"It's all wrong!"

[Gary]

I've been noticing that "it's all wrong" seems to be the banner cry from so many sources about everything released on the market in the last two centuries. This goes beyond the notion of picking on the JMN's here. The JMN's have their role in polite modeling society, that dual roles of pointing out flaws so we may correct them, and of being hated.

What I am getting at however is the idea that the makers of models apparently seem to be making a lot of errors in the molds they are creating. This is too rounded, there isn't a panel here, the cowel shape is wrong.

My question to the panel of experts here is why does this happen? It goes beyond the idea that they are in cahoots with the aftermarket guys, this is a plague of inaccuracy. The most noteworthy comment I read lately was about the new 48th Raptor still having the wrong nose shape, more like the Italarie's than Lockheed's version.

Let's face it. The JMN's have a point or three but why don't the manufacturers get it right in the first place to shut that lot up? (did I mention they were hated?)

[The Rat]

It goes beyond the idea that they are in cahoots with the aftermarket guys,...

People actually think that? If the typical aftermarket guy toiling away in his baement were to give the Big Boys 10% it couldn't even buy a coffee. But you're right, you would think that they could get it right from stem to stern after sending people out with tape measures and calipers. And there have been some unbelievable bloopers out there, like Hobbycraft putting the CF-105 flap hinges on top of the wing instead of the bottom. There really is no excuse for something that bad.

[sotoolslinger]

Well perhaps it's cause.....THEY DON'T CARE. I mean we're gonna buy the models whether their right or not.

[Aircav]

May be its so someone with evil intent can't scale the model up to 1/1 using a computer and put into production.

[cthulhu77]

I still laugh when they bitch about the nose of the Raptor, as it has changed more than five times in real production. On top of that, who has the time to sit there with calipers? I'd rather be building.

I think my Eagle Owl is completely out of scale:

[PR19_Kit]

To my mind quite the silliest example of this is the recent Airfix 1/48 TSR2, our 'Forum Fave' for this year so far.

The 1/72 scale version was pretty darn good, and they made the masters for that in 1/48, I know this for sure as they actually had the masters on the stand at Telford a year so ago. So when they brought out the real 1/48 version they got the taper of the forward fuselage all wrong! How daft is that? 

[ChernayaAkula]

I guess it's part "who cares" and part "who pays".  It seems they're content using available scale plans, hack them in a computer and let CAD do the rest, having the outline and using approximations for the curves. There are some Trumpeter models that fit certain plans 100%, but have the problem that the plans weren't 100% right in the first place. Using plans and some pics is relatively cheap, at least compared to sending out employees with tapes, rulers and callipers. In case of the F-22, the USAF wouldn't allow anyone to get "hands on" on the plane.
To most manufacturers, the die-hard modellers are too few in number to justify the extra cost in the mould-making process. The majority, even of the ambitious modellers can live with some mistakes, if the price is right.

[Dork the kit slayer]

I think my Eagle Owl is completely out of scale:

Yep I do to.

[Sauragnmon]

I agree soundly to the "get it right the first time" perspective, but equally, couldn't they screw up a few other details in some places to get aftermarket guys to crank out stuff some of us would like to see?

Let's face it, much as we hate the JMNs half the time they're the reason we have aftermarket parts like gun barrels and burner cans and photo etch and such.  I've sat through my share of reading JMN words, and have even developed that slight mental filter that comes with it - filter the important information from the saliva-flying drivel of a rivet-counting maniac.  End of the day, I'll see the important stuff, shrug off the OCD-induced extraneous data, and continue with my work.

They call me a heretic, I call them close-minded, and we both like the aftermarket guys because they do all sorts of things - even better when you happen to get machinists who do custom pieces like USN 18" gun barrels or IJN 16/50's for a price.  Hey, it happens, it works, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Geoff]

I sometimes wonder if our expectations are too high. It's nice when they get it right but I am not too upset by small inacuracies as long as overall it looks right.
Hmm having said that I was well irritated by the nose profile on the Hase A-4B which just didn't look right.

[braincells37]

JMN?

Just My Nostrils?
Jerky Model Nut?
Just Making Noodles?
Jets Move Now?

I'm drawing a blank here

[Mossie]

I think the answer is much more simple.  They are human, under pressure to get something done to a deadline.  Whens the last time anyone here did a long term work project & where able that every aspect of it turned out perfect?  So why do we expect it of someone else?

Chris is right, I think we forget we're grown men playing with childs toys.  It's only in the last twenty years that the market has changed, as those kids grow (or not) into adults and nature of toys has changed.

[jcf]

I think the answer is much more simple.  They are human, under pressure to get something done to a deadline.  Whens the last time anyone here did a long term work project & where able that every aspect of it turned out perfect?  So why do we expect it of someone else?

Chris is right, I think we forget we're grown men playing with childs toys.  It's only in the last twenty years that the market has changed, as those kids grow (or not) into adults and nature of toys has changed.

Yep, and with Trumpeter, for example, the 'level of outline correctness' (in my mind a better term than 'accuracy' )seems to vary by engineering team. 

Also a reliance on CADD gets us to the same old GIGO problems of any computerized system.

Jon

[jcf]

I think that one of the biggest changes over the years is that in the 'old days', the modeller/reviewer who pointed
out the 'outline inaccuracies' generally then went on to suggest, or demonstrate how to make the necessary correction(s).
Which was great for those who 'needed' outline accuracy and could be ignored by those who were not so inclined.

Nowadays it seems that the only responses are a call for aftermarket 'correction sets' or a complete dismissal of
the kit in question, any suggestion that making the necessary corrections is doable or that the 'mistakes' aren't that
bad is met with brickbats. The notion that one could 'fix' it themselves generating some of the greatest heat.
Seems that if aint' perfect out -of-the-box or perfect-able with after-market then it aint' worth these 'modelling gods'
precious time.

Jon

[Aircav]

The nerd who collects video stills from every possible angle of the USS Enterprise-D in order find out where the septic tanks flush out and modify his AMT kit accordingly. ''

[/quote]

And whats wrong with that ?