Rivet Counter Irony

Modeling Subjects Aircraft
1

So, as useless as they are, I’ve been reading some in-box reviews. I got a good laugh out of one. The reviewer praised the crisp neat panel lines right before ripping the kit as unworthy the “serious” modeler because of it falling a bit flaccid. Seems that it is 1-2 mm short in the fuselage area and a cople of mms long in the wings etc etc etc. The intake is all wrong and the Horizontal situation indicator is molded on the wrong side of the instrument panel. The C variant of this particular airplane use Bridgestone tires, but the kit ones are clearly Goodyears.

BUT those panel lines are crisp and beautiful. Nevermind if they were scaled up to the real plane you could shove the entire friggin Websters dictionary through them.

2

What kit was it about?

3

Nice - the Bearcat I recently reviewed has been savaged for similar things about the radiators being slightly out of position, etc. To me, the terrible control surface textures and the presence of a big ol canopy seam on a 1/48 prop were way more frustrating. Slight shape inaccuracies will never make me not build a kit - and if not pointed out to me I’d probably never notice them.

4

Same here.

5

Nine: It was the Hobby Boss A-7. That poor kit seems to be the bane of the rivet counters existence. To me it looks like a Sluff. Yeah, if you compare the intake to the Hasegawa kit there is a significance shape difference. But I can’t find anything that covers fit and buildability. Everyone rips the shape, quotes some obsessive compulsive reviewer that actually got out a dial caliper and measured every nuance, and continues to imply that only a moron would choose to build the kit.

I just want to build stuff and not be ridiculed because a particular kit got a shape wrong and I was dumb enough to buy it, build it, and not do 500 hours worth of surgery correcting it.

6

I think I love you…

7

so, what exactly should a reviewer talk about when reviewing a kit? (“Is plastic, is nice, is new, you buy, Comrade”)

the HB A-7 has an intake shape that doesn’t match any other kit,or the real thing,is it somehow a “better” review if that is not mentioned, or is glossed over as “looks like a _____ to me”?

there is a thing about model aircraft,they are supposed to look like a ______ to everyone that looks at them, not just the people that never saw one in real life

there is always a lot of talk about “only 1mm”,that is more than 1/32 of an inch (enough to make woodworked 1/1 scale parts not fit),1mm is 41 thou of an inch (approx 1/25)

I hurried up and bought two of the 1/72 HB TA-7C, before the reviews went up,and to me those kits perfectly illustrate the reason for reading reviews before buying,if I wanted to add Fujimi nose parts to a TA-7C conversion set,I would have just went ahead with the Falcon conversion + Fujimi donor kit I was going to use before I bought the “landed hard on the nose wonder kits”

My complaint is the opposite,once a “wunderkit” is reviewed and loved by all,it is danged near impossible to get people to discuss fixing the problems of a kit that has been pronounced “perfect”

Rex

8

Yeah, I’m with that sentiment, with all due respect to those who thrive on accuracy. I have seen incredible models from people whose abilities will always exceed mine, and their love of detail is a source of awe. Also a source of inspiration - sometimes I look at models by really devoted builders and realize a technique or idea that I can use to make my efforts easier. But I’ve also been sucked into whirlpools of detailing by reading reviews or builds by AMS extremists, which have been time consuming and nonproductive (and no fun).

So after two years of trying to “get serious” and learn how to accomplish the general level of model making that’s happening in the magazines and forums, I’ve decided to be satisfied with a result that looks like a 1/32, 1/48, or some other scale representation of the real thing. Done to the best of my current ability.

I’ve been going to air shows all my life, and I know full well that nothing I do in scale will ever be as accurate or as impressive as the real thing!

mike

9

Honestly, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with modelers who want to build an exact replics down to the nuts and bolts. It’s your hobby; do it as you see fit. So, I don’t have any real problem with a review that includes measurements and all that bologna because I know there are modelers out there that care about that. Why is it so freaking hard for those modelers to understand that some of us couldn’t give to shakes of a rattle snakes rear end if the wings are a scale inch or two long, or if the Mk 1 has tail braces molded on when clearly they didn’t begin that until the Mk 2.

Like I said.:

I just want to build stuff and not be ridiculed because a particular kit got a shape wrong and I was dumb enough to buy it, build it, and not do 500 hours worth of surgery correcting it.

When the review - in box or build - tells me that the kit is unworthy because of shape issues they are telling us who just want something cool looking on our shelf that we can be proud of.

But I know where it comes from. We can blame contest. For some reason these guys think that they may get overlooked for a prize if they don’t modify the Hobby Boss kit and it’s sitting next to the “correct” Hasegawa kit. I know there is a belief that judges care about historical and technical accuracy. But from what I understand it’s about the skill of modeling not how correct the company molded the kit and if you fixed it. But I couldn’t give two licks of a badgers armpits about entering contest…but that’s me.

Why can’t we all accept each others preferences instead of making those who are different feel stupid?

10

I concur Jimmy D. I do however like the aspect of reviews that give you a “heads up” on tricky areas in construction, such as the some kits needing a spreader bar to get the wing root/fuselage joint to meet. Rivet counting? I dont understand this. It is a plastic model after all. Most of the people who will actually see my 1/48 Hasegawa Spitfire MK IX will never know its 8 scale inches too short in the fuselage…nor will they care. It looks like a Spitfire to me (albeit a Mk V…lol). That said, If there is something I can correct on a kit to make it more accurate, easily and or inexpensively, I will do so. To each their own I suppose.

Don’t get me started on contest judges. In my neck of the woods, you have to belong to the local IPMS club to stand a chance at winning anything, regardless of what you submit. The one year I did belong to the club, I won two, and I was still reasonable new to the hobby…lol. This mentality does seem counterproductive.I have long since learned to build to please myself.

11

“Rivet Counter” is a term some use to describe the more serious modeler whos skills and craftsmanship are beyond us simpletons who don’t care about those 8 crazy scale inches. (wasn’t sure if you’re unfamiliar with the term, or we’re just saying questioning he practice in general)

Anywho, that’s my point: to each his own. Let’s just mellow out man and accept one another! [{][}]

12

Hey thanks man. I’m cool with that. [ht] You gotta prove that love though. No diamonds and pearls for me though. I like plastic, and Squadron has 25% off. Message me for a list!! [G]

13

I usually also just read a few reviews to see if a modle is “buildable” by the very averege guy like me. I just got the Hasegawa 1/48 Spitfire Mk 9 E and I think the quality and detail of the kit almost surpasses Tamiya , witch for me is the best I can get.

Int the reviews however is semms you need to replace the fuselarge with one from ICM to get an “acurate” model .The Hasa one is 2mm to short it seems! Well for my limited building skills even if I were tobut another kit just for the fuselarge it would make no difference atall so I just build the “inacurate” kit and have fun with it.

Theuns

14

Me, I just like to know what’s in the box, and as far as the rivet counting goes, I’ll read it and either A ) find something that might actually be useful, or B) have a good laugh along the way.

15

actually, fixing that HB nose has no impact at all on winning or losing a contest,those sort of things only factor into the judging if I were to do it wrong by not getting any seam cleaned up correctly

fixing that HB nose does make sense in my case, since those two models would be scattered in amongst a dozen or more Fujimi noses,and no modeler wants a collection where the differences in the KITs are more pronounced than the differences in the aircraft VERSIONS

these discussions always run backwards,no Accuracy Builder ever tells an OOB modeler to “stop discussing models on the forums”,but, the ABs constantly hear that exact thing

it somehow escapes the OOB poster’s minds that if no one discuss model’s pros and cons,then Model Discussion Boards don’t even need to exist,just pages and pages of “picture posts” sites is all that is needed,no reviews or previews,heck,we only need ONE sheet of decals, and NO books about aircraft are needed at all

Rex

you know what?,I am sorry I said anything,if this Hate goes the way it should go,someday, the only answer anyone will get to “what color was a ___________?” or “what are the differences in the __________?” will be “you don’t need to know, it is not important, color and part sizes are accuracy issues”

it just grates on me that the very people that “hate RC and AB modelers” will then ask the detail questions,and some doofus will just go ahead and answer

just show me the thread on here where some RC or AB starts out with “I hate the OOB guys, and wish they would shut up online”,you won’t find one

16

If you asked the salesman at Comet how big the TV screen was and he said “you dont need to know” would you buy the TV anyway because it "looks " a bit like the one you wanted or would you read an expert review to find out if its what you want before spunking £700 on it? And then berate the reviewer for mentioning how big the screen is in his review? [bnghead]

17

Da Tovarisch! [;)]

An ideal in box review? Give it straight-objective, without the opinions-subjective. If the reviewer has good confirmed accurate scale drawings, say if and where there are size and shape issues. Unless the reviewer has access to the original blueprints of the subject, the possibility exists that the scale drawing that a reviewer is working from are inaccurate, however slightly. State if detail is raised, recessed, or mixed. Each have thier pro’s and con’s, and can be accurate or inaccurate compared to the real subject. Say what options are in the box. And if an assembly has a complex or simplified approach 2 pieces on kit A vs 12 pieces on kit B. And the MSRP cost. One man’s affordable is another man’s dream. Yes we can always find better pricing here or there, but that is up to the puchaser. In the end leave it to the end user to decide if a kit is what it should be in their expectations and if buildable or unbuildable. I cant stand the snobs in this hobby or any other activity in life. I know that they are out there and a fact of life, but they are one of those annoying aspects in the world that I have no real use for.

Just the Facts please

18

I love it when a reviewers has a picture of the kit parts and a blue print. Most of the time I can not see any difference. However, I can be quite a “rivet counter” if it is a subject I truly like. Other times I just build straight out of the box. It is just like a car review: some guys like the new Honda/BMW/etc because of the handeling and the tight suspension. Other think the same car is an uncomfortable ride with too llittle space. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

19

Stik, I would agree with you concerning using blueprints,except, there is a “thing” in this hobby

the “thing” is that somehow, uninformed and informed opinions have achieved equal weight, when determining something that really needs to be reported by the people that actually know what they are talking about

I had a nice long post explaining the difference between “everyone knows” and what is truly “known”, right down to “Wiki Research” taking over for actual correct knowledge of a subject

but,it is not worth it,too many believe that it is “all on the internet” today

well, the “internet” says that the A-4L had 5 pylons, a “can not be slammed” model kit of the EA-6A does NOT have the extra nose length that the real thing had,and one company still sells a model of the A-4E that is 2 scale feet too long

all supported by “internet experts that post on forums” as “equal in quality” to actual true knowledge and “kits that are equal to other kits”,when you can lay a kit up against the same version done by a different manufacturer,it not only Should be possible to claim that “one of them is wrong”,it Should be an action required of the reviewer,and it Should be true that hiding that fact will cause the reviewer his job,unless he truly is just a “kit shill”,or at least a blow to his credibility

otherwise,it Should be okay to market a Spitfire kit as a Hurricane,because, from just a slight distance,“both of those look like a P-40 to me” (exaggerated example)

Rex

20

I hear ya loud and clear Tarn. The scary thing about the internet is that too much info is on there and quite a bit of that incorrect or unverified. I know that I personally rely on folks here with that firsthand experience whenever possible. Now I may not always properly utilize that information, but I do file it for later use in the cobwebbed recesses of my brain. There are several guys here that could and should be hired as consultants in their respective fields by modle companies. But often there are the squeaky online wheels that have never spent day one around any given piece of machinery and their opinion is somehow taken as gospel. At least by those who don’t seek out info on their own. But the guy who buys the Hurricane marketed as a Spitfire has a good potential career calling in government :wink: