Jump to content

Recommended Posts

While we can get around the straklets,

and even some of the nose shapes . 

Tbe simple fact is the tail gun is wrong ,

and is very obvious . It’s a tall tail tail gun with a faired over canopy . That’s the major glaring error . The tail gun and the movement of the gunner up front was a distinctive feature .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daviepancakes said:

 

That may be true for you, but it isn’t the case for a lot of us. Where I sit, there’s nothing wrong with the kit. You lot can be up in arms about perceived inaccuracies, that can matter to you and that’s fine. What you can’t do - or at least shouldn’t do - is presume to speak on behalf of everyone that builds models. 

 

No one is going to think it isn’t a buff. If it’s easier to build than an AMT one and the price is right, i’ll buy it. My son and I will build it, hang it from the ceiling, then build something else. Some of us do this for fun, man. Maybe i’ll hang it over the Prowler with two to many harms and the blue on blue on blue ‘109 that were also a lot of fun. 

 

The End

I'm pretty sure Engineman wasn't speaking for 100% of modelers just the guys who were looking forward to this kit since 2016. The kit's accuracy as currently presented is deficient, not perceived but factual. If one wants to purchase a $119 kit and paint it purple then all the power to him but I'd argue that could be done with a $30 ebay special.

His point was that if they make it accurate, it will sell well regardless of price. Right now its a $30 kit not the $119 they are charging.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said several pages back re: tailgun error: Just give me five minutes with a file.

 

But it's true. The accumulation of detail errors despite supposedly sent and received advice, shows that the manufacturer isn't terribly concerned about accuracy. Someone there is making decisions on the practicality of the errors affecting sales. Should we spend XX yuan to keep SOME of the 10% of the market who knows B-52s inside and out, or do we keep the price point where it is set and start selling it as is to the 90% who just want a big kit of the B-52?

 

Let's not forget the lessons the hobby market has taught us: I don't think any of we serious modelers can fault the Accurate Miniatures kits from the 1990s. Beautifully accurate (well, almost) well-fitting kits of needed subjects. And where are they today? Kaput. It's all about getting the product to the most users possible within a reasonable budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hooker169 said:

I'm pretty sure Engineman wasn't speaking for 100% of modelers just the guys who were looking forward to this kit since 2016. The kit's accuracy as currently presented is deficient, not perceived but factual. If one wants to purchase a $119 kit and paint it purple then all the power to him but I'd argue that could be done with a $30 ebay special.

His point was that if they make it accurate, it will sell well regardless of price. Right now its a $30 kit not the $119 they are charging.

 

 

 

My point is that modelcollect has been around a while. Their kits are priced well enough - most sit around 20USD - they fit well, aren’t terribly over-engineered or fiddly and are reasonably “accurate”.

 

Hell, none of us in the West are the main demographic to which the oriental manufacturers of late cater, our sales are just icing on the proverbial cake. The kit isn’t perfect...but if anyone thought it would be, they’re delusional. The fact that kits won’t be is what keeps a lot of the bros here in business, yeah? Where would Darren Roberts be if kits came with FOD covers or optional parts for more subvariants? I don’t know the man, I was just looking at some of his wares a few minutes ago.

 

I guess my thing is that yeah, I don’t want to be ueber-sanctimonious here...i can understand being disappointed or deciding to cancel your orders because it isn’t what you want, but not being to your taste isn't analogous to being some sort of personal affront. 

 

Im open to listening and reading and trying to get “it”, but this is one of those times where it just isn’t that bad.

 

My opinion, tear it apart as you like. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my thoughts. I was thinking about this tonight. Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone...just thinking out loud. It's amazing to me that 40+ years ago Monogram got the BUFF D right. IMHO....they also got the B-36....B-58...B-29....plus others right. Not perfect...but all of the airframe shapes are right....good details...great stores...and just plain fun to build. Still viable today.

But fast forward.....Revell (Monogram) now has the awesome 1/144 C-17....72nd (and 144) A400M....Antonov An-124 and many fantastic large airliner models. ALL at an affordable price and just dang fun to build.

Why is it that other modern manufacturers cannot get the big ones right?? (not just the BUFF....but also the AMT line of 135's, etc) Honestly....I'm not getting this. Dang aggravating. Monogram/Revell has succeeded for over 40 years. Actually making it look easy....  Now I'm taking a serious re-look at the old Monovell models in the stash.

Thank you and good night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 There is a vast great difference between choosing to add aftermarket to a kit that is, for the most part, already accurate and being forced to buy aftermarket to correct a flawed kit if one wants to model a more accurate replica from it.

 

I just don't get why some of the more modern manufacturers don't seem to do their homework or check their specs ahead of time, before any tooling is done and before any kits are produced and sent to market? How much more can it cost a manufacturer to get an accurate airframe outline right out of the shoots by simply doing their due diligence? Note, I am not asking for perfect...but at least correct in shape and outline. Is that really too much to ask for, especially in this day and age? I am also not talking about a missing panel line, or an additional panel line, a panel line slightly out of position, or under/over scaled panel lines. Those can all be corrected if desired with relative ease. In addition, I am not talking about a poorly detailed kit cockpit or wheel wells (that IS what AM is for if one chooses to).  The aftermarket companies can provide us with fancy cockpits and other optional goodies should we desire them to flesh out an already accurate model. No, I am referring to major mistakes and/or flat out omissions to the overall shape and outline of the subject as seen here on this kit or on models such as KH's single seat Voodoo intakes. These are errors that force anyone who wants to (read: chooses to) build an accurate scale replica to sink more money into often expensive AM resin sets when they shouldn't have to had the company done their job in the first place. Again, I am not talking about optional enhancements to an already pretty accurate kit but required enhancements should the modeler want as accurate a replica as possible.  We shouldn't have to do that.  This new B-52 kit isn't cheap and to get a truly accurate scale replica the modeler will have to invest more money into making it more accurate. Hey, if accuracy isn't high on your list and this kit looks fun and interesting to build then have at it. Nobody is saying not to. But to many here and elsewhere who are big fans of the B-52 we are looking for an accurate rendition. Right now we don't have that with this kit. We didn't get that with the AMT kit(s). So, many of us are disappointed and I think justifiably so. It's a B-52...it's been in service for over 60 years...how hard can it be to get a model of it correct?

 

I sound like a broken record (for those of us who remember records...LOL) but companies like Monogram turned out more accurate models 50+ years ago with no computer aided technology then some companies are producing today (this kit is a case in point). I just think there's something wrong with that. It seems like a giant step backwards for our hobby...to me. Give me an accurate starting base and I or the AM companies can do the rest. Too much to ask?

 

Apologies for my long winded post. I'll shut up now.

 

Regards,

Don

 

EDIT: Spelling.

Edited by Don
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that you mention the different shapes of Voodoo intakes. Until the criticism of the intakes of the KH kit were posted (here or somewhere else?), I never noticed that they were different. So what is considered a "major" inaccuracy by some may be unnoticeable or unimportant to others.

 

Some may say that I am ignorant or apathetic, but I don't know and I don't care.😎

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, the KH intakes are wrong. Period! Had the company (Kitty hawk) actually done their due diligence they would be correct. Yes? Its right there for all to see especially if you're designing a "new tool" kit. The onus is on them not us nor the AM guys to correct their (the manufacturers) mistake. Also, companies are often told well ahead of time about inaccuracies in their kits...way before the really expensive stuff starts...yet they proceed to carry on and tool up a wrong and inaccurate kit. Again...that's  on them! Once again, if people are happy building less then accurate kits and paying good money for less then accurate kits then so be it. But there are those of us who simply ask for an accurate starting base, something that has been done in the past (50+ years ago) and something that is possible if the manufacturer only takes the time to actually study their chosen subject.  Too much to ask for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,

I think you and i are on the same page, but i’ve got to disagree about anyone being forced to buy AM add-ons. The guys that go to the ends of the earth in search of accuracy aren’t forced to do so. The kit isn’t enough for them so they decide to buy more. 

 

A decent analogy. I like to watch some modeling stuff on youtube. I once saw a comment on a video where the builder had used Valejo primers that read something to the effect of Valejo primers are terrible because you can’t sand them. Valejo doesn’t make a sandable primer, last I checked. The more correct response or statement, to me, would be that i prefer primers that are sandable, so Valejo’s are a non-starter for me. 

 

tl;dr: I don’t see how it’s a valid critique to slam a product or service for not being domething it isn’t supposed to be. MC isn’t saying they make museum quality replicas. They aren’t saying their models are flawless, or that everything is perfect. With the exception of maybe AMK or Eduard - maybe - model manufacturers aren’t making models for the super-detailers or the guys who place “accuracy” before price, ease of build, availability and complexity. They make models for single, twenty-something oriental males who live alone in cities. Verlinden, Black Box, Cutting Edge, Steel Beach and the likes past and present make models for the former. Sorry, my tl;dr is longer than the original post.

 

 

To your last post, yeah man, it is a lot to ask for little gain. If you’re making your profits on volume, it doesn’t make sense to cater to such a small group. It sucks, but it isn’t something that can’t be fixed. As far as your KHs and Trumpeters are concerned, you guys don’t matter that much. There’s more money to be made cattering to other demographics.

Edited by daviepancakes
stoopit mis-take
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotten myself far more deep into this then I wanted to nor care to so I will try to extract myself in as gracious a manner as possible and let others of similar interest take up the gauntlet should they chose.

 

I clearly posted that I wasn't looking for a perfect kit (call it "museum quality" if you will). I don't need that. I also clearly posted that people shouldn't be forced to buy expensive AM products to correct an already flawed kit if they choose to model an accurate model from said pre-flawed kit (key word: choose).  I'll take a flawed kit as long as the basic shape and outline is accurate. I can choose to add what I see fit from there be it scratch built or AM. But why can't we ask for... demand(?) an accurate model in shape and outline? In this day and age is that not possible...no? Give us a model that is accurate in shape and outline and let the modeler choose to build it OOB or enhance it as they see fit via AM... yes? But we aren't getting that with this kit and some others recently. What we're getting...what we're paying good money for...is pre-flawed kits. No? I guess I am alone or in the minority in asking for this. That's fine too because I am just one old modeler amongst many many modelers. So if folks are fine with this then so be it. I just see it as a gigantic step backwards in this hobby to accept such. Each to their own. I've said my piece.

 

Regards to all,

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Don said:

No? I guess I am alone or in the minority in asking for this.

 

No, Don, you’re not alone in simply asking for an accurately shaped kit, I want one too. My big hang up is the price. Everything Davie and Paul previously mentioned would be 100% undeniable correct,,,,,,,,if the kit didn’t cost $119!

For a $30 kit, give me that file, plasticard and miliput an I’ll beat that tail into submission!

After all, you get what you pay for, right?

Nope, not this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don said:

I've gotten....Each to their own. I've said my piece.

 

1 hour ago, Hooker169 said:

 

No, Don...Nope, not this time.

 

I mean this without sarcasm, but why not get a bunch of you all together in a group chat or something - start a thread? - and nail down what’s ok and what isn’t? Things like “basic outline” and “shape” are entirely subjective. If you want the manufacturers to listen, i’d bet the farm they’d be more receptive to a list of concrete faults coupled with a list of a few hundred guys who want the kit to be unf*cked vice thirty separate, vague statements with red lines on pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, daviepancakes said:

... They make models for single, twenty-something oriental males who live alone in cities.

 

As an "oriental" myself, I'm not sure if "oriental" males even have the right amount of space, time or money for this thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this has been brought up over and over again about other kits by myself and others. I agree with Don in that there doesn't seem to be a reason why manufacturers shouldn't be able to make accurate kits. But, time after time, with one manufacturer or another, we see this same problem. As relatively serious modelers we find it difficult to understand why they can't make a more accurate kit, especially considering the wealth of research data available.

I think we need to consider what the goals and constrains of the various companies may be. Most certainly, the majority of them are in it to make money. This goal's importance can't be understated. Certainly some companies also strive to produce a high quality and accurate product (Tamiya, AMK, Kinetic), but they still MUST make money. For some companies, money takes precedence over quality. For some companies, I would gather that money is really the only consideration. They start a project that they predict will bring in revenue and budget a certain amount of time and money. Once one or both allotted budgets are reached they must cut corners in order to bring the project back under budget.

In the end, its a business and our desires, while important in that they drive purchases, are of secondary concern. If, say, the makers of a B-52G model run out of time and/or money for the project, then something must be sacrificed and that something is often accuracy, detail or quality. The concern becomes to get the product out the door and on shelves.

It may seem a short sighted attitude for a business to take as it can effect their reputation, but some companies get away with it time after time (Kitty Hawk).

So, what can we do about it. Certainly making our displeasure known might help. Continuing to offer or help in research on subjects. Beyond that there is protesting with one's pocket book, i.e. not buying the product. If the prospective audience for a kit is small enough, then a boycott might work, but I don't know of any kit that was successfully boycotted in spite of how bad it was. It is a conundrum, but I would opine that the quality of kits overall has improved over the years (hence out high standards) and will probably continue to do so. As long as there are Tamiyas and AMKs and Kinetics, we can continue to expect good quality and accurate kits.

There, I've had my say :hmmm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame outsourcing; outsource the research, the CAD, the tooling, the moulding, the package design, etc.

 

You're screwed the moment the guys you've outsourced to can't pick up the phone anymore to clean up their mistakes. But that's how this industry works so it can't be helped.

Edited by kaz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the kit from the IPMS convention. I agree with your comments. I could live with most of 

it but not the wrong tail appendage. I like most have the correction sets from DB or AMT parts but 

at $100 why should I have to use these also you’ve talked about antennas, bumps, bulges and such.

Are all these parts going to be extra? One other item small yes but no interior painting guide. I was told that 

the tail correction would be 2 to 3 months. For myself I’ll have to see it before I’ll get another one. 

I truly hope all is corrected and this was just a bump in the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, daviepancakes said:

 

 

I mean this without sarcasm, but why not get a bunch of you all together in a group chat or something - start a thread? - and nail down what’s ok and what isn’t? Things like “basic outline” and “shape” are entirely subjective. If you want the manufacturers to listen, i’d bet the farm they’d be more receptive to a list of concrete faults coupled with a list of a few hundred guys who want the kit to be unf*cked vice thirty separate, vague statements with red lines on pictures.

 

We literally have 11 pages worth of issues specifically spelled out and identified in this thread. All the manufacturer has to do is read through and its all CLEARLY listed.

Making a separate thread with itemized discrepancies? :deadhorse1:  Probably not needed (wanted).

Besides, as suggested, most of us who have concerns with the deficiencies have already contacted MC directly (along with resin manufacturers) and I assure you they are aware of each individual issue. Weather or not they will be addressed...........is another story.

 

4 hours ago, DUNEDEVIL said:

I bought the kit from the IPMS convention. I agree with your comments. I could live with most of 

it but not the wrong tail appendage. I like most have the correction sets from DB or AMT parts but 

at $100 why should I have to use these also you’ve talked about antennas, bumps, bulges and such.

Are all these parts going to be extra? One other item small yes but no interior painting guide. I was told that 

the tail correction would be 2 to 3 months. For myself I’ll have to see it before I’ll get another one. 

I truly hope all is corrected and this was just a bump in the road.

 

Exactly!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...