"Experts" wrong again......

[Putty Animal]

Troy that’s fantastic, just bought it.  Thanks heaps!

[Putty Animal]

Downloading...  

Edited August 27, 2021 by Putty Animal

[Paul Thompson]

8 hours ago, Putty Animal said:

Cheers Julien 👍

Can I ask though; what was the Cross and Cockade volume that was mentioned, which dealt with the issue of the debunking of the incorrect WW1 colours?  It sounds like a fascinating article and I was hoping to purchase it over the weekend. 

Interesting. I posted this information along with a quick recap of what went on and why it was important (and also documented, so not rubbishing someone) and all my commenmts have been deleted along with record of all notifications I've received during this thread.

 

Paul.

[europapete]

That's wierd Paul. I read your words and thought they contributed well. 

[Stashaholic Steve]

When I got back into the hobby seriously about 15 years ago, I initially got sucked into all this "accuracy" stuff and would fret about minor dimensional issues and all the rest of it.  Over time though I grew somewhat cynical about it all. It struck me that 90% of it is probably just willy-waving on the part of folks who just want to flaunt their own (real or imagined) "expert" credentials (interesting and educational though it may be sometimes). And it dawned on me that unless you can be bothered crawling all over a kit with calipers, micrometers and sundry other measuring instruments, you're probably going to remain blissfully unaware anyway about any "fatal flaws" (😄) that a particular kit might have, because it's highly unlikely that *anyone* will notice them using just the Mk. 1 eyeball.

 

So these days I add detail for more realism, and I'll seek out the best kit I can find in terms of engineering & fit. And if the consensus is that it's "accurate" as well, then that's an added bonus. And if something is so way off that even I can tell at first glance that it's a turkey, I'll avoid it. But essentially I just build "out of the box" these days (aforementioned detailing aside). And yaknow what ...... NO-ONE has ever pulled me up about "accuracy" at a club or a show or on the rare occasions that I've posted builds online (rubbish photographer that I am).

 

Steve

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

13 minutes ago, Stashaholic Steve said:

NO-ONE has ever pulled me up about "accuracy" at a club or a show

 

That's because this is urban myth. It happens much more frequently in peoples' imaginations and retold like old children's stories than it ever does in real life. Doubtless there will be several replies now claiming it happened to them and challenging me to call them a liar. It's not unlike owning a very rare car like my old TVR Cerbera. Despite only 2000 being built and most of them being maintained by TVR specialists, every back street mechanic somehow has tales of woe about them and everyone's friend's uncle had one, somewhat defying the statistical unlikelihood of it being true. Is everyone lying? Probably not. Is everyone telling the truth? Definitely not...

[Paul Thompson]

7 minutes ago, Stashaholic Steve said:

When I got back into the hobby seriously about 15 years ago, I initially got sucked into all this "accuracy" stuff and would fret about minor dimensional issues and all the rest of it.  Over time though I grew somewhat cynical about it all. It struck me that 90% of it is probably just willy-waving on the part of folks who just want to flaunt their own (real or imagined) "expert" credentials (interesting and educational though it may be sometimes). And it dawned on me that unless you can be bothered crawling all over a kit with calipers, micrometers and sundry other measuring instruments, you're probably going to remain blissfully unaware anyway about any "fatal flaws" (😄) that a particular kit might have, because it's highly unlikely that *anyone* will notice them using just the Mk. 1 eyeball.

 

So these days I add detail for more realism, and I'll seek out the best kit I can find in terms of engineering & fit. And if the consensus is that it's "accurate" as well, then that's an added bonus. And if something is so way off that even I can tell at first glance that it's a turkey, I'll avoid it. But essentially I just build "out of the box" these days (aforementioned detailing aside). And yaknow what ...... NO-ONE has ever pulled me up about "accuracy" at a club or a show or on the rare occasions that I've posted builds online (rubbish photographer that I am).

 

Steve

Steve, fair enough, but the 1/28th Revell Fokker D.VII the OP was about is more than a little out - the fuselage is 1/2cm too deep and that is visible if you have a nodding aquaintance with the aircraft. A mm or so out wouldn't bother me, but when it gets to more than 10% of the relevant dimension it does. That aside, the worst and most visible problem is the top wing being essentially upside down. If you aren't a WW1 buff it might not scream out at you, but put it near any other D.VII model in any scale and you will notice it. To be fair to Revell, they didn't cut corners, as a kit and accuracy aside it builds very nicely. But they did use the worst set of plans available, and like current Airfix, who produce otherwise very nice kits, they let noticeable errors through due to unfamiliarity with the real aircraft, and relying in Revell's case on the plans, and Airfix's case on LIDARing museum examples that have been altered from stock, compounded  in both cases by (apparantly) not checking against period photos.

 

Paul.

[europapete]

Sometimes the apparent lack of basic research from kit designers astounds me. Same goes for some AM decal producers. But in the main, they do an excellent job. 

[Allan31]

I'm surprised people are still poking at this thread.

 

The Fokker is off and does look odd to the discerning eye but in the end, I'm sure there are many sitting on shelves that look just fine to their builders.

To Paul's point, I'm presently building Airfix's new tool Mosquito. For them to have spent so much time and effort LIDARing museum examples and for them to have not bothered to even glance at any of the hundreds of books or chat up any of the people out there familiar with this iconic aircraft was just plain stupid and short-sighted. We're all here sitting on the sofa with a $7 copy of the  "Squadron/Signal #15 Mosquito Walk Around" and we've got it figured out easy enough.

 

The worst Mossie out there, the FROG, can still look good on the shelf.

 

 

OK, it's the back of the shelf with the darkest corner but it's up there nonetheless.

 

 

[Paul Thompson]

............and to take this thoroughly off the topic, I really like the painting on the Frog box, for some odd reason.

 

But, indeed, I'm not at all sure there's anything to be added to this thread now.

 

Paul.

[europapete]

Then lets turn it into a box art one. My favorite Frog box is the Blenhiem 1, just because of childhood memories looking in the newsagents shop window and dreaming. I think my alltime favorite is the Airfix Firefly.

[Paul Thompson]

1 minute ago, europapete said:

Then lets turn it into a box art one. My favorite Frog box is the Blenhiem 1, just because of childhood memories looking in the newsagents shop window and dreaming. I think my alltime favorite is the Airfix Firefly.

If we do that then I think the mods will be miffed and close the thread. Although I agree the Blenheim art is nice.

 

Paul.

[europapete]

Hi Paul.  They probably would. There are plenty of boxart threads too. 

[wombat]

We could just have the green / brown debate again?

[Paul Thompson]

9 hours ago, wombat said:

We could just have the green / brown debate again?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

Paul.

[Head in the clouds.]

Who cares if a kit is 1mm to long or too deep at the fuselage rib section 45-56, I have said it several times but what your building is supposed to be fun and is nothing more than a facsimile of the real thing.

If you want ultra realism, fine. If you don't care, fine, we all choose our own poison, it isn't poured down our throats against our will. Me personally, I wax and wane between the two and my builds look fine to myself and others whom have commented.

And lets be honest, there is no real world way you can replicate a panel line on a 72nd Spitfire, every panel line will be overscale so maybe we are all guilty of being both too relaxed or rivet counting.

And maybe that is my point, we all interprete what we see in a different way, especially in colour which is the biggest variance in model making and no amount of reference can be called definitive so is there such a thing as an 100 % accurate model?

When the fun stops, Stop.

[Paul Thompson]

3 minutes ago, Head in the clouds. said:

Who cares if a kit is 1mm to long or too deep at the fuselage rib section 45-56, I have said it several times but what your building is supposed to be fun and is nothing more than a facsimile of the real thing.

If you want ultra realism, fine. If you don't care, fine, we all choose our own poison, it isn't poured down our throats against our will. Me personally, I wax and wane between the two and my builds look fine to myself and others whom have commented.

And lets be honest, there is no real world way you can replicate a panel line on a 72nd Spitfire, every panel line will be overscale so maybe we are all guilty of being both too relaxed or rivet counting.

And maybe that is my point, we all interprete what we see in a different way, especially in colour which is the biggest variance in model making and no amount of reference can be called definitive so is there such a thing as an 100 % accurate model?

When the fun stops, Stop.

Again, fine, but not what was being discussed here, which is one specific and verifiable wildly inaccurate WW1 aeroplane kit and one purchaser's  response to the criticism of it of which he was aware.

 

Paul.

[Putty Animal]

On 14/12/2021 at 21:51, Stashaholic Steve said:

And it dawned on me that unless you can be bothered crawling all over a kit with calipers, micrometers and sundry other measuring instruments...

 

I LOVE doing that.  A calculator, a pair of calipers and good set of drawings on my knee.  Going from sprues to drawings and back.  Checking planning and dreaming.  A quality night in for me.  Even if it never gets built, it's well worth the price of the kit

[SafetyDad]

On 28/07/2021 at 21:29, Allan31 said:

It really pays to do your own research. 

 

Years ago, many years, I did a "super build" on the old Revell 1/32 109. I found several articles decrying the fact the fuselage was about 14-20 scale inches too short.

I did my math and to me, it seemed fine so I built my model without adding the required fuselage plug in front of the vertical stabilizer. Years later when Hasegawa came out with their wonderful kit I got one and just for S&G's, I put the Hasegawa up next to the old Revell,....... they were exactly the same in length...

 

 

 

 

 

Ah now I'm not a dedicated rivet counter, having some sympathy for the 'if it looks right then that's OK' school of thought, but like @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies I too feel strongly that any comments around accuracy require confirmatory evidence if they are to be taken as authoritative. 

 

So here we go about the old Revell 1/32 Bf109.  This is a kit I own several boxings of - it holds a great place in my heart because I received the 'JG54 Grunherz' boxing for Christmas in 1973. But it has major accuracy issues...

 

The evidence for the problems can be found here:

 

 

Now Mr Beaman also wrote the Squadron Signal 'In Action' issue covering the Bf 109G. Some of the camouflage and markings information in his self-published volume has been superceded since 1976, but I believe the commentary on kit accuracy, plus his plans, stand scrutiny today. However, as Jamie also said, if there's additional evidence out there that this is not so, then I'm happy to be corrected. 

 

So what does Mr Beaman say about the accuracy of the Revell kit?

Well, quite a lot actually

 

Here is his plan with the kit outline superimposed (kit in dashed outline).

 

 

Here is part of his critique - it's Section 20:

 

 

So a panel line short is 8-10 real inches or about 1/4 inch in 1/32.

 

Actually the wings are a much bigger problem, with those fictitious upperwing bulges (designed to accomodate that wizzo 70's retracting undercarriage) that are much bigger than they should be. No easy way to fix those...

 

Please don't misinterpret my intentions here - your Bf 109G build really looks the part, with very convincing finishing and painting.

 

I'm simply trying to make the case for sensible, reasoned critique supported by appropriate evidence (in this case the evidence for the old 1970s Revell Bf 109G) . I'm very aware of problems both with plans, and also with parallax issues when using photographs, so I leave it to the reader to review what I've uploaded and make up their mind.

 

HTH

 

SD 

 

[adolfocaetanonetto]

On 16/12/2021 at 03:59, Head in the clouds. said:

Who cares if a kit is 1mm to long or too deep at the fuselage rib section 45-56, I have said it several times but what your building is supposed to be fun and is nothing more than a facsimile of the real thing.

If you want ultra realism, fine. If you don't care, fine, we all choose our own poison, it isn't poured down our throats against our will. Me personally, I wax and wane between the two and my builds look fine to myself and others whom have commented.

And lets be honest, there is no real world way you can replicate a panel line on a 72nd Spitfire, every panel line will be overscale so maybe we are all guilty of being both too relaxed or rivet counting.

And maybe that is my point, we all interprete what we see in a different way, especially in colour which is the biggest variance in model making and no amount of reference can be called definitive so is there such a thing as an 100 % accurate model?

When the fun stops, Stop.

I agree, completely. I play boardgames too (one more hobby 🤪), and I see that boardgamers spend more time discussing game designers and plastic miniatures than playing games. How I do scratch, if I worry with realism, I will crazy. Good mounting for all, with realism, or not! 😀