HKM B-17 Proportion issues

[LSP_Kevin]

Regrettably I've had to remove several posts from this thread. Patrick's intentions in starting this thread are worthy and honorable; please respect them. It's a plastic model kit for cripes' sake.

 

Kev

[Darren Howie]

The only problem i have seen with this kit that has been seen and correlated with evidence is the circular front fuselage.

There have been no manufacturer diagrams outlining radii of rear fuselage etc presented only one persons eyeball mk1 opinions.

Given it took manufacturer diagrams to convince everyone of the error of the front fuse as its so subtle i am looking forward to seeing how the rear fuse is so "out" that it looks unbuildably terrible.

If you dont like the look of the kit fair enough but if you are going to openly slag it off based off your eye that doesnt cut the mustard for 99% of the modelers out here.

There are very few good plans if any for the B-17 like almost every WW2 aircraft so from what plans or manufacturer diagrams are you drawing these opinions from?

Based off the simple comparison above the Monogram kit is just as bad as its almost identical in every aspect.

Love to know what you are using as references Nigel or maybe sharing them while you are discussing it to back up your opinions.

Cheers

Edited December 21, 2013 by Darren Howie

[Juggernut]

The HK kit was originally designed using the god-awful drawings by Shigeo Koike, found in the Aero Detail book.  HK didn't know better, and the drawings "looked nice" so they used them, going on the rash assumption that because drawings look nice, they must be accurate.  

 

Comparing the HK kit with any other model is pointless.  We managed to get them to correct some of the major faux-pas with the kit (like a totally wrong airfoil section that then screwed up the shape of the engine nacelles), but they couldn't start over from scratch.  But they've learned their lesson about trusting drawings and future kits will be the better for it.

 

I think he means "Shigeru Nohara" drawings found in the Aero Detail book.  Shigeo Koike is the artist that does some of the Hasegawa box art.

[LSP_Kevin]

I think he means "Shigeru Nohara" drawings found in the Aero Detail book.  Shigeo Koike is the artist that does some of the Hasegawa box art.

 

I did wonder about that. I've never known Shigeo Koike to do scale drawings and plans before.

 

Kev

[LSP_Matt]

The HK kit was originally designed using the god-awful drawings by Shigeo Koike, found in the Aero Detail book.  HK didn't know better, and the drawings "looked nice" so they used them, going on the rash assumption that because drawings look nice, they must be accurate.  

 

Comparing the HK kit with any other model is pointless.  We managed to get them to correct some of the major faux-pas with the kit (like a totally wrong airfoil section that then screwed up the shape of the engine nacelles), but they couldn't start over from scratch.  But they've learned their lesson about trusting drawings and future kits will be the better for it.

Given it seems you've had experience with HK models and how they roll it would seem to validate my opinion about why less than 100% model kits can be produced. 

 

From what you posted  their data source was inadequate...a methodology that's been corrected.  It also sounds like they also realise the value in consulting people who do indeed understand the shape and dimension specifics for other plane types.

 

Overall it sounds like a first attempt from which valuable lessons have been learnt and new methodology implemented.

 

To me that sounds perfectly normal human behaviour that I'd wager all of us have experienced.

 

Matty

[Silver Dollar]

I went and deleted my "toy airplane" remark.  I knew I'd get thumped for it but now I definitely regret saying it.   It really didn't come out right.  

 

Nigel, please don't take any offense at what I said.  My intent was not to criticize your modeling philosophy in any way.  In truth, I will vigorously and aggressively defend your right to approach your models any way you see fit.  Nothing else more to that.  Your work is and has always been first rate and outstanding.  I used to be extremely detail oriented with everything I built and got that from my profession from which I'm now fully retired.  That's another whole story anyhow.  My problem is I've suffered from a couple of serious bouts of modeling burnout and have had to change my modeling philosophy drastically.  My intent was only to express that changed philosophy for myself and myself alone and not impose any standards on anyone else.   To give you an idea of how detail oriented I was, I'll show a couple of pics of my past work which is now sitting in a closet and hasn't been touched in about 4 years and in some cases, more.  

This is a 1/8 scale scratch built spark plug that actually screwed into a totally scratch built Olds engine like the real thing.  It's 10.5mm long.  

 

Here is a WIP shot of the engine the plug went into. No store-bought aftermarket parts were used for this assembly.  You can see the plug ports. 

 

This is a VFS 1/24 scale P47D cockpit which I haven't touched in 4 years.  A good portion of that stuff is scratch built including the brown seat cushion which is upholstered in real leather.  

 

 

After a while, I had to really scale back my detailing because it was driving me out of my mind.  The reason the proportions on the B-17 don't bother me now is not because I think all those corrections are unnecessary, trivial or superfluous but because if I got that detail oriented again, I'd go completely nuts.  I can't afford to think like that again and I'm not ashamed to admit it.  Besides that, I seem to have lost my sharp eye for minute proportional differences.  So again, please don't take any offense.  I never meant it that way.  

[tomprobert]

Come on chaps, don't forget the HK kit isn't the only option for a 1/32nd B-17.

 

ID Models and Combat Models both do lovely vacforms... with nothing other than empty fuselage shells.... and I know the Combat kit just about resembles a B-17 at best shape wise. Perhaps these vacs will be the preferred option from now on?

 

I know I'm being facetious, but I think it's time for a little perspective. We finally have an injection moulded (high quality at that!) 1/32nd scale B-17. Yes it may not be perfect as Nigel has shown us (and done his best to correct the issues he believes need attention) but for 99% of modellers (me included) it's a perfectly acceptable rendition of Boeing's finest...

 

I think we live in a golden age of modelling; I couldn't ever have dreamed a few years ago we would have injection moulded 1/32 kits of the B-17 and Lancaster. No doubt there's more to come (B-24, B-26, Halifax, Stirling anyone?) I think at the end of the day, if the HK kit isn't up to scratch you have three options in the following order:

 

1) Buy it and build it as it is and be jolly happy there's an injection moulded 1/32nd B-17 available.

 

2) Buy it and correct it if you feel the need (as Nigel has demonstrated)

 

3) Decide you'd be far better off with the Combat/ID Models Vacform.

 

I know which option I prefer! Enjoy the kit and chill chaps... however you chose to build it is entirely up to the individual, but let's not get too hot under the collar about it eh?

 

Nige - I'm loving watching you doing what you are, and credit to you for giving it a go. However, I'm equally enjoying watching all of the OOB builds too. It makes this great website what it is... different approaches and ideas. Enjoy the hobby for what it is chaps... and I can assure you the HK is a far better option than the Combat one so let's thank our lucky stars HK have released it. Enjoy it however you chose to build it!

 

Happy modelling one and all!

 

Tom

[Ads]

Pat thanks for your efforts :-)

 

 

but I've just fallen asleep/zoned out trying to read the responses - nothing personal to anyone it's not the words just this subject - i dont think anyone will change their minds now - those saying you are right will pat you on the back and those that say otherwise will rubbish your noble efforts

 

Jerry is right - we are making "Facsimiles" of the real thing - not actual 1/32 aircraft - and that's what we shouldn't loose in discussion i suppose

 

Was the source material as good as they say? i bet some people said that was off as well - its a cicular argument for me - I'm just glad it exists in 32nd scale - ill do with mine what i want

Ads

 

[Roy vd M.]

- Thanks to HKM for taking up the challenge and risk to produce a kit such as this. 

- Thanks to Nigel and others for showing us and HKM where the errors lie and how they can be corrected. 

- Thanks to the many who support Nigel in his great work and vision that hopefully HKM will do (even) better next time. 

- Thanks to the many who warn to keep in mind that it's still a superb kit for 97% of the builders.

- Thanks for everyone for not bashing the kit. I haven't interpreted anything I read on this forum as malevolent bashing. 

 

This way all involved should win. HKM in not seeing their sales of this plane drop unnecessarily and in making an even better product next time, taking in the input provided here; Nigel in keeping motivated to finish a one-of-a-kind and super-realistic beauty, 97% of the builders in keeping the fun in their builds and the 3% rivet-counters in deciding what suggestions made by Nigel and others they decide to TRY to tackle. 

 

I fully understand any frustration from all of these parties for several possible reasons. All of those have to deal with the situation as is... and things could always be worse. For example, if HKM hadn't shown the guts to initiate this project in the first place. 

 

Merry Christmas everyone!

[BarryWilliams]

I just wonder why we cant all be grateful that a company is out there building decent injection molded (we don't all care for vac kits) 1/32 scale kits of aircraft that we never thought would be built in this scale.  We do get too anal at times over very minor matters (yes I include myself in that).  Get it, build it, enjoy it - that is all you have to do and that should be enough.

Edited December 21, 2013 by BarryWilliams

[LSP_Matt]

I just wonder why we cant all be grateful...  Get it, build it, enjoy it - that is all you have to do and that should be enough.

 

Maybe you could represent another end of a spectrum Barry?  Nige at one end who is very shape/dimension conscious and doesn't see value for money in an innacurately dimensioned kit, and yourself who is glad to have a B17 that is injection moulded and not a vac.

 

If I see a similarity in both your perspectives it's that you could both be indirectly/directly projecting your own personal level of disatisfaction/satisfaction onto others.  It's possible that the conditions are then created whereby some members could end up clashing.  What begins from your perspective as a perfectly innocent enough comment becomes a red rag to the bull for someone coming from an entirely different viewpoint. Of course in order for things to go south it always takes someone else to retort.

 

I think its safer in these sorts of threads to simply say, I got it, I built it and  I really enjoyed it.  Ultimately thats what you feel and really what I'm most interested in. Whether what you felt is good enough for everyone else is obviously up to them.

 

Cheers Matty

[Cees Broere]

So what would the best thing be?

 

Make a list of drawing sources for kits not kitted yet? That way the companies can find out what

The modelling rivetcounting ( positively meant here) community suggests to what standard

Kits have to conform to dimensionally.

In this case perhaps the Aearodata drawings for the b17 or the Halifax for instance?

That way the community can assist the industry to get at least the proportion correct.

What do you think.

Cees

[Tony T]

Apart from the sheer size issue - a four-prop in 1/32 - and cost, if I had the money and space I wouldn't hesitate in getting the HKM B-17G. HKM surely should be commended for taking such a bold investment and providing those with the cash and space a luxury we might only have dreamed of even 5-10 years ago. 

 

The Lancaster, I hope, and a wished-for later version Halifax, would be so utterly mind-blowing in 1/32 detail that I really hope that I might enjoy acquiring, building OOB and displaying the aircraft model without feeling in any way deflated by 'constructive criticism' of the model as manufactured before parts were cut off the sprues.  

 

Roy really hit the nail on the head re:Trumpeter's English Electric Lightning. Seeing them built mostly OOB by many craftspeople on this and other sites, and at exhibitions such as Telford, is inspiring; and Iain's efforts at correcting the beast for the more discerning is equally admirable as he does it in a non-emotive, forensic manner, for those wishing to advance the model to a higher 'plane'. But his efforts and style of approach in no way deflate the OOB builder's expectations or sheer joy or experience.

 

I'm so very glad that the HKM Meteor is getting such good feedback. I have no connection with HKM, but am beginning to understand why their current programme is focusing on smaller planes in 1/32 scale and why the big Lanc (on their website, at least) has shifted back a gear to 'in planning' rather than an imminent release.

 

Every model kit is, to a certain degree, merely an interpretation of reality. Just look at decals. Colour matching, sizing etc are all subject to interpretation of often incomplete sources. Without all of the three 'Ts' - Time to research/build, 'Tardis' (in our dreams, to rephotograph everything in exquisite detail from days long gone), and a Tape measure - everything we build or dream of building in miniature must inevitably be an echo.

 

While not a customer of the B-17G, I am very much looking forward to seeing the Lanc and rumoured Mossies, and will definitely be buying their Meteor kits.

 

Tony T

[superfly]

HKM....didn't take "the risk" to make this 1/32 scale B-17..

WingScale owned/developed it first.....there was a disagreement between WingScale and manufacturer...

WS parted ways before B-17 was finalized.

 

WS developed the B-25...which turned out great..

 

 

It makes me wonder how the B-17 would've turned out if WS saw it through to the end?????....hmmm?

 

I get this feeling HkM...are just a manufacturer....who outsources the CAD programming..

Their website is never updated...

Edited December 22, 2013 by superfly

[superfly]

So I re-read Martin's(Wingscale) letter about how he was parting ways with his partners in China.(HKM)

He had the B-25, B-17, and Meteor...but had to give it to HKM.

He stated that he would no longer be involved in the developments of these kits and can not guarantee the outcome of said kits.

 

Could this explain the difference between the accuracies between the B-25 and the B-17?

Is HKM just the tooling company that outsources development?

Why would they have a third party consult in projects under developement?..Wouldnt they want that to be a closely guarded secret?