scvrobeson Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) Where did you find those prices? I thought I was getting a good price at $21. Model contest a couple of weeks ago. A hobby store had a table set up, and had huge stacks of all three new Airfix kits, and at those prices. For those prices, I couldn't say no. They just jumped up and followed me home Airfix prices though are seriously second to none. I have no idea how they charge what they do, but it's fabulous. That quality for the kind of price they charge, huge recipe for success. Edited October 18, 2015 by scvrobeson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scvrobeson Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 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. You may want to check your post again, you didn't actually quote anyone. It's just a post that followed mine. I never said pointing out factual information is mud-slinging. I don't know why you make that kind of leap. But you know there is a strong difference between someone pointing out factual problems with a kit, and claiming that aircraft restorers are wrong, or drawing red lines all over pictures, or claiming that kit manufacturers only want to put out mediocre kits is. It's great when adults discuss pros and cons, but you would be deluding yourself if you think that's how all forums (this one included) operate 100% of the time. This one has just as many antagonistic posters as any other, it's just the nature of anonymous internet message boards, and people that get very passionate about toy airplanes and tanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tbolt Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 You may want to check your post again, you didn't actually quote anyone. It's just a post that followed mine. I never said pointing out factual information is mud-slinging. I don't know why you make that kind of leap. But you know there is a strong difference between someone pointing out factual problems with a kit, and claiming that aircraft restorers are wrong, or drawing red lines all over pictures, or claiming that kit manufacturers only want to put out mediocre kits is. It's great when adults discuss pros and cons, but you would be deluding yourself if you think that's how all forums (this one included) operate 100% of the time. This one has just as many antagonistic posters as any other, it's just the nature of anonymous internet message boards, and people that get very passionate about toy airplanes and tanks. So you think all restorations are 100% accurate? Or people just shouldn't comment on them? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) Once an aircraft is "restored and in flying condition" it is at that point a factual representation of that particular aircraft. So, if a model company decides to use that as their example, they are making a proper representation of said airframe. Now if the markings chosen are a representation of that airframe is a different story. Also, much of the time the cockpit is not a true representation of the original airframe either. It is usually "modernized to follow guidelines. I have been a part of quite a few restoration projects and the restrictions and hurdles, doing restorations are MANY. In general, modelers are "simpletons" with blinders on. The irony is, that in many cases, while doing a restoration, a model is purchased to use as a visual template. Now, at that point, how right is the model chosen to do this. If drawings are available, they are the #1 choice obviously, for any restoration. In many if not most situations, the original manufacturer will not provide any available drawings to individuals doing restorations because of possible legal repercussions. we ran into that a lot. On the other hand if the museum run by the military or the government, and the aircraft will not fly, than the drawings are available quite easily. Mostly do to the fact that the military owns that aircraft design outright. Even than, sometimes I used to get a lot of resistance and had to go to much higher authority to get drawings released. Edited October 18, 2015 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tbolt Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Once an aircraft is "restored and in flying condition" it is at that point a factual representation of that particular aircraft. So, if a model company decides to use that as their example, they are making a proper representation of said airframe. Now if the markings chosen are a representation of that airframe is a different story. Also, much of the time the cockpit is not a true representation of the original airframe either. It is usually "modernized to follow guidelines. I have been a part of quite a few restoration projects and the restrictions and hurdles, doing restorations are MANY. In general, modelers are "simpletons" with blinders on. The irony is, that in many cases, while doing a restoration, a model is purchased to use as a visual template. Now, at that point, how right is the model chosen to do this. If drawings are available, they are the #1 choice obviously, for any restoration. In many if not most situations, the original manufacturer will not provide any available drawings to individuals doing restorations because of possible legal repercussions. we ran into that a lot. On the other hand if the museum run by the military or the government, and the aircraft will not fly, than the drawings are available quite easily. Mostly do to the fact that the military owns that aircraft design outright. Even than, sometimes I used to get a lot of resistance and had to go to much higher authority to get drawings released. Exactly, and from what it sounds like there are no drawings available for the part in question, so you can't assume that the restorations have got every line and curve right, but I'm sure most have don't the best with what was available at the time, though I'm sure you realize, when it comes to some non-flying restorations some are more fiction than fact. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) though I'm sure you realize, when it comes to some non-flying restorations some are more fiction than fact. Exactly and so true. At this point I think that just not responding to unreasonable comments would be the best recourse. Just don't gratify the comment. Edited October 18, 2015 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aircal62 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 On this topic, I have a question. The Naval Museum in Pensacola, FL has on display what they say is an early P-40C. Anyone know anything about this aircraft and where the Museum got it? It is painted up of course as a Flyings Tigers Hawk 81. 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.