[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by 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.

An excellent post RJLee .

I would like to mention that your post summarises the general view of many who appreciate the F14 as an aircraft, yet who are not overly perturbed by 'rivet' issues. As you clearly implied, these are mass produced models that are representations of the real thing and perfect accuracy is unlikely. It is regrettable that debate on some issues borders on the pedantic, taking away the enjoyment many get from having an acceptable representation of a particular model on their shelf. I have a Dragon F14 in my office that came with numerous QC issues which were for me of far greater concern at the time than 'accuracy' - even so, I still appreciate it as a model, warts and all .

Let's all remember folks, that this is meant to be a pleasurable hobby and although debate on accuracy and the like is welcome it shouldn't unravel to the extent of being critical merely for the sake of being critical. Also, personal insults or innuendo towards other forum members is viewed as being inappropriate and not conducive towards the positive spirit that the forum wished to foster - to put it simply, if people don't feel welcome to come here and share their enjoyment of the hobby and this community, they will most likely not return, leaving us all poorer by their absence ...

[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Also, personal insults or innuendo towards other forum members is viewed as being inappropriate and not conducive towards the positive spirit that the forum wished to foster - ...

Oh shut the up, ya silly dweeb.....







Jes' kiddin, Cardo....You know I luvya, man.....
(in a strictly hetero-skunxual way, of course)

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by RJLee

I read some of the hyperbole toward the end of the thread about Phantom's new Witty as being unkind. I do think that there is a subtle but important difference in tone between "this F-14 has too few rivets" and "even an idiot can see that this F-14 has too few rivets," but that's probably a matter of expressive style rather than any ill intent.

Point taken.

The problem with internet communication is that we lose the voice inflection and facial expressions that also convey the intent of our words. That is a problem that we all need to be aware of.
Now I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy.

Skunky, let's all join hands . . . kumbiah, my Lord, kumbiah....

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by SKUNKY

That would be about the same as trash vs. rubbish

You must drive one of them there high toned European cars!

[skysurfer808]

As someone who has owned or owns an original FOV Tomcat (my first 1/72 diecast Tomcat) Revell's VF-31 and VF-84 Tomcats, Dragon's VF-111 and 103 birds, Corgi's 1/64 VF-2, FOV's new VF-154 CAG Bird, and now Century's VF-84s (kneeling and flying), I believe I am quite qualified to make a judgement call on these things. Century's is the best, and costs the most. Then I'd say the new FOV than Revell. I have the Witty TopGun bird on the way, and am looking forward to it, got it for a reasonable price (though more than 25 bones.) I bought it more for the livery than for accuracy, and because Adversary schemes really float my boat.

So as a self professed Tomcat fan, I'd have to say I agree with David Hintgen's assertions on why the manufacturers can't get it right. They really ought to hire us as consultants. Why, because they actually go through the trouble to make different versions of the same machine, with different molds etc, yet can't put the right thing on the right model. This holds true with Corgi, Dragon, Witty and all the rest. Yes these are low cost models and I appreciate them. But come on people, you can gain a lot of mileage and save a lot of costs by consulting with experts. Besides, why go through the extra trouble and costs of modifying tooling if you don't get it right in the final product. These things are models meant to be accurate, while those which don't have the right details are toys.

As for trashing people's purchases, I will say that there's no meanness involved. I certainly wish I had a resource such as the modelhangar available when I started my collection. I'd have avoided the original FOV Tomcat like the plague, and definately wouldn't have bought either of Dragons birds. The original FOV really was a piece of junk, and Dragon's Wing Sweep issues and general lack of quality control definately make it one to avoid. This isn't knocking somebody's new acquisition, it is more like warning someone not to waste their money.

I also agree that I'd rather have one superior model to two inferior ones. I've already gotten so many planes that I'm becoming much more discerning on what I buy, especially if I already have multiples with different liveries. I do picture myself buying more Centuries, but only if they come out with the liveries I'd like to see.

And what a scurvy trick to make the weapons and lantirn pylons non exchangable between FOV and Century. I really wanted the FOV VF-41 bird to modify as a Balkan War Bombcat, but now I suppose I'll just have to wait and see if Century will release a version of that plane in the future.

Skysurfer808

[RJLee]

Originally Posted by skysurfer808

So as a self professed Tomcat fan, I'd have to say I agree with David Hintgen's assertions on why the manufacturers can't get it right. They really ought to hire us as consultants. Why, because they actually go through the trouble to make different versions of the same machine, with different molds etc, yet can't put the right thing on the right model. This holds true with Corgi, Dragon, Witty and all the rest. Yes these are low cost models and I appreciate them. But come on people, you can gain a lot of mileage and save a lot of costs by consulting with experts. Besides, why go through the extra trouble and costs of modifying tooling if you don't get it right in the final product. These things are models meant to be accurate, while those which don't have the right details are toys.

I think it's more than tooling, though (in fact, a lot of the variations are found in interchangeable plastic parts). I had an exchange with the GM at Century and one thing that he pointed out (which I had not considered) is that you have to design for manufacturability. I had suggested swapping out one part for a more realistic one, and his point was that most of these articles are hand-assembled using low-cost labor. Minimizing the number of very similar small parts is a compromise that you have to make to avoid serious QC problems (or a much higher labor cost -- and I think we can agree that Century's pricing represents the top end of what people will pay for a 1/72 fighter). That's the practical experience of someone who is himself an expert and really isn't in need of subject-matter consultants. This is why it's easy to produce one highly-accurate, customized plastic kit, but very hard to do the same on the factory floor for 2,000 similar articles.

Originally Posted by skysurfer808

And what a scurvy trick to make the weapons and lantirn pylons non exchangable between FOV and Century. I really wanted the FOV VF-41 bird to modify as a Balkan War Bombcat, but now I suppose I'll just have to wait and see if Century will release a version of that plane in the future.

Might be able to get away with dumb bombs on the Phoenix pallets by filing off one of the pegs and using a dab of white glue (the pegs themselves fit but it's the spacing that's off by a bit). Not a lot that you can do for LANTIRN, though, without more extensive surgery to the pylons. I can't recall if VF-41 did any iron bombing in the Balkans (probably not given the tight controls the CAOC exercised over Navy bombers in that conflict).

I have a Hasegawa 1/72 plastic kit with LANTIRN, assorted PGMs, and pylons for everything, which I've always hoped to paint and retrofit to my Dragon VF-103 jet...

[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by TopHat

You must drive one of them there high toned European cars!

Nah....I can't afford to have it in the shop all the time...It's actually one of those American-built Japanese jobbies.....

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by SKUNKY

Nah....I can't afford to have it in the shop all the time...It's actually one of those American-built Japanese jobbies.....

A Tennessee Toyota?

[jim]

Now let's not talk about Ford or chevy that will never end....[/quote]
Lets talk about Aston Martins then, my neighbour allowed me to drive his once. it took about a month to get the silly grin off my face.
OR we could talk about RR or Bently or Jaguars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dobber]

In case anyone thought I was bashing their purchase of a Witty or Dragon or whatever Tomcat that wasn't what I was trying to do....that's why I said for me or IMO ect. So if I offended anyone I aplogize that wasn't my intention. I'm just very pationate about the F-14 and like others have said some of the issues are things that the other manufactures could have got right. Peace.

Chris