HK B-17F

[scvrobeson]

 

 

This stuff isn't nearly as easy as a lot of modelers seem to think.  Just because you have a CAD design doesn't mean it's accurate by definition.  It literally takes a village...  One person, no matter how talented, can't possibly do everything required to produce a really outstanding product.

 

J

 

 

 

Yes, and this applies to all companies, not just the ones that financially support you.  Maybe some slack should be afforded to the other new companies on the market

 

 

 

 

Matt

[KOG7777]

A company with similar initials to HK springs to mind.

[Black Sheep One]

As I've said (many times) before, the B-17 was one of HK's first projects.  They forged ahead and did it based on what someone told them were good drawings, which it turns out were absolutely ABYSMAL drawings (those in the Aero Detail book from Japan).  There is literally nothing about them that's even a little bit B-17 shaped.  A few people were sent CAD renders and there was an all hands on deck response to try to get HK good information to correct the CAD.  To HK's credit, most of the problems were fixed, but some bugaboos remain as an inevitable consequence of the original problems.

 

And as I've said (many times), HK learned a very hard lesson from that experience, which is why newer projects have been done with the input of people who actually know what they're talking about.  The group of folks involved in the Spey Phantom probably have as much knowledge of the Phantom between them as anyone who didn't work in St. Louis for McDonnell Douglas (and in fact, one of them *did* work for McDonnell Douglas, on the Spey Phantom!).  And the designer is a highly skilled professional with a strong passion for aircraft and for his job as a kit designer.  He's listening to the input of the assembled experts, and the result is going to be a kit that will be breathtaking (initial CAD certainly bears that out).

 

This stuff isn't nearly as easy as a lot of modelers seem to think.  Just because you have a CAD design doesn't mean it's accurate by definition.  It literally takes a village...  One person, no matter how talented, can't possibly do everything required to produce a really outstanding product.

 

J

Maybe they should've gone straight to Boeing for original drawings and visited a few museums to see for themselves and research the real thing rather than relying on hobbyist to send them pictures and do the research for them.

[D Bellis]

Why should any manufacturer get "slack" from their prospective customers?

 

If you order food in a burger joint, and it tastes rotten when you get it. Should you just be happy that someone made you a burger?

 

You're looking to buy a new TV, but the only one that meets your size requirements displays a bulged, distorted picture on one side. Should you still find that TV acceptable and buy it just because it is the only one in the size you wanted? 

 

You're looking at buying a new car, but one of the wheels on the model you really want is an undersized, spare "donut", and they refuse to replace it with the correct tire & wheel because they claim it would be too difficult and expensive to do so. Should you cut them some slack and just buy the car anyway?

 

Hell no! As the customer, you're expected to pay for it, and therefore the product should meet your expectations.

 

Plastic model companies aren't in business to do us modelers personal favors. They're in business to exchange their goods for our cash. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

D

[KOG7777]

If I go out to buy a burger, I want to buy a 'good' burger'. I don't always need a 'perfect' burger, and I don't even know what a 'perfect' burger would be. If a burger is good enough for the money I spent, then I'm happy. I can pay $20 for a 'gourmet' burger, but most of the time I want to spend $6-$12 for a 'good' burger. And everyone's definition of a 'good' or 'perfect' burger is different.

 

Same with TVs. If I go shopping for a new TV, I want to buy what's best in the price range I want to spend. I am not looking for a 'perfect' TV. I want to buy something 'good'. Something with most of the features I'm looking for at the time, and free of manufacturing defect. A TV with a distorted image is going to be a defective TV. Of course no one wants to willingly pay money for a product that was not manufactured to the standard to which it was designed. My in-budget 'good' TV may not be 'perfect'.... it may not have the size I want or the contrast I want or the refresh rate I want... but I can be satisfied if I know I got the best TV that fits my budget at the time. There will be better TVs out there, and that's fine.

 

As with the car.... same as above. I can't go looking for a 'perfect' car. There is no such thing. Since there's no real definition of what a 'perfect' car is, and even if a person had an idea, it would be different from everyone else's. And your analogy of the undersized spare wheel is just like the issue of the bulged image on the TV. It's a defect. The product was not designed that way. Your examples are more like buying a kit and finding a sprue missing, or a short shot, or missing decal sheet. You are not intended to receive your kit with those defects, so you are quite right to seek service from the manufacturer to fix these problems.

 

Buying a model kit has very little to do with the above scenarios. You can fully expect and demand that your kit be complete and free of manufacturing defects... you deserve to receive what you expected to pay for in terms of a complete product, as it was designed to be. But the issue of DESIGN (as it regards to accuracy and such) is another matter entirely. Too many people seem to think they can demand a perfect kit. This, to me, is foolish. As with the examples above, who's to say what 'perfect' is? A lot of people will jump in to say 'perfect' is free from errors in accuracy, but then a lot of other people will factor in things like price, complexity, ease of contstruction, quality of fit, and so on.

 

When you buy any product, you make your choice from the range that's available. There are hundreds and hundreds of places I can choose a burger from. I can pay the price I want and choose whether I get a fast food burger or a dine-in burger or a veggie burger or a build-it-myself burger.When I look for a car I can choose from dozens of brands, and I can pick between a coupe or a sedan or a SUV... I can go for a budget car or a luxury car... I can choose what options I want to pay for... again I have plenty of choices. I am not going to look for a 'perfect' car... I am going to look for the car that best suits my needs and wants and fits my budget. If the car I choose has a lower MPG rating than I'd like? TOUGH. I don't get to go whine to the manufacturer about the MPG not being what I want. I can't DEMAND they improve the MPG rating before I will buy the car. I can accept the car as-is, or I can choose another. All I can expect is that the actual car I purchase is built to the standard to which it was designed, and that it is free from manufacturing defect. Airbags defective? That's the manufacturer's issue to fix. I wish the seats were more soft, or that the car had more cupholders? Too bad for me.

 

Models are rather different. With a few exceptions, we don't have acres and acres of options to choose from once we've narrowed things down to a type and scale. When there ARE options... like say a Bf109E in 1/48... we can be a bit more choosy and select the kit that best meets our expectations of quality, for the price we want to pay. Some subjects, such as a 1/32 B-25 or 1/32 B-17, have ONE option at the moment. So it becomes rather difficult to be too choosy. We can either accept the available kits as they are, if we desire that subject in that scale in our collection, or we can choose to not buy the subject in the that scale at all because the one available kit doesn't meet our expectations. It's 100% within anyone's right to not buy a product because they don't feel it's worth their money. No one's MAKING anyone buy a product they consider overly flawed. But I also don't believe we have any kind of 'right' to DEMAND perfection from any kit - because that very idea of perfection is subjective. I LOVE the complexity and wealth of inner detail found in Tamiya and ZM 1/32 kits. Others find this very complexity a flaw. So what's 'perfect'?

 

Manufacturers do what they can with the time, money, and resources they have... and then we decide what we want to purchase. It's that simple. I'm not going to get angry when a kit isn't perfect... because NOTHING in the world works that way. My favorite movies in the world still have issues I consider to be 'flaws' (in my eyes). But I overlook those issues for the greater enjoyment of the movie as a whole. Great books can still have problematic portions. Very little in life is 'perfect'. So the whole idea of holding model manufacturers to some rigid standard of 'perfection' seems ludicrous to me.

[D Bellis]

I'm not going to get angry when a kit isn't perfect... 

The only time I get angry is when people tell me I should accept that which they find acceptable. 

 

As you allude to, the higher the price, the higher the expectation should be. Quite right. This B-17 costs around $288. Such a high price begs for high expectations.

 

Now, they're reworking it into an F, but one poster claims that it would be too expensive and/or difficult for the manufacturer to fix the known defects. Should this really be acceptable? Or, is the second burger knowingly going to be made from the same rotten meat as the first accidental occurrence? 

 

Photobucket is down, so I'm currently unable to post a pic with a built HK B-17G side-by-side with the real thing for all of those "it looks ok to me, so it should look ok to you, too" people. 

 

D 

Edited January 29, 2016 by D Bellis

[Bill M.]

This post will alienate some of you, and if so, I'm sorry. But I feel this needs to be said--

If you don't want to buy this kit, don't buy it. Personally, I could care less. What bothers me are these folks who feel the need to get on their high horse and slam the manufacturer, the product and anyone who speaks in support of it and then proudly announce they are not going to buy it-- as if they are making some grand political statement. Well, it poisons the whole topic for those who want to buy it and build it. You see, I'm not against a learned discussion of a kit's shortcomings-- I've done that myself. But I prefer a discussion of how to address any shortcomings rather than a relentless rant about how miserable a certain manufacturer is and how a kit isn't worth your time and money. After learning of the pros and cons of any particular kit, I can make the decision to purchase or not myself, thank you.

Bill M.

[petrov27]

So they are showing CAD images that seem to clearly show they did not address a known fault in the previous kit - is this not a great time to tell the mfg know that is not the preferred way to go? That folks would like the known fault fixed? Maybe there still is some time to do something about it?

[KOG7777]

The only time I get angry is when people tell me I should accept that which they find acceptable. 

 

 

I'm pretty sure I didn't. I said I choose to overlook minor flaws because I find expectations of perfection to often be unreasonable if not unobtainable. I also said that I don't disagree with a person's right not not buy something if they don't think it's worth their money. I only take issue with people castigating manufacturers for their perceived lack of perfection.

 

As you allude to, the higher the price, the higher the expectation should be. Quite right. This B-17 costs around $288. Such a high price begs for high expectations.

 

 

Yeah.... it's expensive because it's big. It's not like comparing a Honda to a Mercedes. It's like comparing a coupe to a bus or RV. The B-17 is bigger than an average fighter, therefore it requires more parts, which requires more moulds... and those moulds are bigger than those used for smaller kits. The very size and complexity of the subject jacks up the price by a lot. I hold the B-17 to the same standard I'd hold to a smaller subject like the Do335 or the upcoming P-51B/C. The premium price for the B-17 is being paid for a kit of premium size and premium complexity. THAT'S the benefit I gain from buying a more expensive than usual kit. I don't expect that a larger kit has to automatically be 'more perfect' than a smaller kit. If I choose between a $40 1/32 Bf109E (like say, Eduard or something) and a $100 1/32 Bf109E (like if Tamiya did one) THEN I'd expect the more expensive kit to be a lot better than the cheaper one. And it probably would be. But I don't expect a 1/32 B-17 to be more perfect than a 1/32 fighter, just because it's more expensive. Again, the extra price is due to the extra size and complexity of the kit. It would be NICE if that huge expensive kit was free from all issues large and small, but I won't expect it as a matter of course.

 

Now, they're reworking it into an F, but one poster claims that it would be too expensive and/or difficult for the manufacturer to fix the known defects. Should this really be acceptable? Or, is the second burger knowingly going to be made from the same rotten meat as the first accidental occurrence? 

 

 

I haven't looked at the sprue layout for the B-17G, so I don't know how much it would cost HK to redo this area. HK would know. I DO know that Hasegawa doesn't redo their short Spitfire Mk. IX fuselage sprue when they re-issue their Mk. IX kit in new boxings. Kits are re-popped with new decals or new variant parts all the time without addressing small issues from the first release. Stuff like Eduard is doing - redoing the 1/48 Bf109G - is pretty rare.

 

Photobucket is down, so I'm currently unable to post a pic with a built HK B-17G side-by-side with the real thing for all of those "it looks ok to me, so it should look ok to you, too" people.

 

 

No one's trying to say there aren't visually noticeable issues.

 

Bottom line: I want to build B-17s. If I want to do one in 1/48, I buy the old Revell. If I want to do one in 1/32, it's going to be the HK. And I'd rather have flawed B-17s than no B-17s.

[Dennis7423]

Second row, second picture in. There's your first glimpse, albeit a tad far away. Looks buildable to me!

 

http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/Ausstellungen/Nuernberg2016/Bilder_VH/Bilder_VH_1.htm

 

- Dennis S.

  Westminster, CO USA

[scvrobeson]

PSA: The phrase is now, has always been, and always will be "Couldn't care less"

 

 

 

 

 

Matt

[D.B. Andrus]

Positive return vs. investment.....If a company doesn't  have the money to fix a problem and make a reasonable profit, what can one say? Sure, they'd probably sell more kits if the problem was straightened out, however if the funds ain't there, they ain't there. This applies to all manufacturing, regardless of subject matter.

 

I'd like to have a big B-17, but because of my compulsions I'd be unhappy until the problems were fixed*. I just don't have the energy for it, That's a personal problem and doesn't reflect on HK.  I'm glad they're bringing out such hoped for kits, even though they may not meet everyone's expectations.  I'm really looking forward to their P-51B/C!

 

 

Cheers,

 

D.B.

 

* My father flew B-17's during the war and in my mind the kit has to be near perfect. Once again, that's a personal issue.

[Juggernut]

Hi Hubert,

My queston to Juggernut was nothing more than that, a question. I was wondering if he was aware of the flattened nose. I wasn't and the majority of modellers weren't too.

Including the research team. After that it became a point of discussion, which is fine by me.

Cees

I was aware of that issue when they released the B-17G and several others too...which is why I sold my copy.

[D Bellis]

I only take issue with people castigating manufacturers for their perceived lack of perfection.

No one is asking for perfection. No one wants obvious errors, especially when they're carried over to new variants. 

 

Yeah.... it's expensive because it's big. 

Thank you for stating the obvious, but that doesn't validate your point - which I continue to completely disagree with. 

 

D

[LSP_Kevin]

OK boys, time to dial it back a bit. Everybody has, and is entitled to, their own opinion about this release. Nobody's opinion invalidates anybody else's, as it's all entirely personal. We're all free to make our own choices here, so let's just do that, and forget about what anybody else might think about it.

 

Kev