Discussion about "what do you think of this or that kit?" - pl

[Zero77]

Hi,

 

I've just read an article on Jim's models blog, and following the recent discussion about KH's Kingfisher in another thread, i'm a bit puzzled.

Here it is : https://jimsmodels.com/2016/03/04/passion-or-product/#more-1518

There was also another article on Doogs' models blog, precisely about the (bad) engineering of the Kingfisher. I think you can find it easily.

 

 

In fact, i dont agree at all with both articles. No, i'm wrong, i should not say i disagree. There may be obviously weird engineering issue in this kit, i just dont know as i still have not opened the box. So i trust Jim and Matt for what they say.

What i disagree is when they say KH did not invest any effort or passion in this kit, or more generally in their kits, and seems to just do it for business. And same thing for other manufacturers, whereas Tamiya for example, design their kits with passion. A lot of passion.

 

Why do i disagree?

Just because releasing a Kingfisher is way more risky (on the business side) than releasing a corsair, a mustang or a mosquito, which will be best sellers without any doubts. I dont say Tamiya dont put passion in their job. But i say that KH guys certainly do as well. In the past 2 years, we had several kits i would never thought they would be released in 1/32 : OA-10A and D, Kingfisher, T-28, F-86 Dog and Kilo...

Ok the kits may not be perfect, or even have a lot of flaws. But as far as i know, they are highly buildable, and offer a very nice result with a very correct amount of detail, for an average price (many similar kits from other manufacturer are more expensive).

 

Another example is Zoukei Mura. Those guys put a lot of passion in their work without any doubt. However, there are some questionable choices in their kits, sometimes, too. The clear fuselage Do-335 is not a good idea for many of us (though some are happy of it, fortunately !), or the "panel by panel" way of building may sometimes be a bit tricky, too (i noticed it with my Ta-152, which asked me to fill the gap with Mr Surfacer on the wing surface). But the kits are good, with great details and ends in amazing beautiful models.

 

But the purpose of this thread is not to defend KH or find them excuses. Where i want to come is : do you modellers prefer a shake-n-bake kit like Tamiya, or do you enjoy something a bit more challenging (like a Special Hobby kit, for example) ?

 

When i look at my display, i realise that actually i built more "challenging" kits (Italeri F-104G, Special Hobby P-36 and A5M, resin kits from Aerotech or Silver Wings, a few Trumpeter or Revell kits...) than Tamiya kits. And guess what? I think i enjoyed them most, and i think today they are the most rewarding.

Tamiya kits are great (who can disagree with that !), but they are very "mass market" with very common subjects in my opinion. Of course, i'm sure sometimes it's very nice to open a Tamiya box to unwind between 2 difficult and demanding builds. But i'm also very happy to build something different, very uncommon, and where the modeller can really make the difference with his own skills.

Engineering issues are not really a problem for me as long as the shape and dimensions are correct overall, and of course the kit is buildable, but i dont think we have seen any really unbuildable kits in the recent past years.

 

What's your opinion?

 

 

Pleas guys be kind ! This is not a thread to attack Jim or Matt for their opinion (and please respect the fact they take time to write articles, take pictures and so on... A blog doesn't create articles itself, someone is working on it !), nor to attack KittyHawk or any other manufacturer. Just to discuss what you enjoy (or not !) when you build a kit.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Zero77

[BiggTim]

I think it is totally awesome that we have so many small kit makers turning out new and unique stuff, and I applaud and encourage them to continue doing it!! I'm prepared to cut them some slack, especially given that they do not have an established company and economic base backing them. I like a challenge now and then, and if the subject is something I like, I'll buy it.

 

As we have all debated ad nauseum on this forum, even the big guys have serious quality/accuracy issues frequently, but when they do something we like, we buy it. Perfect example, my favorite plane, the 1/32 P-38. The old Revell kit is arguably atrocious, but we built it because it was the only game in town, and we loved it. When Trumpy came out with theirs, we lauded it because it was so much better than the Revell molding (and it is), but it, too, is far from perfect. I still love it, and have to slap my hand every time one comes up for sale. I'd build 10 of them if I could, and enjoy every second.

 

Bottom line is that I want these small guys to stay with it and continue to improve their product. We have to assess their work honestly, but objectively in order to encourage them, just like we do for our fellow modelers. I think we should stay away from questioning their motives, and just stick to the facts.

 

Tim

Edited June 1, 2016 by BiggTim

[Hubert Boillot]

I have chosen my camp a long time ago ...

 

Plenty of Williams, SH, KH, Silver Wings, Marsh Models and the likes in my stash ...

 

But no Tamiya I am afraid.

 

Launching a new model kit brand is significant risk. It takes commitment and a fair dose of craziness.

But if on top of it you choose subjects which are significantly off the beaten track (of the Spitstangs, the Messerwulfs, the Thunderricanes, the Hellsairs and the Juzeros), I'd say it also shows a lot of passion for the hobby and the subjects.

 

These manufacturers deserve respect for this reason, and not questioning their motivation or commitment (besides the fact that there is nothing wrong with the concept of trying to make a business out a selling kits, and certainly not more now than in the 50s or 60s, when Frog, Airfix, Revell, Monogram and Tamiya and Hasegawa got into it)

 

We can wish that the use of new technology is done at the best possible level to ensure flawless results, and refer to WNW as the epitome of a total quality commitment that storms the market, justifiably so, but despising manufacturers for less-than-perfect new kits is just a bit over-the-top IMHO.

 

I have to say I used to be more vociferous about the so-so new kits issued by Trumpeter, but in the end, I am very grateful that they did so, and thus triggered the revival of 1/32. With hindsight, my "vociferations" were just a lack of taking time to think things through.

 

So, I'd conclude with "Bring-on the lesser subjects. And yes, no problem that the sales potential HAS to force some cost-consciousness on the level of detail, compared to a Corsair. And no problem if some filler is needed here and there. However, use your skills to the best of your abilities, and a lot will ve forgiven".

 

Just MHO, of course.

 

Hubert

[D Bellis]

 A lot of passion.

Companies commonly labeled "the big boys" get to hire the most skilled and experienced people for designing their kits, but not necessarily "passionate" people. Companies that can't/won't hire these cream-of-the-crop professionals end up with the "also-rans" who are prone to shoddy workmanship. 

 

I think we should stay away from questioning their motives, and just stick to the facts.

Absolutely.

 

JMHO,

D

[ScottsGT]

Just kit anything. I'm a sucker and I'll buy it!  That stash ain't going to reproduce by itself!

[petrov27]

Not read both articles yet, but I almost feel that ZM and KH may have created issues due to their passions? I can just see their designers thinking, yes! We will put so much detail in our kits - gun bays, full engines, maintenance panels open! Every bay filled with parts! Kit builders will love all the detail and extras! And thus ended up with difficult complicated kits as a result? Where, especially for initial offerings, maybe going to a more "Hasegawa" approach would have been a better idea? Just a nice basic kit without all the engineering complication that comes in with all those interior bays and extra parts to align/include etc?

 

I personally am not saying they are bad or unbuildable kits in any way though - just maybe more complicated and a bit rougher around the edges as would be expected with just about any new kit manufacturer? Shoot, even WNW took some heat with their early kits due to too-close of tolerances etc causing difficult fit in places etc....

Edited June 1, 2016 by petrov27

[Tony T]

It depends on the subject matter.

 

If A-model made an almost unbuildable 1/32 Su-15TM Flagon I'd fight it all the way to make a nice model. That goes, I guess, for the Trumpeter EE Lightnings.

 

But if it's something produced by Tamiya I'd at least consider it even if it's not on the "wish list". E.g. a Tamiya

 

Nirvana is reached where quality and subject desire intersect, e.g. the Tamiya F-16C and - with any luck - the forthcoming Trumpeter MiG-29A (?!?)

 

Tony

[wunwinglow]

You can always scratchbuild........

 

Tim

[Tony T]

If only we had your talents and gear Tim!

 

Tony

[ZachP319]

Hmmmm an interesting discussion I think that is often overlooked when we get cranked over kit issues whether actual or perceived.

 

I tend to agree with doogs indignation over kit engineering at least I part. I can scratch pats and. It and fix as needed but there is a part of me that feels that if I pay x dollars then I expect a certain qualify level and that would include engineering accuracy, good decals etc. This where Tamiya excels. Despite the high price tag their recent releases have delivered per my expectations if not exceeding them. That said their subjects though important and very much desired are somewhat vanilla mainstream releases. KH and SH tend to cater to my wish to build other lesser known subjects and to KH's credit they have released some subjects that are not only new to lsp modeler but the first decent somewhat mainstream lot of that subject, thinking of the OV-10 and kingfisher here and for that they score big points with me.

 

Essentially I am not happy with accuracy and engineering issues but I can work through them for the right subject matter. Truthfully I put more effort into conversions than I do with poorly engineered mainstream and short run kits. So if the subject matter is worth it to me then I'll power through it.

 

Ultimately my bottom line impassioned for the subject. I can work through cruddy engineering if it something I want in the shelf. I won't be happy about the kits issues but in the end it'll be worth it.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Zach

[Jack]

Actually this "hot" item/issue on modeling and "someone's" expectations or interpretations or criticism or downright arrogance on any LSP subject or person almost had me decide to quit the modeling hobby during a certain time period in the past...........i think i grew over it..........i hope........

Ofcourse that is just me, letting myself getting influenced by other opinions on specific subjects in modeling, but it did surprise me..

 

aah, sorry for more or less hi-JACKING this thread....

[Tnarg]

I have a vac form Kingfisher. I also have a great book that shows lots of detail on that plane. It would be nice to work on if I really needed to have that model built, but now someone has gone to the effort of building an injection molded one. They must really like that plane, and another company who was going to do one in resin backed off and let them release it without confusing the market. I'm glad to have the extra detail in the injection kit, but as nothing is ever perfect, it will need some work, and time, which I appear not to have much of. It is a lot better than the vac, no question, and I'm glad to have it.

 

I remember when the 1/48 scale Macchi MC.200 came out from Tauro. They obviously had an enormous amount of passion for that plane, as it was likely a matter of national pride, as well as a beautiful plane. They created all sorts of intricate miniature parts, most of which were either broken before they arrived to this side of the pond from Italy, or else broke as I tried to remove them from the sprues. They had passion, which I love. They also wanted more than the tech could deliver or more than their engineers could deliver with success.

 

Lots of planes come out like this. I find myself in the camp of wanting a "perfect" shape, with great detail where I can see it. However, I don't really care about it if I can't see it. Others care a lot about that. A strategy to sell two kits doesn't work, so the perfect uber detailed kit ends up being the only kit, which raises the price. With all that to take care of, and a limited time to deal with it, things get dropped.

 

I'd love to see more realistic outer detail. Matchbox set the bar for the widest trenches for panel lines in decades past. Don't repeat their mistakes. Why do we have rivets that look like holes? Why do we have perfectly smooth panels, when planes didn't actually look that way? Lots of these questions are out there, in addition to the ones about imperfect part engineering given the limits of physical realities of injection molding, printing, etc.. The models are too small to be completely accurate.

 

At some point, the manufacturers put their money and time on what they thought was a good return on their investment, or a satisfaction of an inner desire for perfection in the area that they actually cared about. Thank you for that. I guess I am left with making the corrections that I am passionate about. And I have a place to start... or not, if it is just too bad of a kit.

 

If you are reviewing a kit, please tell me what doesn't match the actual plane. Tell me how you fixed it, or were unable to do so. Give me a clear idea of what it takes, easy or hard, to make it beautiful and accurate. I respect those types of reviews immensely, but they take lots of effort.

 

Tnarg

[LSP_K2]

Opinions are always going to vary, usually directly proportionate to the expectations of the reviewer in question. The fact that KH or any other manufacturer steps out on a limb and brings us something new and desirable, should be applauded, not condemned.

 

This is not to say that some releases are not without flaws, but from what I've seen so far, the KH Kingfisher can be turned into a beautiful model, for those with the talent and willingness to do so.

 

If I am to allow reviews to sway me one way or the other, it's only after reading as many reviews as I can find, hopefully establishing a uniform balance of opinion, not dwelling on one particular review that may reflect a certain bitterness towards real or perceived imperfections.

[Shawn M]

My take is if I want a challenge free build, I will get a snap tite kit.

 

The volume of subjects we have available in a staggering array of scales is awesome!

Small manufactures, big ones, limited run kits etc make no difference to me.

 

If its a subject I want to build, Im gonna do it and the kits engineering wont stop me, in fact I welcome the challenge as the finished product is more rewarding to me after a good fight

[Zero77]

... then I expect a certain qualify level and that would include engineering accuracy, good decals etc. This where Tamiya excels. 

 

Lol, i understand what you mean, but it's just weird to see "good decals" just follow by "this is where Tamiya excels".

Just kidding.

 

And even if decals are definitely not Tamiya's strong suit, they are not that bad. They are just on the small list of what can be improved (with subject originality, in my humble opinion). 

 

 

 

 

 

If its a subject I want to build, Im gonna do it and the kits engineering wont stop me, in fact I welcome the challenge as the finished product is more rewarding to me after a good fight 

 

Exactly my thoughts ! 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Zero77