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

[Bill_S]

I haven't seen a kit so vilified since Trumpeter's early release F4-F. The difference (too me, anyway) is that in the case of the Wildcat the vast majority of criticism was aimed at the kit and not the company. In the case of the Kingfisher, much of the criticism appears to be aimed at the company as well as the kit.

 

I think it's OK to criticize. But like anything else, it can be overdone. In my mind, excessive criticism leads to erosion of respect for the most vocal critics. Criticize away... but go a step further. Offer a solution. Show me your masters for a replacement engine cowling. Or show me a neat fixture you made to ease assembly of the kit cowl. That's the way you'll earn my respect.

[D Bellis]

I haven't seen a kit so vilified since Trumpeter's early release F4-F.

"F4F", or more accurately "F4F-4" was the kit that was deformed in its first release. And, thanks to the scathing reviews that kit received, Stevens International refused to import that kit into the US until Trumpeter corrected it.

 

 

... but go a step further. Offer a solution. Show me your masters for a replacement engine cowling. Or show me a neat fixture you made to ease assembly of the kit cowl.

This is something I don't get at all.

 

Using the deformed Trumpeter F4F-4 as a prime example, what happens if it is deemed to be not worth the effort? That F4F-4 kit's fuselage was not redeemable without scratch-building an entirely new fuselage. By this line of thinking, all of the reviews that offer everyone the same insight on exactly what was wrong with a kit are to be dismissed because the author(s) didn't provide a step-by-step cure for the issue(s)? 

 

Once informed of the issues, it should be the builder's own responsibility to either fix it or leave it as they so desire without having to be spoon-fed a solution. 

 

JMHO,

D

Edited June 1, 2016 by D Bellis

[williamj]

If he really feels a need to rant ..try getting a Williams Brothers Sparrowhawk looking good for dinner .

  Now I know he mentions a lot of us will say use your skills and stop bitchin...but he has an extremely good point over all of this, When you spend a pile of money on a kit,(and lets face it..they have gotten very dear lately)... You don't expect this king of weak almost disrespectful engineering,and as we see in his dissertation it can be a shock to the modeler.

I believe this is what he is expressing..and I wholeheartedly have to agree with him.

 I will add this though..I f you are the sort that seeks the challenge,fun,and enjoyment when taking an older or substandard kit and treating it to something akin to Pygmalion, then none of this will make a whiff of sense to you. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by williamj

[Bill_S]

 

Once informed of the issues, it should be the builder's own responsibility to either fix it or leave it as they so desire without having to be spoon-fed a solution. 

 

JMHO,

D

D,

 

One of the reasons I frequent this forum is to see what issues other, more experienced modelers have experienced and how they've dealt with them. Sometimes I'll say to myself "that's a great idea", often their solution will lead to modifications of my own - or it may plant a seed for an entirely new approach. If I come up with one of those, I will nearly always share it with the community.

[Jack]

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.

 

 

You're  talking about this one?....

 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Jack

[Guest Smitty44]

Ok... Everyone is entitled to their opinion and even to publishing, blogging, or whatever media they like to use to convey their thoughts. Also I believe if people want to read said information and share it to others, chat about it here or whatever they have that right of course. What bothers me is that sometimes it seems like anytime a thread comes up about a Kittyhawk item, Trumpeter item or whatever, that may have nothing to do with the buildability of a kit(asking if a price is good for example) you have people jumping in practically crusading against a company or a kit. It is one thing to write something people can go and read if they want some information, it's another to seek people out who are interested in something you don't like and try and persuade them not to buy a kit.

 

Subject matter and price is all that drives my purchases, although both of those criteria are waining.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Smitty44

[Guest]

If it's a subject I want in my scale, primarily 1/32, I'll buy it if it's not too outrageously priced. Easy or not so easy, makes little difference if it's a subject I want. Now, the easy/not so easy DOES make a difference in how many I might buy.

[mozart]

Funnily enough before reading this thread I wrote this elsewhere on the Forum:

 

"This is going to sound like heresy, but I actually got bored modelling the Tamiya Spitfire because everything fits so perfectly, much preferred the Revell one with all its flaws."

 

I agree with Zero 100%, and if it wasn't for KH I wouldn't have a T-6/Harvard in my collection.  Not a perfect kit by any means, K1 showed that in his review build but with patience, research and a little thought it builds up into a great Harvard.

max

[Sgt Shultz II]

I think we can all agree there are no perfect models period. Model companies are out to make money to stay in business. The bigger companies can hire the better mold makers which I personally think is the key. If they get their dimensions off then the kit will have problems. The amount of detail will depend on what the company wants or can afford to spend on that particular kit and will determine the kit price down the road.

 

I am like Bill S in that I come here to see what others have done to correct some of the mistakes of a kit but I'm not a rivet counter and often build out of the box with some modifications and I build what I like.

 

Ron P

[Zero77]

"F4F", or more accurately "F4F-4" was the kit that was deformed in its first release. And, thanks to the scathing reviews that kit received, Stevens International refused to import that kit into the US until Trumpeter corrected it.

 

 

This is something I don't get at all.

 

Using the deformed Trumpeter F4F-4 as a prime example, what happens if it is deemed to be not worth the effort? That F4F-4 kit's fuselage was not redeemable without scratch-building an entirely new fuselage. By this line of thinking, all of the reviews that offer everyone the same insight on exactly what was wrong with a kit are to be dismissed because the author(s) didn't provide a step-by-step cure for the issue(s)? 

 

Once informed of the issues, it should be the builder's own responsibility to either fix it or leave it as they so desire without having to be spoon-fed a solution. 

 

JMHO,

D

 

The main difference is that the Kingfisher cowling is not wrong but just tricky to assemble. However, everybody who built it amongst LSP member succeeded to assemble it correctly. A small tutorial may possibly help.

 

The first release F4F fuselage was totally wrong and unusable and definitely needed a replacement if one wanted a correct Wildcat, and nothing else was possible.

 

 

 

 

If he really feels a need to rant ..try getting a Williams Brothers Sparrowhawk looking good for dinner .

  Now I know he mentions a lot of us will say use your skills and stop bitchin...but he has an extremely good point over all of this, When you spend a pile of money on a kit,(and lets face it..they have gotten very dear lately)... You don't expect this king of weak almost disrespectful engineering,and as we see in his dissertation it can be a shock to the modeler.

I believe this is what he is expressing..and I wholeheartedly have to agree with him.

 I will add this though..I f you are the sort that seeks the challenge,fun,and enjoyment when taking an older or substandard kit and treating it to something akin to Pygmalion, then none of this will make a whiff of sense to you. 

 

Of course it does make sense. But when i buy a kit, whatever the price, i buy it for various criteria. Engineering is only one of them, and for me it's the less important. But of course i understand it may be the first one for others, we all have our own priorities.

For me the first criteria is the subject itself. Then the shape accuracy and dimensions (though i'm not a 1/10th mm ayatollah ! i can accept a small drift as long as the model does look like the full scale stuff. Yes it's quite subjective), the rate of detail, the possible options, the fit, and the engineering. 

I think the only difference between a well engineered kit and a bad engineered kit is the time it will take to have the same result. The bad one will ask you to clean several sprue keys, fill or sand ejector pins, clean moulding seams (BTW, Wingnut Wings kits are full of moulding seams ! But i dont care, it's a relaxing job to clean them ) and sometimes to make tricky or weird assemblies.

The Revell Bf109G-6 and G-10 Erla have a very weird engineering with questionable layout of parts. The first one i built really surprised me (not always positively), but finally i enjoyed it, then i built a second one (with a conversion) which is not finished yet, but i really like that kit. I bought several others in the meantime.

 

So i think the key is more what is your criteria #1 in a kit, rather than "is it worth it"? It depends of who answers.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Zero77

[BiggTim]

If he really feels a need to rant ..try getting a Williams Brothers Sparrowhawk looking good for dinner .

 

 

Oh man, you said it! That is truly making a silk purse from a sow's ear!! Mine is still on the SOD because it wore me out.

[KOG7777]

'Ease of build' doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

 

I've gotten releases from Tamiya, Hasegawa, Eduard, Dragon, Special Hobby, Kitty Hawk, HK Models, Pacific Coast Models, Revell, Zoukei Mura, Meng, and etc.

 

What matters to me:

 

Do I care about the subject? (and for me, this includes just about anything from during, just before, or just after WWII)

 

Is the kit mostly accurate? (I can live with small issues, but don't want to buy anything that looks grossly inaccurate to even the most uninformed eye)

 

Is the kit nicely detailed? (the more parts and detail, the better. I avoid really old kits with simplified or non-existent wheel wells, cockpits, etc. I love internal detail - engines, bomb bays, etc.)

 

My standards are pretty broad so I buy and build a lot of different kits.

 

While I certainly love the high standards and ease of build found in Tamiya kits, I also value the less mainstream subjects offered by companies like Kitty Hawk and Special Hobby. Recently added the Kitty Hawk T-28 and Kingfisher to my stash!

[Chek]

Some good points being made, but nothing unexpected.

 

What I'd like to see transpire over the next decade is kit production by internet powered, globally crowd sourced ideas.

That would include amendment of basic design with a view to improving basic accuracy, as well as artistic input which encompasses such indefinable but nevertheless important concepts such as 'character' and 'presence'.

 

Input from digital designers with killer algorithms for producing wrinkled skin and fastener dimpling where appropriate would also be welcomed as would be whatever advances CAD-CAM 3-D printing finesse and handmade 3-D scanned design is able to capture and reproduce.

 

One of the major limitations of Company structure as we currently understand it, is that it must operate within the limits of its capitalisation, which usually seeks to minimise costs by reducing resources spent on research, by simplifying production, and reducing to the lowest common denominator wherever possible, including its management culture..

 

And yet out in the rich world, there are millions of hobbyists who willingly undertake research for pleasure and millions of amateur but skilled craftsmen and self-motivated builders and problem solvers, all (or at least many) of whom would be willing to share their expertise in pursuit of a common goal for little beyond a token of recognition.

 

Of course, harnessing and organising and exploiting that resource base would not be a straightforward, easy job, and possibly beyond what traditional company structures are expected or designed to deal with presently.

[Chek]

Jennings, you're making some good points, but FFS, re-edit it into paragraphs or they'll be lost in "tl:dr" territory.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Chek

[BiggTim]

I really, truly don't see this as "vilification" of KH.  At least certainly not on my part.  Disagreeing with someone or fairly critiquing their work is not vilifying.  I completely disagree with the way most KH kits are designed.  ........  That got really old a really, really long time ago.

 

I totally agree. In fact, that's pretty much what I said earlier. Stick to the facts and fire away (with a healthy dose of tact), that's what constructive criticism is all about. Just stay away from picking on motivations or character.