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

[Matt Roberts]

A question about just who gets a kit to review in a magazine. Are they chosen as being experts on a subject - or are they part of a pool of reviewers who are sent kits to build up and give thier impressions?

Now I am sure that certain subjects would not be hard to find 'experts' on to do an accuracy build up, but what if it is an obscure subject, or a subject outside of the review group's area of expertise? I'm thinking of how seldom we see RC disections of Japanese aircraft on the english boards and publications. Other than Gaston Marty and his numerous alter egos on HS I don't often see discussions about 'accuracy' of various Hasegawa kits - though how much info could be gained from the 'too short Zero or I think misshapen Oscar debates. I always see plenty of discussions about Wurgers, Spits and 109s but not as many on 110s, Typhoons and Stukas, not what many would consider obscure subjects. Think about how many years after the Revell 110G came out that it came to be accepted that the engine nacelles were 'grossly undersized' (after an aftermarket resin guy came out with a correction...)

I'd also suspect that as a magazine editor you'd probably NOT want to send a kit to a expert on the subject, who may spend too much time checking accuracy and corrctions for an in box review of the subject, an in depth build article yes but a two week turn around build probably not. The guys that are tapped are probably tapped for being quick builders as much as anything else.

Remember we have seen a F-104 build with the wings on upside down in the past few years.....maybe that could have been a comment on the instructions!

Matt

(who is up for being a reviewer if one doesn't mind brush painted mediocre modeling!)

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

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.

Very true Gary - it was indeed, but some of the problems were there to see instantly. The tailplane shape, the lack of canopy framing. The rest as you say were spotted as we went along, and like all problems, once you see them they stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. The thing is, the people finding these "issues" did know what they were looking for, and once a consensus was reached on a problem - we could try and do something about it.

And to be honest all you had to do was go to airliners.net , type in Tornado and spend 20 minutes looking at pics to start to realise things werent right. Or even just google Tornado and search on images

Funnily enough, I kind of do expect someone building a model for a magazine to have some kind of knowledge of what they are building - its a feature article after all not a quick build. Is that an unreasonable expectation? Or at least to be honest and "say I dont know if this kit is accurate, but its certainly well moulded " - which would be a perfectly valid statement to make after all. At least the reader would know that the modeller isnt claiming to have more than passing knowledge of the subject.

But the article praises the details of the kit in a way that suggests ( to me anyway) that this person wanted to let the reader know that he knows what he's on about. So I don't know if the builder chose to not mention the tailplane shape, for example, because it wasnt an issue for him, he was told to just build the model as is, or he didnt realise the shape is wrong ( and easily fixed too for that matter).

I just think its shame, because on the back of this build article HB will probably flog a lot more Tornados - its been give a big thumbs up by a well known modeliing mag after all. Wouldnt a review which still praised the kits excellent detail, but also mentioned some of the shape problems just be more balanced? And then perhaps Hobby Boss might gentleman's parts up their ears and, who knows, correct some of the problems. Why is that such a terrible thing to ask for?

Jonners

[Gary C]

I always see plenty of discussions about Wurgers, Spits and 109s but not as many on 110s, Typhoons and Stukas, not what many would consider obscure subjects. Think about how many years after the Revell 110G came out that it came to be accepted that the engine nacelles were 'grossly undersized' (after an aftermarket resin guy came out with a correction...)

How long was it before anyone noticed the skinny nose on the Monogram F-105? It certainly wasn't mentioned in the D&S book which sang it's praises as being "beautifully detailed and accurate", this from a series of books designed to help the modeller make more accurate kits. Of course now it sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. How about the Academy F-14, praised to the heavens as 1992's(?) kit of the year, it even carried said title in a little red star on the box...yet it's got a hideously deep nose and wide spine that gives it the Tomcat on steroids look. Or the Hasegawa F-16? For years the best F-16C on the market featured a substantially undersized fin and base which only came to light when people came to design decals for the Tamiya F-16 and discovered they wouldn't fit. Compare the nose and canopies on the Monogram and Hasegawa Crusaders...they can't both be right which makes one of them grossly wrong...look at the canopies in isolation and it's hard to believe they're models of the same aircraft. Yet you never hear a word about it.

Very true Gary - it was indeed, but some of the problems were there to see instantly. The tailplane shape, the lack of canopy framing. The rest as you say were spotted as we went along, and like all problems, once you see them they stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. The thing is, the people finding these "issues" did know what they were looking for, and once a consensus was reached on a problem - we could try and do something about it.

And to be honest all you had to do was go to airliners.net , type in Tornado and spend 20 minutes looking at pics to start to realise things werent right. Or even just google Tornado and search on images

My point being that some of the inaccuracies I've just listed, existed, unknown by the masses, quite happily for many years. Some are not as bad as those in the HB Tornado, some are considerably worse. They weren't picked up for so long because the one or two 'experts' who really know the shape of the airframe didn't have a platform to spread the word, it was a pre-internet age and the modelling press was just as blissfully ignorant as the rest of us, it's how a pretty woefully inaccurate kit became kit of the year.

Nowadays though we have the net, which makes everyone an instant expert. People who never in a million years would have spotted the problems are now made aware of issues before the kit even reaches these shores and are able to parrot them to anyone who asks. Manufacturers are being strung up for the most minor inaccuracies by people who have only read about it. And kits which would have been more than acceptable to all but a handful are being rejected en masse.

But....this world only exists in a virtual sense. There's a whole other world of modellers out there whom don't visit the online forums, they've never heard of Airliners.net and 'obvious' shape issues that are visible to the online community have probably passed them by...and I'd be willing to bet that it's from this world that the review in SAMI has come from.

To go back to the specifics of the HB Tornado, I'd agree, the canopy and tailplanes are kind of obvious to anyone who's even a little bit familiar with the Tornado, the canopy not least beacuse it doesn't fit properly. But as to the rest of it..take away the informative power of the net and I would think 95% of people would be totally unaware simply because most wouldn't intentionally go looking for faults.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

But....this world only exists in a virtual sense. There's a whole other world of modellers out there whom don't visit the online forums, they've never heard of Airliners.net and 'obvious' shape issues that are visible to the online community have probably passed them by...and I'd be willing to bet that it's from this world that the review in SAMI has come from.

Gary - I agree totally with all that you've just written, and this is where modelling magazines should still be a full and essnetial part of the modellers library of resources. Ironically in the SAMI Tornado review, these a shot of a real Tornado which so clearly shows the proper shape a of the canopy sills that even Helen Keller would notice it, when compared to the pics of the model.

I dont want people to not build models, I want them to enjoy themselves with this great hobby of ours; relax, take pleasure in the process, and satisfaction at the result. But I also want to ensure that when you part with somewhere between £35 and £50 notes for a model, you get what it says on the box lid.

Cheers

Jonners

[Solly]

My point being that some of the inaccuracies I've just listed, existed, unknown by the masses, quite happily for many years. Some are not as bad as those in the HB Tornado, some are considerably worse. They weren't picked up for so long because the one or two 'experts' who really know the shape of the airframe didn't have a platform to spread the word, it was a pre-internet age and the modelling press was just as blissfully ignorant as the rest of us, it's how a pretty woefully inaccurate kit became kit of the year.

but the fact that they were not picked up, or no one spread the word did not make them any less errors.

But....this world only exists in a virtual sense. There's a whole other world of modellers out there whom don't visit the online forums, they've never heard of Airliners.net and 'obvious' shape issues that are visible to the online community have probably passed them by...and I'd be willing to bet that it's from this world that the review in SAMI has come from.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, as far as the point Jon, and myself to an extent, was trying to make, but maybe from a different angle. The reviewer no doubt typed the words on a PC, he took photos with a digital camera. He may not read the discussion boards, but there is a 99% chance that he does have access to on-line resources. The fact that people on here read discussion boards, does not mean that magazine editors and contributors don't. They most probably do read them, but simply don't contribute. Let's not assume that they do not have access to other resources. This is a digital world, and the magazines themselves acknowledge that.

The whole point of this thread is not the inadequacies of the kit (that has been covered elsewhere), but the inadequacies of what is supposed to be a review in a magazine which is in the digital world, albeit printed on hard copy. However, on re-reading it, I am not now sure it is a review. It is part of their bigger article on the Tornado. It is presented like a review, with the usual information box etc, but it is more just a build article.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Solly

[AnonymousAA72]

However, on re-reading it, I am not now sure it is a review. It is part of their bigger article on the Tornado. It is presented like a review, with the usual information box etc, but it is more just a build article.

Hi "Solly", I think thats right. The builder has done what a lot of modellers do - built OOB and he seems happy with it. I think a caveat on that, in the article would have helped, something along the lines of....."I know nothing about this aircraft , so will be building it OOB!" I wouldn't have a problem with that.

What I do have an issue with is other errors in that piece. Errors in the printed word are often perpetuated. There are errors in the artwork in particular. The artists have the GR1 and GR1a mixed up, and there are other minor niggly errors on the placement and size of markings.......

[John B (Sc)]

more critical

Hi "Solly", I think thats right. The builder has done what a lot of modellers do - built OOB and he seems happy with it. I think a caveat on that, in the article would have helped, something along the lines of....."I know nothing about this aircraft , so will be building it OOB!" I wouldn't have a problem with that.

What I do have an issue with is other errors in that piece. Errors in the printed word are often perpetuated. There are errors in the artwork in particular. The artists have the GR1 and GR1a mixed up, and there are other minor niggly errors on the placement and size of markings.......

I tend to agree Bill. A brief caveat in the article would have covered it. Artwork errors do seem to be hard to eliminate and tend to have a lasting impact - though I guess you are right that is bound to be hard to get a verifiable 'expert' to review material in time before print date.

Jon may not like the kit , but this e-mail trail got me curious, so I've had a bit of a look around. I haven't found many folk quite as upset as Jon, though things like the intake trunking point is mentioned several times. Doubts about nose shape are mentioned, amongst evident Tornado fans. For that price, like Jon, I'd hope for a better kit and perhaps a more sharply focussed review or build article.

Meantime, thanks all. You've got me looking again at Tornados, asking myself what the difference IS between a GR1 and a GR1a, and thinking abiout what I want in a model. Somethiing with the 'look and feel' of the real thing for a sensible price; something I can work on if need be to improve - not necessarily with aftermarket bits.

Oh, and my enthusiasm for the slab sided old Tornado has been raised again, paradoxically!

( After seeing a superbly built Mach 2 Valiant yesterday at the Perth show, I'm amazed again at what some modellers can make out of the most difficult challenges. Though it is nice to know about that sort of challenge before purchase! )

John

[Brian G]

There are also aspects to this model of the Tornado that, as it is depicted in this article, would not be seen on the real thing.

I have listed the ones I have noticed here:

1. The Auxiliary Air Intake Doors (on the intake sides) are shown open: this condition is only seen when the engines are running

2. The Reverse Thrust buckets (TR's) are shown partially deployed: The TRs only operate (very quickly) on touchdown (or during test). They go from stowed condition to the fully deployed condition, they do not stop at any 'in-between' position.

3. The spoilers on the mainplanes, are shown partially deployed. In fact they are only deployed on touchdown - with the TR buckets for Lift Dump, or in flight to aid roll control, as the aircraft does not have any ailerons. (It does have differential tailplanes, (Tailerons), that operate both as roll control and pitch control surfaces).

4. The front radome is shown open. This front portion only allows access to both of the antennaes - if there was any work being done on the radar I think it would be using the rear portion of the radome, which gives access to all of the Line Replaceable Units (LRU's) for both of the radars.

5. The rudder is spring loaded to the centre position, which means that it would never be seen deployed left, as shown, on the ground.

6. The Cerebus pod, under the Right Hand, (no Port or Starboard on Tornado), is a Luftwaffe bit of kit. RAF fit would be, normally, a BOZ 107 Chaff and Flare Dispenser on the RH side, balanced by a Sky Shadow (AIR 23246/1) ECM pod on the LH wing.

7. There are no 'Remove Before Flight' flags fitted anywhere. The only time this would be seen in RAF Service, would be when the aircraft is ready to fly - with Aircrew at the A/C.

But the main fault with this article is that No. 617 Squadron are not depicted (my old Sqn!).

As a PR Exercise, 617 Squadron were going to be the first Tornado Sqn in the RAF until it was thought by someone 'high up' that, as 617 Sqn were the only squadron remaining in service with the RAF that had been only formed in WWII against our then enemy, the German Third Reich, and as the First Tornado were due to deploy to RAF Germany, they changed the Sqn Number Plates between 617 and their old, friendly, foes, No 9 Squadron, who were, initially, going to be the second RAF Tornado Sqn.

Also in the article, the colour side views, in the main, show the GR1A aircraft - you can tell this by the small SLIR (Side Looking Infra Red) window on the side view, under the pilots cockpit. The only Sqn's to have the GR1A A/C were No 2 Sqn and No 13 Sqn. The Vinten Type 4000 IRLS (Infra Red Line Scan) sensor, only fitted to GR1A A/C, is also depicted on the drawing side views. These photo-reconnasiance A/C do not have any cannon, as the necessary space was taken up by the photo-recce kit!

[tarlucan]

I think there is a place for the highly critical review, and that is to act as a catalyst to manufacturers to sharpen their act up. Especially now that kits often have a base line variant with others to follow as in the Kinetic F-16s and the HB Tornados. Manufacturers are becoming aware that poor reviews by knowledgeable people are harming the sales of these kits and are taking steps to correct them or seek input at the design stage.

I know that many feel it is only the far east market that really concerns manufacturers but clearly, if HB is going to the trouble of making a Tornado, they will respond to criticism from Europe where a high proportion will be sold.

HB and Kinetics attempts (rather feeble ones admittedly) in trying to correct flaws must be seen as a positive effect of the scrutiny with which releases are now subject to.

I’m quite prepared to pay some of the exorbitant prices being charged, but only if the kit is worth the money – Tamiya’s 1/32 Spitfire being a case in point. Equally, I’m quite prepared to fork out if HB actually do correct the molds for their F3 but no GR1 is going to grace my stash!

[dambuster]

What a fascinating debate.... a few thoughts:

model noun ( REPRESENTATION ) /ˈmɒd.əl//ˈmɑː.dəl/ n [C]

a representation of something, either as a physical object which is usually smaller than the real object, or as a simple description of the object which might be used in calculations

replica noun /ˈrep.lɪ.kə/ n [C]

an exact copy of an object

miniature noun /ˈmɪn.ɪ.tʃər//-tʃɚ/ n [C]

in miniature

smaller than usual

He's made a model of our village, with all the buildings and roads in miniature

The question therfore is how inaccurate does the model need before it ceases to be a represenation? I would suggest that this is subjective and therefore there is no right or wrong answer. In the same way that when describing faults, 'glaring' is also subjective so no two people will necesarily have the same opinion. And remember that the majority of modellers are only likely to see the real thing a few times a year - if at all -or on a photograph which itself can be distorted in perspective.

In my opinion a model magazine review should concentrate on buildability and value for money and how far in the opinion of the reviewer the 'model' represents the real object. What is the point in saying how accurate it is - the majority of readers will be modellers and will make their own view on how good the represenattion is. I suggest that for anyone interested in building a 'replica in miniature' then a 'model' review would not be the starting point. Indeed the first thing they would need to do is obtain accurate (manufacturers?) drawings with which to assess the 'model - for all the work that went into correcting the HB Tornado has anyone actually measured the cross section of the real aircraft at say 6 inch intervals and produced a set of drawings which were then scaled down?

Personally, I build models which to me are representations of real aircraft and I get a lot of pleasure from it. Some members of the community build 'replicas in miniature', and good luck to them I say. Maybe they need a new forum - how about Britreplica.com Mike?

Peter - who has all copies of the original Scale Aircraft Modelling from No 1 up to about 1998 somewhere in the library...

[Sundowner14]

Two things struck me about this review. First, the unbridled enthusiasm of the reviewer. Second, the complete lack of knowledge by the same reviewer about the subject, although from the uninformed perspective, the former cancels out the latter. However, from an informed perspective, the lack of commentary on the weaker aspects of the kit, which you've all mentioned above, so I won't repeat, is perplexing. But, the fact that there is no comment about the weapons in the kit, compounded by putting US/Luftwaffe weapons on what is effectively an RAF weapons conversion trainer, is gobsmacking.

I'm not a rivet counter of scale rule carrier, but it's not too much to expect, having parted with my hard earned, that reviewers will either know their subject of have the nous to comment on what should be in a kit. I'm sure that the HB Fin will be made into a good and accurate model by some modellers. I'm wondering though how many of those will have bought the model on the strength of this less than average review...?

That is all.

[Giorgio N]

I might be part of a minority, bu I believe that a model magazine review should discuss all the aspects that might be of interest to modellers. These sure include buildability and value for money, but accuracy should have a place too And not only that, but also quality and accuracy of the decals, instructions, panel lines and so on. A review that only addresses some points and not others has limited usefulness in my opinion.

Would we be happy with a car magazine that only mentions fuel comsuption and not the other performances ? If they tell me that a car can do 35 mpg and forget to tell me that brakes, handling and roadholding are bad, would I be happy once I find out ? I think not ! I buy a car magazine because I want to know about that as well. And 99% of the car magazine buyers want to know everything about the reviewed cars.

Yet when it comes to modelling it seems that anyone who wants to know mor than just "builds fine wih no filler" about a kit is only a minority of annoying rivet counters and so on....

Fortunately some reviews still care about accuracy, although in a different way: whenever a nice set of resin wheels hits the market they are ready to tell us that these are much better than the original in the kit, they are more "accurate" so they deserve to be bought. This might explain a couple of modellers I met that used to change wheels props and cockpits claiming they were much more accurate and then added these to kits that were an inch short.. but a mm in the wheel diameter is waaay more important than an inch in the fuselage

Edited May 1, 2010 by Giorgio N

[chadders]

On another point with this months SAMI, is the new releases section. Some of the kits listed have been on my shelves at work for 4 months..........even the Airfix Bucc is down as a new release for some reason