Academy 1:800 Kitty Hawk dissapointment

there is a posting on this forum recently about buying a model  based on box art. your is a perfect example of what not to do.  i buy based on subject matter only,and would rather see a plain box with colored directions inside. based on your writing here i will take it that you learned your lesson.

i am the greatest modeler wrote:

there is a posting on this forum recently about buying a model  based on box art. your is a perfect example of what not to do.  i buy based on subject matter only,and would rather see a plain box with colored directions inside. based on your writing here i will take it that you learned your lesson.

Much like buying a book by its cover? I very much like to look at the box artwork. I got intersted in the Zvezda Mig 3, a $9.95 model, because of the artwork on the box. Only the gods will know the outcome of the finished model. Has anyone built this model?

If I may quote rudy_102:

     "Good boxart (like Revell, Tamiya, Hasegawa, etc.) piques my interest in a kit, and I don't like decieving boxart. This is one reason why I like Revell's boxes. They show zilch, you get zilch. They show a fully loaded plane, you get a fully loaded plane."

I think rudy's key in this quote is "deceiving". While I'm not saying "deception" is intentional, I like the box art to be as accurate as possible. On the Academy Kitty Hawk kit, the painting represents the ship a good 20-some years later than the kit's parts contents. The kit itself is fine though, for the time period the kit was engineered to represent.

It's part my fault too, as there are photos on the side that shows the assembled model. The time period difference jumps out at you immediately as you look at the painting vs. photos, but for accuracy's sake, Academy messed up. They probly didn't notice that's all. I didn't either.