Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sign in to follow this  
NikonChris

Sa

Recommended Posts

Hello, my name is Chris, I am 52 years old, a new member, a WW2 AFV German fan who has lost his mojo.....

To correct this I bought 2 WW2 German 1/72 bombers, Airfix JU88A-4 and BF110C and I hope this works, if not I am lost.

So where is this going.......that's up to us.

So to the crux of the matter, scale and fit......

Let's start with Scale. Let's use Me109G as the standard. If you study the plans, look at the real aircraft then if the wingspan is 12.2 metres then that's what is. So how do various manufactures get away with different sizes???? If I want to buy a canopy mask for this aircraft then they should all be the same. No, some say Airfix,ICM, Revell, Tamiya....but in truth 1/72 should be the same??????

So who is right????. Do we buy the latest kit because it is what we want or because we want to have the latest add ons, etch brass and decals???

Then onto fit.

Having looked at this site a gentleman building the Trumpeter 1/16 Tiger II has had to chamfer the inner wheels this kit costs £300 GBP or more, is this right???

Some one else is building the Airfix 1/24 Mosquito and the fuselage does not fit, he is not the only one, this kit costs £100 plus and again this is wrong

So where do we stand, do we boycott manufacturers until they get it correct or do we accept sub-standard models/kits because that's what we do?

So, please tell me, am I wrong or right.....as we know we love our hobby, but we are not fools

Nikonchris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, this is the proverbial can of worms! Generally speaking I vote with my wallet and most manufacturers will get a reputation for good or bad. If you read some of the posts on Mach two kits you might not touch them with a barge pole,but there are those quite happy to take them on and come up with some lovely results. I paid for me quite a lot of money for the Rareplanes Vulcan (my first vacform ) and despite all all the effort I was very pleased with the result. It was the only game in town at the time, but had the Airfix Vulcan been about then Rareplanes would not have got a look in. I think the same is the case for the Mosquito expensive yes , but I think is the only player and you do get a lot of plastic for your money. I hope this comes over as I meant it to? Despite little niggles you dont want to kill the goose!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, NikonChris,

Hope you are being ironic with the 109G wingspan measure... or just putting a general example.

Besides... just measure yourself any piece of equipment or furniture you have, several times, with different tools, scale the measurements to some scale of your choosing and add in the middle a change of unit system (inches to metric, for example), and you shall see the results may vary. And you are not even trying to build a 3D object to those measures.

Dry dimension numbers can mean little, once you get them into a 3D object. A model can be pretty accurate in global measurements but be out of some key proportions that throw away its look at the same time. Besides, minor discrepancies in real size dimensions can be completely irrelevant in scale. And what's a "substandard model"? There are many such models, and most people avoid them like plague. There are some models which are not 100% accurate but people love them. There are many things to a good model. The main three factors in my opinion are accuracy, detail and buildability. Historical significance might also be considered. Some people put more value to some of them over the others.

Finally, there is a "denying School" that completely negates the relevance of accuracy, defining this hobby as just gluing and painting things (IPMS Contest Rules, for example; but I think they are cheating when they say the rules say that); therefore only craftmanship should be considered. That would put "buildability" as a premium.

So you choose what you like and build it, if that is your inclination. Otherwise, there are many other hobbies.

Fernando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread (and the identically-started "Scale and Fit - Is it Important" thread) should be moved out of WWII Aircraft and into Chat. Just sayin'...

Edited by mhaselden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the issue being ignored by the OP is that this is a hobby and no one has to either build models or correct them. Certainly for those of us who like to be as accurate as we can then such things do become an issue, but I for one generally enjoy the challenge involved and I must admit that I find those wonderful kits that just require one to follow the instructions to be quite boring. I know that this will raise some ire but I feel that those kits are for assemblers, not modellers.

As for boycotting well one can if one takes this matter seriously enough but if a kit is the only example available of something that one wants to add to the collection then if one is truly serious then you have no choice but to use it and open yourself to the sheer pleasure of making the changes by scratch building what is needed. Why so many modellers fail to embrace scratch building and moan and whine about the lack of after market products to make their life easier is beyond me. To me just following the instructions is sufficient to kill any pleasure in building - one might as well buy pre assembled diecast.

But this raises the question of whether modelling is a serious issue or just a compelling hobby and form of relaxation. I personally feel it is the latter and having in the last few years walked away from aircraft modelling because over 60 or more years I had built models of just about every aircraft I wanted to I can look back and say that no it isn't really a serious matter and that if one doesn't like the manufacturer's product but is too lazy to correct it then you didn't want the kit in the first place, so your complaints don't mean much to begin with. In the end it is your money that is involved and I can say that acquiring scratch building skills is both a money saver and more importantly something that takes you to a much more enjoyable level in the hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All small scale models are inaccurate in some way or other, because they can't be made any other way using available technology. The only question is where you accept the inaccuracies, and how you trade them off against price, ease of construction, preferred materials etc.

The kits produced in the last 20 years are in the main better in both variety and quality than anything previously seen in human history. With internet access we can find out in detail about any kit, see the sprues etc, before we buy it. Every model kit on the planet starts as a scratch-build of a master model, whether a physical one or a digital one. Anyone who doesn't like the models those creators come up with has no obligation or need to buy them: we can always scratch-build our own.

If we refuse to scratch-build because we don't want to invest in the the time or the skills required to scratch-build, then we have little basis for getting on our high horses about the people who do the work for manufacturers. Reporting matters of fact or reasoned and evidence-based opinion so that others can have a good basis for choosing to buy a particular product or not is fine. Trying to turn it into a cause for some sort of outrage or moral crusade is ridiculous.

So, if you don't like a kit, by all means boycott it, i.e. don't buy it. If you're waiting for the perfect unimprovable kit then you will wait for ever.

Now back to my Airfix P-38F and Frog Meteor F.4, both of which have their challenges, but neither of which is causing me to wish for anything different.

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bring MilneBay's point full circle, i'm an 'assembler' rather than a modeller. I've tried simple scratching and have enjoyed it, but i'd far rather have the relaxation of a 'fall together' kit than be fighting the parts all the way.

And thats the point. MilneBay clearly enjoys the hobby a lot from his 'modeller' approach, and I enjoy it a lot from the 'assembler' approach. I do me research and buys me kits. The common, and most important, factor is that we enjoy what we're doing. If I was getting to the point of frustration where I wanted manufacturers to be boycotted, i'd be considering my choice of hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sitting on the fence with this.

Time is my biggest challenge, so if I can get the kits I want that fall together I'm happy. If not, then I'll grind away to get the result I want but realise that towards the end, I struggle for motivation. I enjoy seeing a model finished, but doing conversions this year has meant they are few and far between!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, there is no right or wrong answer to your questions.

In my opinion your choice of kits does not give you the most accurate or best fitting kits of each plane. Revell or Hasegawa for the Junkers and Eduard for the 110 are the way to go.

This is of course merely opinion, and you will find many different ones if you browse this forum or indeed the web at large. Part of the fun of the hobby is to decide which kit suits your style best; myself, I prefer well-fitting, nicely detailed kits even if they are not considered to be the most accurate ones by the experts. Every kit is always only an approximation of the real thing, to a greater or lesser extent. As for fit, sure, it would be great every kit was shake and bake, and to be fair, many newer toolings are pretty close, but it's also part of the hobby to bring out the filler and sanding sticks and remedy the issue yourself.

Bottom line, modelling should bring you joy and relaxation. It's a hobby and it's not science. At least it is for me.

Edited by sroubos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...