Upcoming 1/32 Revell Bf 109G-6..?

[Wumm]

Price is another thing entirely...

 

Price to a modeller in Europe, for a kit manufactured in Europe, has no bearing on what others might pay in the rest of the world.

Something that is always bugging me is this:
On forums people are eager to point out terminal errors on a new kit. Manufacturers can never do good. Even Tamiya
Has aftermarket sets thrown upon them. But how many people who cry out about defects are in fact " experts". Or
Even build the thing.
 

Something that bugs me about Forums... Why are they always full of people who want to censor other's opinions, simply because they don't happen to agree? Especially when that opinion is given because someone asked for it in a discussion Forum, as in this case with the Original Poster?

 

S

[Wingco57]

Fair enough, because forums are always full of people slagging off model kits. I just like to see discussions balanced. Sorry, that's just me.

Differences if opinion are great for discussion.

 

It's not that I don't gree. It's the general state of things that as soon as test shots are released, these kits are put underneath

A magnefying glass and everything is scrutinised. What I would like to see is proof that the spinner is not correct, using photo's

Drawings or the original designers pencil. As opposed to (taken generally not aimed at anyone) stating something isn't correct without knowing what.

 

Cees

[LindsayT]

Actual sincere question here: what are the qualifications of the "experts" who discuss the accuracy of a kit? Maybe not in the sense of having done a PhD on Messerschmitt construction techniques, but have actual intimate first hand knowledge of the surviving machines? I really don't want to belittle those that discuss the minutiae of the aircraft, I just want to genuinely know where their knowledge comes from.

 

Lindsay

[Guest styrenedemon]

Actual sincere question here: what are the qualifications of the "experts" who discuss the accuracy of a kit? Maybe not in the sense of having done a PhD on Messerschmitt construction techniques, but have actual intimate first hand knowledge of the surviving machines? I really don't want to belittle those that discuss the minutiae of the aircraft, I just want to genuinely know where their knowledge comes from.

 

Lindsay

 

A couple of Squadron books, some distorted "scale drawings" on a computer screen that were photographed out of said book with a 2.1 megapixel cell phone camera and further distorted by photoshop and an encyclopedic knowledge of what they've read by other "experts" on forums (mostly on ARC: A__hole Rivet Counters)

[beaz]

You guys are onto something here. Personally the people I consider the true experts on any given modeling forum are the ones with the most impressive and frequent builds. After all, it's a modeling forum, right? If the primary idea of a modeling forum isn't building models, then what use is it? And who do these guys putting themselves out there as "experts" but never seem to finish any builds think they're kidding?

 

What I love about this forum and a very small number of others like it is that the focus is on building models by people who are actually building models with a positive "just do it" kind of attitude and an unusually high level of skill and craftsmanship, no matter what the "experts" are pontificating about at the other forums.

 

What really seals it for me is on the rare occasion one of these negative "experts" tries to actually build something, it invariably looks like complete crap. "The kit cockpit was so inaccurate in every way that I decided to scratch build it out of something that now looks like popsicle sticks and bubblegum dipped into a can of house paint..."

[nmayhew]

A couple of Squadron books, some distorted "scale drawings" on a computer screen that were photographed out of said book with a 2.1 megapixel cell phone camera and further distorted by photoshop and an encyclopedic knowledge of what they've read by other "experts" on forums (mostly on ARC: A__hole Rivet Counters)

That's a bit cheeky to say that in this thread when Steve has already I think provided precise measurements and sources

[nmayhew]

You guys are onto something here. Personally the people I consider the true experts on any given modeling forum are the ones with the most impressive and frequent builds. After all, it's a modeling forum, right? If the primary idea of a modeling forum isn't building models, then what use is it? And who do these guys putting themselves out there as "experts" but never seem to finish any builds think they're kidding?

 

What I love about this forum and a very small number of others like it is the focus is on building models by people who are actually building models with a positive "just do it" kind of attitude and an unusually high level of skill and craftsmanship, no matter what the "experts" are pontificating about at the other forums.

 

What really seals it for me is on the rare occasion one of these negative "experts" tries to actually build something, it invariably looks like complete crap. "The kit cockpit was so inaccurate in every way that I decided to scratch build it out of something that now looks like popsicle sticks and bubblegum dipped into a can of house paint..."

Your opinion, and I respect it, but personally I could not disagree more.

 

I don't care how many kits someone churns out, or how many magazines they've been published in, or how many test shots they get early, and how many 'how to build the xyz...' books they publish..,they doesn't mean they know jack $h*% about the actual subject matter.

 

They may well do, but the former does not necessarily mean the latter.

 

Of course be happy to 'just build'; but keep in mind there are many (and some on here) for whom technical accuracy and background research is just as if not more interesting and important.

 

[Guest styrenedemon]

I really don't mean anything by my comments. I just like making models. Sometimes I may feel like "correcting" things and other times I don't. I just don't want to made to feel stupid because I build an "incorrect" kit. Sometimes when these debates come up the accuracy defenders come across as if they are implying guys like me are stupid for not knowing something is wrong and even more so for not fixing it once they tell us.

[Wingco57]

Great opinions, keep them coming.

Cees

[Grant]

I kinda agree with Styrene here - look what happened to the Revell Hs219 ... everyone was so excited about its arrival then some became so worked up about a millimetre here or there or a degree's difference in angle there that no one wanted to build it until ZM's was launched for comparison.  

If you like the look of a model, or the type of aircraft and you see one that you want, buy it and build it.  Surely the discussion should be about the quality of manufacture and not a millimetre's difference that the majority wouldn't notice nor care about really.

[Guest styrenedemon]

This.

 

Dimensional accuracy matters, sure. But so does level of detail. So does the way the kit is engineered, and whether the styrene is molded with sufficient precision to back up ambitious engineering with excellent fit.

 

In my experience, it seems the first and then the second get tons of attention, with little paid to inspired engineering or precise fit.

 

Yes. I'd rather build a kit that falls together and has some minor inaccuracies than labor at the perfectly shaped kit.

[Grant]

I agree Matt, in fact that's part of what I was saying .. the discussion (and the manufacturers processes) ought to be about the quality of the kit overall, it's fit and it's manufacturing standard etc. Not necessarily the minute detail which the buffs, who really do know their subject, the accuracy or otherwise of a kit, can in certain circumstances make those modellers who don't make that aspect a priority when deciding what to buy and build, feel like ignoramuses.

 

On the other "LS" forum, one person who tried to highlight the pro's and con's of the then newly released Revell He-219 was so hounded by members who do place accuracy above all else that he was eventually "forced" to stop posting any of his observations for fear of being shouted down. He's now a member here and is a builder who knows his stuff and one who I respect for his skills.

 

Know you subject yes, but allow others to have the option to buy and build their model of choice without being made to feel silly - this, I believe is where Styrenedemon was coming from and I agree with him.

[nmayhew]

On the other "LS" forum, one person who tried to highlight the pro's and con's of the then newly released Revell He-219 was so hounded by members who do place accuracy above all else that he was eventually "forced" to stop posting any of his observations for fear of being shouted down. He's now a member here and is a builder who knows his stuff and one who I respect for his skills.

.

 

Ok, with respect, that's not what happened.

There were a few tantrums (on both sides) and people then chilled out.

And the thread went on.

And in a very constructive manner.

That thread on LSP is one of their benchmark pieces IMHO.

[Grant]

I disagree Nick, Iain was encouraged to continue only after many people PM'd him (I was one along with LSP Kev) and asked him to reconsider withdrawing from the thread completely.  His review of his UHU was, as you say, very constructive but at its height the criticism he received for an honest appraisal was so vindictive as to be unsavoury to say the least.  For some reason, some quarters then took it that he was being particularly anti-Revell which was not the case at all.  That person was asked to rein in both their comments and aggressive style whereafter, I believe, the thread continued.  Tantrums were not apparent to me, Iain reacted with dignity to a particularly aggressive attack on his appraisal; he didn't lash out, he merely stated his intent to stop.  Once the criticisms became less viscous and more levelled the thread continued.

[Wumm]

Some points...

 

Know you subject yes, but allow others to have the option to buy and build their model of choice without being made to feel silly - this, I believe is where Styrenedemon was coming from and I agree with him.

If you're part of the "just build it" crowd, no-one's making you feel silly. If you don't want to take part in a thread like this, discussing the merits of a particular kit, then don't read it. Be happy in your ignorance, embrace it. Build it however you want.

 

What really seals it for me is on the rare occasion one of these negative "experts" tries to actually build something, it invariably looks like complete crap. "The kit cockpit was so inaccurate in every way that I decided to scratch build it out of something that now looks like popsicle sticks and bubblegum dipped into a can of house paint..."

Rather than chip in with insults. Ever notice how those you deride as "experts" never seem to pile on like the "just build it" crowd? Never seem to want to deny you your point of view, simply because they don't agree?

 

Build it however you want... But please don't deny my right to do the same.

 

S

[Wumm]

And another perspective...

 

Actual sincere question here: what are the qualifications of the "experts" who discuss the accuracy of a kit? Maybe not in the sense of having done a PhD on Messerschmitt construction techniques, but have actual intimate first hand knowledge of the surviving machines? I really don't want to belittle those that discuss the minutiae of the aircraft, I just want to genuinely know where their knowledge comes from.

Lindsay

Let's look at Brett Green shall we? Site owner of Hyperscale, experienced modeller, published author. Even with titles on the Bf109 http://www.tower.com/augsburgs-last-eagles-brett-green-paperback/wapi/117194150

 

Chosen By Revell to write a "How to" guide on this very kit. Knows a bit about the Bf109. Here's an excerpt from his recent review and build of the Revell test sprues:

 

"There are a number of areas that could have been done better. The characteristic cowl bulges are undernourished and do not appear to carry far enough to the top of the fuselage; the circular front of the supercharger intake is thin and some details are absent; the sides of the oil cooler housing lack the curves of the original; the propeller blade shape is not quite right, while the small cowl scoops and exhaust ejectors are moulded solid. The shapes of the 300 litre drop tank and ETC rack have not been captured perfectly either."

 

These are not my words: they're his, although they mirror some of my concerns. Add to this the port-side cockpit vent, and the inexplicable join on the spinner that must be filled and then re-scribed lower down to look anywhere half-decent.

 

I never at any stage said that this kit was fatally flawed, or was un-buildable. But it has many simple errors that should not have been made; given the wealth of references available, the criticisms of the Hasegawa kits that have been around for a dozen years, and the anticipation of many in the hobby that this was going to be somehow different than all of the other large-scale late Bf109 offerings available to the market that have yet fallen short in some form or another.

 

S

[Mikester]

And another perspective...

 

Let's look at Brett Green shall we? Site owner of Hyperscale, experienced modeller, published author. Even with titles on the Bf109 http://www.tower.com/augsburgs-last-eagles-brett-green-paperback/wapi/117194150

 

Chosen By Revell to write a "How to" guide on this very kit. Knows a bit about the Bf109. Here's an excerpt from his recent review and build of the Revell test sprues:

 

"There are a number of areas that could have been done better. The characteristic cowl bulges are undernourished and do not appear to carry far enough to the top of the fuselage; the circular front of the supercharger intake is thin and some details are absent; the sides of the oil cooler housing lack the curves of the original; the propeller blade shape is not quite right, while the small cowl scoops and exhaust ejectors are moulded solid. The shapes of the 300 litre drop tank and ETC rack have not been captured perfectly either."

 

These are not my words: they're his, although they mirror some of my concerns. Add to this the port-side cockpit vent, and the inexplicable join on the spinner that must be filled and then re-scribed lower down to look anywhere half-decent.

 

I never at any stage said that this kit was fatally flawed, or was un-buildable. But it has many simple errors that should not have been made; given the wealth of references available, the criticisms of the Hasegawa kits that have been around for a dozen years, and the anticipation of many in the hobby that this was going to be somehow different than all of the other large-scale late Bf109 offerings available to the market that have yet fallen short in some form or another.

 

S

 

I'm with you here, Steve.  This is not an obscure aircraft, really hard to see how obvious things get done wrong.  I'll be more forgiving on subjects like the He 219, but with this one there really aren't any valid excuses.

[Grant]

Steve, you've quoted my comments completely out of context and replied with exactly the type of input I was talking about .. "Be happy in your ignorance, embrace it" ???  - thank you.

[Wumm]

Grant,

 

Firstly, there's no need to take things so personally. You've completely missed the point of my post...

Steve, you've quoted my comments completely out of context and replied with exactly the type of input I was talking about .. "Be happy in your ignorance, embrace it" ???  - thank you.

 

Secondly, you brought ignorance into the conversation, not I...

I agree Matt, in fact that's part of what I was saying .. the discussion (and the manufacturers processes) ought to be about the quality of the kit overall, it's fit and it's manufacturing standard etc. Not necessarily the minute detail which the buffs, who really do know their subject, the accuracy or otherwise of a kit, can in certain circumstances make those modellers who don't make that aspect a priority when deciding what to buy and build, feel like ignoramuses.

Perhaps I can be a little more clear... "Be happy in your ignorance of the the flaws that others may find in the kit, and embrace the kit and build it as you so desire."

 

Thirdly,  you seem yourself to be guilty of the crimes you accuse myself and others of... Hounding others because their values don't match yours.

 

S

[Grant]

I'm not sure on what basis you've arrived at your third point but, we're not going to agree Steve so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[benjaminsummerfield]

Yeah let's knock this on the head now, this is the reason a lot of people left other forums and came here.

 

Spread the love maaaan

[Wingco57]

Chaps,

 

There is nothing wrong discussing this topic, as long as it is done in a civilized matter. We can all learn from the pros and cons of this

very sensitive subject. I know I stirred this topic up a bit but just to get a sound discussion. A heated debate is not a bad thing as long

as we all contribute as a team, and leave the ego's temporarily outside.

 

So if the Revell 109 is not the definitive kit, what are the main anomalies to the original. Problem is that many 109's on show are restored

and that can be a disadvantage sometimes. Apart from that during service a lot of airframes had non-standard fittings. Forced by

unavailability or the personal wish of the pilot, who knows. When I was researching the Halifax I sought a certain standard that I could

use for my project, I couldn't find any as most airframes differ from one machine to another. I was puzzled.

 

The Heinkel 219 thread that was referred to was a good one where pics were posted to compare with the kit. That way a balanced understanding

of the kit is created that we all can learn from, and especially enjoy. Everybody is entitled to build a kit as he/she wishes but to better

understand the subject graphic images can support the debate. And it is fun to read, I know I do.

Cees

[Wumm]

It's about respect Grant...

 

I'm not sure on what basis you've arrived at your third point but, we're not going to agree Steve so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

The question posed by the Original Poster, goes to the quality of this new kit being released.

 

Plenty chimed in with "it looks good" comments, but as I have a little background knowledge of the subject I offered a bit of balance to the equation. Some of the errors I had pointed out were even later highlighted by the person Revell have selected to produce a detailed publication on how to build said kit.

 

To date on this thread, no-one has disputed any of the errors I have pointed out, that go to the O/P's question. Instead, we've been treated to insults about "experts", the quality of their model building skill sets, the never-ending cries of the "just build it" crowd to just be happy with whatever the manufacturers slide our way, and an example put forward by you of how another person's opinion was hijacked on another Forum because someone didn't respect his opinion. Are you getting the correlation yet?

 

Sorry to upset the spirit of the Forum, just thought some of you might be interested in actually discussing the topic at hand...

 

S

[nmayhew]

Demon,

With respect, we do not say that a member has to make x number of posts to comment on something, and neither should you.

And if you really have been through Steve's posts on this and other forums, you would know that despite being somewhat 'spikey', he is one of the most helpful guys I have come across.

I really mean that.

Let's ALL dial it down a bit and chill.

Nick

[Iain Ogilvie]

Erm - I popped over here hoping to find a community where everyone kinda got on and worked together - helping each other out and not throwing rocks at each other because we have varying views of what constitutes a good model.

 

For heavens sake - this is supposed to be a relaxing hobby - I see enough angst in my day job...

 

Iain