HobbyBoss Tornado - recent magazines reviews...

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Hi all - sorry I have to mention this, but said model is rather close to my heart.

There have been 2 build reviews now in recent mags ( SAM and MAI) both of which end up with rather different views from those expressed on here about its shape and accuracy, but both mention "online discussion" about said shape etc.

So did we all overreact and it isnt as bad as we think? ( I know where I stand cus I built one), or have the mags gone for non-controversial reviews?

I just wonder whether either of the builders post on here and would care to comment more fully? or even the mags editors?

cheers

Jonners

title edited to get the name right!!

Edited December 3, 2010 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor

[Julien]

I would say the mags have gone for no confrontation.

Critise a kit you might not get another review model?

Julien

[AnonymousAA72]

Just realised Jonners....HobbyCRAFT????

[Mentalguru]

Jon- don't rise to the bait. Stand by your guns. This is one major reason I no longer buy the modelling razzmags.

[thx6667]

Just realised Jonners....HobbyCRAFT????

Accuracy, schmaccuracy!

[atdb27]

To be honest had I not seen/read your thread Jonners

I would have been tempted to 'Go Buy one' based on the mag reviews!?

Still haven't got one yet!

Adrian

[darson]

To be honest had I not seen/read your thread Jonners

I would have been tempted to 'Go Buy one' based on the mag reviews!?

Still haven't got one yet!

Adrian

Those mags depend on the model companies for advertising revenue so it doesn'l surprise me at all reviews are almost universally positive.

I used to write reviews for a mag but quit when my reviews had to be shortened to fit in available space, the only problem was that it was only the negative parts of the review that were removed.

[keefr22]

Well Jon, maybe they were looking at the pictures of those Tonkas in the parallel universe. Because to my eyes the HB kit looks not a lot like the ones found on this planet.....!!!

Keef

[thx6667]

Those mags depend on the model companies for advertising revenue so it doesn'l surprise me at all reviews are almost universally positive.

I fear we're going to have another round-robin of this "mustn't upset the advertisers" stuff, but I can honestly say in the decade I wrote stuff that kind of thing was never suggested, nor were any write-ups directed, edited or "sexed up", and equally of the manufacturers large and small I've got to know over the years, none of them would appear to have an issue with constructive criticism.

There is also the possibility that the person doing the write up may just not agree with what someone else (ostensibly on forums these days) may think and what you're getting isn't spin but just someone else's honest opinion, perhaps based on a less that au fait knowledge of the original.

Again, without wishing to go over old ground, unless someone steps up to the plate and sets an example of how it should be done - or proves that stuff does get watered down - then it all ends up being a bit moot with both sides (the mags and forums) becoming more polemic.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Jonathan Mock

[Jon Bryon]

I think 'universally positive reviews' are a bit of a myth. Unfortunately, my recent copies of SAMI, SAM and MAI are all inaccessible at the moment so I can't prove my point, but they all contain negative reviews to some extent. Off the top of my head I recall a negative review of a PCM kit (Fw190 derivative? I forget...), Czech Models' Yak-15 and A Models big Russian helicopter, as built by Ken Duffey.

Having said that, the 'reviews' (or, more accurately, features, since I don't think they often claim to be reviews) of the Hobbyboss Tornadoes, F-111s, A-7s and Trumpeter's Su-24 have been a whitewash.

IMO there is basically inconsistency at two levels: 1) some companies do seem to get off more lightly than others (particularly HobbyBoss); and 2) different authors have different standards of what is important to them.

Despite being generally poor guides regarding accuracy, I do find many of these articles useful for informing me of various issues that might crop up while building the kits being 'reviewed'.

Cheers

Jon

Edited December 3, 2010 by Jon Bryon

[Vlamgat9]

If you read Gary Hatcher's editorial of a couple of months ago in SAMI he specifically said they wouild rather return an item to a manufacturer and not print a review than run with a negative one. So SAMI at least have pretty clearly set their stall out.

[Graham T]

I have avoided the HB Tornado, based upon the "negative" comments about it posted here & other sites about shape & accuracy (thrust reversers deployed on a machine at rest? I think not!). However, the example built in SAM looked too good to resist so I bought an example off ebay for just over £20. For that money, I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt & I'm waiting for it to arrive in the post. What does annoy me about the kit is that apparently no RAF stores are included - I'll have to scrap my build of the Italeri kit & pinch from there, it also includes a Neomega pit, does anyone know whether that fits the HB kit? (that's in the event that I can get it out without ruining it!).

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

sorry about the Hobbycraft ref - its been edited now.

I think what I'm getting at is that the reviews do highlight a couple of point - the mishapen stabs, and the air intakes ( in one), so theres obvioulsy a certain amount of knowledge ( received or otherwise) going on. I'm just wondering why there is no mention, even in the sense of "its not right, but hard to fix so I left it alone", of things that are so glaringly wrong - the canopy coaming for instance, or the open thrust reversers for instance.

It wouldn't have belittled the excellent builds of the models, surely, if the editor had put a note in at the end saying, for example,

"While the reviewer has mentioned and corrected certain features on the model, we have also seen reference made to harder-to-fix shape and detail areas on the model - around the nose, canopy, spine and wing gloves. The reviewers chose not to address these as they would seem to require major re-working of the model, which falls out of the scope of a quick build review. A study of photos shows these points to have some validity, and we hope HobbyBoss might choose to correct these to make beautifully detailed, well fitting model into an accurate one too."

Thats not exactly slagging off the model is it, but it at least shows its noted, and that something should be done.

Jonners

[Jon Bryon]

If you read Gary Hatcher's editorial of a couple of months ago in SAMI he specifically said they wouild rather return an item to a manufacturer and not print a review than run with a negative one. So SAMI at least have pretty clearly set their stall out.

Yes, I did read that, and I disagree with his editorial standpoint. However, it has not actually fully materialised, cf. the Amodel Mil-whatever-it-is by Ken Duffey, which does an excellent job of pointing out the shortcomings of the kit and how to correct them in a constructive and positive manner. His article is definitely not a whitewash.

Jon

[Pielstick]

I only buy 3 modelling mags regularly now - Air Modeller, MAI, and MAW (should that now be MISIMAW?). I don't buy any of them for the reviews, I buy them for the features.

My other hobby is flight simulators and I've sunk quite a lot of money into Microsoft Flight Simulator addons over the years. About six years ago the UK got its own print flight sim mag - "PC Pilot". I used to buy the mag but stopped buying it a long time ago. There were always a very good number of reviews each month, and all of the reviews were always positive. The vast majority of the products reviewed were available from a certain UK-based publisher of FS software. At the same time the magazine was bursting with adverts from this publisher.

What also irked me a bit was the vast majority of the reviews were from one person, who as I said earlier gave every product a very positive review. I picked up the latest issue of the mag last week in Smiths and had a flick through, and yep sure enough nothing has changed. Nearly all the reviews are of Just Flight products, all of them positive, and nearly all the ads in the magazine are from Just Flight.

As our American cousins would say... "Go figure."

There's also a similar theme with reviews on the big FS websites. A few years back flightsim.com used to be the biggest MSFS website, and had a really good reviewer writing most of their reviews for them. He disappeared and was replaced by someone who used to write utter drivel, laced with superlatives and very cheesy phrases. Every review was so positive and told us how we absolutely have to go out and buy it NOW because it's just so good. Lo and behold at the bottom of every one of these reviews was a link to buy the addon in the flightsim.com online store.

A few years ago Avsim.com who style themselves as the best MSFS site on the internet published a review of a Boeing 757 addon from a certain developer/publisher who had a reputation for throwing out half baked products and offering poor customer support. This addon had been out for some time and was well known to the community as having several glaring issues for a product marketed as a "professional" addon high in the realism stakes. The Avsim review was highly positive and made no mention of any of the issues. Lo and behold once more for the few months after that review the main banner ad on the top of Avsim's front page was for that very same product!

[Mentalguru]

sorry about the Hobbycraft ref - its been edited now.

I think what I'm getting at is that the reviews do highlight a couple of point - the mishapen stabs, and the air intakes ( in one), so theres obvioulsy a certain amount of knowledge ( received or otherwise) going on. I'm just wondering why there is no mention, even in the sense of "its not right, but hard to fix so I left it alone", of things that are so glaringly wrong - the canopy coaming for instance, or the open thrust reversers for instance.

It wouldn't have belittled the excellent builds of the models, surely, if the editor had put a note in at the end saying, for example,

"While the reviewer has mentioned and corrected certain features on the model, we have also seen reference made to harder-to-fix shape and detail areas on the model - around the nose, canopy, spine and wing gloves. The reviewers chose not to address these as they would seem to require major re-working of the model, which falls out of the scope of a quick build review. A study of photos shows these points to have some validity, and we hope HobbyBoss might choose to correct these to make beautifully detailed, well fitting model into an accurate one too."

Thats not exactly slagging off the model is it, but it at least shows its noted, and that something should be done.

Jonners

Jon- I'm impressed.

Any chance you could do a similar one for the inevitable "Does my bum look big in this?" question..?

[spike7451]

Jon- don't rise to the bait. Stand by your guns. This is one major reason I no longer buy the modelling razzmags.

Same here,someone posted a picture link on ARC to the build,I pointed out the 'innacuracy' of the build on the cover & nearly got my head chewed off by another 'member'...

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Jon- I'm impressed.

Any chance you could do a similar one for the inevitable "Does my bum look big in this?" question..?

"Does my bum look big in this?"

"yes, take it off, I prefer it that way anyway."

Hows that mate?

Jonners

Seriously, Is the Tornado one of those aricraft that everyone recognises but few really know the ins and outs of? I mean I was unaware of lots of things shape wise till I did my build, and you guys came out and said - "watch for this" etc. Now I feel I know the aircraft a whole better from a modellers point of view.

I mean if the level of innaccuracy displayed in the HB Tornado had been exhibited in, say, a P51; would there be more opprobium in the print media? Is it just that "we" all think we know what a Tornado looks like, and HBs models conforms to that percieved stereotype, ergo - no one seems to have noticed that much ( well other than us)

I dont know. Well I do know that the model isnt accurate ( because I spent countless hours looking at photos of the beast from just about every angle, with a modellers eye). But does it just look enough like a Tornado for most people to not actually care that much?

?

[spike7451]

"Does my bum look big in this?"

"yes, take it off, I prefer it that way anyway."

Hows that mate?

Jonners

Seriously, Is the Tornado one of those aricraft that everyone recognises but few really know the ins and outs of? I mean I was unaware of lots of things shape wise till I did my build, and you guys came out and said - "watch for this" etc. Now I feel I know the aircraft a whole better from a modellers point of view.

I mean if the level of innaccuracy displayed in the HB Tornado had been exhibited in, say, a P51; would there be more opprobium in the print media? Is it just that "we" all think we know what a Tornado looks like, and HBs models conforms to that percieved stereotype, ergo - no one seems to have noticed that much ( well other than us)

I dont know. Well I do know that the model isnt accurate ( because I spent countless hours looking at photos of the beast from just about every angle, with a modellers eye). But does it just look enough like a Tornado for most people to not actually care that much?

Imagine if it was an F14...F15....F16....F18.....ARC would be up in arms!!! Imagine the uproar..the scandal....the bitchyness...but because it's not as popular a subject as those yankee jets' It seems that the attitude is don't you dare slag off HB/Kinetic ect that deliver us such glourios subjects...

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Imagine if it was an F14...F15....F16....F18.....ARC would be up in arms!!! Imagine the uproar..the scandal....the bitchyness...but because it's not as popular a subject as those yankee jets' It seems that the attitude is don't you dare slag off HB/Kinetic ect that deliver us such glourios subjects...

Hiya mate- I think you have a grain of truth in that - hows the new HB 1/48 Tomcat going down over there? The F111 got a reasanoble grilling I seem to recall over the canopy - but other than that seems to have dropped off the modelling radar ( as does the Tornado to be truthful too)

Jonners

[thx6667]

I dont know. Well I do know that the model isnt accurate ( because I spent countless hours looking at photos of the beast from just about every angle, with a modellers eye). But does it just look enough like a Tornado for most people to not actually care that much?

That's a good point, the flip side is the Kinetic F-16 which to my laymans grasp of the Viper ( A ) looks like a decent kit and from what I've seen of the built-up model ( B ) looks Viperish enough for my tastes and yet, as well know, its also seen as a kit that has many problems to the trained viperscenti.

I totally agree with your assessment of the Hobby Boss kit Jonners, and I think I did say that yours was the kind of constructive, practical critique that is often lacking in the "POS" sound-bite era. I only wish the HB kit was cheaper so that I could make two - the first as a SFTB run through, the second as the "fix all" and see how they compare.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Jonathan Mock

[Matt Roberts]

Didn't pay much attention to the Kinetic Wars over the Viper then! - that still occasionally flares up in artillery fire across the demilitarized zone.

Unfortunately I fall in The hard to see the wrongs on the kit. My biggest hit on the HB kit (other than price) is the lack of RAF ordnance. I understand the furore over the reverser buckets. I can see the canopy framing problems, but the nose problems - no.

Every kit has bitches about it (except all blessed Tamiya Viper). It just depends upon how well you know the subject.

The Academy Eagles - the engine 'humps'

The Kinetic Viper - the nose

The Kinetic M2K - the canopy and now The wings

The Hasegawa Raptor - the surface texture

The Academy Hunter - wheels and cockpit

The Trumpy Fencer - the nose not drooping enough (hey it's been found on The Kinetic Viper)

The Kinetic Prowler - the missing wing fence

The Trumpy Lightnings - the back end

The Academy Fulcrum - something or another

The Trumpyboss F-100 - intake and tail

and the list can go on forever....

It really just depends on how well you know The subject and how much one cares to do in making it 'perfect', there will never be a kit that satisfies every one - well except for all holy Tamiya Viper. Hell people even want resin and aftermarket PE for The AccMin Dauntless and Avenger - two aircraft that can be as close to perfection as humanly possible - outside of All Powerfull Tamiya Viper

[spike7451]

I think part of the problem,in fact I know part of the problem,is that the level of research that HB did on the Mighty Fin (and this as well has be flogged to death!) vs the high cost of the kit does not meet in the middle.It's like a set of scales.The cost outweighs the research done.

Especially considering the reference material there on the web.I for one have noticed on many a thread strewn all over the moddeling forums,links to my Tornado reference thread.

The details are out there if the modelling companies care to look for them.

[Jens]

Every kit has bitches about it (except all blessed Tamiya Viper). It just depends upon how well you know the subject.

The Tamiya kit is lacking the fuel tank vent underneath one of the wings (a rather large hole). However, since this kit is not *ChiCom* it doesn't matter.

Jens

[thx6667]

Didn't pay much attention to the K<snip>

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The Academy Hunter - wheels and cockpit

And canopy. And rear fuselage. And...

Edited December 3, 2010 by Jonathan Mock