[Cruver Collecter]

Not sure how necessarily accurate the models copying theory is. Let's use the Hobby Master Brewster Buffalo for and example. Currently there are two companies that put the Buffalo out in 1/48th scale. These two companies would be Special Hobby CZ Rep which makes the F2A-3 and Tamiya that does a F2A-2. The Buffalo F2A-2 and later models had a series of eight gas vents on either side of the fuselage just behind the engine cowling. The Tamiya kit, being a bit older only has a groove to cover this feature, so in this case Hobby Master had a bit better detail that this older kit. The Special Hobby model has the individual gas vents, but not really a close match on the molding. On the upper surface of the horizontal stabilizers there are some panels that Hobby Master had properly indicated. The Tamiya model caught this feature, but the Special Hobby model did not. So far just picking out these smaller features which are easily found, well Hobby Master has done a better job in some cases than the two models that are currently available. Further differences can be found in cockpit detailing. Overall there are enough discrepancies to fairly easily rule out that the Hobby Master Buffalo was based on a preexisting model in that neither available model is a close enough match. I knew having a stash of kits would come in useful one day.

[lanslide]

Originally Posted by David Hingtgen

There are many kits/models that are copies of each other---however, licensing copyright laws are "lenient" enough that even a blatant copy is usually JUST different enough that it's legal. Dragon and Tamiya have lost so many claims against people copying them that I think they stopped trying.

Plus the fact that China has no respect for copyrights/licensing, and many "low-production" models slip under the radar, or the rights holder is aware but simply doesn't think it's worth it to pay the lawyers $500 per hour to go after someone for a 40-unit run of $20 models.

If Boeing really provided good references/research, or the manufacturers used it, Dragon's Super Hornet wouldn't have been so totally, utterly wrong. (and many other examples) Interestingly, it had the exact same flaws as the Italeri kit that came out some years ago. Having a license means nothing. Some of the best models I have are "markingless, plain white box" ones that are totally unlicensed, and had half their production seized at the border by customs. And the worst models? Licensed, approved, checked, and commissioned by Boeing themselves. The fact that Boeing approves models with blatant errors means they don't care, don't check, and don't really know their own planes that well. (At least, their legal/licensing department sure doesn't). I know American Airlines has approved a model of a plane they didn't ever fly, because the box SAID it was a model they had--but the mold sure wasn't. (They only check to make sure that the logo faces the right direction----you could probably get a DC-8 or L-1011 approved by them if you painted it right)

Licensing and approval doesn't guarantee ANYTHING about the model's quality/accuracy/origin. It just means you can legally sell it.

There's a very, very fine line between using a model kit for reference, and copying it. IMHO, if you use something so closely for reference that you copy each and every error, including individual rivets, sloppy panel lines, sink-marks, ejector-pin holes, and subtle asymmetries/curves, you simply copied it.

It's no different than tracing a picture. It may be your paper, your pencil---but if "your" work ended being up as exactly the same as possible to the original, you're just copying.

If model companies didn't copy kits so much, so exactly, we wouldn't see the same errors being pepetuated year after year. I'm all for copying, so long as they copy the right things. I just want accurate models---I couldn't care less about how they come about, or if Boeing gets their cut. I just want my shelves to have the most accurate models there can be.

Now that makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks DH!

[lanslide]

Originally Posted by flyXwire

Skidmarks, thank you very much for that. I really appreciate your comments and it definitely makes for a very a sound and informative information I seek without the other 'unsubstanciated spin'...if you will. It makes obvious sense to me now!

Don't forget to question Skidmarks' authority or is he in "the diecast manufacturing industry"?

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by lanslide

Don't forget to question Skidmarks' authority or is he in "the diecast manufacturing industry"?

There's NO reason for me to do so, buddy! Are you just looking to make trouble or what???

[lanslide]

Originally Posted by flyXwire

There's NO reason for me to do so, buddy! Are you just looking to make trouble or what???

We're cool...now!

[skidmarksdiecast]

Didn't really mean to start a knowledge war. Here's a pleasant little something to lighten the mood...

[firefighterpilot1]

Originally Posted by skidmarksdiecast

Didn't really mean to start a knowledge war. Here's a pleasant little something to lighten the mood...

ahhhh all better now

[slammin]

Disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge of the diecast industry, these are just personal observations.

I think you guys need to remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Not all the diecast companies are going to have exactly the same R&D process. I think it's fair to say that based on Witty's inaccurate paint schemes, they do comparatively little research or are not well coordinated with their factory. Century, on the other hand, has shown it puts out a much more acurate product, so I have no doubt that they spend more on R&D and are probably more in touch with their factory.

Additional details found on the models also depend on when they are incorporated into the design process and how difficult they are to add. Lots of manufacturing considerations need to be taken into account. If I were going to make a diecast model, here's roughly how I'd start. Definetly start with a plastic model. There is no easier way to get a 3D shape of something. If I actually had super accurate 3D computer models of airplanes, making diecast models would be a cinch. Anyway, assemble the model to get the basic shape. I'd then start taking parts off that I know wouldn't be in the finished mold for the metal: antennas, canopy, any gear doors. Also consider that things like the horizontal stabs on the A-6, F-14, etc are all moving, so they could be left off and copied later. Some additional details can be added now. Keep in mind it is much easier to take something away than to add it to the model or the mold. Scribing new recessed panel lines should be done on the cast, since it would be much harder to add a small ribbon of material to the mold. Conversely if you want something added, like a blister, or to enlarge a radiator, then those mods can be done by taking material out of the mold. Now start thinking how you are going to break up the airplane and assemble it. If the join lines in the plastic kit work, use them. If not you're going to have to fabricate something. For example I'm guessing if you were copying an F-14, the tabs on the vertical tail in the plastic kit would work just fine. The joint on the wing to body for the A-7 might not work as well. The tabs or locating pins on the plastic model are most likely undersized and would result in a droopy wing in diecast. Make the holes in the fuselage bigger, and make the tabs in the wing bigger. Also for a product like Century's, the landing gear areas will have to be modified to accomodate the one piece landing gear assemblies. Now take all the parts and make a sand mold or something similar. As I sait before, other details can be added at this step. Add channels for the molten material to flow, mold locating features, etc. Now make another cast, and the final production mold.

Bottom line:
All of these steps in modifying the plasic model or the cast can take as little or as long as you want/are willing to pay for. I think it is obvious from looking at some parts (like dragon's landing gear) that not much was changed from the plastic model. Other parts, like Century's landing gear assemblies, obviously took more thought. Either way, you have to start with something, and what better than a plastic model?

Sorry for all the rambling.
Chris

[zed550]

Originally Posted by skidmarksdiecast

Your correct. DH's process is a bit off. Here's how it goes....

Century Wings, Hobby Master etc are small marketing firms employing typically 6 to 12 people. They obtain licensing, at substantial cost, to produce diecast models of particular aircraft, tanks,etc, made by Boeing, Airbus, Northrup, Grumman, etc. Then, they outsource product design, pattern making, prototyping and production to a manufacturing company in Hong Kong or China. The overseas manufacturer is provided research materal, from CW, HM, etc. and then, the overseas manufacturer builds a model, called a pattern, from their own designs. While other companies model kits may be used for research in creating the designs and pattern, they are not exact duplicates of the plastic model kits. It would violate US and European copyright laws if the overseas manufactuers simply "recast" a model kit, from another company without permission, and that would prevent CW, HM, Corgi, etc, from selling their products in the US and Europe.

well said, nothing is an exact copy of an existing kit.
most times several different kits,plans and other references plus scratch building from the original modeller are used to form the the prepro that will then go to casting.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by zed550

well said, nothing is an exact copy of an existing kit.
most times several different kits,plans and other references plus scratch building from the original modeller are used to form the the prepro that will then go to casting.

Zed buddy, are you implying that Yoshi will be giving us what we've always wanted: an RF-8 Photo Crusader from "The Final Countdown"???