Impatient Pete Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 First off let me say that this topic is not about any existing kit. It is an experiment to see what we can do as a modelling "community" to possibly help kit manufacturers make better kits. I realize that that term is very subjective, but lets just stick with what should become the obvious aspect of that loaded term. - "accuracy". So the XXXX XXXXXXXX kit is out and I am seeing discussion on various sites about fuselage length, nose shape, canopy shape, etc. All of the sudden I am seeing detailed posts about nose shape, factory specs, canopy contours, etc. Well, what strikes me about many of the posts is the fact that the information presented in many of the discussions need not to have waited for the release of a new kit to come out. There was an interesting observation about the angle of the exhaust changing between the different versions. That is one specific example (and I really don't want to get into a specific kit discussion). There are countless observations that skilled eyes have made about subtle aspects of shape and detail that others have missed. What I want to do is establish a pool of information and observations about a particular subject that model manufacturers could go to when considering a subject for investment. This info would need to be documentable (or documented) and repeatable, ie: not "I heard once that they did that because...". So here's the deal. Would it be an interesting experiment to "play make-believe" that we are designing a kit and doing research on a specific airframe? Would it be fun to step deep into the world of aviation model design and uncover everything we can about a particular subject but, and here's the kicker, BEFORE a company invests the rediculous amount of money in molds? This came about after seeing discussions about subjects exploding after the realease of new kits. All of the sudden, it seems, the experts come out of the woodwork with reams of golden info. So the first thing to do would be to pick an airframe. My list of criteria would be something along the lines of: -no existing kit released or announced- (or a new tool would be viable) -marketable subject- (sorry here but this is still the real world and I'm sure there will be some debate here) -let's keep it simple- What do you think, Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 My vote would be the F11F Tiger in 1/48 scale. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Impatient Pete Posted February 18, 2007 Author Share Posted February 18, 2007 Hoooolly crap! You read my mind. That's 2 for the Tiger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Now that you mention it, that would be a good one.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kenlilly106 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 My choice is a new tool 1/48 F-100 family, surprised that no one has touched this subject, considering the best kit in the line is around 25 years old and represents only one variant. I think the fuselage is the same length for an F-100C and an F-100D, so all you'd need would be different wings and a tail, and to get the F-100F, all you'd need would be a new fuselage. (of course there may be some minor changes 'lump&bumps' and all that, I'm talking about major differences a la the way the Hasegawa F-4 series is broken down) As far as market goes, you've got USAF, Taiwanese, Turkish, Danish, French and probably some other ones I've forgotten, so I think it would sell overseas as well as domestically. It's a well documented airframe, with lots of examples out there to measure, and for the USAF birds, they had some very colorful markings to boot. And finally, look at the amount of aftermarket resin/pe/decals for this kit, there's a big market out there for it. Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 MiG-23. MiG-23. MiG-23. The MiG-23. Before I die, please. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
j-fever Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 My vote.. F-11F tiger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kstater94 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Do new tools count? If so, I'd like to see a new tool (and accurate) 1/48 F-4B/N and F-4C/D Otherwise, I agree with Ken A new line of 1/48 scale F-100's would be great (BTW Ken, the F-100D is actually longer than the C... but I still want to see an F-100C!!) Cheers! John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kenlilly106 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 >snip< (BTW Ken, the F-100D is actually longer than the C... but I still want to see an F-100C!!) That would explain why we haven't seen one, you'd have to tool a new fuselage, wing and tail if you wanted to do a C, you might be able to get by with putting the common parts together on one sprue, but that still means a lot of $$ in terms of tooling costs. I'd just like to see an 1/48 F-100 kit on the market that's not almost as old as I am :) Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
afterburner Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 (edited) I'll also chime in on the F11F, A new MiG-23 or 27 would be nice as well. BTW, Pete- I think this is an awesome idea. I'd like to think that the industry watchdogs keep an eye on the forums for research, product review, etc... gotta keep this one going. What's next; decide the kit and go from there? Edited February 19, 2007 by afterburner Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Impatient Pete Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 Yep AB. The next step is to decide the kit and go from there. So far, I would have to say that the F-100 is a good choice, though my heart lies closer to the F-11F. Something in the MiG family would also be great. How about a Mig 17 or MiG 25? Both great subjects that are lacking. And boy, what about the Phantom family (though I think that the quality of the Hasegawa kits is pretty high, maybe only because I have not studied them) ? Let's keep the nominations going for awhile... Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites
trojansamurai Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 My nominations are a 1/48 MiG-23/27 series and Saab Draken series. Now, a little discussion on accuracy... One thing to remember is that a model kit is an interpretation, or even a caricature of the real thing. If you had a shrinking maching and took a real aircraft and shrunk it down to 1/48 or 1/72, it would be dimensionally accurate, but it might not capture the essence of the real thing. Tamiya even admits to exaggerating or de-emphasizing certain features to make a scale model "look better." On cars, for instance, Tamiya will make the bodies with a wider and lower stance to make them look sportier. With an F-14 Tomcat, the most obvious characteristic is its cobra-like craned forward fuselage and a tail that sits low, so they exaggerate the bend in the fuselage and posture to make it more "Tomcat-like." If you compared it against scale drawings, it would be slightly off, but the model actually looks cooler and more aggressive because they made those exaggerations. This is not to say that manufacturers, including Tamiya, don't occasionally make mistakes, or the final product somehow just doesn't look right. But whipping out scale drawings every time you open a new kit may not be the right way to approach the hobby. I feel it's better to build the model and then determine whether or not it matches YOUR perception (not someone else's) of what the real thing looks like, rather than to judge it by how closely it matches drawings (which, by the way, are also interpretations by the illustrators). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sabre F-86 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Banshee! Sabre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Impatient Pete Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 My nominations are a 1/48 MiG-23/27 series and Saab Draken series. Now, a little discussion on accuracy... One thing to remember is that a model kit is an interpretation, or even a caricature of the real thing. If you had a shrinking maching and took a real aircraft and shrunk it down to 1/48 or 1/72, it would be dimensionally accurate, but it might not capture the essence of the real thing. Tamiya even admits to exaggerating or de-emphasizing certain features to make a scale model "look better." On cars, for instance, Tamiya will make the bodies with a wider and lower stance to make them look sportier. With an F-14 Tomcat, the most obvious characteristic is its cobra-like craned forward fuselage and a tail that sits low, so they exaggerate the bend in the fuselage and posture to make it more "Tomcat-like." If you compared it against scale drawings, it would be slightly off, but the model actually looks cooler and more aggressive because they made those exaggerations. This is not to say that manufacturers, including Tamiya, don't occasionally make mistakes, or the final product somehow just doesn't look right. But whipping out scale drawings every time you open a new kit may not be the right way to approach the hobby. I feel it's better to build the model and then determine whether or not it matches YOUR perception (not someone else's) of what the real thing looks like, rather than to judge it by how closely it matches drawings (which, by the way, are also interpretations by the illustrators). Very true. I gave an example once in a discussion on accuracy where...oh wait, I'll go find it and post it: Here it is: "The head of the model department at the school I attend (the dude has a loooong resume as a professional model maker for various corporations and toy makers) has a model of a Jaguar something or other in his office. It is a primed resin casting and the thing looks really sweet. I asked him about it one day and he told me that the model was created by a company that actually scanned a real Jag with a 3D scanner (laser I presume) and used that to create a CAD model and then used rapid prototyping with the CAD file to make the model. And get this: The model didn't "look right" and had to be tweaked to be "innacurate" so that it would "look right"! He explained that as you change the size of the object, you change all of the viewing angles and the perspective viewpoints. I found it very interesting." I've never been a believer in comparing kits to drawings. I am more of a "if it looks right..." guy. Where I do believe that research and kit design/enginerring plays the biggest role is in the accuracy of details that have been conciously included in a kits design, or in obvious features. I think that the best guide in dealing with these areas are: First hand measurements Photos (preferably taken first hand accompanied by notes) A trained eye Original drawings based on observation and documentation Some examples might be kits where there are obvious errors that would have been avoided by simply looking at pictures of a type. Now, and this is very important, decisions to move ahead in production process may be made by people to whom "accuracy" is not the sole motivator. If your accountant is telling you that you need to get the kit to market or you won't be around to celebrate next Christmas, you may tell your CAD modeller to go ahead and wrap up the work he's doing on the CAD model. Whether or not he is satisfied with the shape of the rear third of the bottom of the cowling or not! CAD modelling can be tough and you can't always just go back and fix things that you screwed up in earlier stages of a project. A realization of an error in shape that would result in changes to the model (CAD) or tooling could be out of the question. That is the whole purpose of this exercise. To pick a subject and then prepare a "briefing" of sorts that would help a kit designer to make sure that all areas or details that might require special attention. Then to provide a knowledge base that would guide the designer through the actual model construction. I guess that this is usualy done by a sole individual for a given project, but I thought it might be intersting to pool resources and really cover one subject to death. Here is a little work I did before on one of the nominees. this is from last year when I was just learning ALIAS: Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madmike Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 F-11F gets my vote too. MikeJ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikar Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 The F-106B with a gun pod option, TF-102, F-100F Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Martinsson Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I would vote for the Saab J35 Draken as there is no kit of this a/c at all (not counting the Lindbergh stuff). It is attractive, a very early double delta configuration, it served in several countries and wore many interesting paint schemes. Martin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt_S Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I'd like to see a 1/48 F-5E, Mig-23/27, F-84F (New tool). Matt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ThePhantomTwo Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Most of my picks are stated above but I'd live to see a F-86A and E that you can build right out of the box,can't believe one has never been done(I don't count the old Lindberg kit). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tiger27 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I'd like to see a Tamiya or Hasegawa tooling of the F-5/T-38 series. And I'm talking F-5 A/B/RF Freedom Fighter F-5 E/F Tiger II AT-38 Talon T-38 A/C Talon How many nations have used/uses a variant of the F-5/T-38 series I have no idea, but we are talking 15-20 that I can list from memory. There has been some atempts the last cupple of years, but those have been lightyears from what I accept as a decent kit. Classic airframes and Sword has done some, but like said these are a shot in the right direction but miles away from the bullseye. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pollie Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 1/72: MiG-23BN/MF/ML/MLD/UB, MiG-21MF/UM, F-16E/F, F-5F, AMX/-T, PC-9, Super Tucano 1/48: MiG-23BN/MF/ML/MLD/UB, F-16E/F, N/R/F-5A/B, F-5F, Su-24 1/32: MiG-23BN/MF/ML/MLD/UB, Su-25/UB, N/R/F-5A/B, G-91 I'll stop here because there are many more that have not been done in one of the three scales mentioned above and would sell big time............ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Kethan Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I'd really like to see a 1/48 P-3C. I could really go to town detailing that one. There were quite alot of countries that flew it and the High Viz schemes from the 70's & 80's were really colorful. Since a 1/48 skypig will NEVER happen, a F11F would be really cool. Or maybe a F7U Cutlass. Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I'd really like to see a 1/48 P-3C. That would be a great project. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Soom imaginative and excellent choices. I'll toss the North American P/F-82 in 1:48 and 1:32 into the fray. Merlin and Allison options would be v. nice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul T Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 (edited) Still missing or need new tooling in 1/48- North American F-100 Super Sabre family (A/B/C/D/F) (new tooling) - for sure a best seller - Saab J-35 Draken family - attractive, several interesting camo style - MiG-23/27 "Flogger" family (new tooling) - a lot of scheme, camo etc - Yak-27/28 "Brewer" family - that was once upon a time the standard soviet fighter-bomber - Ilyushin IL-28 "Beagle" family - that was once upon a time the standard soviet light-bomber - Supermarine Scimitar - a perfect subject for Classic Airframes - Gloster Javelin - a perfect subject for Classic airframes - Grumman HU-/SA-16 Albatros family (no RHVP kit at over 250 $ or 200 Euro!) - the type was on use with so several countries and services - a lot of attractive schemes - MDBA Alpha Jet A/E/B family (new tooling) - AMX /T etc. What he said......would be a very good start ,but would like to add a Yak-25 and man, please a 1/48 DRAKEN and JAVELIN as mentioned !! Javelin would indeed be up Classic Aiframes alley. paul T Edited February 19, 2007 by Paul T Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.