Dragon 1/350 Buchanan - some comments

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

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."

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.

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. 

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