[hawkonevoodoo]

Originally Posted by Elmer

I don't mean to rain on the Hobby Master parade (after all, I am a big fan and have said so many times). But I do have a "bit" of a concern to raise, and I hope my "bitty" concern will be taken in good spirit, as an admiring consumer who only wants to see the company succeed with a quality product. OK, here is my "bit" of a concern:

I hear a lot of talk about money and keeping cost low. Do I love the fact that I only paid $34.99 for the F2A? Absolutely! I would have loved to pay $29.99 too. How about $24.99? You bet. At some point, however, we all know "you get what you pay for." Yes, this is a quality model at a great price. But at what cost? Would I pay $39.99 to have some of the issues I raised fixed? Yes, I would. How about $44.99? Absolutely. The point I am trying to make is cost cutting measures come at a cost. Some cost cutting measures are just not worth the cost. It appears to me that there were some cost cutting measures applied to the F2A. These cost cutting measures slightly diminish my satisfaction with the model, whether I pay $3.99 or $34.99.

It is my hope that HM is not bent on giving us a Spitfire for $34.99 with these cost cutting measures applied. If they are, what will we get for it? A model with little or no rivet detail, exposed screw head, and painted on wing gun ports. I am not sure it will be much more than a slightly improved FM/A with a nice weathering wash for a lower price. I mean no exaggeration here: I will not pay a plug nickel for that.

Gemini has already given us a great Spitfire for $29.99. In 1:48 scale, the detail should AT LEAST compare to GA's. If it doesn't, I don't see the point in trying. Now the model does not have to have positionable ailerons, a photo etched metal prop, pitot tube, and antannae, or a firm metal stand (although nice) to satisfy me; but it does need rivet detail (as extensive as GA's or Dragon's), it does need recessed openings, and it does need to conceal screwheads. The model does not have to be kept to a $34.99 MSRP for my business; on the contrary, I want to pay more if need be; I want to behold TLC applied to details. I don't see TLC in exposed screwheads.

Now... before you all start throwing Corgi and FM/A Mustang diecast at me, let me first run and...

Thanks for taking the time to express your views, concerns and suggestions. I most certainly will make sure this entire post will be seen by the upper echelon at Hobby Master. They appreciate constructive criticism and this definitely is constructive.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by hawkonevoodoo

Thanks for taking the time to express your views, concerns and suggestions. I most certainly will make sure this entire post will be seen by the upper echelon at Hobby Master. They appreciate constructive criticism and this definitely is constructive.

Thanks Hawk! Much appreciated! I would also be one happy customer if HM did some Buffalo fixes for the future Finnish livery (I hope they know this is the one many are waiting for!!)

[conemaugh]

Care package arrived today from On-Mart. The pre-war Buffalo is "superb." Easily my favorite diecast piece to date. By the way, the package had the Century Jolly Roger "200" as well. Second favorite -- now.

[hawkonevoodoo]

Originally Posted by Elmer

Thanks Hawk! Much appreciated! I would also be one happy customer if HM did some Buffalo fixes for the future Finnish livery (I hope they know this is the one many are waiting for!!)

I have mentioned the 239 several times to them and hopefully they will do it. I haven't compared the 239 with the 339 to see if there is much difference between them. I can see them making the 239 if it doesn't require a bunch of new molds. Here's hoping.

[hawkonevoodoo]

Originally Posted by conemaugh

Care package arrived today from On-Mart. The pre-war Buffalo is "superb." Easily my favorite diecast piece to date. By the way, the package had the Century Jolly Roger "200" as well. Second favorite -- now.

Glad you like the Buffalo. Like I wrote in my review for the first Buffalo, I was absolutely amazed by this little plane. I just couldn't take my eyes the thing, there is just something about the Buffalo that I really like. Of course I like the detail and quality Hobby Master put into it but there just is something very appealing about the shape and look of the plane.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by hawkonevoodoo

Glad you like the Buffalo. Like I wrote in my review for the first Buffalo, I was absolutely amazed by this little plane. I just couldn't take my eyes the thing, there is just something about the Buffalo that I really like. Of course I like the detail and quality Hobby Master put into it but there just is something very appealing about the shape and look of the plane.

Although I really like the HM Buffalo I still think it's one of the ugliest aircraft I've ever laid eyes upon .

[Phantom Phan1200]

I dont know I think the blackburn Skua wins that fight.
None the less the HM Buffalo is such a great model, it made me take a second look at a aircraft I would have never thought about adding to my collection.

[gbeck]

Having received the Buffalos, I find that for the money, and a 1/48 scale, IMHO this is one of the best detailed models I have seen. With all of the attention HM has put into all of their models I have seen so far, these are amoung the best. If any manufacturer ever makes a model that absolutely pleases everyone the forum would close down. Since I see little danger of this happening, we can all look for the slight flaws, and wait for the next releases. HM seems to continue to improve, and has apparently listened to the many positive as well as the few negative inputs they have received as each release seems to continue to get better.

GBeck

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by hawkonevoodoo

I have mentioned the 239 several times to them and hopefully they will do it. I haven't compared the 239 with the 339 to see if there is much difference between them. I can see them making the 239 if it doesn't require a bunch of new molds. Here's hoping.

I got a mistaken impression from an article I read that the Finns also received the B-339. I re-read the source literature again, and realize I was mistaken, it appears the Finns only had the 43 B-239s released for export.

I checked a source book for the following specs: the B-239 and the B-339 had identical wingspans; lengths were slightly different: B-239: 26'0"; B-339: 25'11"; heights were also slightly different: B-239:11'8"; B-339:12'1".

Profiles of the two variants differ in several ways: the exhaust stacks on the B-239 are lower on the cowl; the plexi-glass window on the underside appears to be non-existant on the B-239. The B-239 also does not have the line of small rectangular ports on the nose ( I have no idea what these are or what their purpose is). The propellor spinner is also significantly different. I can also see some variations in a few panel lines between the two variants. Finally, it appears the cockpit area behind the pilot is also quite different.

It doesen't appear to me that HM can produce a Finnish livery without some mods to its mold. Too bad. I really want a Finnish livery. If anyone has information that can correct the info I have posted here, please post it.

[hworth18]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Although I really like the HM Buffalo I still think it's one of the ugliest aircraft I've ever laid eyes upon .

I agree with ya Card... I picked up mine today from Onmark and it is a really nice little plane with a cool scheme, but the subject itself is pretty darned fugly...