define the difference between a model or the real thing.

I think John Coker's point about intentionality is important. Models involve an element of metonymy - eg a model rockets come about in a version of rocketry which is metnonymic to other forms of rocketry activities outside the boundaries under which they (the model rockets) are flown and used. For example, a V2 model might be the same size and shape as the real ones, but it only produces knowledge about the originals: it is not (and can never be) fired at London in 1944 nor can it become a key step towards the Moon in 1946 high altitude experiments at White Sands. On the other hand, through its formal resemblance and detailing, the V2 model can tell us something about what rockets of the 1940s looked like, how they flew etc, can form the basis of an enjoyable hobby etc etc. So models are formal representations of types and kinds of things, but they lack the specific application or circumstances of the original.

Models, especially flying models have specific application and intent. They are designed and engineered to duplicate flying attributes of their full scale counterparts. I remember seeing B-17's converted to RC applications which remained unmanned. They were called 'drones' back in the day.

Steve Shannon said:

FAR 101

Click to expand...

Steve has the right answer. When a rocket complies with and is flown under Part 101, it is a model. When it is no longer covered under Part 101 and slides into a different regulatory realm, it is a "real" rocket.

James

I don’t think size is the determining factor. That V2 model is larger than many “real” Black Brant rockets and certainly I’ve seen many HPR entries larger than a sidewinder missile.

As long as we don’t let the FAA define us we’ll probably be ok.

Steven said:

Models, especially flying models have specific application and intent. They are designed and engineered to duplicate flying attributes of their full scale counterparts. I remember seeing B-17's converted to RC applications which remained unmanned. They were called 'drones' back in the day.

Click to expand...

Sure - but my point was the application, intent and circumstance of a model even when it duplicates or replicates is not the same as that of the 'original'. I'd venture the suggestion that the B-17s you saw flown as RC drones were being re-tooled 'to model' something - eg act as a 'stand in' for an aggressor plane for targeting or whatever.

OverTheTop said:

So the Saturn V rockets on display at KSC and Houston have never flown. Are they models or the real thing?

Click to expand...

Good one. I'd say those are relics - 'An object interesting because of its age or association...a memento or souvenir ... what has survived destruction or wasting or use' (OED). Anyway it's late my time. Good night everyone..

Steven said:

There are some monstrous model rockets and RC aircraft that just seems silly to call them 'models' anymore. Where is that dividing line?

Click to expand...

Do you mean legally or philosophically? Words can have more than one meaning depending on context, and both meanings be "correct" in their proper places; there's no contradiction there. For legally, Steve has the answer (as usual) and that's that. So, philosophically...

lakeroadster said:

If you are copying a previous design... it's not an original design.

The "real thing" is when you design it, build it and fly it... all from scratch, all on YOU!

Click to expand...

So, when you repeat the design in many builds that all serve the same purpose? You're copying a design, right? Even if you're not the original builde, so you're copying someone else's design, I still wouldn't say that means it can't be the "real thing".

And if you're a scratch builder of your own designs?

BEC said:

I'm of the school of thought that says they are all "real". It's just that most "model airplanes" and "model rockets" are generally small-scale airplanes or rockets. To me if it actually operates as airplane or rocket—that it flies using the same principles—it's real, it's just a miniature airplane or rocket.

Click to expand...

This is a fair point, but a little off the mark (as you stated later in the same post). If it flies by rocket propulsion it's a rocket, but can still be a model.

dhbarr said:

Many of the things under discussion in this thread are models to be sure, but they are not Model Rockets.

Click to expand...

Was that the meaning of the original question? Sure, Model Rocket with capital letters is basically synonymous with LPR, but I really don't think that's the point.

JohnCoker said:

I would say "the real thing" is something purpose-built around a mission. Normally the mission is scientific, commercial or military.

I say I build "models" because I do it for the fun of it; it's a hobby not a business.

Click to expand...

This first paragraph, I'd say, is 100% the bang-on answer. But one can build models, even flying models, as a business. Most of us don't. It's the mission that matters. Often with technical implications; those missions can add a lot of weight, requiring engines/motors of a kind most of us will never approach. Those engines/motors can be a good indicator, even though they're not the defining factor.

If we’re going down the philosophical path the pet dog versus working dog makes for a decent analogy - they both have inherent “dog-ness” as the defining characteristic of what they are but each are defined further by what each does. It’s fairly obvious that a service dog or military working dog would be much different than the family pet, yet it’s an easy conclusion they’re all dogs. A model rocket is still a rocket but any reasonable person could readily see the difference between an Estes Mars Lander and say an ARCAS sounding rocket, even though an ARCAS is well within the size range of a HPR “hobby” rocket.

IMO when someone pays you to launch it, it's the real thing.

Then there are the drones used for civilian use and military use. Are they called models or the 'real' thing?

Steven said:

There are some monstrous model rockets and RC aircraft that just seems silly to call them 'models' anymore. Where is that dividing line?

Click to expand...

All "flying rockets" are the "real thing" . . . However, actually duplicating the actual performance of an existing prototype is another "level of reality".

As an example, someone builds a full-scale Nike Smoke . . . It can be flown with whatever motor(s) can lift it, BUT the single motor of the "genuine article" contains 764 lb of propellant and produces 48,700 lb of thrust, for 3.5 seconds . . . 758,502.5 Nt-Sec . . . A 58% "T" motor !

So, in a nutshell, "real" is a relative term, as all "flying rockets" are "real rockets", whether Micro-Maxx or Saturn-V (NASA) and beyond !

https://www.airplanesandrockets.com...cket-april-1968-american-aircraft-modeler.htm

Dave F.

Steven said:

There are some monstrous model rockets and RC aircraft that just seems silly to call them 'models' anymore. Where is that dividing line?

Click to expand...

They’re all real to me. I mean I was going to get that recent LEGO Saturn V when I realized “geez, I can get a half-dozen “real” rockets for THAT price.”

So that’s what did, including the 50th anniversary Saturn V from Estes. And lots of spray cans.

But like others have said, if it respects the hobby codes, it’ll be called a model.

So what it boils down to is the sanctioning body such as the AMA, NAR VS the FAA.