Kits , their accuracy and where it fits .

General Discussion General Modeling Discussion
1

I just answered a post and it got me to thinking . I know , Uh Oh ! here we go again !

Suppose the model companies decided to do a 1/350 model of the U.S.S. Hornet as she sits now . Would the " Experts " tear it apart even if they haven’t seen what she looks now .Probably . I have a big problem with that .You see if the prototype at a trade show is wrong at some point then input of a general nature is appreciated .Now , you have this ,say , model of the HORNET .

It has the correct " Hurricane bow " with the exit ramps sticking out at the end of the flight deck like buck teeth . It has the " Late " island and maybe the wrong radars .That I couldn’t say .They got those after I left the museum . Now , the planes .What flew off the Hornet and at what period ? Do you know , I don’t . So , if manufacturer " A " puts F-4 - F Phantoms on deck and " B " puts a mix of these and F-14 - A airplanes , who is right ? I don’t believe we as a model building group should either by ourselves or as" Experts " damn a product Before it even gets to us .Maybe it is right for the period intended .

Can you truly say the H.M.S. Warspite kit is accurate to the nth degree as presented as a kit .I bet you really can’t .Why , well let’s see . It’s a model subject , which you have todepend on many reams of data from the R.N and what they’ve released . Do you want to spend maybe months researching , just to have a model of the ship sitting on the shelf ? Many don’t truly care about accuracy issues , they just want to build it !

I say , if you haven’t seen it , don’t say anything till it’s in front of you .And in that vein , TRACY WHITE has volunteered many times to help on research on a model for the industry . Is he always right ? I’ll bet even he would say that’s impossible .For a given version , maybe he’s dead on . I am sure he gets stumped too . He graciously admits his mistakes though , Now He is an asset to this hobby . Many are not .

I say , Let the market say if it’s popular , Then , lets critique it’s quality and accuracy for the time frame it’s represented in . If it ain’t so ,let’s be reasonable and give a company the benefit of the doubt .When you spend millions to give the modeling public what you think they want , There will be mistakes . If I was to put this in a personal perspective here , there is a man who works for a very well known model company. This company doesn’t do " Cheap " Yet , because I spent time living and working on the subject ship ( three years ) I say he’s dead wrong in some areas .But he’s looked upon as the authority there . I will keep my opinons mild and build the model the way it is supposed to be .

I have photos of my ship and I will work from them . Why ? All the ships undergoing FRAM were not , even if in the same group , exactly the same .This has to be a given .Still , I will be a gentleman about it even though I feel we differ on what constitutes a FRAM of a GEARING class ship .You see , I say don’t shoot the messenger Before we get the message . Well , that is my thought’s on the subject .As you can see , I count on TRACY to be accurate to a point that I can trust his comments , Same with Our own J.Tilley .These guys I trust . That it , let’s let this fade into the sunset with the wake of our ship or dust from our tank obscuring all that work - - Model - On ! Tanker - Builder

2

well, TB, there is an equally valid counterpoint to your “let them be” opinion (and Yes, your’s is just as valid)

there is a kit coming out that had simply terrible CAD illustrations shown to us on public forums

the usual comments were made about this part, that part, and that huge shape problem right there

the company went back to the drawing board,and fixed all the issues with the CAD until the renderings were shown again,and now they look like they will have a model that might end up being the standard for that subject in that scale

this was caused by “dem meen ole nitpickers”,and the “good’nuffers” will get a better model from the efforts

I don’t think any of us should ever have to spend the money that today’s models cost for sub-standard research or production,when there are far more than just the 2 guys you mentioned that know a subject (not taking anything away from the 2)

as an aside, and to show how accuracy can affect things,Hornet didn’t operate Phantoms OR Tomcats,so, both model versions would have been wrong,she last operated a Tactical Group with an Air Task Group that used Furys and Banshees as her fighters in 1958 (something like that is NOT a nit to pick,it is a Pretty Big Deal that certainly sticks out on a carrier model)

just showing the flip side of the record in what I hope is taken as a friendly manner

Rex

ps, many don’t believe this,but, YES, it is possible for one person to know every aircraft type and squadron and wing/group that was assigned to US aircraft carriers,my notes are 100% complete on that, and I have visuals on all but about the last 5%,all verified by USN records

3

There’s informed criticism and there’s BS. I don’t think any amount of the former ever is a bad thing. Hey most of the time if I read that the 1 and 2 turrets on the Arizona are too close together etc. it just makes me want to fix it and take pride that I went the extra mile. But I am sure glad to hear of it before hand.

4

I guess I would have to see the thread involved

I thought this was about Criticism in General,but, I guess it is about one certain model?

5

Uh Oh !

Hey , I didn’t mean to get you on deck sir ! I actually didn’t know what planes flew off the HORNET in her last decade on duty .She is a neat museum though .they had wanted to put planes on board that operated off her in WW - 2 .Guess what ? we couldn’t find any that we could afford ! You are right though .There are many more that can be trusted with info one needs .I have found even the books that are recommended are sometimes wrong or slightly off kilter on information . Thank you for your insight ! Model - On – Tanker - Builder

6

Hey , Tarn :

I tried here at my LHS to find the right planes for the HORNET .Do you have any recommendations .The period , The last decade of service in the U.S.N. Scale ? I think it’s close to 1/420 ---- T.B.

7

here you go, TB, if you are talking about the Revell angled deck Hornet kit, that is

First off, the Hornet operated Anti-Submarine assets from 1959 until decomm’d in 1970

Here is a sheet with markings for one of those wings, CVSG-57 Sept 1968 to May 1969, plus the reduced wing size CVSG-59 for Apollo 11 recovery

http://www.starfighter-decals.com/54022-uss-hornet-wcvsg57-and-apollo-11-recovery.html

here is what a Naval Fan site shows as the Air Wing make up,just scroll down to the Sept 1968 cruise

http://www.gonavy.jp/CV-CV12f.html if there is a blue button on the bottom of a cruise, you can see more detail

The Navy reports verify VS-37 (S-2E), HS-2(SH-3A), and VAW-111 Det (E-1B), but, not the two CODs (of course), or VS-35 (units had to be based on the Ship or the Tarmac to be reported as present),(About these Navy reports,they are NOT “opinion”,they are summaries of what each unit commander reported to the Navy Department at the end of each period they were required,he would send a low rank out with a clipboard and that person would report which BuNo he sees, and it’s condition, it was then typed up, and signed by the CO and sent up the chain of command,landing on the CNO’s desk in summary and detail form)

The Apollo mission aircraft varied some for each month’s end, but were 16 or 17 SH-3D (HS-4) and 6 to 11 E-1B (VAW-11 Det)

my favorite cruise is “sort of covered” by that decal sheet,but, it was back in 1964 and had Black Sheep on it for fighter protection

So, you need these aircraft, either in plastic from Hornet, Forrestal or Midway kits (and thier sisters)

S-2E http://www.starfighter-decals.com/pro13-s2f-track132.html

SH-3A and SH-3D http://www.starfighter-decals.com/pro12-sh3-sea-ki123.html

E-1B http://www.starfighter-decals.com/pro11-e1b-tra111.html

C-1A and US-2C mod from S-2

and A-4B if you want to do a pre-war or early Vietnam war model, most of the time in 4 plane Detachments

http://www.starfighter-decals.com/pro4-a4-skyhaw44.html

if you want to detail the whole ship

http://www.starfighter-decals.com/54001-essex-class-carrier-replacement-islan54001.html

http://www.starfighter-decals.com/essex-hangar-deck-set-for-revell-angled-deck-essex-kit.html

and

http://www.goldmm.com/ships/gms5usac.htm

If I seem to be a bit biased towards Starfighter stuff, it is because I see him at every show and we talk for hours about what he should release,and he never brushes me off,he hasn’t released all of “Rex’s pie in the sky wishlist”,but, he does listen,and sometimes I get to buy things I really need for my models, lol

I hope this helps somewhat,and yes, you can spend a lot on a model ship, lol

Rex

8

Thank You for that .

You see .I was just making a point , that to me was a valid one expressed by someone else at a show .The carrier on display was darned well done , but I for the life of me couldn’t tell if it had correct planes on deck or not .These are the things that do take research and some digging around to find the right ones .Thanks again .