Accuracy..?

[Zee28]

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

As usual Stuart, another great question!

As you can tell by all the intelligent and sensible replies you've had I don't think we do on this forum. but on other parts of the internet I have seen people get positively apoplectic about accuracy, only a mm or two they're very upset.

I think comparing the kit with drawings is of dubious use. How accurate are the drawings that may have been scaled and re-printed many times? And how many did the draughtsman have at lunchtime before putting pencil to paper?

My view on this is (as usual) very simplistic: Does it look 'Right'.

Your examples are good. I too have the Valiant models replacement nose for the old-tool Defiant. Why? Because it simple doesn't look 'Right' otherwise. The other inaccuracies in the kit that have been widely reported (I think somebody once said the fin was too short or something) don't bother me at all, they are not big enough issues to make the finished model look 'Wrong'.

And that's all there is to it for me really, if looks close enough to what it's supposed to be then that's OK with me.

Zee28

[jamesaw]

Accuracy when it comes to models depicts the subject as of a particular point in time so unless you have a complete colour view from all angles of a particular machine on a particular date, then chances are there will be innacuracies. I note that the new Airfix B17 caters to this with an olive green rudder callout or straight silver depending on the before or after date. Similarly, one of the engine nacelle fronts I believe is to be left natural metal as opposed to having the olive drab anti-glare paint. In this case for me, I'm going to paint all the nacelles with the anti-glare. My sense of symmetry would be offended otherwise so my personal choice trumps accuracy because to me, it is far more aesthetically pleasing to ignore the instructions and do what looks better to my eye.

[Saxon]

If I am buying a new kit, I will try and choose one that is accurate. Especially if it comes with a much higher price tag to older kits. The CyberHobby/Dragon Sea Vixen is a good example, not that I am an expert but from what I have read the CH one has accuracy issues. So does the Frog one but the Frog is much cheaper. So Frog it was and it looks good to me.

The Airfix new tool BF-110 is another one which has a rather glaring flaw. The engine housings extend over the flaps. That kind of thing sort of blows me away as you wonder where the technical advisor/quality assurance people (if any) was at the time.

For the most part I am not worried though. I went through a brief period almost 20 years ago where I tried caring about every little detail and accuracy etc and found it was just wasted time in the end. I also simply didn't care about little accuracy issues or even if the subject I was building wasn't exactly the right mark as the one I was going to paint it up as.

And given these days I like painting my canopies black and even wanting to paint modern jets anything but grey even if it means making up my own What if schemes, I feel pretty free about the whole thing.

[celt]

I have built models with the wrong colour scheme,wrong codes and even put sidewinders on a Hurricane.Modelling to me is all about enjoyment,if it stops being fun,its no longer a hobby.As for kits being accurate,it never bothers me,most of the kits I buy are "classics" anyway,because Tamiya,Hasegawa and the rest are out of my budget.I am quite happy to build kits from Smer,Heller,Matchbox and the older Airfix.

[Eric Mc]

Poor accuracy is not the preserve of old kits. Some more modern mouldings feature glaring errors. Not that long ago I built the Academy Spitfire XIV (mid 1990s) and although it fitted well, it was a very poor representation of a Spitfire.

Later I built the old FROG Spitfire XIV - which dates from around 1970. It was cruder but its shape was definitely better.

[ShaunW]

Poor accuracy is not the preserve of old kits.

Very true Eric, many old kits lack the detail and finesse but in part make up for that with better overall shape. IIRC not so very long ago did not Eduard scrap and re-tool a 1/48th Bf-109G kit because it was undersize?

[PTB11]

Going by what I read on other forums, I've never built an accurate kit!
Everything I've ever built, according to the "experts", is flawed in one way or the other. And strangely, I don't care.
I'm actually beginning to wonder, is there such a thing as an accurate kit?

[Saxon]

Going by what I read on other forums, I've never built an accurate kit!
Everything I've ever built, according to the "experts", is flawed in one way or the other. And strangely, I don't care.
I'm actually beginning to wonder, is there such a thing as an accurate kit?

Some of the "Pro Builds" I have seen also look very inaccurate. As in they are overly detailed, too much shading etc. I know this is getting into more of a style argument than the accuracy of the kit itself but still related in the sense that what appears to be perfect usually isn't.

[Chuck E]

I like to build a mix of old and new models and tend to apply certain rules, and have simple attitudes, to accuracy.

All new kits I would expect to be accurate in scale, profile, decals and fittings. Simple as that. Silly mistakes should not be made, with all the information currently available. Seeing the cottage industry come to the rescue of a brand new and very expensive model, by offering correction parts for them, is annoying. The parts should have been right in the first place. ( Thanks to the folks of the cottage industry who have come to the rescue. )

Old Classics I will build out of the box and improve them simply using anything that was on the go way back when they were issued. I'll fatten wheels and box in wheel bays. I may even re-scribe lines. I don't try to go much further on accuracy with these kits, as their little inaccuracies have a certain charm.

[Neil Wellman]

I remember many years ago making a colleague on a work related visit to Portsmouth laugh as we walked past HMS Victory by noting that it's not as detailed as the old Airfix model. It's true: every plank, copper sheath and rivet shows: the real thing is inches thick in paint.

I suspect the same is true of many modern kits (especially superfluous detail hidden away inside the thing).

I don't want to go back to the days of Airfix's original Spitfire (the one with the solid wings), but I was also always peeved when the sprue has half a dozen tiny elements when just one or a couple of parts would do.

[Ratch]

the real thing is inches thick in paint.

I suspect the same is true of many modern kits

My kits are certainly inches thick in paint

[Stamford]

I´ve got a couple of Airfix Fairey Battles in the stash - one of my favourite kits as a kid, probably because a glue fingerprint didn´t cover the whole canopy, because ignorance was bliss. I find no motivation to build them without the corrections needed and find no motivation to correct them! Usually I´d just build the kit but I find the wing shape especially demoralising.

[TobyC]

See my sig for what I think about accuracy

[chrism]

Not that long ago... (mid 1990s)

Errr... it is 2017 now

[chrism]

I like to build a mix of old and new models and tend to apply certain rules, and have simple attitudes, to accuracy.

Old Classics I will build out of the box and improve them simply using anything that was on the go way back when they were issued. I'll fatten wheels and box in wheel bays. I may even re-scribe lines. I don't try to go much further on accuracy with these kits, as their little inaccuracies have a certain charm.

I promise I will share the results of a (further) bout of stupidity I have engaged in recently, with the Airfix offering, following a trip to the recently opened Bovington Tiger sanctuary