Open panels & doors or clean & all buttoned up?

[Red Dog]

What's your preference? (could also be for cold war & modern)

Caution this is a 'I've been locked up too long rant'.

Should model companies make their kits with open panels and doors or clean and buttoned up?

I prefer clean and buttoned up but many model companies make their kits with many open panels and doors, so to have it clean and buttoned up requires additional modelling skills.

If they make them clean and buttoned up they could provide additional parts (those panels and doors) that don't need to be a perfect fit, cause it's being displayed in the open position and it doesn't matter.

If I wanted open panels I can drill and cut out a certain panel or door and create one (if not already provided as an optional part) and that panel or door then doesn't need to be a perfect fit or of the correct curvature being in the open position.

Becomes annoying having to allow additional time and frustration to fit these panels and doors when your looking for a reasonably quick and stress free build.

 

Just in the middle of Hobby Boss's 1/48 Me 262A-2a.

I don't want the radio hatch or the weapon and armament compartments open. Spending a lot of extra time trying to get these panels to fit perfectly, especially the weapons & armament bay panels. They haven't got the correct curvature to match the fuselage and there will be some misalignment and gaps which will become more obvious under a coat of paint.

Annoying.

Cheers all and look forward to your replies.

Stay safe and stay inside.

 

 

[malpaso]

Personally I am not a big fan of model aircraft with all their entrails displayed unless it's a maintenance or similar diorama; that said I'm impressed by the modelling skills often on display in such models.  I'll build with open cockpits if I've made a bit of an effort, but closed up and in flight looks great too - the only proviso being a suitable method to hold the plane up and how to address the propellor(s) unless it's a jet.  A fixed prop and supported on a thin brass rod works for me but not everyone else.

Cheers 

Will

[Work In Progress]

Purely a matter of taste and how you want to represent the aeroplane.

 

True, the more opened up a kit is, the worse the risk of fit problems becomes, and the more it will cost to tool and manufacture. On the other hand, a lot of kit-buyers these days seem to become extremely anxious if they are asked have to modify a part in any manner.  For example I was disappointed that the recent 1/72 Lysander from Dora Wings didn't come with separate slats because you never see a Lysander with the flaps down that doesn't have the inner slats out - and that's not a simple modification to a kit part. But separate slats would make it a more expensive and delicate kit, more fiddly for most buyers and if they want to model it in cruising flight then they want the wing clean.

 

If I were building a 1/48 P-51D for stand-mounted in-flight display (gear-up, flaps-up, pilot in the cockpit, canopy closed) I would pick a different kit than if I were modelling one for display in a maintenance diorama. Fortunately we have many choices of kit for most popular types and I am happy that not every manufacturer sees a need to follow the same philosophy.  

Edited April 17, 2020 by Work In Progress

[fastterry]

I think maybe the problem is that the companies think that if they make the subject kit too simple it will not appeal to the more experienced of us and even though the tooling is more expensive, the more gadgets they put on, the more they can charge. Kittyhawk have covered a couple of cold war subjects that appeal to me ie F-94C, F9F and F-101. All are overcomplicated and are a pain to get a nice finish on if you want to close things up. The F-94 & the F-101 offer open speed brakes when they were almost always closed on the ground. Another one of the areas that a lot of companies get wrong for the sake of adding detail is lowered flaps. Hasegawa has them on most if not all of their 1/32 WW2 kits and apart from P-47's and P-51's the flaps should be up on the ground. The champions of over complication are of course Zoukei Mura, you pay lots for a whole lot of detail that will never see the light of day and you have the problem mentioned earlier of trying to attach ill fitting panels over the holes of detail you don't need. Just another two bobs worth.

TRF

[Alan P]

I really don't like it. I'd pick a kit that looks like the prototype would look when sitting on the ground with an option to pose in flight, over a maintenance diorama-ready panel diagram any day. 

 

Folding wings, extended speed brakes and open or closed canopy are good to have options for, but I'm happy to leave the arcane innards of engines, auxiliary system access and other pointless bits to the aftermarket if it keeps the costs down and saves half the kit going in the bin when it's finished 🤔

[lasermonkey]

I tend to favour the "everything closed" look, as I feel it shows off the lines of the aircraft better. Also, not being one of those people who likes to spend lots of money on aftermarket cockpits, a closed canopy can hide a somewhat bare interior, though I will usually attempt to make the most visible bits look a little busier. While I am on the subject, manufacturers: please provide parts for both open and closed canopies, as getting a bunch of transparent parts to fit nicely can be a royal pain in the backside.

 

Another reason not to open everything up is that I absolutely hate etched metal parts. Etched metal is probably the least cooperative medium it has ever been my misfortune to encounter and I'll never understand how some people create masterpieces with it. Even the Eduard MiG-21 Profipack that I started last night did nothing to convince me otherwise, though it has to be said, the plastic is exquisite.

[Work In Progress]

Photo-etch, apart from harnesses and instument panels, gives me the shudders. If I were doing 1/700 warships I would use it for things but I don't like for model aeroplanes in mainstream scales. Very little of the detail that festoons an aeroplane is made of thin flat sheet materials, even though in most cases the airframe itself is!

[Collin]

"Curb Appeal"

 

I try to build OOB, and sometimes in-flight as can be seen from most of my builds on this site.  

 

I think it comes down to "curb appeal", meaning a model company building a kit has to put a robust amount of extra details (like open panels and internal detail) to grab the modelers attention and secure the purchase.  If you just build & package a simple kit with nothing extra...you will loose out on the "gottcha" or "pop" factor that grabs our attention (on the box art or in builder reviews...which seem to be over the top in favor of the kit these days vice critical evaluations.....but that's another rant).  

 

Trumpeter's P-47.  All that internal detail from the engine and blower section will never be seen on a completed model, but Trump put it in there as eye candy...drawing us toward the kit.  Perception being that the kit must be worth picking up because look at all this extra stuff.  The more experienced the modeler, the more they see through all of that and look at the basic kit (which in the razorback 1/32 Trump P-47D.....is actually pretty good).  If Hasegawa had created a 1/32 P-47D Razorback along the same concept as their Bubbletop (a simple large scale T-bot without a lot of extra)....I would have never even considered the Trump kit.  

 

Tamiya (and sometimes Hasegawa) gets away with some of this...their 1/32 P-51 for example has a lot of open stuff....but fit is to the point where it doesn't really matter....which leads to my second point:

 

I also believe that folks like Trumpeter, Kinetic, & HB often overcompensate with extra stuff to make up for the lack of precision like Tamiya/Hasegawa/Eduard.  Example is the HB F-14A Vs. the Tamiya F-14A in 1/48.  Tamiya doesn't need the extra bells and whistles to sell that kit.  I believe HB did this (open panels/slats and other "bells and whistles") to get modelers to buy it over the simpler Hasegawa 1/48 kit which was it's main competition.  

 

Because of the above factors, some companies will build kits with open panels and other extra stuff...and because these are molded apart from the parent model...their fit and form will continue to be in question.  

 

Give me a simple and well detailed/shaped kit...let me do the rest.  Glad to contribute to your rant Red Dog.

 

Cheers

Collin

[gingerbob]

My usual rule of thumb is "Ready for me to hop in and go flying."  So, for example, on a Spitfire I'd want the hood slid back (or at least an option to do so without cutting anything) and the door flopped open.  Any panels that would only normally be opened for the mechanics to get at something that needs fixing should be closed and airworthy.

 

A slightly different "normal": the way the aircraft typically is configured while at rest.  Again using the Spitfire, door closed, hood shut.  If flaps are often down (Mustang, for example), then that should be an option.  Likewise leading edge slats (A-4, Messerschmitts, etc)  Cowl flaps on radials, and so on.

 

 

[Tomas Enerdal]

5 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Purely a matter of taste and how you want to represent the aeroplane.

Agree.

There is, however, one advantage with separate panels that may lead to a more interesting, or accurate final result. When looking at a the skin/surface of a modern kit, there's mostly very uniform panel lines all over. In some cases it's even difficult to distinguish panel lines, hatches and flying surfaces from each other, due to an unnatural uniformity. A separate panel or rudder, even if modelled closed or straight, adds a slight variation to the surface, a variation that is always there on the real plane.

If handled with skill such subtle variation will give additional "life" to the finished model.

(Slightly off subject; experiment with varying the intensity of the wash while weathering. A variation over the surface regarding intesity, contrast, even colour will give astonishing results. Start with just a very thin wash where the wash is just slightly darker/lighter than the background colour. Add more but randomly, or if a specific line need more accetuation. )

 

[fubar57]

While I like everything neat and tidy I also go for quick and easy. If the panels and canopies fit perfect in the closed position then to quote Yoda....."glued in they are." If there's a lot of fussing about then they will be open

[ben_m]

I think it depends on scale- at 1/32 and 1/24, I would expect it as optional, but it should be engineered so that it doesn't make extra challenges to building a closed up version (no tricky gaps, etc). Would be to have two versions of kits- one with extra sprue for internals and photo etch, one cheaper without. I'm think of kits like 1/32 tamiya spitfire- would be great to have a cheaper version without engine.

[Vlad]

I prefer the closed look because fundamentally I build planes because I think they look great, and in particular they look great in their natural element (in the air). As I build more, I'm slowly making exceptions and including wheels down and open canopy models in my collection, but these are invariably types where I have (or am planning) to build several so I get the best of both worlds. I have made one exception and done an open engine, but we'll get to that. I also should point out that I build in 1/72, where having stuff open is rarely an option let alone a problem due to kits manufacture. Having said that, I completely understand where you're coming from as often even getting gear doors to fit in the "up" position is a chore!

 

I do think though that this is an issue of *how* the manufacturers do it not *whether* they do it. If the parts fit well either way, or there are optional parts, then as far as I'm concerned the manufacturers can knock themselves out adding whatever detail they want and I'll spend the extra few minutes gluing a well fitting panel. If it just fits badly, that is annoying.

 

As for my exception, that was Tamiya's 1/48 Bf 109G-6. This is not only amazingly engineered (so if I wanted it buttoned up the effort would have been minimal to work around the optional internals), but they've gone the extra mile and made the whole arrangement swappable, so I can have it either way depending on my mood! Now *that* kind of kit I think is the pinnacle of compromise on this issue.

[upnorth]

If companies are going to do throw in all sorts of extra inards into a kit, I prefer if they mold the major kit parts as if the kit was going to be built closed up.

 

On the inside surfaces of the parts, they could mold thinner areas that could be cut along to open up holes for bays and compartments (I know some companies do that) and the compartment walls, and relevant panel are separate on the runners. Good fodder for the spares box if you don't want to use them in the build.

 

It's a "best of both worlds" approach that will let those who want a clean build have it pretty much from the box, but give the kit flexibility for those with the want, patience and skills for open panels to do it up their way.

 

I personally prefer a nice clean build that shows of the lines of the aircraft.

 

I'm also a big proponent of companies offering both open and closed canopy options in their kits

[Rolls-Royce]

On 4/17/2020 at 5:52 AM, gingerbob said:

My usual rule of thumb is "Ready for me to hop in and go flying."  So, for example, on a Spitfire I'd want the hood slid back (or at least an option to do so without cutting anything) and the door flopped open.  Any panels that would only normally be opened for the mechanics to get at something that needs fixing should be closed and airworthy.

 

A slightly different "normal": the way the aircraft typically is configured while at rest.  Again using the Spitfire, door closed, hood shut.  If flaps are often down (Mustang, for example), then that should be an option.  Likewise leading edge slats (A-4, Messerschmitts, etc)  Cowl flaps on radials, and so on.

 

 

Agree 100%. I spent 11 years on the F-4. On that aircraft, any panels (except for starter and electrical power access doors) open mean that it won't be ready to fly for a while. Panels closed, canopies open, normal stuff that droops with hydraulics off open, ordnance loaded, all good.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[72modeler]

A good discussion, to be sure. Here are my personal thoughts on the subject, which kind of agree with some of the posts. First off, I have nothing but admiration for  and jealousy of those modelers who can drop or open all of the flying surfaces and access panels- especially that small and getting smaller select group that did it before the arrival of etched or resin detail parts/sets. I  also recall back when the earth was still cooling when I  was entering contests, that there was a period  when all a contest entrant had to do was open up everything in sight but the relief tube, and they were guaranteed a trophy- at the same time their entry had  misaligned parts, open seams, or incorrect colors. I have always been a disciple of the school that   basic modeling craftmanship should come first and everything else is gilding the lily. That being said: It's not essential, as my personal opinion is if you have the skills, you can do these things yourself, but with the current state of the art where modern  kit making is concerned, my nickel's worth (tuppence?)  follows:

 

I would personally like to see those parts of an airplane that are dropped or open normally when shut down provided for in a kit. Canopies, dropped flaps, drooped elevators, deployed slats, drooped ailerons, speedbrakes, etc. For a Spitfire, let's say, open hood, open radiator shutter, and drooped elevators; for a P-51, open hood, dropped flaps and inner fairing doors, for a Bf-109E, open hood, deployed LE slats, drooped elevators and ailerons (If the flaps were down), and open radiator shutter; for a Sabre so equipped, open hood, open speedbrakes and slats, open ammo access door. Granted, many of you, myself included, have done all of these things on kits that didn't provide for them, but I guess my thought  is that since the tooling and mold-making have improved so much to allow for these options, I would gladly pay the extra freight to have them included in a new-tool state of the art model. I  drilled out the 140-odd holes in my 1/72 Hasegawa SBD-3 dive brakes/wing flaps, but I sure as heck didn't enjoy the process!

Mike 

Edited April 18, 2020 by 72modeler
corrected spelling

[Tbolt]

On 4/17/2020 at 7:59 AM, Work In Progress said:

True, the more opened up a kit is, the worse the risk of fit problems becomes, and the more it will cost to tool and manufacture. On the other hand, a lot of kit-buyers these days seem to become extremely anxious if they are asked have to modify a part in any manner.  For example I was disappointed that the recent 1/72 Lysander from Dora Wings didn't come with separate slats because you never see a Lysander with the flaps down that doesn't have the inner slats out - and that's not a simple modification to a kit part. But separate slats would make it a more expensive and delicate kit, more fiddly for most buyers and if they want to model it in cruising flight then they want the wing clean.

 

I'm not sure that was down to cost, more likely Dora Wings not understanding how the flaps and slats work on the real aircraft. If they didn't want to model the slats then they should have just saved costs and fix the flaps as well.

[Wez]

As I'm unlikely to build a model in flight configuration I'd like it to be represented as it would normally be seen on the ground so if that means flaps and slats lowered then that's what I want to see, likewise if the airbrakes droop open on the ground then that's what I want.

 

For instance, on the F-100, the slats would normally be open on the ground so that's what I want.  Hasegawa did some great stuff when they released their 1/72nd Tomcat and F-111 series many years ago, the slats etc were presented as an aircraft would normally be seen on the ground, I had high hopes for their Tonka's which followed but they didn't include that feature more's the pity.

 

In short, as the aircraft would normally be seen on the dispersal on a nice summer's day and without any maintenance being carried out.

[72modeler]

8 hours ago, Tbolt said:

more likely Dora Wings not understanding how the flaps and slats work on the real aircraft.

Too true, Tbolt! Until the Academy SB2C Helldivers came out, no kit maker realized that the slats were linked to the undercart and were out when the undercart was down; or of they did know this, it was easier to mold the wing parts with the slats retracted. Much like the Handley Page devices on so many 'tween the wars designs.

Mike

Edited April 18, 2020 by 72modeler
corrected spelling

[Orso]

I prefer buttoned up as I think anything opened up destroys the lines of the machine. The only time I can enjoy a open up machine is if it is in a setting that explains why, like a diorama. I have seen impressive builds but all I can think is why are all those hatches open and why are there also missiles hanging under one wing and on a dolly under the other. If it is in a large service shouldn't the missiles have been off the plane?

[Tbolt]

4 hours ago, Wez said:

As I'm unlikely to build a model in flight configuration I'd like it to be represented as it would normally be seen on the ground so if that means flaps and slats lowered then that's what I want to see, likewise if the airbrakes droop open on the ground then that's what I want.

 

For instance, on the F-100, the slats would normally be open on the ground so that's what I want.  Hasegawa did some great stuff when they released their 1/72nd Tomcat and F-111 series many years ago, the slats etc were presented as an aircraft would normally be seen on the ground, I had high hopes for their Tonka's which followed but they didn't include that feature more's the pity.

 

In short, as the aircraft would normally be seen on the dispersal on a nice summer's day and without any maintenance being carried out.

Of course that's what we all would like but too often that doesn't happen. But obviously we should not be offered a config that's impossible on the real thing.

[Tbolt]

1 minute ago, Orso said:

I prefer buttoned up as I think anything opened up destroys the lines of the machine. The only time I can enjoy a open up machine is if it is in a setting that explains why, like a diorama. I have seen impressive builds but all I can think is why are all those hatches open and why are there also missiles hanging under one wing and on a dolly under the other. If it is in a large service shouldn't the missiles have been off the plane?

Because some people like to build things opened up but they are not into build dioramas. Any model that's just sitting on its own we have to use some imagination to the setting it's in because real aircraft don't sit on a wooden or glass shelf 😉

 

As for a "large service", yes if it's all opened up and there's live weapons on it then it does look wrong, but if it's just a couple of panels then there's nothing wrong with that.

 

It always makes me laugh when some one builds a Spitfire with the flaps down and some one always says the flaps wouldn't normally be down on a parked Spitfire 🙄 No but some times there are! It's a bit like saying the canopy wouldn't be normally open or the engine cowl wouldn't normally be off.

[fastterry]

Well all braille scale modellers (of which I'm one) can rejoice as Zoukei Mura have apparently listened to us and will release both fully detailed and simplified kits of the Fw190 (1/32) in the post covid-19 future. If the virus hasn't killed off a large percentage of the modelling public!

TRF

[Red Dog]

Great to read your comments gents.

Seems most who have read this topic are for closed  up and clean lines. Then why do model companies insist on having open panels and doors?

 

Hers a couple of shots from my Hobby Boss 1/48 Me 262A-2a.

As you can see it was a PITA to get the open panels to fit in the closed position. Needed a third hand with the glueing. I held the parts while my daughter added the glue to the joins. No other way.

Opposite side

Front on view

As you can see there are gaps that will need filing .

The white marks in  the plastic are where the panel needed to be bent to get the correct curvature to fit properly.

Hoping with some filing, sanding then repeat, I'll get a reasonable outcome.

But why oh why didn't Hobby Boss make 2 complete fuselage halves and add the extra sprue that contains the armament and the doors for those that want to display that bay open can do with only a minimal amount of extra work.

 

A clean machine should be a quick and easy build, not so in this case

 

I have a few of HB's Me 262 versions in the stash so at least I'm prepared for the pain to come when I get round to doing them.

Maybe the Tamiya one will get out before them. Oh wait on its engineered the same.

Thanks for the discussion

 

[Work In Progress]

2 minutes ago, Red Dog said:

Then why do model companies insist on having open panels and doors?

 

Because it sells kits?  people on here are not necessarily representative of the kit buyers who produce the biggest sales