Dragon 1/350 Buchanan - some comments

I, too, am done.  I sincerely hope that this thread does get deleted by FSM.  JTilley, thank you for your attempt at starting an informative and helpful thread in which we could all benefit to take a wonderful kit to an even higher level of modeling. The foul trend  had nothing whatsoever to do with you.

Bill Morrison

OK, moving along now. I am going to let that one ride. I too reported this thread for abuse, even if I get spanked in the process.

 I am willing to answer any questions about the Buchanan and it's design. But from now on I intend to ignore those who simply want to argue about it. If someone has some serious questions feel free to ask. 

Well, that's enough for me.

I apologize to all concerned for having started this thread; I had no idea that it - or any other thread in a ship modeling forum - would take off in such a bizarre direction.  It's turned into an embarrassment, for which I have to accept at least partial responsibility.  I hate to think what a newcomer to the hobby might conclude about ship modeling and ship modelers on the basis of these four pages.

I've made use of the "Report Abuse" feature to direct the FSM Forum management's attention to the thread, with the recommendation that the people who have the means to do so consider either locking it or, preferably, deleting it permanently from the web.  The matter is now in their hands. 

The Dragon Buchanan is a superb kit, and I hope lots of modelers enjoy building it.  Mine, though, is headed for the depths of the attic.  Maybe someday, when the foul taste generated by this exchange has had time to dissipate, I'll get it out and take another look at it.  But for now I'd rather put my leisure time into something else.

warshipguy wrote:

I assume you mean "you're".

Ad Hominem attack

warshipguy wrote:

There was no attempt to find out what ships the modeling community desired; the kits were dictated by the site director.  In other words, it was not an appropriate survey. Indeed, there was no survey for sailing ship enthusiasts.

There is no need for any other type of structured survey ON A MODEL WEB SITE. You want a thread asking about what ships people want? Hey, hit "new topic" and type "what ship do YOU WANT????" in the subject!

warshipguy wrote:

Searat12 requested the oilcanning effect, at which point, the alleged designers of this kit attacked him in the most rude and crude manner.

I suggest you go back and re-read this thread then; the initial response regardingoil canning was, "NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! YOU want it, YOU do it to YOUR model!  The phenomenon is commonly called "oilcanning" or "mare's ribs" and happens all over the hull, not just the bow. It is a combination of hyrodynamic action and thermal expansion/contraction over time. However, it is not appropriate to a kit as most in this and larger scales end up being built dockyard style where it would be totally inappropriate."

Please tell me how that is an attack on him, how that is rude, and how that is crude? 

warshipguy wrote:

Seventh, stop these vitriolic personal attacks.  You might not like it when we hobbyists point out the flaws in the kits you may or may not have designed, but unless you design perfect kits, you should not get upset with our trying to help each other correct the flaws and improve upon our modeling (that which you refer to as playing with ships).

OK, seriously dude, I suggest you get out a dictionary and bone up on a couple of words. Explaining why decisions were made is not vitrol. In fact, you and SeaRat have been making the claims of personal attacks over and over where there haven't been any. Yes, there are differences of opinions, but that is NOT a personal attack! Tim and Ron took the initial criticisms graciously... others are pressing the issues and generally excercising their 1st ammendment right to "open their mouths and prove it."

Model Warships wrote:

"Forced???? You just made a conclusion based on 2 out of 3 subjects. I am comfortable that I am working with a good team representing a broad spectrum of the hobby. No kit is going to make everyone happy, but I am willing to bet that there will be a whole lot of happy ship modelers out there in the coming months. So get out your dremel and see what you can do to create your own oil canning. When *(your) done, post some pics and share some tips. But most of all, relax and have some fun."   *I assume you mean "you're".

First, I am referring to very many such comments since I joined the forum from purported representatives of the manufacturing community, not just 2 out of 3. Your own self-provided manufacturers site at ModelWarships.com illustrates the very limited ways in which manufacturers have gone about their research; I saw two specific threads purporting to be surveys, 1 for 1/350 scale and 1 for 1/700 scale. But the ships listed in the survey were specified by the founder of the site. There was no attempt to find out what ships the modeling community desired; the kits were dictated by the site director.  In other words, it was not an appropriate survey. Indeed, there was no survey for sailing ship enthusiasts.  The survey was also limited only to those who had any idea it was going on (the end sample size was exceedingly small to be a reliable survey, with just over 100 respondents).

Second, I have made NO adverse comments about the kit in question; indeed, I have NOT advocated oilcanning.  In fact, I have NOT taken a stand either way. Try reading my comments for total content.

Third, I am very happy with the kit. Again, try reading my comments in their entirety.  By assuming that I advocated oilcanning, you have illustrated quite well my point about the manufacturers making assumptions.

Fourth, I am ecstatic with what has been occuring in the hobby over the past few years.  Like any of us, I love this hobby immensely; it is a huge part of my life.

Fifth, try to not get defensive. Read my comments in total instead of isolated spots.

Sixth, any modeler is free to request that which he/she wants to see manufactured. Searat12 requested the oilcanning effect, at which point, the alleged designers of this kit attacked him in the most rude and crude manner. Yet, his request has a basis in past molding practice; there have been many armor and aircraft kits manufactured with alternate "battle-damaged" parts. These kits were produced mostly by Monogram in the 1970's and 1980's.  Then, jtilley, a man much admired and respected on these forums, made very casual comments regarding the minor flaws found in the kit, which set off a firestorm of vitriolic comments from those same kit designers. Yet, his comments had merit. If USS BUCHANAN had a sonar dome, then Dragon should have included it in the kit. The decision to not do so means that the manufacturers made the conscious decision to go with a flawed kit. Monogram manufactured sonar domes in its single-piece hulled American destroyer/frigate series of the 1970's. These sonar domes were simply cast separately from the hull. If it was possible in the 1960's and 1970's, it is possible now.  And that, too, is a no-brainer!

Seventh, stop these vitriolic personal attacks.  You might not like it when we hobbyists point out the flaws in the kits you may or may not have designed, but unless you design perfect kits, you should not get upset with our trying to help each other correct the flaws and improve upon our modeling (that which you refer to as playing with ships).

Bill Morrison

ModelWarships wrote:

searat12 wrote: A funny thing about the whole 'oilcanning' debate, if you look at the cover art on the Buchanan box, it clearly shows the ship suffering from a fair bit of oilcanning in the bow, Oilcanning was discussed and ultimately rejected. While I personally thought it would be cool, many modelers would be upset that their brand new ship was all dented up. Kind of like buying a model car with predented fenders. Those few modelers who like the junk yard scenes would be thrilled, but the majority would be complaining about how much putty they had to use to fix it.     searat12 wrote: But at the end of the day, it is not an engineers or manufacturers job to dispute with customers about what the customer wants, needs, or wishes for, no matter how ridiculous or unfeasible they may be. Hey it's not my job, I just enjoy doing it. Especially when your wants wishes and needs are so rediculous. Oh and unfeasible.

warshipguy wrote:

I am forced to conclude that no such scientific research is in fact taking place.

Forced???? You just made a conclusion based on 2 out of 3 subjects. I am comfortable that I am working with a good team representing a broad spectrum of the hobby. No kit is going to make everyone happy, but I am willing to bet that there will be a whole lot of happy ship modelers out there in the coming months. So get out your dremel and see what you can do to create your own oil canning. When your done, post some pics and share some tips. But most of all, relax and have some fun.

ModelWarships wrote, "BTW I have not taken offense to anything that is written. I am simply answering specific points. I do think such statements as "manufactures assume that...." is an assumption in itself."

Please allow me to clarify my point.  Earlier in this thread, searat12 wrote that he would like to have seen oil canning on the hull. Another writer, who identified himself as having had a role in the design process of this kit, responded that 97 percent of the ship modeling community would have rejected that kit.  He also alluded to such comments as "most modelers".  No serious researcher would make such assertions.  First, no research project involving as many people world wide as ship modeling does can ever sample 100 percent of the community in question. Second, supposing that 97 percent of the sample pool did respond unfavorably to that particular question (assuming it was asked), generalizing that finding to the entire modeling community is still poor research technique.  Third, the stating of any particular percentage with no mention of the margin of error is misleading.  Fourth, the commentator made no mention of the specific sample size (10 people, 20, 30, 100, 1000, etc.).  In short, while stating that he was a member of the design team (I am forced to take his word at face value), he made a very misleading statement that cannot possibly have been arrived at by any serious researcher.

It would have been more appropriate (and ,perhaps, accurate) for him to have said, "97 percent of of the "x" respondents in a manufacturers survey conducted (state the method by which the sample pool was selected) indicated that they would not like to see oil canning of the hull of the model kit of the USS BUCHANAN."

Another member of this thread wrote a private email to me in which he said that, as a member of the design team of the BUCHANAN, the manufacturers conduct research simply by looking at individual postings of pictures of completed models on various web sites, then determine the wishes of the modeling community at large.  Again, that is a very poor research technique. The only information that can possibly be gleaned from such a technique would be the building preferences of those modelers who (1) have the technical skill to download photographs onto those sites, (2) have the hardware with which to do so, (3) have the confidence to post their work, or (4) do not trust their skills at producing such effects as oil canning, seascapes, or other diorama techniques.  This is therefore a very poor research technique that was expostulated to me from a self-admitted member of the design team.

As a result of this comment and many other such comments made by people who purport to represent the various manufacturers that reflect poor research techniques, I am forced to conclude that no such scientific research is in fact taking place.  I am somewhat heartened to hear from one person who has actually been contacted by the manufacturers.  I have never met anyone who has had this honor.

I hope I have clarified and justified my remarks.  I was not making a simple assumption; I was working from statements made by people who worked with (if not for) the manufacturers about their relevant research methodologies. By the way, I visited the Model Warships manufacturers site; there was no relevant thread for sailing ship modelers.

Bill Morrison

EdGrune wrote:

warshipguy wrote:   In fact, I would very much appreciate hearing from any ship modelers who have been part of such market research.  Thanks! I was and I have been privy to pre-public announcements from several manufacturers.  I have been asked to keep the questions & decisions confidential.  I have, and will continue to, do so

searat12 wrote:

A funny thing about the whole 'oilcanning' debate, if you look at the cover art on the Buchanan box, it clearly shows the ship suffering from a fair bit of oilcanning in the bow,

Oilcanning was discussed and ultimately rejected. While I personally thought it would be cool, many modelers would be upset that their brand new ship was all dented up. Kind of like buying a model car with predented fenders. Those few modelers who like the junk yard scenes would be thrilled, but the majority would be complaining about how much putty they had to use to fix it. 

searat12 wrote:

But at the end of the day, it is not an engineers or manufacturers job to dispute with customers about what the customer wants, needs, or wishes for, no matter how ridiculous or unfeasible they may be.

Hey it's not my job, I just enjoy doing it. Especially when your wants wishes and needs are so rediculous. Oh and unfeasible.

There is a manufactures forum on ModelWarships.com where you can talk directly to many of the manufactures about their products. Most manufactures do pay attention to more than sales figures. At least those who are successful do. Some simply work thru those who are in contact with modelers.

BTW I have not taken offense to anything that is written. I am simply answering specific points. I do think such statements as "manufactures assume that...." is an assumption in itself. Split hull vs single is a debate that is relative to the subject at hand. Both options were considered, and the best one was chosen in this case.

The Dragon Buchanan was two years in the making and I talked to many modelers about many things. Being a long time ship modeler and the owner of a dedicated ship site keeps me in contact with ship modelers and what they are looking for. If you have visited you know we talk about these things all the time. Things get a little heated there too. But like this site a lot of that is because you can't see and hear who you are talking to. It is easy to take the tone of a post in the wrong way.

Interesting... I too have been building models for over 40 years, and have never encountered any sort of questionnaire, poll, or other inquiries from manufacturers, either before, or aftermarket.  I always thought it might be a good idea for a manufacturer to slip a pre-postage paid questionnaire in each kit, as this would avoid any threat of 'industrial espionage,' and give the manufacturers some good feedback as well (but I have never seen it done).  

One of the reasons I have been so pleased with this forum is the fact that apparently, some manufacturers actually do appear to read some of the entries, take notes and act upon them.  That's a good thing, and to me, long overdue.  I too have seen a lot of statistics bandied about, how '90% of modellers only want this, or that,' but as I am a modeller too, am I to believe that I am way out in some threatening 'radical zone' for merely throwing in an 'I wish' from time to time?  A funny thing about the whole 'oilcanning' debate, if you look at the cover art on the Buchanan box, it clearly shows the ship suffering from a fair bit of oilcanning in the bow, so I guess I must be in the same 'radical zone' as the box-art artists (who according to 'statistics,' must either never build models themselves, are never asked their thoughts and wants on the subject, and/or are probably anti-engineering communists too!) ;o)

It is one thing to defend one's work, and certainly the Buchanan is a wonderful piece of work.  But at the end of the day, it is not an engineers or manufacturers job to dispute with customers about what the customer wants, needs, or wishes for, no matter how ridiculous or unfeasible they may be.  In fact, in business as in everything else, this is only counter-productive.  Instead, it is their job to try to figure out how such things can be done in a way that is both economical and satisfactory, and thus steal a march on their competition.  It is the same thing in every business, has always been so, and always will be (my apologies, Professor Tilley!).  If they just can't do it, that's fine, because someone else eventually will, and thus take the business away from those who can't.  Welcome to the wonderful world of Progress and Capitalism!

JTilley and EdGrune,

Thank you both for your comments! I love this hobby and I value these forums as not only a source of valuable information but as a way of meeting people who share my interests.  JTilley, please keep posting!  EdGrune, I would never ask you to violate your sworn confidentiality. Everyone else, it is okay to respectfully disagree with another's comments.  If you disagree with any of mine, I welcome and value your viewpoint.  Let's just do it with dignity and good intentions.

Bill Morrison

warshipguy wrote:

In fact, I would very much appreciate hearing from any ship modelers who have been part of such market research.  Thanks!

I was and I have been privy to pre-public announcements from several manufacturers.  I have been asked to keep the questions & decisions confidential.  I have, and will continue to, do so

Warshipguy wrote:  "People, I plead with you . . . let's not get our bowels in an uproar.  Let's keep these commentaries amicable and friendly."

Amen.  About the next time somebody takes a nasty little dig at somebody else in this thread I'm going to do three things:  drop out of the thread (which, at this point, I fervently wish I hadn't started), lodge a complaint with the FSM Forum management (maybe somebody's already done that), and throw my Dragon Buchanan in the nearest trash can.  As JMart noted, I can get plenty of this sort of thing at the office; I don't need it in my hobby.

Everybody taking part in this thread seems to agree that the kit in question is one of the finest ever produced.  Yet the tone of the discussion, for some reason, has descended to a level I've only rarely encountered in the five years I've been taking part in this Forum.  I don't get it.

If what you say is true, then I stand corrected. But, I have been modeling for over 50 years and have been a member of modeling clubs across the country for over 30 years.  I have yet to see any poll, survey, questionairre, or focus group conducted by manufacturers.  If they are indeed doing so, it is a surprise to me.  I have seen statistics thrown around freely by those purporting to be representing the manufacturers, but none have cited their sources for those statistics.  In fact, I would very much appreciate hearing from any ship modelers who have been part of such market research.  Thanks!

Concerning the engineering facets of molding a one-piece or two-piece hull, I never claimed that one was better than the other.  I am not an engineer; I never claimed to be an engineer, and I have never commented upon the engineering principles of designing and molding a kit.  If you read my comments at all, you would have read that all I said was that I never have experienced any problems with two-piece hulls; that the current system of including many support bulkheads doesn't really add stability to the hull.  I did say that Heller, when molding two-piece hulls, included very simple support pieces that seem to work well.  Manufacturers have been successfully designing two-piece hulls for many years.  That, too, is a no-brainer.

As for the merits of this particular kit, I have repeatedly said that it is an outstanding kit.  I have no problems with it.  Why become so defensive?

People, I plead with you . . . let's not get our bowels in an uproar.  Let's keep these commentaries amicable and friendly.

Bill Morrison

JMart wrote:

This threads reminds me of some of the academia fights I used to enjoy (NOT) at the conferences I used to attend, sort of whose PhD is longer. For my 2cents (and 30USD), I rather but this kit (and five more) at 30$ plus 30-40$ in PE than buy another 300$ (kit + pe) nagato with <whatevers> lines all over the hull. Bears repeating, Dragon is/will be getting a lot more of my modelling money than any other vendor.

warshipguy wrote:

kit designers assume

What make you thing there were any assumtions made here? From an engineering standpoint the one piece hull while more complicated to mold ensures a better fit of the deck and hull.For a kit of this size a nice mold with slides was the way to go. For a big sailing boat with extensive hull planking to mold, a two peice is the way to go. It's actually a no brainer for anyone who has done tool design work. 

 Just for the record, while I am the person who designed the kit, I don't work directly for Dragon. I have actually done contract work for a few ship related companies. Mostly CAD work. When I am not playing with ships, I work full time for a Kansas City Manufacturer as their Engineering Manager. I work with injection molded parts everyday, and do know a few things about part design.

warshipguy wrote:

I have never witnessed the manufacturers conducting polls, surveys, questionairres, focus groups, or any other method of qualitative or quantitative research.

It has been going on under your nose for years. Most manufacturers do not like to show their hand until a kit is ready to bring on the market. There is always the chance that another manufacturer will beat them to the punch. So don't assume, the questions are not being asked, and feedback is not being passed on.

jtilley,

Your comment that kit designers assume that port/starboard hull splits cannot be molded to a high standard is very poignant.  In fact, there are many kits that have been well molded with just such a split.  Love it or hate it, the port/starboard halves of Heller's Soleil Royale fit well, as did its decks.  The HMS Victory by Heller fit well as well.  Hasegawa's CAD-besotted Nagato and Mutsu have exquisitely fitting hull halves and decks, as do the 1/700 scale Ise and Hyuga by Hasegawa.  It can be done; indeed, it has been done.

This gets back to my hypothesis that the kit manufacturers are not conducting effective scientific research about the desires, the needs, and the experiences of their consumer base.  I have never witnessed the manufacturers conducting polls, surveys, questionairres, focus groups, or any other method of qualitative or quantitative research.  Yet, I see so many quoted statistics about what we want. You know as well as I that any doctoral candidate who simply makes assumptions without first collecting different kinds of data, then triangulating and analyzing the data will fail.  I believe that the manufacturers simply make assumptions, then create their statistics to reflect those assumptions.

Oh, well.  I suppose that I am on another soap box.

Bill Morrison

Many thanks to Mr. Dike for his authoritative - and refreshingly courteous - responses to all my original comments.

One point seems to be common to virtually all the posts in this thread:  everybody agrees that the Dragon Buchanan is a first-rate kit - a true benchmark in the field of warship model design - plastic or otherwise.  I'm sure every serious warship modeler will be waiting enthusiastically for whatever 1/350 subjects the company chooses next.  (Not too soon please, though; I don't want anything to divert me from my Buchanan project till I've finished it.)

I do hope Dragon will revisit the question of how best to mold hulls.  I think the designers may be selling themselves short with their assumption that a hull split port/starboard just can't be done to a high standard.  I think they could do a beautiful job of it - and "flash over" the scuttles, and include a subtle indication of those horizontal plating joints.  (I'm inclined to agree that the vertical ones, on 1/350 scale, are better omitted.  But the "inner" and "outer" strakes are rather conspicuous.) 

All this is, indeed, nit picking.  The bottom line:  Dragon has indeed raised the bar.  This is a great kit.

What are the major differences between the '42 and '45?

In 1944 after 2 years of rough service in the Solomon Isles, Buchanan returned stateside for a much needed overhaul and refit. She had her 1.1" gun and aft 20 mm gun mount removed and replaced with two twin 40 mm mounts in new gun tubs. Up front she had a new gun tub added above and inbetween the two 20 mm guns. Those where given new tubs and moved outboard a bit to give them a better field of fire. Two extra 20 mm guns were added on the bridge wings. The 24" searchlights had to be relocated to the roof of the bridge to make room for them. The starboard boat and davits were removed to save some of the weight gained.The bridge wings had to be modified to give some extra room there. SA radar was replaced by a new SC set, and SG surface search radar was added to the mast. The old K-gun stowage system was replaced by a new roller rack and the number was reduced from six to four.That's about it in a nut shell.

Timothy Dike AKA Cadman

ps1scw wrote:

JMart wrote: Here is the official announcement of the next Buchanan: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/dd/dd-484/dd484-45-pre/dragon-poster.html Seems Dragon has gone the "Limited release by Cyber-hobby" way with this kit... in the armor world, this means the first batch is snatched up immediately and then it starts to re-pop on Ebay at much higher values. What are the major differences between the '42 and '45?

The only information I have is from the news release posted above; few superstructure changes/additions, PE parts, plus the figure.

ModelWarships wrote:

ps1scw wrote: Hi Timothy, For a next 1/350 kit how about a......... I'm sorry but I can not comment on what the next kits are going to be. But I can tell you that there will be other exciting kits and not just variations of Benson/Gleaves class. Lot's of rumors floating around, some close, some not. But ship modelers will be very happy. They will just have to be patient as both Dragon and I want it right. I'd rather hear about editing errors in the instructions than that ship didn't have that shape, etc. Timothy Dike AKA Cadman

Well, here we go again!  I was referring to your previous commentary, not the subject.  Comparing a kit designed in 2007/8 for master modellers and an Airfix kit designed and produced in 1970 for a 12 year-old kid is hardly any comparison at all, so I think we can put that comment well to one side.  It merely shows how desperate you are to 'prove' a point that is pretty much irrelevant to the issue at hand.  Now almost 40 years later, I would expect a few improvements!  Have a look at what Aoshima has done in their 1/350 split hull 'Takao' cruisers.  The bilge keels are separate moldings that go on with virtually no gap at all that requires any sanding or filling, and they are just as, if not thinner than those on the Buchanan.  I'm not saying that the 'Takao's' are problem-free models either (as I have stated many times, no model is!), but in this case Aoshima has produced an effect that is just as good as the Buchanan, by using a method that allows for other good things to happen elsewhere by allowing the hull mold to be cast in left and right halves (Aoshima also makes great use of 'flashed over' holes, which can be drilled out to attach different parts, or simply painted over, which I think Prof Tilley was referring to reference the portlights on the Buchanan). 

On another note, I can't recall ever having a hull seam split while I was sanding it, or losing any details either.  What the heck do you use for sanding?  A belt sander, or do you just sand-blast?? No wonder you seem so fond of waterline models (which by their nature, should not be 'dockyard perfect' either)!

ps1scw wrote:

Hi Timothy, For a next 1/350 kit how about a.........

I'm sorry but I can not comment on what the next kits are going to be. But I can tell you that there will be other exciting kits and not just variations of Benson/Gleaves class. Lot's of rumors floating around, some close, some not. But ship modelers will be very happy. They will just have to be patient as both Dragon and I want it right. I'd rather hear about editing errors in the instructions than that ship didn't have that shape, etc.

Timothy Dike AKA Cadman

searat12 wrote:

there is nothing more to be said on this topic.

Sez you; as you can see.. this thread still has a lot of life to it. And if you thought those were "vicious, personal attacks," you have some pretty thin skin. Calling a person out when they indicate a lack of knowledge is not a personal attack. A personal attack would be more like "you're an idiot and you smell funny." I don't think you're an idiot and I have no idea how you smell, so THAT wasn't a personal attack either, merely an example, and not particularly vicious at that.

searat12 wrote:

and certainly are not likely to remove or obscure any hull details.  In fact, until this thread began, I never thought about this 'issue' at all.  Does anyone else have a different experience?

Look at the airfix kits with the split hulls and tell me how the bilge keels look in comparison to the dragon kit. I thought as a kid they were SUPPOSED to be fat triangles! Take a look at Oklahoma's! Fixing them on a plastic hull can be very annoying because you have to cut them off, fill in the huge gaps you created, and then create a new, thin keel.

I had plenty of hulls where one side of the long, flat bottom warped and it was a P.I.T.A. to get it flat and glued together in a way that didn't split the seam when I tried to sand it.

Now, that's not to say the one-piece bottom is always the best; Trumpeter is famous for less than stellar lower hulls. The red plastic they used on the North Carolina and Lexington kits "clenched" in the midships after molding so that it was narrower than the upper hull... and it's a strong plastic with a rigidity to overcome most attemps at forcing it... wood dowels seem to be the way to go to spread them our, or to build waterline (as I've chosen to do on Lexington and Washington (conversion) at least).  

As we all agree, Dragon managed to release a bang-up kit.

Hi Timothy,

For a next 1/350 kit how about a 2 in 1 kit:Nevada/Oklahoma or Tennessee/California or Colorado/Maryland all in hmmm say December 1941 configuration.