Jump to content

HobbyBoss Tornado - recent magazines reviews...


Jon Kunac-Tabinor

Recommended Posts

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.

Which brings me back ( in a sort of James Burke's Connections style) neatly to the point I was making about magazines not being able to even "suggest" there may be some accuracy problems with the kit. Theres a line in "The Abyss" where one character says, "you need to see with better eyes" . I sometimes wonder if this applies to model reviews/ quick builds in magazines.

Perhaps we just live in the "Age of the Assembler" - if its moulded well, fits well and has good details then thats what sells. The rest of us are weird anachronisms. Just to be clear I love well moulded, well fitting, detailed models - just I like them to have that added "accuracy" factor too. Theres plenty of them out there too - which is why HBs Tornado still grates on me so much.

Jonners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings me back ( in a sort of James Burke's Connections style) neatly to the point I was making about magazines not being able to even "suggest" there may be some accuracy problems with the kit. Theres a line in "The Abyss" where one character says, "you need to see with better eyes" . I sometimes wonder if this applies to model reviews/ quick builds in magazines.

Perhaps we just live in the "Age of the Assembler" - if its moulded well, fits well and has good details then thats what sells. The rest of us are weird anachronisms. Just to be clear I love well moulded, well fitting, detailed models - just I like them to have that added "accuracy" factor too. Theres plenty of them out there too - which is why HBs Tornado still grates on me so much.

Jonners

But Jonners, this also comes back to my point that unless people put themselves forward to set an example in the mags, then we get what we get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Jonners, this also comes back to my point that unless people put themselves forward to set an example in the mags, then we get what we get.

True enough Jonathan - I was asked to turn my BM article onto a mag one, and failed dismally. So I stand guilty of that.

But - if its obvious enough that somethings wrong with a model - surely it doesnt need a "big bottom file and shares in Milliput" article to point that out?

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add a couple of points if I may.

I know Brian Wakeman who did the article in SAM and in the original article he did make a list of all the corrections he had done. SAM did edit the article as they are entiled to do but he says over half has been left out.

You can ask your self why it was edited.

Brian has also said That you all have an opertunity to write for the magazines, but most dont for whatever reason.

Basically if you want more accurate reviews then send them in, whether they get published or not thats up to the mag but at least you are doing your bit.

Julien

Edited by Julien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough Jonathan - I was asked to turn my BM article onto a mag one, and failed dismally. So I stand guilty of that.

But - if its obvious enough that somethings wrong with a model - surely it doesnt need a "big bottom file and shares in Milliput" article to point that out?

Jon

Like I said, "wrong" is relative to the end user, and perhaps kit reviews are presented as just that - reviews of a kit rather than its relationship to the real thing.

I say you have a second go at that article!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to also remember in doing these big correction/accuracy articles is whom your target audience is. I am not sure if The hyper-accuracy side of The hobby really has enough pull to make a magazine profitable. Look at Aerospace Modeller for that. A brilliant magazine that ultimately failed in that the market for that stuff is by nature limited and could not support a monthly or semi-monthly publication.

Honestly real in depth conversion articles do not draw me into buying a magazine. Seeing someone who is a wizzard with resin and PE to the point where little is left of The original kit does not make me buy a magazine no want to build a kit.

I think that reviews and build articles fall into many variants

Level 1) In The box previews - what you get and options OOB

Level 2) a Build review - how well The kit performs as a kit for general enjoyment OOB. Comment on fit and assembly issues

Level 3) Detailing articles - taking a kit OOB and using some aftermarket to tune it up and make minor corrections, especially to do a specific subject build (say Desert Storm/Granby Tornados)

Level 4) In depth correction and detailing where one applies standards such as what Jon did in his build -

Level 5) The Tour De Force - ultimate builds, resin, PE, advanced finishing

Level 6) Modifications - taking a kit and converting a basic kit into another variant. I see alot of discussion about Wingscale B-25J backdating, or way back when a conversion of an SBD back into a Northrup BT-1 dive bomber

Now common magazines levels 1 and 2 are what you find most often. Level 3 used to be what I'd call Neil Robinson era Model Aircraft Monthly articles, and this is honestly my prefered level. Level 4 you don't see that often in print in The stuff I look at. Level 5 seems to be the Wingmasters or whatever the French and Spanish mags are. Level 6 - occasionally, the BT-1 sticks out in my mind from FSM a while back. I see it more in armor magazines where The subjects are often much more evolutionary than aircraft are.

<EDIT> To use an example of a magazine that covers some of these ideas, how about a look at the first Airfix Model World (AMW) and my last issue of SAMI (MS 406 cover).

Level 1 - the news section of SAMI

Level 2 - Chris Clifford's Sea Vixen build article and 72nd Spitfire articles (AMW)

Level 3 - a great example of this style of review is Chris Clifford's article on building Showtime 106 with Hasegawas Phantom, a little fusewire and PE (AMW)

Level 4 (or 5) Andy Seager's Beaufighter in SAMI This one may actually bridge the last three Levels all together

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And canopy. And rear fuselage. And...

Academy's Hunter Jonathan...don't get me started!!!

As for magazines...I was a regular contributor in SAMi (I say was, I've still a couple of articles to submit - sorry for the delay Gary!!) for a long time, and in that time I don't think I ever had ONE word deleted , or an article refused because I had been critical of a kit. I built kits by Airfix........Harriers, Jaguars, Lightnings; Kits by Hasegawa, Phantoms, Harriers, Esci.....Eduard.....Revell...Dynavector....Aeroclub...............I purchased most of my own kits, yet those from Airfix were kindly donated (thanks Trevor). An article on the Airfix Jaguar was less than complimentary - but I never actually slated it or any kit, I offered my opinion on them and how to make them a little more accurate - well to my eyes anyway. Like Jonathan, and a fair few other magazine contributers I know...across every single magazine out there, the vast majority of articles describe how to get the best out of a kit. How to add details, how to improve. Warts and all.

Now the Tornado, I happen to have studied this aircraft in all its forms for thirty years now. I have dozens of books, references all over the place. Its important to me that a model of this aircraft LOOKS as accurate as I can make it. Thats why research is important. I have to say that I sometimes wonder if some modellers actually look at photo's of real aircraft! Certainly when you see some pre-shading/post-shading/weathering.

Back to the Tornado, I would HAVE to change the intakes, the nose shape, the canopy. I'd have to stick down the reverse thruster buckets (surprisingly not that hard a job!)...etc. Thats because these issues are important to me. Thats because I know where to look. Modellers without this in depth (I hesitate to say) knowledge will build this kit in blind ignorance of these issues. That doesn't make that model any less valid. However.....take the F16. I HAVEN'T studied this aircraft ...so, IF I started to build the kinetic kit, I would be totally oblivious to any accuracy issues. I'd build it to the best of my ability of course, but If it was for an article I would have to make it clear that this was the case.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...