Reality Check!

[alpinestar]

Sorry, I don't get this thread.

 

I do this hobby because I enjoy doing this hobby. As an engineer I am, and always have been, fascinated by how things are put together and this hobby give me the ability to build stuff and see the engineering that goes into a plastic kit. Important for me too is accuracy and the challenge to achieve this.

 

Personally, I have very little interest in opening the box of a 'perfect' kit and just building it. A good percentage of the enjoyment I get from doing this is fixing things that are wrong and inaccurate. This is the reason I have little interest in these new 'perfect' kits from Tamiya, WNW and the likes. I like a challenge and I like to (attempt) to make things as accurate as possible through detailing/scratchbuilding. I like Trumpeter kits and I like Airfix kits because, invariably, there will be work to do to get them up to a good standard (personally speaking). This, to me, is called Modelling. Not gluing together.

 

In essence, if something is wrong, fix it. It's the challenge. It's Modelling. It's why I do it.

 

Chris.

[Matt_]

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

 

​Blimey, I am flattered.. I have to say having taken a look at the ADH book, I did think how similar they were - our review and the book that is....

 

Regarding the G-10 Erla, I have a couple of Steve Gallacci's conversions for my Hasegawa kits and they'll provide a good 3D reference for correcting the Revell nose.

 

I wonder if Alistair of A2Zee could be persuaded to do a couple of upper cowl parts to provide another simple drop fit fix...? I accept that Revell should have got it right, especially as they had all the data placed respectfully at their feet, but we are where we are and a correction would certainly make life easier...  I haven't seen any correct the parts without a good explanation of how they move the troughs further apart without affecting the cross section and affecting fit to the side panels...?

 

​By the way, and not wanting to sound patronising, but I think we should congratulate ourselves for having a decent grown up discussion here. The subject invariably stirs emotions and sometimes the threads can look more like a tantrum at a kindergarten... I think we've managed to agree to disagree.

 

Rog, I wish you luck with your three way review. You're a braver man than I. Will this see a break from your no online build policy?

 

Matt

[BradG]

LOL Nick, oh dear, you can always tell you're too close to the truth when people try to silence you, ay?

[Wumm]

There is always another option George...
 

I agree with both Matts and Chris.

But in essence I also agree with all the things said here,

but I also worried a bit about all the griping about the Revell kit. It is here, and yes, like Chris said: if you see something you don't like: fix it.

Don't buy it. After all, as part of the 5%, they don't care what I think.

 

The easiest thing in the world to do, is nothing. I have over a dozen Hasegawa 109G kits in the stash, why would I spend $50 plus Au per Revell kit to replace what I already have in my possesion, that will still need extra work to get them to the standard I enjoy?

 

Where's the incentive?

 

S

[alpinestar]

Matt, good points there. I wasn't trying to preach. I did miss a sentence off my post.

 

The last sentence should have been 'Each to their own'

 

Chris.

[Matt_]

There is one reason to buy a Revell, even if you have 12 (or more) Hasegawas.

 

I like seeing the different engineering and approach - and I suppose to some extent to see where the different errors/fudges/moments of brilliance/moments of insanity etc are....

 

I suppose poor old Revell had their moments of brilliance in areas that are less obvious (undercarriage bays, wheels, cockpit, tail and rudder) whilst their moments of madness were all much more obviously located (prop blades, oil cooler shape, gun troughs, turbo intake and of course the beule).

 

I think Matt (Doogs) has a great point as well. For someone looking to get going with paint and weathering the Hasegawa literally falls together and you can get to your favourite stage pretty quickly. The Revell kit takes a bit more time and effort to get to paint.  I suspect I'll do Hasegawas as quick builds and Revell's as a more involved session. So, for me, both kits fulfil a role depending on my intent and how I'm feeling..

 

I like 'em both to be honest, I'm glad they both exist and I also look forward to the day that Tamiya and/or ZM do one as they'll be different again and fill another niche or two in my fascination for this aircraft.

 

Matt

[Artful69]

​By the way, and not wanting to sound patronising, but I think we should congratulate ourselves for having a decent grown up discussion here. The subject invariably stirs emotions and sometimes the threads can look more like a tantrum at a kindergarten... I think we've managed to agree to disagree.

 

... If I do decide to post online ... this would probably be the place that I would do it ... largely because of the general attitude displayed here - summed up pretty well by your comments. I cannot believe how a simple question about Beaufighter AM, with simple directions on answering, turned into the mess it did on another forum! ...

 

Rog, I wish you luck with your three way review. You're a braver man than I. Will this see a break from your no online build policy?

 

Thank you ... all of the comparissions being thrown around between the manufacturers inspired the idea. I'm no-where near a skilled as you guys (some of the builds posted online amaze me ... and most of those don't even rate in competitions!) ... so it can be a little intimidating. I'm going to 'step back' and do a little research first - flick through a few build threads around the place and see what has been used and where ... buy the necessary AM ... and then employ my simplified skill set as best I can ...

 

I have a New Car arriving soon (mid December) ... so a bit of preparation is going on with that issue atm.

 

Rog

[Mikester]

There is always another option George...

 

Don't buy it. After all, as part of the 5%, they don't care what I think.

 

The easiest thing in the world to do, is nothing. I have over a dozen Hasegawa 109G kits in the stash, why would I spend $50 plus Au per Revell kit to replace what I already have in my possesion, that will still need extra work to get them to the standard I enjoy?

 

Where's the incentive?

 

S

 

The Revell kit does have one big advantage, flexibility.  Although I still prefer my Hasegawa 109's, Revell offering standard and Erla canopies and standard and tall tails in the same box does give you a good deal of lattitude.  If you have enough Hasegawa G-6's and G-14's in the stash you can swap back and forth between kits obviously but not everyone has that advantage.  I think for me whether I continue to buy Revell depends on if some reasonably priced A/M Beule become available.  Most of the other issues I can deal with on my own.

[Mikester]

I agree, Mike. I'm not one of those modellers who buy Messerschmitts by the dozen. I'm really more of a WW1 modeller, since my comeback to modelling. This Bf 109 may be the only one I'll build, plus one more to convert to the Buchon that was converted to a movie-Mustang. After that I'll finish the P 51B as well, so I can display this strange family together. But it is a nice sidestep from WW1 to build some Axis planes - in the stash are the Me 262 A1a, and the 'black cross' Dewoitine. But these Axis planes were an absolute first for me - I've seldom built anything other than WW1 or Allied stuff. So, I'm not a Messerschmitt expert, this was in essence an impulse-buy by a very average modeller.

Having said all that I can also say that I was very surprised at all the controversy this kit has caused. And a bit irritated, to be honest. But I understand this is caused more by the perceived hardmindedness of Revell than by the kit itself. The kit itself does not warrant such abuse, I think. It builds beautifully, is very well engineered and it really is such a pleasure to build that I almost get the same feeling as with a WnW kit... no less ! Yes, the instructions are cheap but 'workable'..., well that's Revell. Yes, the landing gear looks weak indeed ( haven't gotten to that yet ), but most of the other known issues can be fixed by the nice Alleycat upgrade set that's very reasonably priced at 15 GBP...

 

But what bothers me a bit is that I get the feeling that this kit, and the building of it, is not fashionable and 'not done' anymore - at least not on this forum.

Any thoughts on that?

 

George

 

I don't think so, at least I hope not.  I think a lot of what we went through with Group Build/Review is that there was so much pre-release hype about the kit that there was going to be some inevitable let down.  I know I learned some lessons on the one I built that will make the next one easier and already have some ideas that I want to do next time around.

 

I think a lot of what this thread revolves around is that Revell knew there were some issues but decided that it wasn't cost effective to fix them.  In my mind that doesn't make the Revell Gustav horrible, just flawed, and that's true of every kit out there to an extent.

 

When the sales start this kit will be available for under US $20.  That's a hard price to beat and speaking for myself I'll probably buy them at that price and pick up the Allee Cat correction set or one of other sets that will inevitably come along.  It's here to stay and as a 109 fanatic I'll be happy to see it built along with The Hasegawa and Trumpeter kits or anyone else who decides to produce one.

[Drdave]

If anything it's the Trumpeter 109 that's persona non grata, unjustifiably.

[Mikester]

If anything it's the Trumpeter 109 that's persona non grata, unjustifiably.

 

True, some influential people in the hobby have probably given the kit a worse reputation than it really deserves.

 

Accuracy-wise it's probably the weakest of the three though.

[Wumm]

George,

 

I don't think the Revell kit is being unfairly maligned on this or any other site. I see more of the Revell kits being built here than the others. The Revell kit has errors for sure, but does other things better than the 1/32nd scale G-6's from the other two manufacturers. Are we now only allowed to point out the good things, and not the bad? Aren't we allowed to make our own choices, for our own particular circumstances?

 

True, some influential people in the hobby have probably given the kit a worse reputation than it really deserves.

Would they be people involved in the 1/32nd scale Revell Bf109G-6 project Mike? Putting down Trumpeter's offerings, while defending the Revell kit for the same failings? I particularly like the part where Lynn says... "It does not cost any more to do something RIGHT than it does to do it WRONG."

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1349894239/Actually%2C+I+fully+agree+with+you.

Prophetic words indeed!

 

Accuracy-wise it's probably the weakest of the three though.

Not probably, actually. Just look at the angle of the thrust line for starters.

 

I could go on, but it might offend people's sensibilities...

 

S
 

[One-Oh-Four]

George,

 

I don't think the Revell kit is being unfairly maligned on this or any other site. I see more of the Revell kits being built here than the others. The Revell kit has errors for sure, but does other things better than the 1/32nd scale G-6's from the other two manufacturers. Are we now only allowed to point out the good things, and not the bad? Aren't we allowed to make our own choices, for our own particular circumstances?

 

Would they be people involved in the 1/32nd scale Revell Bf109G-6 project Mike? Putting down Trumpeter's offerings, while defending the Revell kit for the same failings? I particularly like the part where Lynn says... "It does not cost any more to do something RIGHT than it does to do it WRONG."

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1349894239/Actually%2C+I+fully+agree+with+you.

Prophetic words indeed!

 

Not probably, actually. Just look at the angle of the thrust line for starters.

 

I could go on, but it might offend people's sensibilities...

 

S

 

 

Not mine, though. I 'd like to hear what's not accurate in a kit, or engineered in an awkward manner. On many sites though, those messages are accompanied with rude remarks about the manufacturer or the unbuildability of the kit in question. That doesn't make for relaxed reading, while I really wish to learn from other people's know-how about the accuracy of a given kit so I can make an informed decision to buy or not to buy or to devise a way to correct it.

 

But yeah, there'll always be people who don't want to discuss the accuracy of a kit. Fortunately they haven't more rights than those who do, so I hope that the beloved rivet-counters will keep us supplied with information about their favourite birds!