Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
REVIEW
1:48 Supermarine Spiteful
Merlin
Senior Editor
#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 25, 2012 - 09:57 PM UTC
Here's a look at Trumpeter's quarterscale Spiteful - a kit that's received a fair amount of criticism since the excitement when it was first announced.
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
thehermit
Joined: August 27, 2007
KitMaker: 277 posts
AeroScale: 64 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 12:05 PM UTC
SOMEDAY...a plastic kit manufacturer will build the ultimate aircraft that is with out question absopositivly perfect in scale dimensions, colour scheme, fit of parts, decals, and detail accuracy. When that day comes I want to be around to read what the internet "Experts" will have to say about such a kit.
Perhaps they will mention the fact that who ever DOES mold such a kit has priced it beyond the average modeler's financial reach...? Or maybe they will comment that it's just another TamiyaGawa "shake 'n Bake kit that falls together and is no real "challenge"...?
It seems that no matter what any kit maker does these days, there is ALWAYS a number of "Experts" that will diss the kit because it does NOT hold true to the "real" aircraft...!
I must say here and now that modelling kits are meant to be REPLICATIONS of the real thing...NOT DUPLICATIONS of the real thing...!
Rant over...!!
thehermit
Perhaps they will mention the fact that who ever DOES mold such a kit has priced it beyond the average modeler's financial reach...? Or maybe they will comment that it's just another TamiyaGawa "shake 'n Bake kit that falls together and is no real "challenge"...?
It seems that no matter what any kit maker does these days, there is ALWAYS a number of "Experts" that will diss the kit because it does NOT hold true to the "real" aircraft...!
I must say here and now that modelling kits are meant to be REPLICATIONS of the real thing...NOT DUPLICATIONS of the real thing...!
Rant over...!!
thehermit
EdgarBrooks
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 07:43 PM UTC
Before building up a head of steam, and fulminating against the so-called "experts," it might pay to reflect on how pre-production CAD drawings, and a hand/scratch-built (not made from a mould) pre-production sample, were shown to U.K. modellers, who pointed out the various faults. Items were researched from our National Archives, and sent, together with several drawings, at no little cost to the researchers.
All of these were subsequently ignored, the faults were still included in the finished article, and you wonder why modellers tend to express their frustration, and annoyance.
Edgar
All of these were subsequently ignored, the faults were still included in the finished article, and you wonder why modellers tend to express their frustration, and annoyance.
Edgar
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2012 - 09:32 AM UTC
Hi Laurie
Please don't shoot the messenger!
While I'm quite flattered to be see one of my reviews the subject of a little controversy, I hope the "expert" tag isn't aimed too squarely at me, because that's something I'll never profess to be. 
Ironically, I very much subscribe to your general outlook, but we have one simple principle for our reviews on Aeroscale - be fair and objective. I never "trash" kits out of hand, but I see it as my responsibility to point out problems when I find them, while recognising the considerable investment in time and money that goes into producing any kit.
I probably should stress that I was not involved in the consultation process for this kit that Edgar has described, so there's no question of "sour grapes" on my part. As I stated in the review, I bought it already alerted to the possibility of troubles ahead - although I rather hoped to be able to disprove the worst of them.
Still, I really relish the challenge the Spiteful represents. While I have little or no time for building at the moment, it's nagging the heck out of me to get stuck in! It's a subject I've wanted to build for years. The surgery involved could be a disaster - and my attempted "fixes" might end up worse than the perceived problems (I did stress they were only my opinions) - but, then, that's half the fun of modelling, isn't it?
All the best
Rowan
Please don't shoot the messenger!
While I'm quite flattered to be see one of my reviews the subject of a little controversy, I hope the "expert" tag isn't aimed too squarely at me, because that's something I'll never profess to be. Ironically, I very much subscribe to your general outlook, but we have one simple principle for our reviews on Aeroscale - be fair and objective. I never "trash" kits out of hand, but I see it as my responsibility to point out problems when I find them, while recognising the considerable investment in time and money that goes into producing any kit.
I probably should stress that I was not involved in the consultation process for this kit that Edgar has described, so there's no question of "sour grapes" on my part. As I stated in the review, I bought it already alerted to the possibility of troubles ahead - although I rather hoped to be able to disprove the worst of them.
Still, I really relish the challenge the Spiteful represents. While I have little or no time for building at the moment, it's nagging the heck out of me to get stuck in! It's a subject I've wanted to build for years. The surgery involved could be a disaster - and my attempted "fixes" might end up worse than the perceived problems (I did stress they were only my opinions) - but, then, that's half the fun of modelling, isn't it?
All the best
Rowan
drabslab
Joined: September 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,186 posts
AeroScale: 1,587 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 12:19 AM UTC
Reviews that are not pointing out the flaws of a model are nothing more but publicity and therefore fairly useless (and not worth reading).
Obviously, we need to remain fair towards the manufacturers as well as they don't always have an easy job.
However, in this age of CAD/CAM, 3D modelling and printing, and with people volunteering to help the manufacturers with all kinds of input, it has become a LOT easier than say 15 years ago to make a perfect prototype before the actual molds are made.
Hence, a self respecting manufacturer should not produce a kit anymore with a long list of errors and shortcomings. Maybe 70% overall rating is too much for this kit?
Obviously, we need to remain fair towards the manufacturers as well as they don't always have an easy job.
However, in this age of CAD/CAM, 3D modelling and printing, and with people volunteering to help the manufacturers with all kinds of input, it has become a LOT easier than say 15 years ago to make a perfect prototype before the actual molds are made.
Hence, a self respecting manufacturer should not produce a kit anymore with a long list of errors and shortcomings. Maybe 70% overall rating is too much for this kit?
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:11 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Maybe 70% overall rating is too much for this kit?
Cheers Drabslab
That's why I wrote that assigning an overall score was so tricky in this instance. The Spiteful is a fine kit in that it will build beautifully - but anyone judging it purely on accuracy will tear it to shreds...
So, 7/10 represents my best effort at resolving the dilemma; to mark it lower would be to overlook the kit's good points, while a higher score would ignore the (in my opinion) clear problems.
Whoever said reviewing was easy?!
All the best
Rowan
TheModeller
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 12:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
SOMEDAY...a plastic kit manufacturer will build the ultimate aircraft that is with out question absopositivly perfect in scale dimensions, colour scheme, fit of parts, decals, and detail accuracy. When that day comes I want to be around to read what the internet "Experts" will have to say about such a kit.
Perhaps they will mention the fact that who ever DOES mold such a kit has priced it beyond the average modeler's financial reach...? Or maybe they will comment that it's just another TamiyaGawa "shake 'n Bake kit that falls together and is no real "challenge"...?
It seems that no matter what any kit maker does these days, there is ALWAYS a number of "Experts" that will diss the kit because it does NOT hold true to the "real" aircraft...!
I must say here and now that modelling kits are meant to be REPLICATIONS of the real thing...NOT DUPLICATIONS of the real thing...!
Rant over...!!
thehermit
Let me paraphrase.
'Wah! Wah! Wah! Don't keep picking on the poor little manufacturer for making second-rate overpriced tat, if we keep criticising thier kits they might not make any more...'
If this is the kind of rubbish they are going to pinch off then good riddance.
Plastic kits don't have feelings, plastic kit manufacturers don't make these things out of the goodness of thier hearts, they make them in order to take the hard earned cash out of my pocket.
The day Trumpeter start giving thier poorly researched ugly junk away for free I'll take dozens, until then, if they want my money they need to to a damn sight better job than this!
NPLemche
Joined: March 29, 2012
KitMaker: 32 posts
AeroScale: 31 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 10:34 PM UTC
Let me paraphrase.
'Wah! Wah! Wah! Don't keep picking on the poor little manufacturer for making second-rate overpriced tat, if we keep criticising thier kits they might not make any more...'
If this is the kind of rubbish they are going to pinch off then good riddance.
Plastic kits don't have feelings, plastic kit manufacturers don't make these things out of the goodness of thier hearts, they make them in order to take the hard earned cash out of my pocket.
The day Trumpeter start giving thier poorly researched ugly junk away for free I'll take dozens, until then, if they want my money they need to to a damn sight better job than this!
[/quote]
I don't think that you are right. There is not that much money to earn here. If they invested in other more mundane thing, they could easily make a lot more. And who the devil will make a Spiteful for earning money? The British market is not that big and who else have ever heard about it? Trumpeter needs a little encouragement, but also a review like this one to tell them to do things better.
But generally, today to make plastic kits must be because the makers love to make these kits.
NPLemche
'Wah! Wah! Wah! Don't keep picking on the poor little manufacturer for making second-rate overpriced tat, if we keep criticising thier kits they might not make any more...'
If this is the kind of rubbish they are going to pinch off then good riddance.
Plastic kits don't have feelings, plastic kit manufacturers don't make these things out of the goodness of thier hearts, they make them in order to take the hard earned cash out of my pocket.
The day Trumpeter start giving thier poorly researched ugly junk away for free I'll take dozens, until then, if they want my money they need to to a damn sight better job than this!
[/quote]
I don't think that you are right. There is not that much money to earn here. If they invested in other more mundane thing, they could easily make a lot more. And who the devil will make a Spiteful for earning money? The British market is not that big and who else have ever heard about it? Trumpeter needs a little encouragement, but also a review like this one to tell them to do things better.
But generally, today to make plastic kits must be because the makers love to make these kits.
NPLemche
drabslab
Joined: September 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,186 posts
AeroScale: 1,587 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 11:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't think that you are right. There is not that much money to earn here. If they invested in other more mundane thing, they could easily make a lot more.
I wonder what would be bigger, 100% of the market for the spiteful (where there is only one offering), or, a fraction of the market of the spitfire (which is in the catalog of every producer)
Quoted Text
And who the devil will make a Spiteful for earning money? The British market is not that big and who else have ever heard about it? Trumpeter needs a little encouragement, but also a review like this one to tell them to do things better.
The spiteful being the last generation of spitfire, it may have a far greater economical value than we estimate here.
Quoted Text
But generally, today to make plastic kits must be because the makers love to make these kits.
NPLemche
Manufacturers usually aim at profit. This goes for the big companies as well as for the tiny garage producers. This does not mean that they are just money hungry sharks with no love for modelling. On the contrary, I am convinced that any manufacturer employs many modelling enthoesiasts who combine their hobby with a necessity of making a living, their is nothing wrong with that, its fantatic that these people exist and we need them badly.
The reality is that technology has advanced so much that several stages of the research and development proces for a new kit have become become quite easy:
- the internet gives a world of info and often direct access to people who are working with the real thing of the model you want to make.
- prototyping has become really easy, just look at the following thread on this forum:
https://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/forums/185540#1636080
This guy is prototyping an MI-6 in scale 1/35 on his computer, using some 3D modelling software and an on-line 3D printshop. He even claims not to be a professional (but is in any case very knowledgeable on the subject).
If you have such prototype correct, then that means that the computermodel is correct, which also means that the mold will be correct (at least when you use CAD/CAM).
All these technical possibilities are becoming mainstream and financially affordable, also for small manufacturers.
Conclusion: there is no excuse anymore for making a flawed kit
TheModeller
Joined: March 01, 2010
KitMaker: 127 posts
AeroScale: 61 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 12:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
But generally, today to make plastic kits must be because the makers love to make these kits.
You might find that kind of dedication amongst smaller makers, the aftermarket guys, but rest assured, Trumpeter make plastic kits for one reason, profit, money, dollars in the bank.
To believe anything eles would be a delusion!
GastonMarty
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 04:10 AM UTC
[quote]
True. Many Hasegawa and Finemolds aircraft kits of the past twelve years show what can be done (minus Hasegawa's sadistic Spitfire)... There are also some kits with nothing wrong with them that are quite old. I've even heard that the oldest plastic sailing ships are the best because they were intended for adults right from the start, and went straight to the edge of what was possible in plastic moulding refinement. Some of the 1950-60s mouldings I have seen look incredible in the planking and surface detail, still cutting edge 50+ years later!
So they never had any excuses...
The build linked on Britmodeller by Rowan seems to have a very good correction idea going. I thought the result looked more correct. Maybe moving the wing back 3 mm instead of 4 woud have been better, but I can't be sure...
Now if we coud only get a good Spitfire Mk IX in this scale... Aren't they supposed to be in this for the money? Coud someone hand these people a white cane or something?
Gaston
Quoted Text
If you have such prototype correct, then that means that the computermodel is correct, which also means that the mold will be correct (at least when you use CAD/CAM).
All these technical possibilities are becoming mainstream and financially affordable, also for small manufacturers.
Conclusion: there is no excuse anymore for making a flawed kit
True. Many Hasegawa and Finemolds aircraft kits of the past twelve years show what can be done (minus Hasegawa's sadistic Spitfire)... There are also some kits with nothing wrong with them that are quite old. I've even heard that the oldest plastic sailing ships are the best because they were intended for adults right from the start, and went straight to the edge of what was possible in plastic moulding refinement. Some of the 1950-60s mouldings I have seen look incredible in the planking and surface detail, still cutting edge 50+ years later!
So they never had any excuses...
The build linked on Britmodeller by Rowan seems to have a very good correction idea going. I thought the result looked more correct. Maybe moving the wing back 3 mm instead of 4 woud have been better, but I can't be sure...
Now if we coud only get a good Spitfire Mk IX in this scale... Aren't they supposed to be in this for the money? Coud someone hand these people a white cane or something?
Gaston
JPTRR
Managing Editor#051
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
AeroScale: 3,175 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 - 03:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Coud someone hand these people a white cane or something?
Gaston
Good one, Gaston! IIRC, Trumpy did listen to modelers about their 1/32 Wildcat and re-tooled the rivets.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 AeroScale and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.