5 reasons why model kits are inaccurate

The newest release from Trumpihawk Boss just arrived at your doorstep and you’re excited to build it. But wait! The rivet counters on your favorite forum are lambasting the kit for its many inaccuracies. The nose is misshaped, the intakes are too high, the canopy shape resembles that of the prototype not the production variant, there are panel lines that shouldn’t be there. “It’s a caricature of the actual aircraft,” says one observer with an annoying affinity for hyperbole.

Whether you’ve learned to love rivet counters or not, you stare at the model wondering how the designers could make such obvious mistakes.

We'll I can tell you. In fact I'll give you five reasons.

Inaccurate plans

The designers may have used inaccurate plans. The manufacturers don’t always have access to the plans and schematics from the original manufacturer, so they use what they can find. For many of the aircraft, armor, ships, and cars we build there are two, three, or more sets of plans floating around out there in books, magazines, or online. The designers choose one, believing (or hoping) they’re correct. Clearly, when they’re not, mistakes in the plans are reflected in the model.

Inaccurate prototypes

The designers may have studied an inaccurate prototype. This is what happened with Eduard’s initial release of their 1/48 Bf-109G. If you followed the endless chatter online last year you may recall the model featured a bump on the wing root, which the designer dutifully included based on their analysis of a Bf-109G in a museum. It turned out that the bump was a a post-war modification. How were the designers to know that? In Eduard’s case, they didn’t find out until the kit was in our hands and modelers more knowledgable about the 109 pointed out the error. (To their credit, Eduard corrected this, and other mistakes, by re-tooling the molds and releasing a new kit.)

Lack of subject matter expertise

From the conversations I’ve had with insiders familiar with the model design process, the designers employed by the manufacturers are often design generalists. They’re not necessarily aviation or military enthusiasts like you and me. They might be designing parts for a refrigerator on Monday and designing the canopy of the upcoming Su-35 on Tuesday. They’re not familiar with the subtleties of your favorite subjects. It’s not surprising that they don’t “see” that gentle shape of the rear fuselage of the F-4 Phantom or notice the different angle of a Sherman glacis plate between the early and late variants.

When a subject matter expert is involved in a project (and we’ve recently seen a number of kits that are reviewed by modelers during the design process), there can be communication challenges. With many kits being designed in Asia or Europe there’s no guarantee the designers will be fluent in English, so when the expert sees an error in an early design image, communicating the nuance of the recommended change can be a challenge. For example, I have a basic understanding of Spanish; I know common words and phrases (and can certainly look up words I don’t know), but I’d be hard-pressed to assemble a clear, coherent explanation in Spanish of why the nose of the Trumpeter 1/72 Su-34 is wrong. And a Spanish designer might have a hard timely clearly understanding precise instructions I give him.

And I should point out that even when a third-party expert is consulted it doesn’t mean that the manufacturer will follow their guidance or that the expert is provided anything other than the CAD images.

No quality assurance

I don’t have any evidence to back up this theory, so I’d be eager to hear from anyone who can set me straight, but I have a feeling there’s no quality assurance check of the basic design of a new model prior to its going to production. The manufacturers hire designers, whether full-time or freelance, and give them the responsibility to design a model. But who checks their designs? I suspect it’s a product manager, but who’s to say that he's familiar enough with the subject to determine whether the designs are correct or not? He could look over the CAD drawings and declare, “Well, it looks like the photos of the Fruitbat Mk IIc that I’ve seen,” but would he notice that the exhausts are incorrect or the wheel hubs feature five bolt heads rather than six? Probably not. So the manufacturers release kits based on the best efforts of their designers.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

Finally, this leads me to the most likely reason your favorite model is inaccurate, the Dunning-Kruger effect. This concept suggests that we mistakenly consider ourselves to be more intelligent or to possess higher skills than we actually have. The guy who designed that inaccurate kit you bought thought it was accurate. He did the very best he could given his experience, skill, and resources available. But it turns out he wasn’t quite good enough to get everything right.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains why you feel slighted when your model doesn't win at a contest...even though the wings weren’t aligned or you missed a seam on the stabilizer. Or why a chef at a restaurant featured on Kitchen Nightmares believes he's serving amazing food even though the restaurant is on the verge of bankruptcy because no one eats there. If Tamiya is producing the most accurate kits in the hobby, it's due in large part to their hiring the best talent.

You can read more about the Dunning-Kruger effect on Wikipedia.

In Summary...

Being aware of these factors should give you a clear understanding of just how difficult it is to produce a perfectly accurate kit.

1. Ideally the designers work from the manufacturer’s plans, and…

2. They have to have access to an accurately restored prototype, and…

3. They consult with subject matter experts with whom they can clearly communicate, and…

4. There’s someone in the company who’s familiar with the aircraft or vehicle prototype to double-check the designers’ work, and…

5. The designers are the very best in the industry and — ideally — aviation, military, naval, or automotive enthusiasts themselves.

That’s a tall order by any measure!

Disagreements and opinions

Several bloggers whom I respect — and dozens of modelers across the interwebs — have worked themselves into quite a tizzy these last few weeks. It all started with Kitty Hawk’s release of their Su-17,  Doogs’ Models comprehensive build and review of the kit, and the conversations that followed. I was tangentially part of the conversation sharing Paul Cotcher’s thoughts on the kit as part of my Other Voices series.

In case you’ve been asleep these last few weeks, here’s a summary of the conversation.

Some modelers, such as Paul, are thrilled to see the KH Su-17 because it represents an improvement over the old KP kit that was produced more than 20 years ago. Other modelers, such as Matt over at Doogs’ Models, are critical of KH for many engineering shortcomings that make the model difficult to build.

Modelers seem to be falling in line with one or the other camp and, as in all things remotely political, I find myself somewhere in the middle, which positions me to be The Voice of Reason in this mess.

Here’s the thing. I think very highly of rivet counters, really I do. In fact three years ago I wrote about how I learned to love them. People like Matt provide a valuable service to the hobby by digging into new models to assess their buildability, and other modelers are quick to assess new kits for their accuracy and share their thoughts on sites like Hyperscale, ARC, and Missing Links. I remain impressed that modelers — total strangers, mind you — will invest a significant amount of time to help the rest of us make informed buying decisions. Every one of them should be commended.

I also have great affection for casual modelers, people who are content to have a reasonable representation of a favorite subject, even if it requires significant modeling mojo to build or if the model is somewhat inaccurate. My “godfather” in the hobby, a man I met more than 30 years ago, has an almost childlike enthusiasm for the hobby and could care less about accuracy. When I feel myself getting bogged down in the hobby, struggling with a model or obsessing over the accuracy of small details, I'll call him and his spirit immediately renews my own enjoyment for what we do. Mind you, this is a man who scratchbuilt a Spitfire wing out of playing cards after he bought a model and found that a wing was missing. Who among us would do that in today’s world?

I don’t blame Matt, rivet counters, or other bloggers for this or any other hubbub (have you seen related conversations about the Airfix 1/48 P-40 or the Z-M F-4?). I blame the rest of us. You see, the frustrating aspect of internet conversations is the need that most of us feel to comment on everything we read that we disagree with. Facebook and blogs like this make it easy — even enticing — with those little Comments boxes, and many of us are absolutely compelled to share our thoughts. But here’s the thing…just because I can comment on a post doesn’t mean I should comment on a post. Believe me, I see plenty of things online that I want to comment on, but I continually remind myself that it’s okay to remain silent, to hold my opinion to myself.

To be fair to all of us who participate in these forums and Facebook, internet conversations generally mirror the conversations we have face-to-face. When I talk to my friends on the phone we chat about the same topics I see online — the prices of kits, judging at contests, whether the KH Su-17 is worth what appears to be inevitable frustration. I guess if those topics are fodder for in-person conversations, they should be for online conversations as well.

Where does that leave us? I can't help but think of two favorite quotes, one from an old work colleague and another from a modeling friend:

"Your opinion, while interesting, is irrelevant."

“Opinions are like Sherman tanks. Everyone has one.” (Obviously he’s an armor modeler.)

5 things to stop giving a shit about in 2015

Last January I offered 5 New Years resolutions for you. How did you do?

Well it's a New Year, so for those inclined to making resolutions, here are 5 things you need to stop giving a shit about in 2015.

1. Contest trophies

Although contests can motivate you to improve our skills, there are many reasons to enter contests beyond the quest for gold. Worry less about winning and more about enjoying the process.

2. When your favorite new release will hit the shelves

I'm as eager as anyone else for many of the upcoming kits to hit the LHS, but it's time you stop the incessant chatter asking, "When is the Tamigawa Boss Fruitbat Mk. IVb going to be released?" Patience is a virtue, they say, so step away from the computer and go build a model.

3. The underside of your model

Unless you choose to display your models on mirrors, don't obsess over getting the seams, details, and weathering perfect on the undersides of your models. You almost never see it, so "cheating" a little can significantly speed up your builds.

4. Why Britmodeller is down

This isn't just about Britmodeller, but any web site that goes offline. It happens. Don't panic. Just check back a day (or even a week) later. Trust me, if a web site shuts down permanently you'll know.

5. Decals for F-35 RAM panels

We need to stop asking for RAM panels for the F-35 kits that are on the market and tackle the tedious task of masking them ourselves. If that's too much work for you, there are hundreds of other models that are easier to paint. It's okay to declare some kits beyond your skill level (as I did with the WNW Felixstowe).

Eduard and the Bf-109G-6 brouhaha

Unless you were in Paris for the last week celebrating the marriage of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, you've probably been overwhelmed with all of the discussion around Eduard's 1/48 Bf-109G. Recently released and now given a thorough assessment by rivet counters the world over, it seems it has a number of inaccuracies. The most concise review can be found over on Hyperscale, and there's also a good WIP on Aeroscale that offers some interesting insight as well.

I've already shared my thoughts about rivet counters some time ago, and I'll let each of you decide whether the inaccuracies make the kit "unbuildable," but I feel compelled to offer my thoughts on Eduard as a whole.

Eduard has taken quite a bit of heat with this release, as they did for one of their MiG-21 variants, with one modeler going so far as to say "they wont unfortunately be trusted again." That's a bit extreme in my opinion, and I hope that's not a sentiment shared by most modelers.

Eduard is arguably the best plastic model manufacturer in the hobby. There, I've said. No other manufacturer is producing as much product at they are with the same level of finesse. Only Tamiya and Revell-Germany come close in terms of tooling and production. Based on the information Eduard regularly shares with their customers (unrivaled compared by any other company), it appears they are committed to producing the most accurate kits they can. In response to the conversation around the Bf-109G, they even published an interview with its lead designer, Stanislav Archman on their web site. By all measures, Eduard is doing everything they can to give us models that are accurate and feature the best tooling in the industry.

Has Eduard made mistakes? Yes, but everyone does. I could argue that the other manufacturers often seem to fall short in their research or take shortcuts, but I see no evidence of that from the folks at Eduard. At the end of the day I'd be more confident buying an Eduard kit sight-unseen than one from any other manufacturer.

This week someone asked if I feel sorry for Eduard. I don't. They can be proud of an expansive product line and some of the best kits on the market. I am nothing but optimistic about their future in the hobby. I can't say the same for Kanye and Kim.

This model is crap!

This is my story about how I learned to love rivet counters. It's a path of anger, annoyance, irritation, acceptance, appreciation, and affection.

Our hobby is just like any other hobby and special interest. We attract all kinds of people. There are casual participants. There are enthusiasts. There are zealots. And everything in between. I know this isn't a surprise to hear, but it's important to acknowledge it as we walk our sprue-strewn path toward scale modeling enlightenment and unconditional love of elitists and rivet counters.

Last year there was a thread on ARC where modelers discussed the merits of IPMS membership, and one of the criticisms often leveled at the organization is the elitism that some modelers have encountered. I've seen it myself, but my sense of humor pulls me through those moments even when I want to punch an elitist in the throat.

For example, I was at a contest many years ago mulling around the contest room with a friend and soon found myself chatting within a circle of modelers he knew. One of them was a well-known and respected expert whom I'd never met. At one point he pulled me over to the table behind us, pointed to a model, and proceeded to tell me what was wrong with it. Mind you, I'd never met this guy before and there was nothing in the group's conversation that should've triggered him to take me away from it. I was taken aback. I was speechless. I would have been less surprised had he shown me a tattoo of a tricycle on his inner thigh. What if it had been my model? What if it had been the first model that a 14 year-old boy had ever built? This guy, as knowledgeable as he was, had absolutely no tact. He could've been the poster boy for the elitism that many people complain about.

More recently, in the last few months in fact, I've noticed a number of contentious threads across many forums where casual modelers and rivet counters are debating the accuracy and subsequent value of new kits. You have the rivet counters pointing out every major and minor error, and you have casual modelers expressing their annoyance and proclaiming, "It looks like a Periland-Hawthwait Gumbat Mk. IV." Here are a few:

The DML M103, on Armorama.
The Trumpeter T-38, on ARC.
The Great Wall Hobby (re-tooled) F-15B/D on ARC.

In my experience most modelers are good guys who enjoy building models for relaxation or to indulge their interest in Cold War jets, German armor, World War Two destroyers, 28mm trolls, or whatever. But elitists exist everywhere no matter how you indulge your weird interests. Do you like wine? You'll find oenophiles who won't buy anything but French wine. Are you a chocolate connoisseur? My best friend will laugh at you if you talk about Godiva ("candy," as he calls it) in his presence. Are you a car guy? Don't drive an automatic as I do, because sports car elitists will laugh at you on track day.

So what do we do with these people? Nothing. You can't change people, so to preserve your sanity you must find a way to accept their contributions to the hobby.

I've learned to love elitists, and you should, too. Let's face it; the "experts" in the scale modeling hobby are not paid historians. They're not professional engineers. They are usually self-taught historians and enthusiasts who are simply eager to share what they've learned. They spend a good amount of time studying new kits, comparing them to photographs or scale drawings, and generally offering educated analyses of the discrepancies they've found. I think that's pretty generous on their part, and I'm glad they're willing to do it.

Your challenge is to read their reviews and take what you need from them. The wings on the Cyber Hobby Sea Venom are too long? You have to consider whether you can live with that inaccuracy if you want a Sea Venom in your collection. The wheels on the Academy Merkava aren't aligned properly? You have to consider if that's a deal-breaker for you. If the errors don't bother you it shouldn't be too difficult to simply click the Back button on your browser and find something else to read. We don't have to chastise rivet counters for offering a (fair) critique of a model. Sure, some are self-important blowhards like the guy I encountered, but so what? Don't let them ruin your enjoyment of the hobby. Or a glass of wine from a Missouri winery.

Embrace the suck!

Five New Years resolutions for you

I'm not one to make New Years resolutions for myself, but I'll happily make five for you! Please pass them on!

1. Start experimenting. I appreciate the ease with which you can ask questions on the internet forums, but all of us need to spend a few days throughout the year trying a new technique without the promise of success.

2. Don't pick fights with rivet counters. I know some of them can be abrasive at times, but we should be thanking them for offering critiques of new models. We've seen several instances where their observations have prompted the manufacturers to re-tool kits to make them more accurate. If accuracy isn't a driving factor for you, skip their reviews.

3. Stop hijacking new release threads with your personal wish list. Enjoy new kit announcements for what they are and post your requests elsewhere; practically every manufacturer now provides a medium for providing feedback. I'd love to see a 1/48 L-17 Navion, but you don't' see me posting that every time Kitty Hawk announces a new kit. Oh, and quit with the annoying "wrong scale" barbs. You're annoying.

4. If you build armor, show some restraint in your weathering. I appreciate the artistry of highly weathered tanks (which I have yet to master myself), but it's time for this fad to go away. Who among you will offer something new for us to get excited about?

5. Inventory your stash (and books) for insurance purposes. One of our peers recently lost his house in a fire. I have no idea how much he lost in terms of models and related resources, but it should open our eyes to the substantial investments we've made in our hobby. Inventory that stuff and store it offline. I recommend DropBox, but there are a number of solutions available today.

Country music and rivet counters

Visit any discussion forum, click into any thread about a new kit, and you'll find a tangential conversation -- often heated -- about the value of nitpicking inaccuracies. Some of the so-called "rivet counters" are extremely vocal about their disappointment with a handful of the manufacturers who seem to consistently release models with inaccuracies. This rivet counting annoys more than a few modelers.

For what it's worth, this dichotomy is not unique to scale modeling.

I love music. I'll listen to anything -- pop, rock, rap, classical, country. Earlier this years I found Saving Country Music, a blog devoted to critiquing, sometimes in very harsh terms, the country music we hear on the radio. The webmaster, Kyle “The Triggerman” Coroneos, believes that the current crop of artists (Florida Georgia Line, Taylor Swift, Carrie Underwood) has twisted country music into a genre that sounds more like pop, and he's not happy about that at all.

For his ongoing critique of the industry, Trigger has come under fire by readers who ask why its necessary to criticize bad music. I'll let you read his full response, but some of his comments are applicable to our hobby.

"Professional criticism is something every artist should crave, and helps
maintain a healthy music environment that invites discussion on quality."

I have to believe that the manufacturers in our hobby are thick-skinned enough to read and accept criticism, and we have reason to believe they listen. For example, I wonder if the less prominent rivets on Trumpeter's latest releases is one example of a manufacturer listening to its customers.

"Criticism can also be an important tool to the music listener, especially
as the music world becomes evermore crowded with choice."

To this point, those of us who've been in the hobby for 20 year or more know there are thousands more products available today than ever before, and even if you've been building models for one year, no one has to tell you that prices on many of many kits are quite high. (I'll write more about that latter point in the future.) Most of us buy kits on a limited budget, so it's important that we know what we're buying. The rivet counters make us smarter consumers. I'd rather go into my LHS, or onto a favorite online shop, knowing more about the models I intend to buy than less. And for that I have the Triggers and the rivet counters of the world to thank.

P.S. For the record, I kinda like Blake Shelton's "Boys 'Round Here."

An old survey, 30 years perspective, and models

If you've been in the hobby for 20 or even 30 years as I have, it's fun to look through old magazines and realize just how far we've come. With all the rivet counting of new kits (which I support, by the way), it's easy to forget that 30 years ago we were dreaming about many of the kits we have today. Sort of.

While unpacking old magazines after my move a year ago, I came across the January/February 1984 issue of IPMS's Update. It published the results of a survey in which the organization asked its members what new kits they wanted to see. Over 1,000 responses were counted, and the results are interesting. Consider the top ten kits requested for aircraft in the two most popular scales.

Aircraft 1/72

B-58 Hustler
F-89 Scorpion
A-3 Skywarrior
C-10/AC-110 Flying Boxcar
F3H Demon
F-94 Starfire
C-135/KC-135 Stratotanker
PBM-5 Mariner
F7U Cutlass
B-57/RB-57/WB-57 Night Intruder

Aircraft 1/48

A-20 Havoc
A-26 Invader
F-101 Voodoo
F-89 Scorpion
F-102 Delta Dagger
PBY-5 Catalina
Heinkel He-111
F-94 Starfire
Macchi MC.202 Folgore
SBC Vindicator

Most of these aircraft are now available in kit form, but many are what I would consider "third generation" quality, lacking the level of detail that we come to expect today. For example, Italeri's 1/72 B-58 is roughly 30 years old and totally shows its age, and only Monogram has tackled the A-26, F-101, F-89, and F-102 in 1/48 scale...about 20 years ago!

(By the way, the top five aircraft requested in 1/32 scale were the F-100D, P-6E, F-105D, A-10, and A-7.)

Now look at what the armor modelers were requesting in 1/35 scale in 1984.

M24 Chaffee
T-72
BMP-1
M-108/109
T-54/55
M2 Bradley
Merkava
ZSU-23-4 Shilka
PT-72
M18 Hellcat

You could probably make the argument that armor modelers have it made. Nearly all of these kits are available with fourth generation quality. (Dragon's Shilka is oldish, but still a very nice model.) And as I browser further in the IPMS wish list, I see many other AFVs that are now on the shelves of your LHS (BTR-60, M26, Wespe, BRDM-2, M88, T-34/85, JS-3, etc.).

I may spend more time looking at the list and comparing it to what's available today. A quick glance shows some odd choices from the manufacturers. For example, while over 100 people requested the B-58 only eight requested the F4D Skyray yet Tamiya offers a very nice Skyray while the B-58 in my stash has nasty raised panel lines all over it, not to mention proportions which I've read are way off. Fifty-five people requested a 1/48 F7F Tigercat and 12 requested a PV-1 Ventura, but which one did Revell choose to produce?

Oh well.

One step forward, one step back

I really like what I've seen from the folks at Cyber-Hobby over the last year. Until I picked up their F6F Hellcat at the IPMS Nats a few weeks ago, my experience with their kits had been virtual, having seen them only online. Their SB2C has been very well received by the modeling community despite the existence of the superb Academy kit, and their Meteor looks equally nice. I was eager to fondle another example of their work.

When Cyber-Hobby released their Sea Venom in 1/72 scale, I was intrigued. Cold War British aircraft are not of special interest to me, but there's something about that big, bulbous nose that intrigued me, that and I've always had an affinity for smallish aircraft and armor. When I saw photos of the Sea Venom on the various discussion boards and saw the finesse of the moldings, I knew I had to have one.

Last week I scored a Sea Venom on eBay for a good price and received it over the weekend. In terms of detail and molding, it's really, really nice, folks. The bad news is, it has its share of flaws. Danielle Lang was kind enough to do a thorough evaluation of the kits on Britmodeller.com and share her findings on this thread and this thread. She compiled quite a list of issues. Say what you will about "rivet counting," but I appreciate reviews like this because they make me a more informed consumer, and that's never a bad thing. I bought the kit, aware of those shortcomings, and having it now I can say I'm looking forward to building it.

Almost.

Why? The one glaring shortcoming of the kit is...drum roll please...the lack of an opening canopy! This is not 1971, right? This is not a Frog kit sitting before me, right? I find it surprising that anyone would produce a kit these days without an opening canopy. Maybe Cyber-Hobby wanted to hide the inaccurate instrument panel.

Let's hope this never happens again.