This may be a touchy topic driving us into a long Advanced Modeler Syndrome dialog...Hope not. That said, How do you guys decide when it's is accurate enough ? How do you deal with errors. I'm not looking at every model being a perfect replica in miniature but what are folks doing to manage the line of wanting to fix every mistake on a kit and ignoring them?
Maybe I need some AMS therapy too.
regards,
Tony
There's no simple answer. The harshest critic you know is yourself. Every single kit on the market has come kind of inaccuracy -- the question is, how far do you want to take it? Improving the accuracy of a kit always means more time invested and a gross reduction in the number of kits completed.
This is my approach. I read every single review and web posting I can find about a kit that I'm interested in the building. From this I compile a list of three categories of fixes:
1. Simple. This can mean modifying an air scoop or adding an aftermarket item that greatly adds to the overall accuracy. I do these.
2. More intensive, but worth it. These items might mean fixing an engine crankcase or adding some detail that is just plain missing. I usually do these if they don't exceed my skill.
3. Purely anal. Technically more accurate, but at a great cost in labor that may or may not make a difference. Wheel well improvements fit into this category, as do major reshapings of the aircraft's profile. This is the reason that I gave up on the Trumpeter A-10. The nose and windscreen are too fat and cannot be corrected without major surgery involving shaving away huge amounts of plastic and making my own masters to create and vacuform a less wide windscreen. I decided to pass.
After I assemble all the accuracy issues (sometimes called "tweaks"), I then decide which ones I'm going to do and which ones aren't worth my time or are simply too difficult to undertake. I have a road map for a kit at the start and then generally stick to it as I work my way through it.
A couple of examples. Adolf's Chinook had some accuracy problems. It included .50 cal Browning machine guns for the door positions, yet he used 7.62 mm M60 guns during his tour. It was important to him, so I ordered resin replacements from Cobra Company. The kit in the box is an AC-47 Gunship so I had to fill in some square hatches to make round porthole windows to backdate it to CH-47A configuration. A lot of work, but worth it in regards to accuracy. Lastly, the kit's rotor pylons are too tall in profile. I looked at one obsessed modeler's fix and decided that while he was right, it was too much work for too little end result.
I built the Revell 1/32 scale F-4E Phantom. It is well known that the entire nose is two skinny and too pointy. I sanded the kit nose to a more bulbous profile and called it good enough. I also added a resin cockpit to replace the kit's sparsely fitted one. I didn't fuss with the complete lack of canopy detail (expensive and tedious) and I left the underdetailed exhausts alone. In the end, it looks pretty darn good, although accuracy wise it still has some issues.
So, a long reply to say that it is up to you to decide how accurate you want to make it. Accurizing a kit is always more work than buidling one out of the box and ultimately if you are so bogged down detailing it and not having any fun, it kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? 99.9% of the people out there aren't going to know anyway. The common refrain of "it looks like a [fill in the blank with the aircraft of your choice] to me" is very true. The Hasegawa Spitfire IXe that William built recently has dimensional errors that are just wrong, wrong, wrong. But he built it out of the box and it looks great. If you were a Spitfire boffin, you might be tempted to purchase the complete fuselage replacement from Paragon, but for most people that is too expensive and too much work
Lee K
Good advice. For those of us with lots of kits already as you pick one from the stash to build it might be good practice to assess it per your triage list and make some up front decisions to help on how much work you want to do or to regroup if your into the build already.
My problem started after spotting one error and fixing it then going over my references I noticed another more serious issue with the back end of the vehicle (Coyote vs LAV-25). I could correct it with a lot more work, but I'm thinking I'd rather spend my time on the stowage mounts and adding grab handles....after all unless you've seen these vehicles you might not notice there is a difference. Maybe use that other rule of carpenters...if you make a mistake put something over it to conceal it.
regards,
That is a good post Lee and Tony. To be honest I seem to hurry along with the building aspect not to concerned with the little details and accuracy. I seem to rush to the painting and decals. In the Army they always taught us to crawl, walk, then run, in mastering individual tasks. I try this in making models to. When I feel I have got the basics to a point where I come close to some of the pros in the club I will start focusing on the fine details of aftermarket stuff and accuracy. I dont want to spend a buch of money on aftermarket stuff only to have my kit look like garbage. Most of my builds right now are pretty much out of the box with the exception of aftermarket decals. However at the end of the year I am going to do a group build at ARC "Defense of the Reich II" and I am going to build a HAS 1/32 FW190 D with some after market stuff and alot of research. So that will be fun.
They say "Ignorance is bliss". In my case I believe this to be true. Most times I don't build models necessarily to be accurate, but because I like the subject matter. This is obvious with my Gundam builds.... I dare you to tell me what's accurate and what's not. :)
With scale aircraft, I like to read the reviews and look at what others have done, both OOB and with the 'over-kill' corrections. Not once have I ever taken measurements. Some might say that's obvious, but the bottom line is that I build for me. No one else. The aftermarket I choose is mostly to help me develop my skills. If it improves the accuracy, well that's a bonus.
The exception (and there are always exceptions) is when you want to stretch your skills and/or build something that's an important subject to you. The Trumpeter Su-27 is that subject for me. I believe I have every correction and option made for it. Yes it's expensive, but this will be a build that will be very special to me and I want it to be the best it can be. I don't think my skills support this yet, so I'll wait till next year or so to start it.
So when it's all said and done, whether you go through the work of making corrections for accuracy or not, Trumpeters A-10A will look like a 'BIG' A-10A on my shelf. (Thank you Lee K :) )
Bill L.