Is there 'another' HobbyBoss 1/48th Tornado out there?

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Perhaps the reviewer isnt aware of the shape issues?, as I can't find any mention of the lack of intake ducting, or the airbrakes open, thrust reversers deployed finish, or the lack of detail on the flaps. I could go on - you get the idea.

To be blunt - I am gobsmacked, that a full build type review can appear in a mag with NO mention of any of the kits problems; even so far as to say, "If you are a Tornado fan then you really have to get one of these kits, as you need to see for yourself how good they really are." Yeah right - you do.

I will be writing to the editor too, before you mention it.

Jonners wondering what the printed modelling press is coming to.

[sartois66]

Totally agree with you Jon.

Cheers

Kirk, still shaking each time I pass my half built one!

[Mark M]

i read the article and laughed!!!!!

from the cost too look ration and yours and bills builds are fab but the man who reviewed this kit hasnt studied the details

even the kit listing, at the end isnt that good, it hardly mentioned the closest rival, the italeri kit

get a letter writen, there are plenty of us on here to support you

[keefr22]

Jonners wondering what the printed modelling press is coming to.

Absolute trash on the whole I'd say! But then I'm glad that modellers such as yourself & others on the forum, take the effort to find & point out the problems in the general rubbish being produced by most Far Eastern model companies (& even a certain one closer to home!) Saves me a good few quid each month.....!!

Keef

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I just wonder how,if at all, reveiws get passed to print.

jonners

[Tedfellows]

I just wonder how,if at all, reveiws get passed to print.

jonners

Well this would not have made it to print! Ah the life of a Quality Controller!

Totally agree with you, i want an Honest review of a kit, and all the bugs and glitches and general fit of parts, then i'll make my own mind up!

But generally not too fussed with the shape of the parts, as long as its near enough, its fine.

Adam

Edited April 23, 2010 by Tedfellows

[Peter W]

I think that this kind of article is written for the masses and not just an elite few with the ability to correct kit flaws. Yes, the kit should be more accurate in the first place but the reality is that trashing every kit that they get for review will kill the circulation and ultimately the hobby if kits don't get bought by people who have no interest in counting rivets. I'd love it if everything was perfect out of the box but that said I also like the challenge of aftermarket goodies to improve the kit.

I promise you that i'm not trying to start a flame war nor critisise anyone's viewpoint but, in my opinion, that's the way of the world. If we were concerned about ultimate acuracy then this hobby would have died in it's infancy. I would never have spent my pocket money on Frog kits with embossed insignia nor Airfix kits with pilots sitting on pegs

Just trying to offer a balanced view

Pete

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I think that this kind of article is written for the masses and not just an elite few with the ability to correct kit flaws. Yes, the kit should be more accurate in the first place but the reality is that trashing every kit that they get for review will kill the circulation and ultimately the hobby if kits don't get bought by people who have no interest in counting rivets. I'd love it if everything was perfect out of the box but that said I also like the challenge of aftermarket goodies to improve the kit.

I promise you that i'm not trying to start a flame war nor critisise anyone's viewpoint but, in my opinion, that's the way of the world. If we were concerned about ultimate acuracy then this hobby would have died in it's infancy. I would never have spent my pocket money on Frog kits with embossed insignia nor Airfix kits with pilots sitting on pegs

Just trying to offer a balanced view

Pete

Pete - all good points, but dont the masses deserve an honest review. SO:

Get real here mate - the review is a con - its a nice comfy OK for the maker and a great article for the mag - but it fails on one huge point: The kit is wrong, bad, not right. Its an ex kit, it has ceased to be . Sure it assembles veery well , but its not a Tornado, in the sense that a drawing of a Tornado is not a Tornado.

I'm not asking for ultimate accuracy, just for a review that recognises the shortcoings of the model, rather than a rather bland "OHH its great cus is it has loads of details" type feel.

This review , to me, highlights a lot of whats wrong with our current bunch of modelling mags: Too many platitudes, and not enough balls. WE are modellers - not just consumers. Modelling mags should be on OUR side not just on the side of who out-sells who, and who gets the most review samples. I 've said ths before and i will say it again- Magazine editors need to spend less time cosying up to the trade and more time taking them to task. A fair review is all anyone should want or receive.

Apols, bit wee weed on a friday night.

Jonners

[Mentalguru]

Jon. THIA is why I no longer buy mags- they jut aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Scale Scammer Monthly- sshheeeesh

[Dave Fleming]

IIRC the editor wrote recently that he wasn't going to publish a bad review.

[keefr22]

IIRC the editor wrote recently that he wasn't going to publish a bad review.

Begs the question as to why he bothers with reviews at all then. Oh wait, yes, advertising revenue, how naive of me......

Seriously though, the only mags I occasionally buy now are Model Aviation World & Air Modeller. Both of these tend to be much heavier on build features rather than reviews & there is still some inspiring modelling to be found in both. The rest I don't even tend to glance at in the Smiths reading room any more. I'd rather spend the time looking at the railway modelling mags.....

Keef

[Solly]

I'm not asking for ultimate accuracy, just for a review that recognises the shortcoings of the model, rather than a rather bland "OHH its great cus is it has loads of details" type feel.

This review , to me, highlights a lot of whats wrong with our current bunch of modelling mags: Too many platitudes, and not enough balls. WE are modellers - not just consumers. Modelling mags should be on OUR side not just on the side of who out-sells who, and who gets the most review samples. I 've said ths before and i will say it again- Magazine editors need to spend less time cosying up to the trade and more time taking them to task. A fair review is all anyone should want or receive.

Jon, it isn't going to happen. It USED to happen, but not any more. Let's not forget that all of the mags are now working against time. New kit released - it is pored over on the internet ad infinitum whether it is good or bad. The magazine has probably got a 2 month lead in time to get anything into print. The review is old news already. Britmodeller and all of the sites are part of the cause. Someone, in a far off place gets some sprue shots, and before you know it, they are worldwide in the forums, probably within hours.

I do write for a magazine, I have been published many times. I don't do reviews. I think the days of magazine reviews are over, and all of the editors need to realize that. Whether, as Dave above has said, they only publish good ones or bad, they are always a day too late. Fine, list the new kits, aftermarket or whatever, but the reviews are not what sells the magazine - or, in my opinion, what should sell a magazine.

Did you buy SAMI just for the review of the Tornado? Or other reviews? I doubt it. You bought it for the "meat" of the magazine, the articles, the research, the reference. Reviews are transient, they are as good as the day they were written. And now I am back to lead in time....

You have been modelling for quite a few years, do you really need a review to tell you how good or bad a kit is? Yes you could get some pointers if it was a truthful review, but you will already know what needs doing to the kit to make it right - and you did. You did it the old way, bought the kit, built it corrected it, and put your findings for all to see. It took time, something magazines don't have these days. All magazines nowadays mostly have reviews which are pointless. They are a catalogue of what is in the kit. Take last month's SAM - trumpeted on the front cover "over 100 reviews". No, what they did was list 100 new items, they didn't review them, ergo a catalogue.

I rarely, if ever, post on this forum (indeed, any forum now), but take a step back, and let's think.

Write an article on how to correct the Tornado, send it to an editor, it will probably be published. Most editors are crying out for articles. Just don't call it a review. I have magazines going back to the 60's and 70's and right up to date. I read articles many times. Do I read the reviews from the old days? Nope.

We have all been quick to defend Neil Robinson and what he did with MAM, and how it has changed ( a whole 'nother story), but almost to a man, everyone on this, and other forums liked the content. Never a kit review in there.

Support the mags, write articles, good articles, which you, and Bill (Hi Bill!) and others are capable of on how to make the Tornado model better. You can't make the kit better, it is what it is, but you can show how to make a better model. But it's not a review. Those are the articles which people will refer to over the years. They are in print, something you can hold and read over and over again. And not at the mercy of someone's web host.

trashing every kit that they get for review will kill the circulation and ultimately the hobby if kits don't get bought by people who have no interest in counting rivets.

Get real, Peter, it will not kill their circulation - it may stop the flow of kits for review, but not the circulation. People buy publications for what they can read, digest and hopefully use again. I remember some pretty scathing reviews back in the old days, and the circulation is still there. If people don't have an interest in "rivet counting", as you so nicely put it, or accuracy why are they reading reviews? They have an interest in the kit. If accuracy, or rivet counting are not important, why bother reading it? Sure, I could review a kit and say every part fits like a glove, no problems in assembly whatsoever. Does it look like the real thing? Well yes, but it could be better, but that's not the purpose of this review. Wouldn't you then ask the question "How could it look better"?

And please don't anyone give me the hoary old chestnut of not everyone or every modeller not looking at the internet, and that enthusiasts are only a minority. I know we are a minority. If someone reads a review whether on the internet or in a magazine, they have an interest (however small) in whether the model is good, bad, right or wrong.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Solly

[Matt Roberts]

One thing to remember the magazine is in business, and for him the business is circulation and advertising. If you remember we had a magazine Stateside (Military Model Preview) that started out giving warts and all build reviews but then the editors started to get on thier high horse and badmouth kits - sometimes for little or no reason (or they didn't realize that you could not put Swastikas on anything sold in Europe) and by the end of it's run they had no advertisers, blank pages where the ads went and they went belly up.

As an editor I would expect that reviews would be a very tricky thing, do you try an go for cred of the few who'd know or care about inaccuracies or for the multitude who may be looking for a relaxing build after the kids go to bed. It starts to get into the very same 'rivet counter vs goodnufs' fights that are going on right now all over the boards.

I honestly don't know where I'd fall. I have gripes about the HB Tornado - mostly the price but also weapons selections. I don't see the problems around the nose, even after Jon corrected his, but it goes to prove even amongst those of us who many would consider 'rivet counters' (at least to those outside these boards!) we have differant approaches to what we consider accuracy. For a general purpose modeling mag like SAMI I'd rather have reviews of what is in the box and more importantly - how it goes togther, with some mention of 'glaring ommissions/mistakes/errors, but leave the in depth critique for either an in depth build article - or for a magazine like Aerospace Modeler, that caters to the extreme end of the scale - take a look at it if you have not already.

Matt

[TheModeller]

Why is it that an 'honest review' would need to trash any particular kit?

I don't enjoy 'trashing' manufacturers efforts, but all the same I'd be an unhappy bunny indeed slapping down the folding for a Hobbyboss Tornado on the basis of that review only to find out once I'd got it home and started building it that I'd have saved time and money by going to town on the old Italeri kit! And by the way, I don't consider a 50 quid kit the sort of thing a person would just buy off the shelf on a whim!

All I want is an honest review, point out the virtues and shortcomings of the product, the reviewer needn't be an all-knowing sage with extensive resources on the type itself, just someone who isn't sucking up to the manufacturers on his editors orders in order to help said manufacturer flog more second rate styrene!

[Peter W]

Get real here mate,

Get real, Peter, it will not kill their circulation

Thank you, so eloquently put

The problem is, as Matt wrote, the advertisers will desert them. Why advertise in a magazine that slates your product?.

I don't know about the rest of you but I've generally bought the kit long before the magazine hits the shelf anyway and so the review is meaningless. Jonners had even built and corrected it long before the review, based on a decision formed by the criticisms of the kit online. Thus, for anyone this serious, the review is pointless. You're probably going to build it anyway and use your obvious skills to put it right. The Italeri one was still available when this kit came out yet you, Jonners, still went ahead and bought it with the knowledge that it was 'flawed'.

I buy the magazines to see articles on other builds and as a marketplace for extras, reviews are not my thing and will probably never influence a buying decision, I've already made my mind up on that one based on want and cost. And, as said, the internet has given me all the critique I need long before the magazine reaches the shelf.

A VERY REAL Pete.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Peter W

[Mike]

An interesting thread... but please guys - I detect the first hint of "scalpels at dawn" here already. As always, if the thread stays polite & respectful, it stays open.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I dont want magazines to slate products. I just want them to point it out, if a model has some glaring innaccuracies, that some readers may be interested to learn of. We are not all on the internet even today, so BM isnt accesible to all.

I just find it dissapointing that a publication can devote a reasonable chunk of its content to a build of model, without ANY mention of ANY of the models shape problems AND then come to the conclusion that its such a great model it eclipses any of the previous efforts.

It fits well, has great detail, and if you are building a Luftwaffe airframe has a good chunk of ordnance. But in my book, for a model to get such a glowing thumbs up, it also needs to look like the original. Hobby Bosses model doesnt , period: It resembles a Tornado, in the same way that I resemble Mike.

Why is it too much to ask of a magazine to mention this? Christ - they could have just put a link to my build on there with a pithy comment such as " if you want to see how to correct some of these issues, take a look at this nutters work..."

The other problem I have with this kind of review, is that it now means I start to question the fidelity of reviews and builds of subjects that I dont have too much knowledge of. I see this build of the Tornado falling over itself in platitudes, for a modelI know to be innacurate: How do I then trust the magazine when it reviews the new Academy Scruggs Wonderplane in a similar glowing vein? I cant, its that simple.

I actually enjoyed reading about the build of the Tornado because the modeller has built a lovely looking model from the kit. I just feel that perhaps the editor could have made a note somewhere, that many people feel there are serious shape problems with the kit. That wouldnt belittle the modellers build, but it would at least point out that the magazine is aware that ths model has some innaccuracies.

If that makes me a rivet counter, then I guess I must be.

Jonners

[Mike]

It resembles a Tornado, in the same way that I resemble Mike.

Yeah yeah... I get it. You're compact & bijou, I'm a lumbering (but handsome) hulk

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Yeah yeah... I get it. You're compact & bijou, I'm a lumbering (but handsome) hulk

More in the sense that we both paragons of male beauty, just in our own unique ways

Jonners

[keefr22]

The problem is, as Matt wrote, the advertisers will desert them. Why advertise in a magazine that slates your product?.

Had another look through the latest Air Modeller last night. No adverts at all (well apart from their own trying to get you to subscribe!) But then no 'real' reviews either, just some quick 'in the box' look at kits. So maybe a good (at least to my requirements) aircraft modelling magazine can survive just on quality content?

And, thinking back, I'm not really sure there actually ever have been many scathing reviews in the mainstream mags. Back in the 'good old days' of SAM, the only comments I can ever remember on accuracy in reviews were those on the dimensional aspect - & a model can always have the right length & wingspan & look nothing like what its meant to portray. As manufacturers keep proving so well....

Keef

[CockneyCol]

Just wanted to point out that a Review is one persons view, 10 people could build the same kit, one would love it, the other 9 could find 9 different faults, its all down to the individuals experiance. People on here have claimed that a kits fit is poor or is almost unbuildable, however I've built the same kit with no problems, and vica verca.

I'll go back in me cage now!

Cheers

Col'

[Gary C]

I just want them to point it out, if a model has some glaring innaccuracies, that some readers may be interested to learn of.

And that's where the problem lies. Your build, IIRC, was essentially done by a commitee of several people, all poring over photographs looking for flaws and making suggestions as to things to correct. Things that require that level of investigation are hardly what I'd consider 'glaring' errors. I'll accept the intakes are a bit oversized and the gloves are too deep, but go back and read your own thread, they took a while to be picked up...hardly blindingly obvious or glaring. The rest of it is even more subtle and difficult to see unless you really know what you're looking for...and to be honest I'm still not convinced, especially as far as the nose is concerned. So to expect somebody who is building one for a magazine, against a deadline, to spot this stuff (he quite possibly doesn't read this forum, I would wager most modellers don't) is asking a bit much. As to some of the other issues...the lack of intake trunking is common across the board with every Tornado kit ever made, no surprise there and the flaps, whilst not very detailed are a step ahead of every other Tornado kit in that the facility is provided.

But there is more to it than that. A good kit is not just an outline shape... if it was then the Airfix Tornado would probably be your best bet . Now if the HB kit had the lousy detailing of the Italeri Tornado or it's crappy fit as well as the 'shape issues' then I could understand your angst. But detailing, fit, options, surface detail, moulding quality...they're all as important as the shape and in each catagory the HB Tornado does very well and all the SAMI reviewer has done is point that out. And on that basis it's the best 1/48 Tornado by some distance.

[speedy]

This is why I don't buy magazines. Internet has much more to offer in advice and reviews. Plus its more money on kits, than creating your own mini-library.

[TheModeller]

But there is more to it than that. A good kit is not just an outline shape... if it was then the Airfix Tornado would probably be your best bet . Now if the HB kit had the lousy detailing of the Italeri Tornado or it's crappy fit as well as the 'shape issues' then I could understand your angst. But detailing, fit, options, surface detail, moulding quality...they're all as important as the shape and in each catagory the HB Tornado does very well and all the SAMI reviewer has done is point that out. And on that basis it's the best 1/48 Tornado by some distance.

Maybe to you those aspects of the kit are more important than fidelity of outline, for some of us the opposite is true, what SAMi have published is a one-sided review that sings the praises of the detail and options, but makes no mention of any flaws in outline.

And while I agree that a good kit is more than just adherence to outline, I have to say that for the technology Hobbyboss have invested in this new kit not to mention its sticker price, why couldn't they put as much effort into getting the thing the right shape as they did into adding all the bells and whistles? It makes no sense. Frankly I'll take outline over details any day, both would be nice in a 50 quid kit but I can always add and correct detail, I can correct outline errors too, but for that kind of money why should I?

[kspriss]

throwing in my 2p worth.

i dont buy modelling magazines at all. i tend to stick to a subject matter i know about and convert or alter until im happy with it. If i DO stray out of my comfort zone, then i tend to ask at the one place i can get an unbiased, warts an all review with handy pointers on correcting faults if any. Where is this place i hear you ask?

...well, if you are reading this, then you have already found it!!!!!

steve