[Louie]

I could give a rats arse about the units or pilots. I buy models because I really like the scheme and configuration. To own one IXO and then tear a Witty, FOV, or Century is hippocracy isn't it?

[PappyB]

Originally Posted by Louie

To own one IXO and then tear a Witty, FOV, or Century is hippocracy isn't it?

Well said, Louie, well said!

Can you imagine if IXO made an F-14

[Panther10]

Originally Posted by RJLee

Personally, I feel that there are very few examples of F-14s that are famous or historically significant enough to get overexcited about specimen-accuracy.

I'll be sure to bring that up to the pilots who flew those planes.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Oh Boy i hope my bro don't see that.
MD knows what i mean.
JP

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by RJLee

Well, but for this to be noticeable, you'd have to know that the original airplane was an F-14A. Which, I think, is an entirely separate and much more minute piece of trivia than the TF30/F110 nozzle distinction. You can care about the latter without caring about the former.

I think it's silly to say that if you don't care that a particular airframe was assigned to a particular unit at a particular time and painted a particular way, then your apathy knows no bounds and you might as well just buy an F-14 Lego kit. There is general airframe accuracy (to variant specs) and then there is specimen-accuracy (names on canopies, paint schemes at specific timeframes, correct BuNos, etc.). Personally, I feel that there are very few examples of F-14s that are famous or historically significant enough to get overexcited about specimen-accuracy.

Some people want the most accurate representation possible, while others are satisfied with something less. To each his own.

I fall into the former category and know of a few Black Aces that may take issue with your last sentence.

[David Hingtgen]

Witty painted "F-14A" right on the nacelles, as they did copy the paint quite accurately. But if someone didn't know it was an F-14A to start with--how do they know it's not a totally fictional scheme to start with? Maybe Witty just totally made it up, thinking a cool scheme would sell regardless of accuracy (which it does, as many people bought this model, presumably also not knowing it was an F-14A in real life) Next they could do a Fist of the Fleet F-18B, and a Sundowners F-14D, and how about a Black Aces E/A-18G? Right basic type of plane, but not the right variant.

But that just shows how little research Witty did---they didn't even make it the right type of F-14. I'm not talking specific block, bureau number, "year in service" or anything else. Just the basic type of F-14, of which there are only 3.

"Basic variant of that type of plane" is not minor IMHO. If it was, nobody would have any complaints about Dragon's "F-15E". or about any Gaincorp Flanker. Or Dragon's Super Hornet, with its several F-18A parts.

Is "variant" so unimportant that people will buy any scheme so long as it's sorta close? What about variants even more obvious than F-14A vs B/D? Say, F-18D vs F-18E? F-4D vs F-4G? YF-22 vs F-22A? I think most of the WWII collectors would scream bloody murder if someone put a famous P-51D scheme on a P-51B. Or Fw190A wearing the colors of a Fw190D ace.

[mustangdriver]

The F-14 Tomcat is not historic enough? Below are images of the Top Gun F-14, a movie that did a ton for aviation, and got a lot of kids to become pilots, myself included. Another image is of the real TOP GUN F-14 that is now on display in the NASM. It shot down Migs in Libya. Last but not least my signature says it all. Remeber this airframe came out in the 1970's, and just now is being retired.

[RJLee]

With respect, I stand by my statement.

The F-14 Tomcat is obviously historically significant as a type. But that legacy belongs to the entire fleet of 712 F-14As, Bs, and Ds, not to any individual airframes. There are only a handful of airframes that were individual standouts from a broader historical perspective (i.e., beyond those "first" and "last" milestones that exist for every type of aircraft); among them are the four Fitter/Flogger-killers, the Mi-8 killer from ODS, and the Achille Lauro interceptors. This is not a denigration of the type; the same is true of any number of fine airplanes that were conceived and served during the Cold War. The reality is that modern aircraft generally serve in anonymity.

Nor is this an issue of pride of service. I also have friends in the F-14 community, and nothing in what I've said detracts from the contribution made by the people who crewed and maintained F-14s for thirty years. How some folks seem to have reached a different conclusion is beyond me.

As to the subject of accuracy generally, my view is that it always can be better. I am aware of how it can be better, especially in a time when BuNo lists are available for the googling. This is a huge change from my childhood (when compiling a list of all the fleet squadrons by wing, carrier, and fleet took me months) and I wish better use was made of the available information. I don't dispute that the Witty TOPGUN F-14 would be better if it had TF30 nozzles and GRU-7 seat-tops.

But. I'm not going to let the small flaws that are the consequence of mass production economics spoil my appreciation for what's available. I am glad that Witty produced the TOPGUN F-14 even though they incorrectly put it on their existing mold, because it's better than having no TOPGUN F-14s. I do not insist upon ideological purity in collecting small model airplanes. I see no reason to wish away Dragon's F-14s because they are imperfect. And while I do hope for improvements and make suggestions where I can, I am old enough to understand that "punishing" a manufacturer by boycotting a product that is too imperfect for the hardcore doesn't actually help.

Finally, I refrain from spending too much time bashing imperfections not because I have low standards, but because I respect others' priorities. This thread was started by someone who just got a new model that wasn't a Century. It's fine to discuss and point out some flaws, but I think it's a little bit rude to spoil someone else's day by beating it to death and jumping on the corpse. I know that I wouldn't like it if I got a new model of an airplane I didn't know a lot about, and the first thing that people did was to tell me all the things that were wrong with it and why it was an "okay purchase, assuming that you're that kind of collector." Reality check: any mass-produced model that is scaled down to 1/72 of its actual size and that sells for under $100 has inaccuracies. Even Century (which Century's creators themselves acknowledge). I'd just prefer to admire these miniature marvels (which I couldn't even have imagined as a kid) sitting on my desk. Maybe I'm just getting too old for forums.


V/R,

R.

[TopHat]

Actually, the first post sought the opinion of other forum members regarding FOV or CW models and asked what justified the additional cost of the CW models:

Originally Posted by Phantom Phan1200

From what in understang the Century Wings F-14 & Forces of Valor are the same mold or model sort of like the Corgi/Hobby Master thing.

Aside from maybe better paint & detail in markings is there any difference in the structure of these two models or build quality?
What exactly do you get for the extra $$$ over the FOV version?

I was thinking about picking a few of these up for my shop but if im going to ask my customers to shell out $60 for a 1/72 figher in a market where they have other quality choices of the same aircraft for less, I need to know what they are getting?

Phantom Phan asked for opinions, and he received answers.

RJLee, I think the tone of your post was a little too harsh given the context of this thread, hence the responses.

This quote stands out:

Originally Posted by RJLee

I think it's silly to say that if you don't care that a particular airframe was assigned to a particular unit at a particular time and painted a particular way, then your apathy knows no bounds and you might as well just buy an F-14 Lego kit.

I don't recall any member "bashing" another member over their particular choice of model, but I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong on that.

In fact, and with all due respect to a fellow member, I think your post came across as being critical of those members who want hyper-accurate models. You previously posted an excellent post detailing the differences between models, so the tone of the post which is at issue puzzles me.

As you pointed out, people buy certain models for all sorts of different reasons. I don't think anyone's opinion is necessarily right or wrong in this context. Information was sought and information was exchanged.

Just my two cents....

[zed550]

think the bottom line chaps is buy century and fov if you have the money and want accuracy
other than that if you like the scheme's on the others buy, it is your choice.