[Elmer]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

To be honest, I only have the 1/48th scale HM Buffalos and curious as to what this major problem with quality control might be. I have not noticed any major problems with regards to quality problems with these.

Neither have I. Detail was/is the concern I had with this one (which we debated when the model came out). Place it next to a C1 Dora, P-40 or Wildcat. A few differences to note with the Buff: no riveting, plastic prop, relatively non-detailed engine compared to C1's and EI's radials, and the exposed underside screwhead. But... it is a 35-40 dollar model as opposed to a 70-80 dollar model. My point was/is, I prefer the more detailed model with the higher price. Nevertheless, it is a very fine model for the price and I like it. Its strong point is its fit; it has perhaps the nicest, tightest fit of any diecast model I have.

The Spitfire had/has a similar detail issue: no recessed riveting. We also debated this one when I raised this concern from the first pre-pro pictures. I can't remember who, but one member suggested pad printed rivets. I was skeptical, but HM listened and added the riveting. The model (to my eye) looks nicer, although I would have preferred recessed riveting. QC has been a problem with this model: I bought the Johnson and Maridor Spits... both with irritating QC problems. Nevertheless, it is also a fine model for the price. (We could also mention that several folks here and at DAF refused to buy the high back variant because of the bulbous canopy... William recently posted that this issue would be addressed with a new canopy).

[ac4313]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Are we really getting upset over screws you'll barely see when the thing is parked? If so dont buy it, more for me when I return. Of all the things wrong in this world, this is what upsets folks? They are toys for the love of god.
If you have a better way of building them, open your own shop and show the world. You'd complain if beat with a velvet rope I swear. To say that HM has lost me as a customer, what does that have do in the grand scheme of things?
Sure I don't agree with everything HM does, but I wont back out on them because of it. You either get this F3F or go without, but let us know how the wait for the perfect one works out for you.
Why not buy it and customize it yourself. From what I see it shouldnt be that difficult.
Rant over!

I couldn't agree more.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

if you are a real stickler for detail, you can always go with Accurate Miniatures USA 1/48th scale kit of the F3F-1. Real nice kit and it only goes for $32.99,,,,, plus paint and time.

And I have said a hundred times on this forum that I did, I have, I built, and it will be my example in my collection.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Are we really getting upset over screws you'll barely see when the thing is parked? If so dont buy it, more for me when I return. Of all the things wrong in this world, this is what upsets folks? They are toys for the love of god.
If you have a better way of building them, open your own shop and show the world. You'd complain if beat with a velvet rope I swear. To say that HM has lost me as a customer, what does that have do in the grand scheme of things?
Sure I don't agree with everything HM does, but I wont back out on them because of it. You either get this F3F or go without, but let us know how the wait for the perfect one works out for you.
Why not buy it and customize it yourself. From what I see it shouldnt be that difficult.
Rant over!

No one is getting upset but you, Shawn. You admitted your post is a rant. And didn't I already say I wasn't going to buy it? It also seems that no one is complaining but you. You complain about someone raising legitimate concerns.

By the way... these are not toys. These are models. There is a big difference.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by leeG

Engineering a model is not as easy as some may think. When you are working to a fixed price point it limits the things you can do. I don't have any problem with the small exposed screw heads HM is using on the underside of the top wing.



Carousel 1, which seems to be the current gold standard, rivets the wings on for a $15 higher price. It also looks messy.


Grumman faired the joint on the real airplane, which you could do on the model with little putty.


If the screw heads bother you, of course don't buy it. I love this model and think its a bargain for the price.

You do raise some outstanding points, lee. I am sure engineering isn't easy. I shouldn't have made it sound like it should be. Regarding the C1 rivets, I have always noticed the rivets on these, and wished C1 could have attached differently, but what I do appreciate is the company sticks to its philosophy... which it states on its web-site: no exposed screw heads. I spent some time inspecting the attachments on these. The picture you posted is quite magnfied. To my eye, the riveting is less messy... C1 paints them in, they are very tiny, I dare say less tiny than screw heads.

To be quite honest, the entire inboard strut attachments to the top wing really looks "off" even without the screw heads. The whole assembly is nothing like the real deal, as can be seen in the above pictures. Accurate Miniature's looks just like the real deal... but it is plastic with much finer detail. The inboard attachment piece is analogous to other over-scaled problems like wing hinges on the Panther or canopy hinges on the Phantom. Of course, these problems can be overcome with different engineering approaches. CW proved that with its Tomcat canopy. And before someone screams extra $$$$, let me say again, I know it costs extra money. And yes, I prefer the extra fine detail for the extra $$$$.

[leeG]

Originally Posted by Elmer

You do raise some outstanding points, lee. I am sure engineering isn't easy. I shouldn't have made it sound like it should be. Regarding the C1 rivets, I have always noticed the rivets on these, and wished C1 could have attached differently, but what I do appreciate is the company sticks to its philosophy... which it states on its web-site: no exposed screw heads. I spent some time inspecting the attachments on these. The picture you posted is quite magnfied. To my eye, the riveting is less messy... C1 paints them in, they are very tiny, I dare say less tiny than screw heads.

To be quite honest, the entire inboard strut attachments to the top wing really looks "off" even without the screw heads. The whole assembly is nothing like the real deal, as can be seen in the above pictures. Accurate Miniature's looks just like the real deal... but it is plastic with much finer detail. The inboard attachment piece is analogous to other over-scaled problems like wing hinges on the Panther or canopy hinges on the Phantom. Of course, these problems can be overcome with different engineering approaches. CW proved that with its Tomcat canopy. And before someone screams extra $$$$, let me say again, I know it costs extra money. And yes, I prefer the extra fine detail for the extra $$$$.

Elmer, you have good and valid points. I understand the HM approach and for me it is acceptable. Adding the flying wires complicates things in the factory setting, so I don't mind some simplification as long as the attachment points are close. I'm happy just to have wires. They could have put a recess in the top wing where the strut attaches and used a flat head screw. That would have made the joint flush with the bottom of the wing and the screw not as noticeable. Probably too late now to change the casting. But again, I don't have a problem with their solution. I think its a terrific model and can't wait to get it. We really are living in the golden age of diecast.

[MoMo]

Meaowwwwwwwwwwwww!

[jim]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

I also far prefer visible 'screwheads' to the 'glue/epoxy' alternative mentioned in this thread given the obvious issued associated with glue during assembly ...

In my opinion this is a fine looking model and HM are to be congratulated for their initiative!

I cannot wait to get one.

I saw a pair of these flying at Duxford a few years ago and I loved em.

Well done HM.

[William]

Some more preview of the second release.

It has metal propeller (the first one as well) and detachable undercarriage.

We know that the screws could be a problem for some of you guys. We have tried the glue method but screws is still the best possible solution we found.

[STARMAN 352ND]

I like that one right there USMC style.....
Looking good.
JP