Accuracy..?

[Stuart]

Do you think as a whole – we in this hobby get too hung up on the issue of accuracy?

In another thread recently I asked what people thought of the old Matchbox Phantom kit - and the general consensus was it was an ok kit, but needed work on the nose and canopy to improve the looks. And you know what – I can dig that – as long as it looks like it’s supposed too then I’m happy.
But…
I bought an old Frog Sea Vixen the other day and, like we all must do – googled it to find some reviews. I ended up reading a 6 page thread on britmodeller on how it was 3mm too short here, and needed 1mm off here – and it occurred to me that in the time taken to read this thread I could have started building it.
And does it really matter anyway? Unless you display your models in front of the scale plans or photo’s of the aircraft – will anyone really notice it’s slight too long in the booms or squat in the nose – having taped the main parts together all I can say is it looks like a Vixen and not a P-51…

I sometimes think we miss the point… or is it just me?

[fredk]

No not just you.
Sometimes we miss seeing the beautiful forest cos we're studying the scrawny tree in front of us.
I enjoy making my models that wee bit better.
Like the Gannet I'm doing, using photo-etch, cos its available.
Or replacing shirt-button wheels with better
But I don't fuss if the wingspan is 2/3/4mm too short, or the curve of the fuselage isn't right
I do draw the line in the sand somewhere
If some part of a kit is waaaaay out then I might consider altering it closer to what it should be like

[celt]

I am not that concerned with accuracy at all,I am quite happy to build any kit and live with its foibles,weather its an old classic or the newest shake and bake kit,I am no rivet counter and I dont enter competitions,I build for fun.This is supposed to be a hobby after all.Now I know some people love to enter comps and like to make their chosen model the most accurate as possible using after market extras and that is their choice.Me I use a hairy stick and build out of the box with no after market in sight.This wonderful hobby of ours is big enough to cater for all,and If I want to paint my model with Dulux and put spurious markings on it,then I shall.Build what you like how you like.

[jssel]

I feel that we go through stages where our enjoyment of the hobby starts at first with just finishing a kit. Than we progress to making a respectable model, then becoming a bit obsessed with accuracy and finally back to just making a respectable model. With me it is due no doubt an age issue. And that is why I like CBK's. A little bit of proper modeling and you have a nice replica and can feel good about it. And the funny thing is, in my case, is that I finally get to the stage where I at least place in competition, and I no longer care.

There are niches for all to find a home in this great hobby. But I can not for the life of me understand how on one website the discussion of the new 1/48 Airfix P-40 can degrade to personal attacks. It is a hobby for God's sake. Build them the way you want to.

Last time I looked at a model of the F-16 I knew I was not looking at a Spitfire.

Good question Sir T

[Kitaholic]

I have been very guilty in the past of looking at reviews of new kits and letting this sway me. It has meant a lot of new kits that I have really wanted I have passed up on because of the review saying this is wrong or that is wrong. The recent 1/49 DH Hornets from Trumpeter for example. Attacked because of the angle between the nose and the windscreen and that meant I didn't buy it. Why?? Who the hell is going to tell that it is wrong when it is sitting on a table at a 30-45 degree angle? Why have I wasted so many years listening to these self confessed experts when in reality there is no such thing as the perfect kit? No more. From now on if it looks like thing it's meant to be that's good enough for me.

[iggie]

I really don't know enough about the originals of the kits I build to be able to spot the alleged inaccuracies in the first place.

[Stuart]

I really don't know enough about the originals of the kits I build to be able to spot the alleged inaccuracies in the first place.

I'm the same - I would KNOW if it had the right profile or not...

[Stuart]

Interesting responses guys…

Just to expand on my OP – I don’t have anything against the quest for accuracy as such, I do it myself…

e.g. Having got some feedback from you guys on the Matchbox F-4 I almost certainly will change the nose and canopy.

I wouldn’t knowingly use an AV-8A to make a GR.1 without removing the large antenna on the spine

I have recently bought a resin replacement rear end for the totally wrong stage II part on my Monogram Saturn V.

I have the resin nose for my old tool defiant.

I mean there’s nothing wrong with improving your build, ensuring correct weapons fit, it has the right antennas on it or anything like that – I dig that, I get it. And if somebody wants to shave off 1mm of a nose, or add a 4mm shim to the tail-booms of their Sea Vixen then great, good for them – in fact I commend them on their conversion skills…

… it just that the whole obsession with drawings and profiles, and mm’s off a 1/72 kit, seems a bit soul-less to me (yes Jeff I agree the conversation on the new tool P-40 on HS – BEFORE it had even been released was insane in the extreme).

As I said, in the whole Sea Vixen conversation I read, I didn’t see one comment on how it was to build, or ‘it’s a nice kit’ or anything like that (or about the fact that the surface finish is so poor I think somebody attacked the mould with sandpaper), just dimensions (who really knows anyway) – which is what makes me kind of think they’re missing the point.


(Question: Is there a difference maybe in 'improving realism' and 'improving Accuracy'?)

I sometimes think about adding a picture of a nice looking woman (or man – take your pick) in her underwear into one of these threads and saying ‘Guys – there’s more to life than plastic’ – but somebody would probably comment that she needed 4mm off her hips or something., and that her profile was wrong…

Anyway – ramble over.

[Eric Mc]

I'm not too hung up on accuracy UNLESS the lack of accuracy compromises the model to the point where I can't really live with how the model looks or will look. The Matchbox Phantom is a very good example. The short nose I can live with. The too shallow canopy I cannot as it makes the model not look like a Phantom should.

The solution is, model the kit with the canopy open (which would be a bit of a job using the kit's canopy) or replace the canopy.

[chrism]

For some people, there is also a personal quest to sometimes see just what can be done and how far you can go - esp with an old hopeless kit from late 50s .. I am sort of revisiting old vehicle kits from Airfix now with this in mind. Why bother? When there are Dragon kits of the sane which are far better ? Yes they cost more but by time you've got the 2-3 other necessary donor parts and other bits ... They are cheaper .. But I just sort of am on a quest to see hiw far I can take some old kits with ingenuity and a set of plans

[Stuart]

I'm not too hung up on accuracy UNLESS the lack of accuracy compromises the model to the point where I can't really live with how the model looks or will look. The Matchbox Phantom is a very good example. The short nose I can live with. The too shallow canopy I cannot as it makes the model not look like a Phantom should.

The solution is, model the kit with the canopy open (which would be a bit of a job using the kit's canopy) or replace the canopy.

I agree - That's kind of how I feel - making something look more 'real' maybe than more accurate.

[splash]

I'm not one for accuracy, if it looks right then I'm happy, but two examples you have mentioned I agree with the "accuracy vs looks right" argument.

The old Frog Sea Vixen and Matchbox F4k, both have accuracy issues that do make them not right to the eye, the problem for me is, I worked on both of the real a/c during my time in the RN, so the errors stand out to me, so I would try and fix them if I was to build them.

But if the kits been any other model it would have been a case of, if I can recognise it as the type named on the box then that's close enough for me.

I totally agree with others when the say sometimes we get too hung up on accuracy and it's just a Hobby, but looking at the price of some of the new kits being released you would expect accuracy to come as standard.

Regards Splash

[ShaunW]

Oooh Stuart, this sort of question can be open the can of worms time. Personally, as a builder of old kits most of the time, I generally don't expect great accuracy out of the box. As with some of the other respondents here, general profile is more important to me than getting all uptight about whether the ailerons are 2mm too far outboard or whatever. Basically if the finished model looks like the subject that it purports to be a miniature replica of then I am happy. My enjoyment comes with adding bit of detail or scratching up a cockpit interior that looks something like the full size rather than the hole with two pegs for the seat that often passes as cockpit detail in 40 or 50 year old kits! The emphasis there though is looks something like, which is not to be confused with 100% accuracy! Modelling is what you make of it and in my view there are no hard and fast rules. As far as I am concerned if a modeller wants to correct every wrong panel line and any slight deviation to the profile then fine. Similarly if a modeller wants to build their model OOB warts and all, then fine. What gets my goat is when other members of the modelling community start telling us that their way is the only way - certainly the matter regarding the Airfix P-40 mentioned above is madness.

Competition modelling is another ball game altogether and accuracy doesn't play the starring role that people often imagine that it does. Competition judges are not experts in all fields and to try and ensure that sufficient experts are available to judge a given competition would probably result in more judges than entrants. In competition modelling what is being judged, in essence, is the quality of the modelling, not out and out accuracy although it is probably fair to say that the majority of serious competition modellers will ensure that their model is as accurate as possible in any event.

In answer to your OP, IMHO too many modellers do get hung up on stuff like accuracy and exact shades of paint and unfortunately attempt to impose their views on the rest of the modelling community. Fortunately on this particular forum we don't seem to attract many folk like that!

[Stuart]

That's a good point Splash - Prior knowledge of a subject would certainly alter your opinion of what was needed to make a kit look right. I would certainly be able to notice errors in a Cessna 172 kit for example.

I could understand why you'd want to fix it.

[Stuart]

lol - you know me Shaun - I'm always happy to throw the open can of worms into the room and then leg it.

And do agree with you 100% - each to their own.

But I do wonder if sometimes I'm missing something - I certainly think there's a difference in accuracy and realism.