Hobby Boss SLUF

[Flyingfortress]

I'm no rivet counter,but what percentage of modelers actually measure scale to this degree? I mean, the canopy is LESS then one inch incorrect real scale, the fuselage is 5 inches too wide. If you built this model,would you really see the size difference or is this guy the poster child of rivet counters? I'm just curious.

http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/reviews/kit...3reviewsb_1.htm

[galileo1]

I'm no rivet counter,but what percentage of modelers actually measure scale to this degree? I mean, the canopy is LESS then one inch incorrect real scale, the fuselage is 5 inches too wide. If you built this model,would you really see the size difference or is this guy the poster child of rivet counters? I'm just curious.

What's wrong with wanting a bit of accuracy on a kit, especially with the prices model companies and importers charge nowadays? If you happen to have missed it, he clearly states in the review that if you like the kit the way it is then good for you! If you like kits like this then that's your choice. Let others have theirs...

Rob

Edited January 6, 2010 by TOPGUN

[Sabre Freak]

...

Edited February 26, 2010 by Sabre Freak

[Reddog]

If most of the dimensions are a little off the aircraft will not look correct. I looked at that review and the nose does not look correct, even if it's only a few millimeters off.

And the weapons are useless, unless you want to do cartoon verison of them.

Reddog

Edited January 6, 2010 by Reddog

[Rex]

I don't think I will ever understand why a person bothers to do a review, anymore.

but, as consumers, don't we want to know if a kit has "area rule" introduced on a plane that shouldn't have any?,,,,,or the opposite,,,,no area rule where it should be? That is what the cockpit being too wide is going to look like

I have the 1/72 version of that molding,,,,,the TA-7C,,,,,,,to me, the nose is what made me shelve the 2 I bought,,,,until I figure out how to approach that "F-100" look it has,,,,,,wouldn't people be mentioning it all over the web if the F-100 kits had an "F-8 or A-7" shaped intake?

one of the popular things to say on the web has been "we need a new tool ________",,,,,okay,,,,,,,why? If every kit "looks like a __________", there must not be any reason for needing a new tool. The same goes for the "what is the best _________",,,,,there is no best, if they are all good.

We know that almost every modeler has a favorite molding in their scale of the planes they know about. For example, I know that no one will give me Hasegawa or Fujimi prices for my 1/72 Revell or very old Hasegawa moldings of the F-4.

The bottom line is,,,,,,,it's your money,,,,,,,if it's good enough for you,,,,,,buy it, and build it,,,,,,,,the rivet counters won't come and get you. But, for those of us waiting for a better version of an aircraft,,,,,,,it's helpful to know what we will be getting. And this is not some "anti brand rant",,,,,,I don't like having to scrape that wedge plate off of every Hasegawa F-4B or J that I build, just because it's molded on for the AF versions

in the spirit of pointing out a fix for a perceived flaw,,,,,,,,the 1/72 fix is to take the canopy and nose pieces from Fujimi and/or the Falcon conversion to fix my 2,,,,,when I get ready to tackle that. There must be some similar "garage sale" kit in 1/48

posting a review doesn't hurt a "looks like a" modeler at all,,,,,,but, no reviews could impact the "rivet counting builder",,,,,,,and by the way,,,,,,,all these sites were founded on providing kit reviews,,,,even if the current thinking seems to be "why aren't they just ads for new releases"

added: and Fortress,,,,,,if a person is only building one plane to put on a shelf with a bunch of other "one of each" builds,,,,,,that nose might not be a big deal,,,,,,,it would sure show up on a shelf of 5 SLUFs parked next to each other, though

Edited January 6, 2010 by Rex

[skyhawk174]

From what I read and saw in Scotty's review there is the drastic evidence that the front of the kit looks odd. If you love the A-7, like I do, shape matters. To me the thing that makes the A-7 what it is, is that honking big intake with the cockpit above it. Looks mean. With the squished look to the canopy and intake, it now looks simply sad.

I agree that length issues may be hard to notice but shape is a different matter all together. When these kits were announced in 1/72, all we saw was box art. Until the kits came out, I was excited. Well not anymore. I am sticking with my Hasegawa kits and hope someday someone will issue a conversion kit to produce early A-7s. Yeah, I know CE had some but as you know that is OOP.

[Ben Brown]

In this day and age, with the "wonders" of CAD, one should expect to get a reasonably accurate kit for the amount of money they're being asked to spend on them. A lot of the goofs are very obvious and could have been avoided if somebody had just bothered to compare the CAD drawings with a photo. The intake (amoung other things) on Trump's F-100 kits, the Vigilante canopy area, the A-7's intake and canopy, etc., would probably not have been as screwed up as they are, if somebody had just looked past their CAD drawings at a photo or two. Its not just Trumpeter/Hobby Boss. Look at Revell's 1/32 F-4E from a few years ago. Anyone with a photo of the real thing could see the kit's radome was screwed up. Maybe they all need to go back to the old school, and get the likes of Bill Koster to teach them how to research and design model kits the old fashioned way. Most of Monogram's 1/48 kits from the '70s and '80s are a hell of a lot more accurate than their "replacements" (F-105s, anyone?).

I also don't buy the "they're behind the Iron Firewall" excuse. I know at least two people who were communicating directly with one of the gentlemen mentioned in the Cybermodeler article, and the subjects they were "researching" still had problems. It's sure as hell not a lack of data, it's a lack of willingness or ability to get it right.

Ben

Edited January 6, 2010 by Ben Brown

[Two Mikes]

Lets see

Scotty is one of the most respected modelers I have ever met. He was once THE master patttern maker at Cutting Edge and the fact is, he is a smart guy who loves accuracy. Was he supposed to sugarcoat the review or do we as modelers expect a well written, honest and harsh review where it counts? He also noted some positives about the kit as well. He also showed evidence where the kit is messed up and compared it to an otherwise accurte Hasegawa offering. To me the differences were obvious.

Bottom line is, I trust his review because he has the chops to back it up. Rivet Counter or not, he did a fair assessment of a kit HE bought. It was not given to him as a review sample where some folks feel there is an expectation for a good review. I think it speaks volumes about someone who has spent their hard earned money on a product, found faluts with it and told us about those faults. He saved me some money.

Also, I don't think it is fair to bash a guy because "you" can't see the faults or they arent important to "you". To many others these things are important especially in this day and age of $75.00 - $100.00 + 1/48 models! I sure as heck want to know what I am getting into if I decide to buy a kit. A good review, written by a competent reviewer that is fair and balanced is something I rely on when I decide to buy or not buy a product.

Cheers

Mike

[Rex]

fair enough,,,,,,I may have answered the wrong question

"depends on the scale, and which part it is",,,,,,,,call that 5 inches "almost 6 inches" for this,,,,,just to make the math easier

In that kit's scale,,,,,that's nearly 1/8 inch wider than it should be, to someone that actually used to sort boards by sight,,,,,I "see" that difference (and that is a far smaller "difference" between pieces as a percentage)

does everyone, modeler or not?,,,,,,I don't know,,,,,but if it changes the shape, it would show

[Laurent]

Geez guys,I wasn't bashing anyone. I just asked if 5 inches on a full size aircraft can be seen on a scaled down version of the same aircraft.

I think so. Those 5 inches aren't alone, there are other dimensions to take into account when looking at something: models are a compilation of surfaces and volumes. 2D and 3D objects have a shapes and proportions. A 5in x 4in shape is a rectangle, not a square.

[Julien (UK)]

I thiought it was a good review, loads of pics to back things up.

I was waiting for the E, might source a has kit now.

Julien

[Gene K]

... is this guy the poster child of rivet counters?

I guess if you consider being a rivet counter a badge of honor (as I do), then yes, he is, or could be, "our" poster child.

I certainly agree with Laurent that the 5 inches can't be considered in isolation from the rest of the "mismeasurements" that contribute to the shape problems.

Gene K

[Av8fan]

Sorry Post editied.

It really wasnt going to help

Edited January 6, 2010 by Av8fan

[loftycomfort]

I'm no rivet counter,but what percentage of modelers actually measure scale to this degree? I mean, the canopy is LESS then one inch incorrect real scale, the fuselage is 5 inches too wide. If you built this model,would you really see the size difference or is this guy the poster child of rivet counters? I'm just curious.

http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/reviews/kit...3reviewsb_1.htm

Ok, I consider myself a semi-AMS modeler, and here's my take on this accuracy topic.

First I have to acknowledge that some of the blatant shape problems really do bother me. Examples are the SLUF's intake, and the 1/32 Flanker's canopy and nose. I fully appreciate why people demand manufacturers to do proper research especially since they charge that much for their kits.

Do I wish they were more accurate. Of course I do. But ultimately, if the kit really interests me, I'll look past the errors and still buy it despite its problems. Some may say that really just encourages kit makers to keep pushing out inaccurate kits. Their argument is if people still buy these kits, there's no incentive for the manufacturers to improve the quality of their research. This may be true to some extend, but let's hear my angle on this.

Model companies are businesses. Just like any businesses, they must listen to their customers. Any business owner will tell you that it is always easier to make money from existing customers than from new prospects. Hence a model company, like any other business, must listen to their existing customers more than those who haven't bought from them (or have bought very little) yet. Sure I'm just one guy who has bought a lot of inaccurate kits and you call me naive, but I'm hoping that when a manufacturer like Trumpeter/hobbyboss listens to modelers demanding more accurate kits, it will pay more attention to those have spent more money on them.

So what do I do with my stash of inaccurate kits, you ask? Simple. I build them.

My 2 cents.

Terry

Edited January 6, 2010 by loftycomfort

[Zactoman]

If most of the dimensions are a little off the aircraft will not look correct. I looked at that review and the nose does not look correct, even if it's only a few millimeters off.

Agreed.

Here's the difference in a millimeter here and there (1/32 kits):

Or how about 1/2mm here, 1/4mm there:

Subtle, but completely different...

[Pommie Commie]

Hi

The comparison pictures on HS between HAS and HB are far more dramatic than the Zactoman comparisons. (not knocking Zacto conversion, just the fact that HB vs HAS is far more obvious)

Strangely,you don't notice the long fuselage as much as the pinched canopy. The intake somewhere between the two........

Cheers

paul in NZ

[Laurent]

But ultimately, if the kit really interests me, I'll look past the errors and still buy it despite its problems.

That could be related to subjectivity. When one compares two unbuilt kits parts, the differences may be striking. When the kits are actually built, the differences may not be that striking anymore: the eyes (well, the brain behind them in fact) may be more attracted by the nice paint job and detailing and forget the inaccuracies. The shape problems are still there but they may not appear as critical as they did when the kit wasn't built yet.

[loftycomfort]

When the kits are actually built, the differences may not be that striking anymore: the eyes (well, the brain behind them in fact) may be more attracted by the nice paint job and detailing and forget the inaccuracies.

Very good point, and I know it has happened - I built the 1/32 SLUF without any of Zacto's correction set (they weren't available then), and managed to snag a gold medal in a contest.

Terry

[Fuji]

Gotta admit, while I am often in the good enough is good enough camp, its usually with aircraft I am not very knowledgeable about. Having a good friend that flew Corsairs and having shot many of them, I know what looks right or good enough and in this case HB fails. Its too bad, I was looking for a good TA-7C that didn't involve major surgery for a VA-174 and even a VAQ-33 build & an A-7B for a Bicentennial VA-46 jet, but these kits really aren't worth the money, its not one I will add to my collection.

[twhite80]

I just read the review and I thought it was a little brutal, but there are some good point there. I will stick with the Hasegawa kit. My problem is that we will likely get a two seater out of the Hobby Boss releases and I really want to do that kit, but I am dubious about some of the shape issues.

[loftycomfort]

I just read the review and I thought it was a little brutal, but there are some good point there. I will stick with the Hasegawa kit. My problem is that we will likely get a two seater out of the Hobby Boss releases and I really want to do that kit, but I am dubious about some of the shape issues.

Since the 2-seater needs new fuselage halves and canopy, I wonder if they'll make corrections there.

[a4s4eva]

I see no drama with the review.

It's this guys honest opinion of the kits. Refreshingly tn this case he's backed up his points with diagrams and detailed descraiptions showing what he sees are the flaws in the kit. These are sort of reviews that I wish we'd see more off.

The bottom line is if the SLUF means to you as much as it does to him then don't buy the kit. But if, like many of us, you're ambivalent to the subject, and after reading the review you decide to purchase it then at least you're much better informed.

[Lucas C.]

I'm no rivet counter,but what percentage of modelers actually measure scale to this degree? I mean, the canopy is LESS then one inch incorrect real scale, the fuselage is 5 inches too wide. If you built this model,would you really see the size difference or is this guy the poster child of rivet counters? I'm just curious.

http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/reviews/kit...3reviewsb_1.htm

I'm no rivet counter myself, and don't know an A-7B from an A-7E, but I can tell you that the pictures in the review were very telling. I didn't have to pore over them to see the problems, they popped right out, especially the pinched nose shape. I appreciate reviews such as this one that give an honest opinion and back it up with pictures. It helps the rest of us decide if we'll spring for a kit or not. In some cases where I don't think the flaws are major, I'll still buy the kit, but in cases like these, it helps me avoid kits I'd be disappointed with.

As an aside, I really hate reviews that say "It's great! No major problems!" when the kit has either major shape or fit issues. In one case, I saw one of those online where somebody else had called the reviewer on the problems, and the reviewer's response was "Well, I won't use the kit parts for those details, I'll just scratchbuild accurate ones, and I always use PE sets for the other stuff, so it's not a big deal." Yes, it's a big deal--it's akin to my saying that the latest Kia is just as fast as BMW, if you "only" change the suspension, swap out the engine for a larger one, switch out the electronics... :unsure:

[Darren Roberts]

Boy, this discussion really has some legs! You know you've written an intriguing review when it spills over onto two different boards. Scotty is passionate about the topic, so he reviewed it accordingly. I'm one that will buy it if it's a subject that interests me, regardless of the errors. To me, the kit is off, but it's not so bad that I'll stare at it everytime I look at it on the shelf. The one thing I disliked about the review was actually at the end when he can't recommend it to the "serious" modeler. This struck me as odd, as I'm a serious modeler, and the shape issues don't bother me. The implication is that if I purchase it, I'm somehow not a "serious" modeler. I think a more appropriate statement would have been for the "those that care about accurate measurements".

[mhoupt]

I will simply say this. If they expect me to pay $62 for a model that has ejection seats that look like that and cockpit that looks that sparse, they are crawling up the wrong tree. That looks like it belongs in a 1/72 Kangman kit.