Tbolt Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Thank You. You are half right I was being humerus to the post, but attempting to be insulting to the Schmucks that are really like that. After all it is only a CAD representation and most likely just a preliminary one. After all the kit is a year away. I think that the CAD model is nowhere close to being finished. That takes the longest. To burn the tool will only take a couple of weeks. I have been in that business for about ten years now. Well I took Jennings post has humorous, because he used a smiley face. I'm not one of those that look at CAD and early test shot for problem, but I do have a look when someone comes up with something they don't like, just for interest. Most of these minor problems if they ever get to the finished kit I probably wouldn't do anything about, but I'm glad there are these people out there that do this sort of thing as it can only help and I want to see these kits accurate as possible. Just think of the number of Trumpeter kits that could have been really good if they released CAD renders and listened to people. Edited October 4, 2015 by Tbolt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 My post was meant tongue in cheek, hence the smiley. That said, it *is* possible to compare shapes and proportions using CAD images. Kit manufacturers do it all the time. That's what CAD is for. You draw it, look at it, compare it to photos and known measurements, and make changes as required. It's a heck of a lot easier to do that than to do and re-do a physical master. Making pronouncements that something absolutely is or absolutely isn't some particular way just based on the kind of CAD images released by manufacturers is often iffy, but not always impossible. The KH 1/32 P-39 is a case in point. Based on the side profile elevations KH posted, it appeared to me that they'd made the same mistake Special Hobby made with the aft fuselage. I found some nearly perfect side view photos of the real thing, and a set of Bell fuselage station diagrams, and showed pretty conclusively that the kit is about 1/4" too short between the aft firewall and the rudder post - exactly like the SH kit. And once someone with the kit measured it out, lo and behold, I was right (oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the meantime!!). It's not rocket science. Nuanced subtleties of shape are less easy to make hard pronouncements on. Drawing lines on photos *can* be of some use, but you really have to know what you're doing. It's **very** easy to be fooled, and to convince yourself that you're seeing what you want or expect to see, which I believe to be the case with the Airfix P-40. I have great faith that the 1/1 P-40B/C restorations done out at Chino are pretty darn accurate, and since Airfix 3D scanned them and had access to Bell engineering drawings, I'm pretty convinced their kit is reasonably accurate. Like almost everything in life, it's not always one way or the other. It's not always pure black or pure white. There is almost always a large, mushy grey area in between. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DarkKnight Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 why do we have to wait a whole year for the Airfix? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tbolt Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 why do we have to wait a whole year for the Airfix? Because they want to get it right, they are not Trumpeter you know ;) I'm sure they is still more CAD work to do, then they have to turn that model into all the parts and lay them out on the sprue's, cut a master, make the molds, produce some test shots to make sure things are OK, tweak things a little if needed, check the forums to make sure no one has found a fault ;) produce a final master then the molds, marking research, the art work for the decals and the box then get the decals and boxes printed (I don't much about the production of models so there is probably more to it that this). Plus if you haven't noticed they are quite busy with the amount of kits they are producing at the moment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 why do we have to wait a whole year for the Airfix? Are you being serious or facetious? If you're serious, I hope you understand you don't just push a button and out comes a completed model. You can't buy a 2017 Toyota yet either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share Posted October 11, 2015 Are you being serious or facetious? If you're serious, I hope you understand you don't just push a button and out comes a completed model. You can't buy a 2017 Toyota yet either. Today, that statement is only partially right. We have machines at work that do just that. Obviously after you produce the CAD model first. And it is the same storry $#!+ in = $#!+ out.. I keep on telling our CAD jockeys that all the time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Okay, you don't push a button and instantly get engraved steel tools to produce injection molded plastic kits. Is that clear enough? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) OK,--- Now who can't take a joke? Edited October 11, 2015 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Vorrasi Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Mr.Hume Bates has been working on the Airfix P-40 project. I have followed his P-40 research for some time and respect his opinions on it. Here is what he had to say regarding the existing early P-40 restorations done by those (gasp) "Professional Aircraft Restorers" at Chino (was I supposed to bow and genuflect too?) Per his 10/3/15 post on HS: "And yes... no restored early p-40 tomahawk out there has a correct lower radiator cowl its simply doesn't exist And there's no surviving blueprints for lower radiator cowl .. trust me I've looked and as far as I know all the restoration people have looked for a long time for that but it's not the lower cowl bottom line that the problem so much in the restorations its the cross section and the panel lines that give it away that it is not correct and they're copying later P40s" You see, I already knew for years that the lower cowling plans were missing. I tried politely pointing out that restorers do not always have full plans to Jennings Helig and was instead mocked and insulted. I have been building models, both static and flying since 1959, and I have been flying real airplanes since 1985. There is not much that misses my eye regarding an airplane's lines. Who is the Schmuck now? Edited October 11, 2015 by Michael Vorrasi Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share Posted October 11, 2015 My Hat is off to you sir. There are a lot of "Schmucks" out there. I have been restoring aircraft for a long time also. As I have mentioned before, I was the NCOIC of Restorations at the Museum in Quantico for quite a few years. But NOOOOOOOOhhh- we have a lot of armchair experts out there that have been building plastic models for so long that they know everything. Including everything about paint and color. No matter what we tell those people, they will always be right and we will always be wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Funny, that's the opposite of what I've heard from someone who worked at Chino. So who do you believe? And even if they didn't have the Bell engineering drawings, that's not what's necessarily required to do an accurate restoration. Your position is that they invented things that didn't exist that are "wrong", and you have (still) not presented a single shred of evidence to support that. You can call anybody you want to names, it really doesn't bother me in the least. If you're going to make an assertion like that, you need to back it up. In any event, the way you chose to handle it in your initial post on HS was immature and utterly and completely uncalled for. There's a way to do things, and then there's the way you did it. I told you you were going to cause a s**t storm, and you apparently either set out to cause one, or you didn't care. Either way, very immature and irresponsible. At the end of the day, we're still talking about little toy plastic airplanes. And life is really, really short. Edited October 12, 2015 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WymanV Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) At the end of the day, we're still talking about little toy plastic airplanes. I build scale models. Anybody plays with them, they get their hands cut off. Ken Edited October 12, 2015 by WymanV Quote Link to post Share on other sites
peter havriluk Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 While I don't have a dog in this fight, I think an actual airplane can't be 'wrong'. It exists. Models can be compared to it, but thar she blows. Any folks/organizations/institutions who are flying a 75-year-old airplane with an expected service life of weeks/days get a whole bunch of my appreciation, and not criticism. I don't know the budget limitations they had or the parts availability when the aircraft were reassembled for flight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scvrobeson Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Six pages of back and forth about what's wrong (or not) about a kit that's not even out. I'd say unbelievable, but it's true and sadly, par for the course. :doh:/> Tom Also par for the course on pretty much every modeling forum, including this one. You can find those same discussions here, and in the other discussion forums. And love the use of ChiCom/ChiKom. That sweet, sweet xenophobia. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
echolmberg Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Also par for the course on pretty much every modeling forum, including this one. You can find those same discussions here, and in the other discussion forums. I agree for the most part but there are a couple of other forums to which I belong where this sort of discussion never happens. There are still some forums out there where people build for the sheer joy of building and no one gets their knickers in a twist and flame wars aren't started over the angle of a piece of metal. There are still some forums (and people) out there who don't have chips on their shoulders. ARC is a great resource for many good things regarding this hobby but it's also the source of some bad apples as well. It's too bad. Eric Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scvrobeson Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I agree for the most part but there are a couple of other forums to which I belong where this sort of discussion never happens. There are still some forums out there where people build for the sheer joy of building and no one gets their knickers in a twist and flame wars aren't started over the angle of a piece of metal. There are still some forums (and people) out there who don't have chips on their shoulders. ARC is a great resource for many good things regarding this hobby but it's also the source of some bad apples as well. It's too bad. Eric Very true, shouldn't have generalized all forums that way. I too belong to some forums where it's all about the fun of building, and people help each other out. That's where I spend most of my time, some of the other forums just get a toxic atmosphere with the sniping and negativity. ARC is certainly a great place for info, that's why I come here as often as I do, but there are certainly some that seem to show up to antagonize. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Why does discussing the relative merits of a kit get construed as knickers getting in a twist? Do movie reviewers get their knickers in a twist for pointing out inconsistent plot points or poor art direction? Do auto reviewers get their knickers in a twist when they point out ergonomics that don't make sense, or poorly performing transmissions? Do book reviewers get their knickers in a twist when they review a book? I just don't get why we should be expected to shell out the kind of money being asked for kits today and to just accept them as-is like sheep. If you want to, and that brings you joy, then please by all means feel free to partake of them to your heart's delight. But just because some people choose to discuss their accuracy or deficiencies doesn't mean they're getting their knickers in a twist. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Because it is not even a kit yet. only a concept. Who knows what the actual kit will even look like. It might be better or worse. Let's wait till we actually see some plastic or a definitive CAD model. These days I for one am willing to give Airfix the benefit of the doubt. They have really outdone themselves with the last bunch of kits they put out. They have not had a bad model since the Spit XII. If this was Trupi-Boss we would even be having this discussion because it would be a fact in the obviously negative and talking about it would just be If you don't like the kit when it comes out, don't bother shelling out the cash. Airfix has by far been the most reasonable in their pricing out of any of the manufacturers but for the Russians and Ukrainians. Edited October 17, 2015 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scvrobeson Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Why does discussing the relative merits of a kit get construed as knickers getting in a twist? Do movie reviewers get their knickers in a twist for pointing out inconsistent plot points or poor art direction? Do auto reviewers get their knickers in a twist when they point out ergonomics that don't make sense, or poorly performing transmissions? Do book reviewers get their knickers in a twist when they review a book? I just don't get why we should be expected to shell out the kind of money being asked for kits today and to just accept them as-is like sheep. If you want to, and that brings you joy, then please by all means feel free to partake of them to your heart's delight. But just because some people choose to discuss their accuracy or deficiencies doesn't mean they're getting their knickers in a twist. Where did I say that anyone has their knickers in a twist? You always seem to fly right in to defend people tearing down future kits, but I did say anything about it. I did say that people coming in to sling-mud or bring nothing by negativity are prevalent in all forums, and do come in here as well. Or you get people claiming that professional aircraft restorers don't know what they're doing, because the red lines don't match up! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scvrobeson Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Airfix has by far been the most reasonable in their pricing out of any of the manufacturers but for the Russians and Ukrainians. I don't know how they do it, but I love it. I just bought their brand new Hurricane for $15, and their Spitfire I for $17. Never thought I could get deals like that for a brand new kit, but Airfix delivers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jinmmydel Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 You people are always good for a laugh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tbolt Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Because it is not even a kit yet. only a concept. Who knows what the actual kit will even look like. It might be better or worse. Let's wait till we actually see some plastic or a definitive CAD model. These days I for one am willing to give Airfix the benefit of the doubt. They have really outdone themselves with the last bunch of kits they put out. They have not had a bad model since the Spit XII. If this was Trupi-Boss we would even be having this discussion because it would be a fact in the obviously negative and talking about it would just be If you don't like the kit when it comes out, don't bother shelling out the cash. Airfix has by far been the most reasonable in their pricing out of any of the manufacturers but for the Russians and Ukrainians. Agree, but does it really matter if someone who knows the subject really well drops an email to the manufacture just so the can double check something before it's too late? It doesn't really matter if it is only CAD at the moment. Like I said before that could have saved Eduard a bit of money. Though I would be wary of sharing my thoughts on a forum as well because some reason people seem to get worked up over people who do point anything out. I just don't see why people get work up over someone opinion on something like this. I for one will be buying the kit anyway, because I'm pretty sure it will be the best available. Edited October 17, 2015 by Tbolt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share Posted October 17, 2015 I don't know how they do it, but I love it. I just bought their brand new Hurricane for $15, and their Spitfire I for $17. Never thought I could get deals like that for a brand new kit, but Airfix delivers. Where did you find those prices? I thought I was getting a good price at $21. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Where did I say that anyone has their knickers in a twist? You always seem to fly right in to defend people tearing down future kits, but I did say anything about it. I did say that people coming in to sling-mud or bring nothing by negativity are prevalent in all forums, and do come in here as well. Or you get people claiming that professional aircraft restorers don't know what they're doing, because the red lines don't match up! I don't recall saying that *you* said that, did I? I was quoting someone else if you'd read the post. Your definitions of "mud slinging" and "negativity" are your definitions. Pointing out an error, based on factual information, is not in itself "mud slinging". Sorry, but it just isn't. If adults can't discuss something by presenting pros and cons, then what we have is the US Congress. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share Posted October 17, 2015 All I know is that I will need two at some point. 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.