To be or not to be accurate, that is the question

[Oldbaldguy]

I’m sure this has been asked before, but I don’t care - I am curious.  How many of you will not build anything that is not irrefutably accurate.  That is to say, your model must accurately reflect an airplane that actually existed at some point in time versus those of us who tend to build accurate models that are creative/imaginative at the same time (assuming anyone besides me would do such a thing.)  I am unabashedly one of the latter.  I build my models to be as accurate as I can in a global sense but don’t give a fig if the tail number does not match the unit decals as long as it is the right font or if the trim color is slightly off as long as the finished model is believable.  I would never hang gun pods or Mk 82s on an F4U, for example, because that could never have happened, but I would not think twice about painting or weathering the thing in whatever way suited me, even if it probably never was.  Case in point:  Not long ago I built an ancient Hobbycraft 1/48 F7U-3 Cutlass.  After a great deal of scratch building to right some of the kit’s many wrongs, I replaced the kit decals with decals for a Skyhawk squadron.  While said unit was equipped with Cutlasses at one point, none of those airplanes ever sported the same unit markings or colors as the later Skyhawks.  The end result is an attractive model that never could have happened but looks the part just the same.  Does anyone else do this or am I committing sacrilege?  If I am, I doubt there are enough mea culpae available to keep me out of model hell because I do it a lot.

 

 

[ScottsGT]

Nope.  I’m with you. It’s all about just having fun for me.  Now if you’re building for competition at model shows, that’s a different story.  I’ve had kit decals go bad after a long build.  Just went generic.  
I’ve built kits others call unbuildable because of the shape of the nose or the tail fin not 100% accurate. I still had fun.  It’s in my display case and it still looks like what it supposed to be to my eye.  
 

Edit:  I must add, if it is a blaring mistake and an aftermarket correction is available, I’ll use it just because I can.  I like using AM intakes on my Phantom builds.  I bought the Zacto corrections for the A-7 Corsair kits I have.  I did get caught up in buying correction parts from Paul Fisher when I picked up the 1:72 EC-121 Warning Star.  I compared the kit parts to the AM and didn’t see much difference. 

Edited April 7 by ScottsGT

[RichSpreier]

I try to be reasonably accurate, but I’m not good enough to obsess over a perfect recreation. I recently converted 2 Tamiya F-4J models to F-4B’s and I’m sure I have missed some things but the wings are thin and look decent and the noses have the IR sensor. AOA has great decals for the bravo model and I plan on doing a few more Marine bravos. My problem is I run out of gas on the detail and start on other things before completely finishing. Does anyone know if AOA was expecting an F-4B kit to be produced and that’s why there are so many decals available, or they just decided to cater to the conversion market?

[Juggernut]

How accurate (shape and detail) is, in my opinion, directly related to the interest and knowledge level of the person building the kit.  In my case, I will never touch an HK Models B-17 kit; any of them.  I cannot unsee or let pass all the issues that plague that kit.  That is my personal choice.  Other people don't care about the issues which is totally fine and dandy.  It's their money, they can spend it (or not) on whatever they feel is a good kit for the money.

 

On the other hand, I have an HK Models Do335 Nightfighter and it may have shape or detail issues and I'm totally fine with that, it looks like a Do335 Nightfighter. 

 

If you've a mind to compete, accuracy is NOT one of the judging criteria in an IPMS contest; at least it shouldn't be according to the judging rules.  Having said that, you'll sometimes find a judge at an IPMS event that has read everything there is about a given subject and said kit and will invoke that in judging; which should not be tolerated.  Accuracy of markings, paint, etc...yeah but not shape or detail.  The model is judged according to several pre-established criteria and I do not believe shape accuracy is among them (other than paint and/or markings).  It's even less important with an open-judging contest (Gold, Silver, Bronze instead of a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd).  Most IPMS judges wouldn't know if a serial number on a given aircraft is correct or not...and most don't care.  What they do care about is the level of finish done with that serial number (i.e., no decal silvering, correctly aligned, etc.)

Edited April 7 by Juggernut

[MikeC]

I aim to be as accurate as I can with the external finish, and I will build a particular aircraft at a point in time; so of course the tail number will match the unit markings, any ordnance will be as correct as I can get it for the unit and its role, etc, and weathering appropriate for the subject.

On the other hand, I do not worry too much about the small technical details such as an extra instrument on the panel for a sub-variant, just as long as it looks plausible. After all, 99% of people who look at the model probably won't know, and hopefully the other 1% either won't notice or will be too polite to say anything.

That's one thing I like about modelling, everyone is free to pursue it in their own way. Vive la difference!

 

[quang]

Of course I like to think of my models as accurate  .
It depends of my degree of self-persuasion at the time. Especially when I know that nobody else but myself will see the models in the flesh.

IMO the most important is not the accuracy. It’s the good time we had when we built the model. 

[chrish]

5 hours ago, Oldbaldguy said:

I’m sure this has been asked before, but I don’t care - I am curious.  How many of you will not build anything that is not irrefutably accurate.  That is to say, your model must accurately reflect an airplane that actually existed at some point in time versus those of us who tend to build accurate models that are creative/imaginative at the same time (assuming anyone besides me would do such a thing.)  I am unabashedly one of the latter.  I build my models to be as accurate as I can in a global sense but don’t give a fig if the tail number does not match the unit decals as long as it is the right font or if the trim color is slightly off as long as the finished model is believable.  I would never hang gun pods or Mk 82s on an F4U, for example, because that could never have happened, but I would not think twice about painting or weathering the thing in whatever way suited me, even if it probably never was.  Case in point:  Not long ago I built an ancient Hobbycraft 1/48 F7U-3 Cutlass.  After a great deal of scratch building to right some of the kit’s many wrongs, I replaced the kit decals with decals for a Skyhawk squadron.  While said unit was equipped with Cutlasses at one point, none of those airplanes ever sported the same unit markings or colors as the later Skyhawks.  The end result is an attractive model that never could have happened but looks the part just the same.  Does anyone else do this or am I committing sacrilege?  If I am, I doubt there are enough mea culpae available to keep me out of model hell because I do it a lot.

 

 

Yup

thats me, not one build true to a prototype yet….

[MikeMaben]

It pulls at my sub-conscious , but I can overcome it if what I need isn't readily obtainable.

I'm obviously not a speed builder like some of you guys, I only enter the cave when the mood

strikes me. I don't think there are 'any' models that are 'irrefutably' accurate, it's more a point

at which I say "that's enough".

[mozart]

As I’ve said many times before, research is as important an element of any model that I build as actually making the model itself, so accuracy is paramount. Having said that, any model has to be a compromise to some degree so there’s always some latitude: “it’s as right as I can make it”. What I’m NOT….is a rivet-counter. 

[LSP_K2]

After a point, I really don't care. Kit irregularities themselves, if too pronounced, get relegated to the shelf or sold off. Other than that, if it looks OK to me, that's all I want.

[Phantom2]

Of course I WANT my models to be as accurate as possible, but sometimes (...most of the times...) reality kicks in.

 

But I usually have a very relaxed attitude to dimensions (as long as the overall shape is OK), markings and colors, depending on the subject.

 

As long as I have fun buildig the kit and I´m satisfied with the result, I´m happy!

 

After all, not many people except my wife and myself will ever see it!

 

 

Stefan 

[Christa]

When a finished model looks near enough to how I intended, I am happy. 

 

Sometimes one of my builds looks better than I imagined, then I am very happy.

 

Accuracy? Hmm. Recently I realised that Fox Moth G-ACRU did not have leading edge slats. My conversion of a Matchbox Tiger Moth had not touched the top planes before the project limped back to the drawing board for a fuselage rethink. I had been on track to finish that model with slats. However, if I had built it with slats I am certain I would be correcting those top planes already because wrong is wrong. Right?

[mozart]

5 minutes ago, Christa said:

When a finished model looks near enough to how I intended, I am happy. 

 

Sometimes one of my builds looks better than I imagined, then I am very happy.

 

Accuracy? Hmm. Recently I realised that Fox Moth G-ACRU did not have leading edge slats. My conversion of a Matchbox Tiger Moth had not touched the top planes before the project limped back to the drawing board for a fuselage rethink. I had been on track to finish that model with slats. However, if I had built it with slats I am certain I would be correcting those top planes already because wrong is wrong. Right?

And you have touched on a very important point there Chris….making inaccurate assumptions! We know that the vast majority of Tiger Moths had the slats so we assume that it’s a deHavilland feature. But, nothing, absolutely nothing, replaces a good reference photograph and careful scrutiny thereof.

[tomprobert]

I’m very much a “if it looks ok from 20 paces then that’s good enough for me” type builder. 
 

I rarely buy after-market ‘corrections’ for models and for me, life is too short to get bogged down with correcting every last detail - I just enjoy sticking bits of plastic together. 
 

I always find it fascinating to watch some builders ‘correct’ a model to the nth degree and then paint and weather it so it bears no resemblance to the real thing whatsoever - over zealous panel shading and patchwork quilt paint effects that simply never existed on that particular aircraft. But, we all approach hobbies in our own way and that’s very much down to personal choice. 
 

It’s also interesting to watch build threads on this and other forums where a builder starts to make adjustments and corrections to a kit and very quickly runs out of steam - it’s all too easy to get bogged down and thus the build stalls. I’m very much the same - which is why I tend to stick with what the kit provides and just enjoy it. As I said, each to their own. 

[thierry laurent]

An accurate model simply does not exist... Moreover the level of accuracy is a very personal matter. As far as a modeller is happy with regard to his model, accuracy is just one parameter amongst multiple ones. I went to a local exhibition yesterday. There were many 'average' models with blemishes, decal silvering and so on. I could not avoid seeing them but did not care as soon as the people who made them talked about them with obvious passion. I just left them half an hour later with a big smile. For sure I'm a detail freak who stays too much time amongst his thousands of aviation books. I love reading and to me research is as fun as modelling. However, my modelling standard is purely individual. This is a typical reason why I really prefer exhibitions rather than contests...