A possible way to end kit inaccuracies

That would certainly result in some great kits, but the costs involved in such a noble endeavor would probably prove to be prohibitive to both the manufacturer and the consumer.
I'd buy 'em, though!

i think moggie has something here! i beg to differ j-hulk. the cost would be compensated by the fact that you wouldent have to have a team of 3 researchers, you could have a team of 2 information sifters. however the problem i see is one of competition. if it was just one company making all the kits in the world then this would be an ideal way to resarch kits, but the problem lies in that there are innumberable manufacturers that all want to edge out the competition and stop "them" from stealing"our" information. perhaps this idea can be built upon.

The main thing on kit inaccuracies are the molds.Some manufactures use the same molds for another kit to cut down on the cost.Molds are an inspendsive part of modeling,due to the fine details can't be engraved with a computer aided machine but have to be done by hand.You can go to the history channel to find this out on there article about money.It is only after the first mold is done,then they can use a machine to make others.This first mold thought cost a lot of money to make due to the fact that engravers are not cheap.Most get pay anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 per year to do there job and takes about a year for one mold.So to fix the inaccuracies in the model is our hobby and brings up our skills as a model builder.You can find aftermarket parts that are accurate to replace the parts that are not.You may also have to scrach build them to make them accurate.Digger

even easier way: get the real thing, measure, keep on measureing, etc etc

Interesting posts, thanks for looking everyone. Let me address the points and add some new thoughts.

The cost of the website should be small. How many pages of text and pictures are hosted here at FineScale and at what cost? The size of a new model forum can’t be much larger. The extra researchers are the forum members who freely share their knowledge. There are many experts out there and while I don’t advocate model companies sack the research staff because they would ultimately be responsible for sifting the information; letting more people look and contribute can eliminate potential errors.

If a company announces a particular project and then some other company releases that model, wouldn’t that generate a great deal of negative press for the “cheating” company? Let them announce their own project. I don’t think that the model companies want to directly compete against each other for a particular subject. (begin heresy)All the mainstream, popular kits have been produced.(end heresy) I know there are long lists on every forum for what should be done next but admit it; there is nothing missing in the stature of a P-51, Tiger tank, Corvette, Enterprise(carrier and spaceship), or Napoleon. Either redo a popular subject better or an undone second tier one. Revell and Dragon both chose to redo Tigers, instead of a new Centurion because imho many more casual modelers know what a Tiger is and have no idea about the other. The cost of the mold is the same but you will sell more Tigers. The only other thing left to do is something new. That is the only place I see speed to be important but the secrecy surrounding new military hardware makes that a delicate balancing act. Go first with the prototype but lose the long term sales. Commercial subjects should be supported by the manufacturer (particularly cars) because it helps build identification.

I know that many of you don’t mind fixing a model but, wouldn’t you rather spend the effort to add detail then correct something. Not all of us want or can do that. I am not so proud to admit that I don’t have the energy or skill to make corrections. Let me compare two 1/72 scale Thunderbolts that were reviewed recently in FS. I’m guessing the Italeri P-47N is an older mold then the Tamiya P-47D. The N wing is too narrow and the propeller is incorrect. With the price the same, guess which one I would build. But the author expressed some doubt about the correct color of the D tail. Let’s find out even if it is determined to be ‘We don’t know and can’t tell’.

In may cases, ‘the real thing’ does not exist any more. As I said first before, a museum survivor may be inaccurately restored. I know they try but sometimes they have to go with what is available. This could be another avenue to archive personal recollections and photos. Point of contention: ownership of said recollections and photos.

This really is a long term, new mold idea. I think the models now are far and away much better then before and gross errors no longer occur. I think the companies really, really want to get it right. This would be just another way to ensure that.

i think that the two sides of the coin can turn over without end. it seems to me that its cost Vs accuracy Vs detail ? its a many-way comprimise that will just have to even itself out. the important thing is that we have the idea out, and hopefully that will help the industry /hobby

QUOTE: Originally posted by Moggie ... In may cases, ‘the real thing’ does not exist any more. As I said first before, a museum survivor may be inaccurately restored. I know they try but sometimes they have to go with what is available. This could be another avenue to archive personal recollections and photos. Point of contention: ownership of said recollections and photos. ...

Case in point: The only surviving original JS-3M is in Russia. It spent many years behind the iron curtain so model companies are more likely to resarch a more accesible one at, for instance, Aberdeen. The problem is that the one at Aberdeen and all other preserved units in the world except the 1 in Russia is that they have T-54/55 engines and rear decks.
Now it gets sticky because almost (if not) all major users of the JS-3 upgraded to the T-54/55 engine/deck so it would be correct for any late JS-3 to have that combo but you would have an inaccurate early JS-3/3M

easier way: send review samples to people like scott van aken [sp?][owner of modeling madness] steve [lastname forgot] [aircraft resource center owner] and brett green or people like that. also give them out randomly to people who sign up, get them to judge the kit, how it can be improved, an overall rating, and they get to keep the model if they really think it's almost perfect. if it isn't, they can still keep it, but they send the guys a second batch to do the same. may be costly, but is almost guerenteed perfect models.

A lot of kit makers really don't care. The low end kits will be built by people who know nothing of the accuracy of the real subject. I could build a model of a tiger tank and think it is great, but less than 10% will know how inaccurate it is. The kit makers are after that other 90%.

Many years ago I built an aircraft carrier and was pleased with the kit. I found out later it wasn't very accurate and was not even a model of that carrier. I didn't know. The manufacturers will produce a tank kit of a popular subject and go back later and add a longer gun to the same kit and call it the MK ll. Only the gun is different in the kit, but again 10% know there were other changes from the MK l to the MK ll. The other 90% will buy the kit and the company will make money on it. They don't care about the other small precentage.

An aircraft on the other hand is different. I have yet to see anywhere about the 1/32 scale Revell F-4E or RF-4C main landing gear wheels. I have actually seen one built and in FSM with the kit wheels. How many of you have built that kit and installed the wheels, backwards.

High end kit are a little different. The average Mike Modeler is not going to go out and spend $100 plus for a model kit. Here you have the tables reversed. 90% who buy that kit really know their subject. Take the 1/32 Trumpeter F4F Wildcat. Serious model builders refused to spend that much money on junk. They forced Trumpeter to recall the kit and correct the problems. The end result was a better kit, but still not perfect. It did give the builder something to work with though.

The model companies know they can't please 100% of their customers. They are betting on the large precentage buying the kit and thinking it is great. The others can go out and buy the after market parts to improve the kit and they don't care. If they can sell X number of kits and make X number of dollars, than they are happy. They will continue to make less than perfect kits because they know they can sell them.

Any amount of kit reviews or web sites will not stop the majority of people from buying the kit. Most will not even research the model before buying it and will slap on the glue, paint and show it off to their friends. They think they have a first class kit because they don't know better. I would be in the same boat with armor, ships, or for that matter any Star Trek model.

Some times you just have to take your chances. We can't always wait several months after a kit is released to read all the reviews on it. We want to get it while it is still hot in the box and then find out it wasn't what we expected. Then you have to work with what you have. It might mean some scratch building or wait for the after market parts to come out. You have just given that kit maker X number of dollars. And next month you will go out and do the same thing.

sadly, berny has raised another problem, many kit makers dont care, so i guess its up to us modellers to boycott innacurate kits. but me having said that is hypocritical, cos i am not an accuracy junkie, fit and detail are more important to me.ill still buy innacurate kits, but not poor fit and sketchy detail ones.

all in all, its a hobby, and i think many builders are willing to deal with a few things here and there for a significant savings, after all, ripping our hair out is half the fun.

There are limiting factors in the Injection molding prosess as well!!! take Wheels for instance!!!