Reality Check!

[DougN]

One chap posting on the 'other' thread has suggested the the Revell G-10 will be the only example out there ... curious comment, as I have both a Hasegawa G-10 (ST-18) and a G-14 (08157) sitting on my shelf at present?

 

Rog

 

That "chap" was me Rog, the same person whose post directly proceeds yours in this thread...  and as already mentioned here, the sub-varient I mentioned, and was also the title of the the thread on LSP (G-10 Erla) is not available in kit form today.

 

It might pay to re-read the entire thread then Doug...

 

Especially Andreas' next post, where he says, and I quote:

 

"During the design phase of the kit nearly all major issues were addressed in time - and simply ignored. Frustrating for all who accompanied the design phase. And these were throughout knowledgeable people!

 

With the distance of a year now: it was nearly deliberate sabotage."

 

His words, not mine. Sure looks like he felt he was being ignored. As does Lynn Ritger's comments in this Hyperscale post:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1380722323/You+are+being+disingenuous+and+deliberately+misleading%2C+Darren.

With comments such as "none of us were thrilled with the engineering decision to mold (sic) the spinner how it came out" and "not enough radius on the kit part, despite an awful lot of back-and-forth on it."

 

Given some of the details that slipped through, I'm now not surprised at all.

 

Your right Steve, but that post was made 45 mins after I made my post above, so mine was based on his previous posts on the topic.

 

Regardless, if anyone really thinks that negative reviews hurt Revell sales, lets again look at the much-reviled Revell He219.  Revell sold out their intial run of this kit, and clearly sold many more of the second run to their distributors.  So I'm certain Revell considered it a success.  Now, the distributors who may have ordered too many and gotten stuck with them might have been impacted by the negative press on the kit.  You also have to realize that most of the sales to distributors are made before the kit is even released, and well before any review, postive or negative, are written/posted.  So, again, having many years experience in this area, and sat through hundreds of product review meetings, I will again assure you that we (forum posters) really don't matter to major manufacturers like Revell.  As posted above, it would seem Revell even ignored the people they brought in as experts when they pointed out the errors in the kit, so why would they care what we think?

 

Doug

[Artful69]

That "chap" was me Rog, the same person whose post directly proceeds yours in this thread...  and as already mentioned here, the sub-varient I mentioned, and was also the title of the the thread on LSP (G-10 Erla) is not available in kit form today ...

 

Doug ...

 

My appologies ... I am obviously no expert on the 109 ... I made an assumption, jumped the gun and commented before I really knew what you were refering to. I do hope you do not take offence at my brash remarks due to my lack of knowledge.

 

Since my Hasegawa instructions on the G-6 refer to the 'Erla-Haube' canopy (in the opening narration) as being a standardised feature on the G-14 ... and both the Hasegawa G-10 and G-14 use the same canopy kit parts (and possibly even the K-4?) ... I kinda thought that because it was referred to as the 'Erla-Haube' canopy - that this it what was being refered to here ... until Kage enlightened me.

 

To be honest ... even after looking at his references for about an hour and cross referencing with my Hasegawa kits ... I'm hard pushed to tell the difference - it's that confusing ... This is how much of a NON-expert I am ...

 

... and yet, with those sparkling credentials ... and before anyone mentioned it in a forum post ... I still managed to notice upon viewing test shots of the Revell G-6, that the 'nose' of the aircraft looked 'off' somehow. With just some quick referencing, I picked the spinner, cowl, Beule (even though I didn't know the technical name for these at the time!) and exhausts ... and that coming from me who, given references to look at, still can't tell the difference between the 'Erla' G-10 and my Hasegawa kit.

 

I will admit error in this ... but still stand by my comments in regards to Revells 'arrogance' in ignoring the 'advisers' that they had bothered to employ for guidance. I'm not so miffed about their lack of accuracy in product ... after all ... AM has once again filled the gap (or most of it - re: Andreas' 'scratch-cowl-fix') - even though, with a tiny bit more care and attention, there would have been no pressing need to ...

 

The rather blase' view towards the more 'serious' modeling community rankles (to me, the customer, I matter - even if they don't think so!!) ... and seems to be a marketing approach frought with danger in the medium to long term. It appears to me that they put some seriously hard work into their Arado, Ju-88's and Heinkel (which all contain some minor, almost insignificant errors - as all kits do) ... and then - and this attitude of theirs explains a lot now! - release a below standard He.219 and Bf109G in almost Trumpeter-esque fashion ... probably believing that their reputation alone will carry them.

 

Here's the weird bit - if they had followed through with their BoB theme and ripped out a Do-17z - given their present attitude ... who could have gain-said any errors? There are no living examples remaining around to refer to for 'errors' and ample enough drawings and photographs to produce a reasonably 'accurate' kit ... thereby sidestepping the minefeild that they've walked into with the Uhu and Gustav ... These kits have sold well enough (although certainly not as well as they could have had they been 'correct'!) I believe, on the back of previous successes, pricing and reputable brand name ... they should expect a more 'cautious' market, as time passes, for future releases though!

 

Rog

[Mikester]

Rog,

 

Erla took a little different approach on their G-10 than WNF or Regensburg.

 

 

You'll notice that the panel aft of the firewall on the port side is a rectangular rather than curved.  It's also lacking the small bulges on the forward lower cowl, Erla also used the small wing wheel well bulges as opposed to the larger style used by the other two factories.  These are the most noticeable differences, Steve or Matt can probably provide some additional info on the more subtle differences.

[Wumm]

Yeah I know, Doug...

 

Your right Steve, but that post was made 45 mins after I made my post above, so mine was based on his previous posts on the topic.

But if you follow the trail, you could see what's going on. There's been a few little hints along the way, coupled with bagging of the Hasegawa equivalent by some involved in the project... Always a nasty look. If you have enough confidence in your product, you don't need to trash the opposition.

 

And more puzzling was Brett Green's removal of the link Nick posted on Hyperscale to the comprehensive and very fair LSM team review. And the seeming inability for LSM to source kits from Revell for the purposes of that review here. Perhaps those in the know might shed a little light on these issues via PM if they so desire?

 

So, to end with Doug's conclusion: why would they care what we think...?

Because we are their repeat business.

 

We are the reason Revell put full page adverts in modelling magazines. We are the reason Revell send test shots to websites like Hyperscale and IPMS Deutschland. We are the reason Revell organises a bunch of these kits for Brett Green and friends to publish a how-to book about the kit before it's even released to the public. Not those buying the kit as an impulse purchase, but we who would perhaps buy half a dozen or more kits.

 

All of this advertising and publicity effort is wasted, if they don't care what we think. I personally think this 5% figure is picked out of the air randomly, and is being used by Revell as a convenient excuse to cut corners after the buy-out by the American parent company in 2012... Which would also account for the difference in the fidelity of some of the details in the large scale kits released since then.

 

S

[Mikester]

I think some people are elevating the Revell kit beyond where it really deserves to be simply because they don't like Hasegawa.  They blame Hasegawa for the high price of their kits in some areas rather than placing the blame where it actually belongs, on importers and customs fees.  I purchase Hasegawa kits in the $30-35 (US) range here in Japan which is the MSRP.

 

My last rant at ARC was directed at someone who said anyone who didn't believe the Revell kit was better was just "pissed because their over-priced Hasegawa kits have been rendered obsolete by a $25 Revell kit". 

 

Then you've got twits like Gaston Marty (now posting as "robertson" at ARC, the only site he hasn't been banned from) trying to tell us that the Hasegawa 1/32 kit is an up-scaled carbon copy of the 1/48 kit which it is not.  He declared the Revell kit more accurate by a "planetary margin" without ever seeing it!  We all know that he's an obnoxious windbag but there's people out there that don't know any better and actually believe his line of crap and this is how misconceptions start to be mistaken for fact. 

 

I've stated before there are some aspects of the Revell 109 I really like, but it's far from perfect.  It may complement the Hasegawa kit but it certainly doesn't supplant it.

[Wumm]

This was my whole point in questioning Thierry Laurant over on LSP...

 

Then you've got twits like Gaston Marty (now posting as "robertson" at ARC, the only site he hasn't been banned from) trying to tell us that the Hasegawa 1/32 kit is an up-scaled carbon copy of the 1/48 kit which it is not.  He declared the Revell kit more accurate by a "planetary margin" without ever seeing it!  We all know that he's an obnoxious windbag but there's people out there that don't know any better and actually believe his line of crap and this is how misconceptions start to be mistaken for fact. 

Stating as he did that the Hasegawa was 2mm short in the nose, which is incorrect. The gun panel is out by a millimetre but this doesn't affect the length at all. But people repeat stuff they cannot prove, and it becomes fact. Conversely, The Revell kit is also short by nearly a mm itself, not including the spinner that's .4mm short and the rudder that's .6mm long. Take these two off the fuselage, and the Revell fuselage is actually 2mm short on it's own! But no... this is the most accurate 1/32nd Bf109 ever apparently. Brett Green said so.

 

Roy Sutherland did the same thing on Hyperscale as 'Robertson' did on ARC, only his version has the Hasegawa 4mm short! A friend of his worked on the actual "Black 6" in the UK, and told him the gun cowl was 5inches out when compared to the 1/48 scale Hasegawa. Roy took this to mean that the 1/32nd scale was out by the same margin, and said so without ever measuring the 1/32nd scale kit for himself. When I challenged him (as I do whenever people like he or Jennings or Jamie Haggis spout this drivel) he bailed on the thread.

 

The problem with this is, Roy is respected in the hobby, and when he and others spread this false information people believe it. Which I'm sure pushes some of those in the 5% towards the Revell kit in the belief that it's superior (which it is admittedly in some areas, but not all). Free publicity to add to the magazine and online adverts that Revell aren't apparently targeting the serious modeller with.

 

Yeah, right!

S

[Artful69]

Rog,

 

Erla took a little different approach on their G-10 than WNF or Regensburg.

 

 

You'll notice that the panel aft of the firewall on the port side is a rectangular rather than curved.  It's also lacking the small bulges on the forward lower cowl, Erla also used the small wing wheel well bulges as opposed to the larger style used by the other two factories.  These are the most noticeable differences, Steve or Matt can probably provide some additional info on the more subtle differences.

 

Hey thanks!!!

 

Ok ... I know what you mean by the lower cowl bulges and the upper wing wheel 'blisters' now! ...

 

It's like playing the adult version of "spot the difference"

 

I wonder why the differences happened? ... will have to do some research!! ... Thanks so far!!

 

Rog

[Wumm]

I'll pop some photo's on after dinner with some pointers Rog...

 

S

[Artful69]

I'll pop some photo's on after dinner with some pointers Rog...

 

S

 

Thank you very much Steve!!

[Wumm]

I understand your point of view George...

 

But I don't share your opinion.

 

This thread is about attitude. Whether or not we should be humbled by the fact that as serious modellers, we are only a small cog in the wheel of overall sales of model kits. However, I believe that it's the manufacturers who also need the reality check.

 

For instance... I have two Revell 1/32nd scale JU-88 kits. One was bought online from a UK site, and the other was sourced locally at a Hobby store here in Brisbane, Australia. As I was not asked anything about my modelling habits or even my plans for these kits when I bought them, I fail to see how Revell could possibly know whether I frequent certain Modelling websites, am a member of the LEMB for instance, or how much if any aftermarket I had bought for these kits or modifications I had in mind for them. And if they're not asking about my modelling habits or preferences, I find it very hard to believe they're asking the majority of their end customers, and I therefore dispute the accuracy of this magical 5% number.

 

Which leads my to belief that it's a question of attitude. Not mine, but Revell's. They're the one's trying to make a living from the hobby, not I. And as I stated earlier, I am less worried about the inaccuracies of a particular kit, than the attitude of the manufacturer towards a segment of their market that represents repeat sales.

 

At the other end of this equation is Zoukei Mura. Their proprieter exhibits passion for the hobby. Their research team visits the actual aircraft to, for the most part, get the details right. And even though the cost of their kits are significant, I don't mind paying it because of the attention to detail built into the product. Compare that to Revell's last effort: First we were getting an engine included, then that fell by the wayside. Then they visited an airframe, only it was the Speyer G-4 with the narrow MG17 gun troughs and no cockpit vent, and they guessed the position of the vent, gun troughs, the beulen and other aspects of the airframe. Then they assembled a team of 6 knowledgable individuals to help with the research, and ignored a significant amount of that information and expertise for the sake of cost cutting.

 

Well, some things are more important than the bottom line. I would rather save for 6 months for a single Zoukei Mura kit, than buy a single Revell product for a sixth the price; because one manufacturer wants my business, and the other thinks I don't matter. Can you guess which is which?

 

Steve.

[Artful69]

... Most Revell kits, plus some added after-market items, still cost less than many other kits ...

 

Well ... in the next three months ... I am about to test this theory against a side-by-side build of G-6's ...

Hasegawa, Revell and Trumpeter ...

 

I'm not going to go balistic ... just get what AM is required to build each into a decent representation by fixing the 'stand out' errors.

 

They are all within a 'poofteenth' of the cost of each other to buy - from Perth WA at least ... I have shopped the world over for the cheapest combination of postage and packing for each! The total cost of... and hours employed on... each correction/enhancement of each kit will be recorded. To help eliminate visual bias - the same decal markings and paint scheme will be used on all three.

 

The idea is to get them, as near as can be, looking the same as each other.

 

_________________

 

If that is Revells' marketing strategy ... they won't be long for this world!! ... the mass marketing "she'll be right" approach will not suffice to keep them afloat very long from where they are at the moment ... unless there is an attitude adjustment I give them 5 more years at most. The modeling world expects more from manufacturers and their product than they used to!

 

Rog

[Jamme]

Well ... in the next three months ... I am about to test this theory against a side-by-side build of G-6's ...

Hasegawa, Revell and Trumpeter ...

 

I'm not going to go balistic ... just get what AM is required to build each into a decent representation by fixing the 'stand out' errors.

 

They are all within a 'poofteenth' of the cost of each other to buy - from Perth WA at least ... I have shopped the world over for the cheapest combination of postage and packing for each! The total cost of... and hours employed on... each correction/enhancement of each kit will be recorded. To help eliminate visual bias - the same decal markings and paint scheme will be used on all three.

 

The idea is to get them, as near as can be, looking the same as each other.

 

_________________

 

If that is Revells' marketing strategy ... they won't be long for this world!! ... the mass marketing "she'll be right" approach will not suffice to keep them afloat very long from where they are at the moment ... unless there is an attitude adjustment I give them 5 more years at most. The modeling world expects more from manufacturers and their product than they used to!

 

Rog

Will be very interested in those builds, Rog 

Cheers,

Jamme

[Artful69]

Will be very interested in those builds, Rog 

Cheers,

Jamme

 

I will be too!! ... I have never built any 109 outside the Emil variants.

 

With all of the to and fro across the forums about which manufacturer provides the 'best' base to work with, I thought it might be an idea to do this little experiment from the point of view of someone who ...

 

A/ Has no biased opinion on any of the manufacturers

B/ Is not completely anal as far as accuracy goes (although still wants a fair representation!) and ...

C/ Is a 'simple' modeler, requiring reasonably simple fixes to reasonably simple issues.

 

Rog

[Drdave]

Egad! What if you end up with an anal drivel spout?

[Wumm]

I can't imagine what this might have to do with the subject of this thread...

 

Egad! What if you end up with an anal drivel spout?

 

Is it some kind of medical apparatus you might use in your particular line of work?

 

Or perhaps something you come across in another hobby you might have?

 

S

[James H]

I can't imagine what this might have to do with the subject of this thread...

 

 

Is it some kind of medical apparatus you might use in your particular line of work?

 

Or perhaps something you come across in another hobby you might have?

 

S

PMSL!!!

[Mikester]

Anal Drivel Spout?  Isn't that where Gaston Marty's posts originate from?

[Drdave]

I will neither dither nor quibble over the spoutage of anal drivel.

[Drdave]

You really need to wobble your face as you say that

[nmayhew]

Interesting thread guys

 

Fwiw I think Revell have quite literally made up that 5% figure and I will continue to hold that view until some from Revell (or connected with them) shows us how they came to it

 

I do think we on the forums are a tiny and as regards buying power goes insignificant minority certainly in 1/48, but in 1/32 maybe not?

For Revell in a mainstream subject then yes I would still think so.

But for say Zoukei mura maybe not so much?

 

Of course I don't know this - just my gut feel

[nmayhew]

Yeah I know, Doug...

 

But if you follow the trail, you could see what's going on. There's been a few little hints along the way, coupled with bagging of the Hasegawa equivalent by some involved in the project... Always a nasty look. If you have enough confidence in your product, you don't need to trash the opposition.

 

And more puzzling was Brett Green's removal of the link Nick posted on Hyperscale to the comprehensive and very fair LSM team review.

S

I thought I would pick up on this point because 1) our guys put a lot of effort into the 109 review, and 2) since the removal was brought up, it deserves a bit of explanation for those not on our Staff Team:

 

Quite simply BG saw it as a threat to the income stream of both Hyperscale and ADH Publishing

 

It is a bit sad that modellers who go on Hyperscale think they are getting 'the full picture' when in reality they are only getting what BG and the HS team want them to see

 

BUT I will say that Hyperscale is Brett's and he can act as he sees fit to protect his financial interest, so I can't really berate him for that.

I will take issue with the excuses that are made for him in this regard though.

 

Ultimately, our review guys should be flattered that HS and ADH clearly thought it was good enough to be a threat

 

[Mikester]

I like to keep business out of my hobby.....and women out of my finances!

[nmayhew]

he he

 

I take your point, but for Brett the hobby IS his business, so I can understand his actions, even if personally i don't agree with them

 

anyway, out of interest, does anyone know if a similar panel of (hopefully not be ignored this time) experts has been assembled for the forthcoming Spitfire kit?

[Artful69]

he he

 

I take your point, but for Brett the hobby IS his business, so I can understand his actions, even if personally i don't agree with them

 

anyway, out of interest, does anyone know if a similar panel of (hopefully not be ignored this time) experts has been assembled for the forthcoming Spitfire kit?

 

... well at least there's no Trumpeter or (modern) Hasegawa rival ... unless Tamiya jump the gun on them, they have the market cornered!!

 

... I guess they can cut all the corners they want on this one!!

 

Rog

[Wumm]

Interesting...

 

Quite simply BG saw it as a threat to the income stream of both Hyperscale and ADH Publishing

If Revell aren't worried about what the 5% think, at least BG is! Which is probably a truer indication of the state of play.

 

Ultimately, our review guys should be flattered that HS and ADH clearly thought it was good enough to be a threat

And rightly so.

 

Anyway, out of interest, does anyone know if a similar panel of (hopefully not be ignored this time) experts has been assembled for the forthcoming Spitfire kit?

I actually thought of emailing Revell as soon as the news came out about the Erla G-10. I figured it might be better to give them some pointers, rather than complain about it afterwards. However I see that they've repeated the gun width errors of the G-6, the gun trough openings are too far back, and the upper panel break appears wrong too... just on the one cowl piece shown. More worrying is the fact that Andreas says it won't be fixed, so there seems little point now.

 

I wonder whether the Spitfire Boffins will be treated better?

 

S