Jump to content
Pup7309

Not being 100% accurate- is it a big deal?

Recommended Posts

I just really like aircraft (I blame living my first ten years on V-bomber bases with many visitors to the mid '60s) and have amassed books, kits and conversion parts of many types over the course of fifty plus years. My PC's photo folder contains 920 individual types, with many of those containing multi-GB folders of their sub-types.

 

What I like to do is to detail up a plank of a kit so that it more closely resembles the subject it is designed to represent. I mentioned in another post recently correcting a Matchbox Buccaneer to include the flattened 'D' section of the wing, which to me is an important design feature. Not quite as involved as Iain's correction of the HB B-24's wing to a convincing Davis airfoil, but equally as important for a folded wing model. It'd be nice not to have to deal with such mundanity, but hey-ho the commitment of others who should care at the design stage isn't enforceable, unfortunately.

 

What really does make my heart sing modelwise, is a fact or piece of data hitherto unknown to me has already been incorporated into a kit by a dilligent design team. The Tamiya F-14 and F-16 kits in 1/48 scale, the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfires and Special Hobby Hurricanes spring to mind. They're not necessarily easy builds, but they exhibit a lot of integrity in their quest to be 'accurate'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think this is contentious, you should see some of the model railroad discussions about accuracy. Kits get absolutely skewered because a rivet line or door or handhold is in the wrong place, or heavens to murgatroid, the color is wrong. In fact I’m pretty sure model railroaders coined the ugly phrase “rivet counters”. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the quest for accuracy as much as anyone. But, my goodness. Some folks need a Snickers bar lol. I went down the rabbit hole of “RPM” or “Railway Prototype Modeling” and personally found it waaaay too restrictive of what was, and is for me, a pursuit of pleasure. I enjoy research but I really dislike “analysis paralysis”.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m an architectural model maker. I can not tell you how many times I’ve had the pleasure of proving an architect or designer wrong, that their roof plan simply can not be built as drawn. Many arguments, etc, foot stamping, gnashing of teeth, they are just so sure their drawing is right. Nope. Sorry. Not to besmirch the good architects and designers of the world, but humility is not always part of their vocabulary. Sometimes things really aren’t what they seem; like Chek says above, “the commitment of others who should care at the design stage isn’t enforceable...”. Well said, friend, well said. 

 

Jimbo

Edited by jimbo
Pre-coffee spelling mistakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jimbo said:

If you think this is contentious, you should see some of the model railroad discussions about accuracy. Kits get absolutely skewered because a rivet line or door or handhold is in the wrong place, or heavens to murgatroid, the color is wrong. In fact I’m pretty sure model railroaders coined the ugly phrase “rivet counters”. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the quest for accuracy as much as anyone. But, my goodness. Some folks need a Snickers bar lol. I went down the rabbit hole of “RPM” or “Railway Prototype Modeling” and personally found it waaaay too restrictive of what was, and is for me, a pursuit of pleasure. I enjoy research but I really dislike “analysis paralysis”.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m an architectural model maker. I can not tell you how many times I’ve had the pleasure of proving an architect or designer wrong, that their roof plan simply can not be built as drawn. Many arguments, etc, foot stamping, gnashing of teeth, they are just so sure their drawing is right. Nope. Sorry. Not to besmirch the good architects and designers of the world, but humility is not always part of their vocabulary. Sometimes things really aren’t what they seem; like Chek says above, “the commitment of others who should care at the design stage isn’t enforceable...”. Well said, friend, well said. 

 

Jimbo

Hi Jimbo,

I built architectural models many years ago and plans that did not work in 3d happened regularly. Mostly because they always gave us preliminary drawings that changed. On one model, I found the roof impossible to model and the contractor came over to see how I had solved the problem to do it himself. Satisfiyng day!

 

Alain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jimbo said:

If you think this is contentious, you should see some of the model railroad discussions about accuracy. Kits get absolutely skewered because a rivet line or door or handhold is in the wrong place, or heavens to murgatroid, the color is wrong. In fact I’m pretty sure model railroaders coined the ugly phrase “rivet counters”. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the quest for accuracy as much as anyone. But, my goodness. Some folks need a Snickers bar lol. I went down the rabbit hole of “RPM” or “Railway Prototype Modeling” and personally found it waaaay too restrictive of what was, and is for me, a pursuit of pleasure. I enjoy research but I really dislike “analysis paralysis”.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m an architectural model maker. I can not tell you how many times I’ve had the pleasure of proving an architect or designer wrong, that their roof plan simply can not be built as drawn. Many arguments, etc, foot stamping, gnashing of teeth, they are just so sure their drawing is right. Nope. Sorry. Not to besmirch the good architects and designers of the world, but humility is not always part of their vocabulary. Sometimes things really aren’t what they seem; like Chek says above, “the commitment of others who should care at the design stage isn’t enforceable...”. Well said, friend, well said. 

 

Jimbo

 

A bit off topic I realize, but I just recently discovered that Rod Stewart is a very avid HO model railroader, having a 1,500 square foot layout of his own and builds/weathers most of the structures himself. While somewhat of a purist, I don't believe he falls into the bottomless pit of analyzing things to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent years in design of real products.

It is embarassing how many items that looked wonderful on paper turned out to be total disasters, design wise, when the full size model was built. 

Bloody embarassing. But then one could modify the real item so the desgns worked  visually and fuctionally.

 

As to model railroading, I ignored exact anal rententiveness in Choo Choo models. Look, real railroads would order say 24 exact replicas of their new design steam locomotive and then would make changes as the designs were made into real things. Then there would be rebuilds where the designs were modified by the railroad  for specifec parts of the railroad, to incorporate new elements into the design, all sorts of things. 

FACE IT! there are some guys who are not happy unless they are argueing over small changes in the prototypes.  I determined early on that I would not listen to such delicate egos.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2019 at 8:55 PM, Pup7309 said:

Sometimes I feel like doing a particular type of aircraft with a different aircraft’s decals , or give my own interpretation of painting schemes. 

 

Anyone else ever torn between historical accuracy and ...?

I personally don't stray too far from the historical record, but sometimes combine elements of different aircraft that MIGHT be plausible or based on what markings I can get. If the decals/stencils don't exist, then I have to use what Nature provides.

 

As the others have said, it's a hobby. Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lee White said:

I want an accurate shape more than anything, the details are somewhat secondary as they are more easily rectified and brought up to whatever level of accuracy I want.

 

Good point, that... 

 

jimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lee White said:

I want an accurate shape more than anything, the details are somewhat secondary as they are more easily rectified and brought up to whatever level of accuracy I want.

 

Exactly.  Which goes back to what I said about the “look” and “sit” of a model.  I don’t care if the fuselage is 1.3 mm too short if the thing captures the look of the real thing.  It’s a continuum though.  The Hasegawa 1/48 Spit IXc kit doesn’t “look” that bad, but the aft fuselage is so short that you simply cannot put accurately scaled markings from a real Spitfire on it and make it look like the real thing.  There simply isn’t enough room.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 2:46 AM, Shoggz said:

Nicely put Peter.

 

As a Marillion fan, this argument is very reminiscent of the endless debates about which of the two singers they've had across their history is the best!

 

It's a personal thing!

 

 

 

No debate, Fish! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LSP_K2 said:

 

A bit off topic I realize, but I just recently discovered that Rod Stewart is a very avid HO model railroader, having a 1,500 square foot layout of his own and builds/weathers most of the structures himself. While somewhat of a purist, I don't believe he falls into the bottomless pit of analyzing things to death.

I don't think he gives a rat's ass about what anybody has to say. He is an institution in music, so I assume he got enough confidence to ignore most of the people out there. As Trump or Arnold or anybody of that height. 
But is good to know that there are famous people involved into that. Just like with flying. Harrisond Ford, Brangelina, Giselle, Bruce Dickinson and so on.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019 at 7:41 PM, tomprobert said:

 

Absolutely agree! As I said, there are many who slave over accuracy yet the finished article

bares no resemblance whatsoever to the original because of their paint finish. Quite ironic really!

Good point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 6:04 PM, Eagle Driver said:

 

Yeah. Looking at the photos means more than seeing the real airplane.

Technical documents? What part from the modelers has any access what so ever to the official documentation?? Drawings that are accessible to the masses are created by people who are often part of those masses. 

 

 

Yeah sure.

That is what some part of fans and hobbyists rely to keep their spirits high enough.

 

 

Yes please, correct the nose and leave the thickness of the clear parts, thickness of the trailing edges and cockpit details the same.

But the nose stands corrected!

What an achievement!

 

 

For some others, researching 65 years about the proper color of the Zero is also enjoyable. Tons of feuds. And fierce too.

That doesn't mean that some others doesn't find it ridiculous, right? It is a matter of opinion.

 

And by "Spare US" I assume that you are some group representative. I always thought that forums are for expressing your own opinions. 

 

 

 

Here's the thing. MiG-21 from Eduard is a BRILLIANT kit by any means. Hardly anything better in 48th scale.

But some people found issues with it. Some people brag about that, trying to present themselves as experts. Others make aftermarket for it trying to exploit the weaknesses. And there are this group of people who build the hell out of it. The thing is they are the minority.

 

Is there a better MiG-21? No. It is not and never will be 100% accurate. No matter what you improve on it and how much money you spend for resin and PE.

 

This is the perfect example of what is very wrong with the hobby nowadays.

When I started back in early 90s it was about building the plane. Now it is about how much aftermarket can you add to it, pretend that this is going to fix it.

It won't. Thickness issues mentioned above won't be. As many other things.

 

 

I will mention three things to conclude on the subject:

 

1. Rivets are never holes on the surface of the aircraft. Thus what most of the companies do nowadays is a tendency to alter the appearance to exaggerate the effects.

Nothing to do with accuracy.

2. You can never have thin enough surfaces on most of the things. Tanks, planes, whatever. Photo-etch deal with some part of that issue, but it is only a fraction.

Again, nothing to do with the accuracy, based on the limitations of the materials and technologies.

3. This hobby is for fun, not for accuracy. Some try to turn it into accuracy competition because they have nothing else to rely on. I've seen that many times for 30 years in modeling. Mostly coming from the worst modelers that I know.

It should be about fun, not stress.

That should answer it all.


Another good conclusion is presented here:

 

Hey good video. ‘Do what’s best for you...you don’t need more stressors in your life...close the browser and have fun!’

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...