Hobby Boss 1/48 F-80

[RedStar]

Now this is funny...

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=265634

Intake leading edges are out out but is it just me or do i smell a lynch mob forming.

Doesnt look that bad against the FAOW plans maybe we need a lynch mob to head to Japan to round up an string up some plan drawers?

The tail is off..the wings are off..how about someone start showing something other than opinion as we all know about opinions and what they are worth..

Oh sorry common sense...quick round up the pitchforks and petrol quickly..while your at it grab the Revell designers to of the 219,Halifax,He-111,B-17 to..

Oh dont forget the Tamiya guys remember the Meter wings or maybe the battle damage patches on the F-4's and those burner cans!

Leave no stone unturned in our quest for vengeance against these traitorous kit designers..

[Wolf_el_Real]

[randypandy831]

wasn't the hobby boss 32nd f-84 pretty decent?

[Jennings]

Yeah, they do great when they have a good kit to copy (1/32 SBD, 1/32 TBM, 1/32 Me262, 1/32 F-84G). When they have to do their own research, you end up with garbage like this.

[LanceB]

The rivets don't bother me as to my eyes they aren't all that heavy and will be toned down under the paint

Just my 2 yen, Joe, FWIW, YMMV etc., but the rivets were a deal-breaker for me. The rest I agree with you on - not really an issue or could be fixed relatively easily. But those rivets on the fuselage...

It's not a matter of the size or heaviness, it is that they are there at all. Bearcat fuselages, like Corsair fuselages, were not riveted. They were spot-welded. Trumpeter/Hobby Boss either wasn't paying attention or they went with the "rivet detail sells kits" logic which I have seen them use elsewhere.

[Joe Hegedus]

Just my 2 yen, Joe, FWIW, YMMV etc., but the rivets were a deal-breaker for me. The rest I agree with you on - not really an issue or could be fixed relatively easily. But those rivets on the fuselage...

It's not a matter of the size or heaviness, it is that they are there at all. Bearcat fuselages, like Corsair fuselages, were not riveted. They were spot-welded. Trumpeter/Hobby Boss either wasn't paying attention or they went with the "rivet detail sells kits" logic which I have seen them use elsewhere.

Not arguing that they should be there, just saying that their presence doesn't bother me enough to worry about it. The overall shape and look of the kit captures what a Bearcat looks like to my eyes, so I'm happily pressing forward. I can live with, it others can't. Others can live with the errors in the Trumpeter F4Us, but I find those and the Trumpeter Hellcats unaccepable. To each his own...

[LanceB]

To each his own...

Agreed there. Personally I just wasn't going to fight with those rivets trying to fill them. Tried that on the Trumpeter 1/72 RA-5C and it was not going well, but then I found a Hasegawa RA-5C kit cheap and figured I could use the Trumpeter guts on Hasegawa's airframe and solve the rivet and humpback issues all in one go. Perhaps if I had a Combat Models Bearcat laying around I would consider doing the same there, but I don't. ;)

[dehowie]

You missed my point Lance.

First the kit isnt far off the plans.

I could in less than 60 seconds roll off kits which are well accepted that are far worse than this one in a comparison of kit to plans.

Yes the intakes look crappy(never once did i say they were not!) but people chiming in saying the wings and tail are "Oh so wrong" with no back up to ANY reference at all is just lynch mob mentality.

The other point is what happened to the lynch mob on the Revell balls ups that have been flogged on the market over the last 2 years.

The 219 now accepted as being a nice kit but makes this F-80 look spot on with innacurate(Gear,Fuselage is shocking,props,nacelles)or maybe the He-111H6 with its fukishima glazing or maybe the Halifax with engines that look like they where from god knows where.

It seems there is a very clear double standard that its ok to call out the lynch mob for a Hobbyboss kit but any Revell kit is met with showers of rose petals even if its an out and out garbage like the 219.

Feel free to call out the lynch mob but if you do dont forget to fling them at Revell,Tamiya and Hasegawa designers as ALL of them have and still create so called inaccurate kits.

Thats the point..its not just Hobbyboss inflicting inaccurate kits on the market Revell are right there with them almost leading the charge.

[LanceB]

First the kit isnt far off the plans.

Are we even looking at the same photo? Can you not see the huge differences between the plans and the kit parts laying on top of them? Or between the kit photo above and the photo of a real F-80A directly beneath it? If you cannot, fine. So be it. But that is no reason to start insulting all the rest of us who can.

people chiming in saying the wings and tail are "Oh so wrong" with no back up to ANY reference at all is just lynch mob mentality.

Plans and actual photos are not "references" then, apparently. OK, I'm done here.

[Gagarin]

Yeah, they do great when they have a good kit to copy (1/32 SBD, 1/32 TBM, 1/32 Me262, 1/32 F-84G). When they have to do their own research, you end up with garbage like this.

So true,and that's why I call them Copy Boss.

[MIG Mikkel]

I think it looks like a F-80 ;)

[Harold]

So true,and that's why I call them Copy Boss.

:cheers:/>

I guess they didn't have a copy of the old Monogram kit.

[Jennings]

I would put zero trust in any plans that came out of a Japanese magazine. A lot of them look very pretty, but they don't have a reputation for accuracy *at all*. The reason the HK B-17 was so screwed up was because they used Japanese plans.

[Gene K]

I would put zero trust in any plans that came out of a Japanese magazine.

I knew it was just a matter of time ....

Gene K

[dehowie]

Are we even looking at the same photo? Can you not see the huge differences between the plans and the kit parts laying on top of them? Or between the kit photo above and the photo of a real F-80A directly beneath it? If you cannot, fine. So be it. But that is no reason to start insulting all the rest of us who can.

Plans and actual photos are not "references" then, apparently. OK, I'm done here. :trolls:/>

You cant be serious can you?

If you think that F-80 is that bad you better take a look around at some other well known kits.

THe wing has correct sweep angle etc and what 1/2 a mm in chord?

The fuse again correct shape bit again what 1/2 to 1 mm low?

Intakes yep they be buggered.

If you seriously consider based off that the kit unbuildable garbage that is so inaccurate then you better give up on over 98% of the kits in the model world.

On a separate front how many Monogram F-80's have been turned into gems?

Oh thats right its not Chinese it must be perfect..

[LanceB]

I would put zero trust in any plans that came out of a Japanese magazine.

You must have missed the part where Gene said the Monogram kit matched the plans. I can vouch for that - I have those same plans, and Monogram F-80s, and they match each other. So unless you are saying the Monogram kit is way out, which would be a remarkable discovery after 40 years...

No country has a monopoly on good or bad plans. I have seen FAOTW plans that were distinctly off, and some (like the 70s-era FAOTW F-105 plans) which are held to be the "gold standard". Or, I know of one British artist whose plans are very highly thought of, with good reaon, and another whose plans and profiles are almost useless as he seems to have serious issues identifying even major differences between subtypes. But I would never say "I would put zero trust in any plans that came out of a British magazine".

[LanceB]

Just in case anyone else is thinking "well how bad can it be?"

HB vs Mono - the visuals

Even uglier than I thought. But it's not like the Monogram kit can turn out nice, or anything...

[Gene K]

If you think that F-80 is that bad you better take a look around at some other well known kits.

Twisted logic at its best!

Gene K

[Laurent]

When was the Monogram kit released ? When were the drawings used in the FAOTW were first published ? Are these drawings based on previous drawings that could have been used to design the Monogram kit ?

[Ben Brown]

When was the Monogram kit released ? When were the drawings used in the FAOTW were first published ? Are these drawings based on previous drawings that could have been used to design the Monogram kit ?

Likely Monogram got help from Lockheed for their kit. It was designed back before the lawyers got involved and started all of the licensing BS we see from aircraft manufacturers now.

Ben

[AlCZ]

By Athena !!!! This is a real EPIC FAIL by China... Shooting Star was my most awaited kit in my wishlist - but - this is a horror !!! Something is wrong in "Danish Kingdom" eeee People China... Im impressed with level of detail of old Monograms kit ! When i saw on stock a P-80 by Monogram, i buy it ! And this "chinese parody" is probably "Revenge for Korea !" (Yes, it is very sad a mainstream kit producers ignore a many decades first U.S. jet - it is a first U.S. used in WW II and in main fighter in first phase of Korean War... And only relative good new kits are short runs from Sword and MpM...

[Jennings]

When was the Monogram kit released ? When were the drawings used in the FAOTW were first published ? Are these drawings based on previous drawings that could have been used to design the Monogram kit ?

The Monogram F-80 came out in 1976. I have no idea when the FAOW came out, but knowing Bill Koster (designer at Monogram at the time), I'm about 99.999% sure he didn't rely on anybody's published plans. He knows airplanes, and he did his homework, which is why the old Monogram stuff in many cases is still superior to the new bells & whistles CAD stuff.

[Laurent]

The Monogram F-80 came out in 1976. I have no idea when the FAOW came out, but knowing Bill Koster (designer at Monogram at the time), I'm about 99.999% sure he didn't rely on anybody's published plans. He knows airplanes, and he did his homework, which is why the old Monogram stuff in many cases is still superior to the new bells & whistles CAD stuff.

If CAD tools existed when Bill Koster designed the F-80, the model couldn't have been worst but only better. The CAD designer in GuangDong probably would like to do his homework but his boss or his boss's boss doesn't think it's necessary.

[Bonanza27]

The Monogram F-80 is a really great kit both in outline and in capturing details. I know Bill Koster also having worked with him and Monogram during this time frame but shortly after the F-80 was done. Here is I think the strong points of the Monogram kit (now Revell) and if you look at the Hawk T-33 (now Testors and Italeri) (I should mention that John Andrews of Hawk Models had one of the best eyes for shapes in the business) kits you will see the same things captured correctly. The nose profile, the area in front of the intake along the fuselage where it has a smooth curve into the intake, the shape of the intake lip, the shape of the fuselage over the wing is smooth (Academy put a crease along this area is not in any photo of the F-80 / T-33), the shape of the wings in plan form and the Fin outline especially along the leading edge through the rounded fin tip. All captured beautifully in the Monogram kit. Yes the FAOW drawings were used as a starting point because they were the first things available when this project was approved to move forward before any additional research was done. Additional research included drawings from Lockheed including the lofting drawings, visits to the Air Force Museum, hundreds of photographs, maintenance manuals and consultations with people who knew these aircraft including people like Dave Menard, Norm Filer and many others. New drawings were made adjusting shapes etc as the reference materials were studied and understood. These new drawings formed the basis for the kit design - they were far more accurate than the FAOW even though the FAOW were used as a starting point. By the time the kit was designed the aircraft was generally well understood. The project file grew from a starting point of several magazines, a few photos and drawings used to sell the project as a good future kit to produce to a file containing literally several expanding file folders of material, references and photos. Perhaps most significantly were the notes and detail sketches made by the kit designer (I think in this case it was Bill Koster) which showed were there were detail or shape questions to be resolved, and the evolution to resolution of those questions. All this states a very different way of doing things between companies like Revell, Monogram, the current Airfix, Hasegawa and Tamiya. They are "old" school in allowing their design team to take the lead in the kit design and research. The people doing the design of the kits actually build models and more so, have a love of the subject in general - aviation, auto's, racing, etc. In other words, they care. They still make errors because the design of a kit is truly an artistic venture, and the eyes of the artist sees things one way, and the eyes of another see it another way sometimes. Too long of a rant here. The people doing the design work withTrumpeter do a great job at kit design, that is they do a very good job at producing a kit from the materials given to them to work with. Working with several Chinese companies doing tooling for models, I can tell you that they do not want to produce an inferior product, they in fact want to produce the best, but at the same time they compartmentalize the process, do not have the give and take processes like we in Western cultures understand them and for many it is just a job which they do within the company. As new ways of doing things are learned, better products are being produced and we will see I am sure improvement in the overall kits quality, but still find both frustrating poor kits produced as well as some real gems all coming from the same manufacturing plants. Business is done differently in different regions of the world: Europe, the US, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Asia and Africa and somehow it all works out.

[Jennings]

...visits to the Air Force Museum

Well, that certainly won't happen any more. It is now the stated policy (and I can give you the name and the quote and the date) of the National Museum of the United States Air Force that they do not support modelers nor the model hobby industry, period. They "simply don't have the resources" to do it.... unlike every other museum we've asked about it. The answer recently was essentially, "Not 'no', but 'hell no'". That's your tax dollars (if you're a US taxpayer) at work. I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of having a museum collection is if it's not to make the artifacts available to those with a legitimate research interest in them. That's the case at *every* other museum except the NMUSAF.