[Rush104]

Originally Posted by theodore

I would hardly think I was a 'kid' at 33 (and 34) years old. People write an objective review believing that they are accurate when sometimes they are not. Unless any of us have flown a P-51, F4U Corsair, B-17, etc. then I think that we are all in the same boat here. I'm not saying books and combat footage are not helpful; they are, but the best source of accuracy will be the actual aircraft, with the correct variant/sub-model. Also, there were many field modifications made constantly so ALL sources may not validate this. Perhaps this is what some of the diecast designers have encountered as well. You rarely will see me hammer any diecast because most people would be surprised at how accurate they truly are. Obviously, if there is a quality control issue (i.e. the drooping Dauntless prop), then one can point this out. When one slams a diecast (and this person may not be correct in his assumption), this hurts the sellers out there who make a living relying on the sales of these diecast and when we do not buy one because of a review, quality issues notwithstanding, then this can seriously damage the sellers who make an income soley on this business.

I can understand the point about the dealers taking a hit due to negative publicity; however like anyone else they are not guaranteed success in their chosen occupation. Assuming a dealer is knowledgeable about aircraft and diecast (and from what I've seen on some webpages I am not convinced this is the case with many of them), he has a duty to himself to ensure that what he is selling is the best it can be. If he's not going to take a company to task for a bad product (via passing on complaints from his customers), then the customers have a right to make their complaints known via other means (such as this forum). Besides, one can argue that these reviews are a form of "public service" (for lack of a better term) by letting fellow collectors know about the good/bad concerning a particular model.
Part of why I joined this forum is to read the reviews of the models, both good and bad. Even though these reviews, for the most part, do not influence my decision to buy a model (unless the review was by someone I trust on here, like SKUNKY); I still enjoy reading them for the most part. These reviews can be entertaining!
Personally, I have few criteria for a model to satisfy me- it has to LOOK like the plane it's representing; it has to have the correct colors/markings, and the parts have to have the correct fit/alignment.
I do, however, look at this downplaying of criticism as being detrimental to the hobby. If you don't make the complaints known, the manufacturer will not know about them, and continue to produce other models with the same defects. Can't this be seen as rewarding a manufacturer for bad performance?

[smartd]

Originally Posted by theodore

I would hardly think I was a 'kid' at 33 (and 34) years old.

My mistake, when you said you were the youngest tour guide there, I naturally equated you with the 16 and 17 year old volunteer guides we use here at the CWHM. I had not realized you were in your 30's at the time.


BTW: super race at Talladega today.

[Old Crow]

Ten Commandments of Forum Decorum (with apologies to Charlton Heston, Cecil B. DeMille and good taste):

1. Thou shalt place no other hobby before die-cast collecting;

2. Thou shalt not place before thy forum brethren any idol (not even Century Wings);

3. Thou shalt not take the name of any manufacturer in vain (with the possible exception of the Hound);

4. Remember the Tuesday Morning and keep it holy;

5. Remember thy Father (admin) and thy Mother (moderator);

6. Thall shall not commit product reviewer's murder;

7. Thall shalt not covet thy forum brother's BBMF Lancaster;

8. Thou shalt not steal thy forum brother's joy of new purchase by insensitive comment;

9. Thou shalt not abuse the PM and shall keep it sacred;

10. For an hour or two thou shalt labor, and the rest of the time post.

P.S.: The foregoing is satire and not intended to offend anyone's sensibilities.

[theodore]

Originally Posted by lanslide

ooops - my bad - I think it was Kermit Weeks' Fantasy of Flight Museum in Polk City, Florida I saw. Sorry theodore!

Did you enjoy your visit to the Fantasy of Flight? Kermit has the largest private collection of WW2 warbirds in the world, I believe. If he needed to have routine aircraft maintenance or repairs done to a warbird, then he simply flew them 50 miles northeast to Tom Reilly's shop!! Do you remember the B-24 and the maintenance crew setup? That was Tom Reilly's work!!

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by theodore

I would hardly think I was a 'kid' at 33 (and 34) years old. People write an objective review believing that they are accurate when sometimes they are not. Unless any of us have flown a P-51, F4U Corsair, B-17, etc. then I think that we are all in the same boat here. I'm not saying books and combat footage are not helpful; they are, but the best source of accuracy will be the actual aircraft, with the correct variant/sub-model. Also, there were many field modifications made constantly so ALL sources may not validate this. Perhaps this is what some of the diecast designers have encountered as well. You rarely will see me hammer any diecast because most people would be surprised at how accurate they truly are. Obviously, if there is a quality control issue (i.e. the drooping Dauntless prop), then one can point this out. When one slams a diecast (and this person may not be correct in his assumption), this hurts the sellers out there who make a living relying on the sales of these diecast and when we do not buy one because of a review, quality issues notwithstanding, then this can seriously damage the sellers who make an income soley on this business.

Actually using your strict criteria, pilots probably would not be the most knowledgeable with regards to aircraft specs. These questions would have to be for the crew chiefs and maintainers then. Reference materials in the past were not necessarily the best, but some of the current materials are quite excellent. Some of the reference materials I have do a great job in breaking down the differences in model types. One does a great job in breaking down the model differences of Bf 109G series, an example would be covering the differences between the Bf 109G-4/R-2 and the R-4 variants. Reference material in the past just were not that detailed, while some of the more current material goes into great depth. I just do not buy into the you have to have sat in it to have an basis for an opinion. By the way anyone have guess on what the differences between the R-2 and R-4 models are? I guess you probably would had to have some time in a Bf 109 to know,,, I haven't but do know the difference.

[theodore]

Originally Posted by Rush104

I can understand the point about the dealers taking a hit due to negative publicity; however like anyone else they are not guaranteed success in their chosen occupation. Assuming a dealer is knowledgeable about aircraft and diecast (and from what I've seen on some webpages I am not convinced this is the case with many of them), he has a duty to himself to ensure that what he is selling is the best it can be. If he's not going to take a company to task for a bad product (via passing on complaints from his customers), then the customers have a right to make their complaints known via other means (such as this forum). Besides, one can argue that these reviews are a form of "public service" (for lack of a better term) by letting fellow collectors know about the good/bad concerning a particular model.
Part of why I joined this forum is to read the reviews of the models, both good and bad. Even though these reviews, for the most part, do not influence my decision to buy a model (unless the review was by someone I trust on here, like SKUNKY); I still enjoy reading them for the most part. These reviews can be entertaining!
Personally, I have few criteria for a model to satisfy me- it has to LOOK like the plane it's representing; it has to have the correct colors/markings, and the parts have to have the correct fit/alignment.
I do, however, look at this downplaying of criticism as being detrimental to the hobby. If you don't make the complaints known, the manufacturer will not know about them, and continue to produce other models with the same defects. Can't this be seen as rewarding a manufacturer for bad performance?

I do agree; making valid points about possible errors in a diecast is very important, but I want to add 2 things to this. First, people should use better tact when criticism is due. For example, say "The horizontal stabilizer is too long and needs to be a little shorter", rather than "Why these people couldn't figure out the tail assembly is beyond me. What a bunch of morons". Secondly, if there is an inaccuracy in a diecast, then reveal the source that can verify this mistake. What source allows you to make this statement? Obviously, one can make an obvious axiomatic statement if there is a lack of weathering (usually with armor) or a quality control issue. One doesn't need to 'sugar coat' a negative aspect of a diecast, but, on the other hand, one doesn't need to degrade or belittle a diecast company either.

[lanslide]

Originally Posted by theodore

I do agree; making valid points about possible errors in a diecast is very important, but I want to add 2 things to this. First, people should use better tact when criticism is due. For example, say "The horizontal stabilizer is too long and needs to be a little shorter", rather than "Why these people couldn't figure out the tail assembly is beyond me. What a bunch of morons". Secondly, if there is an inaccuracy in a diecast, then reveal the source that can verify this mistake. What source allows you to make this statement? Obviously, one can make an obvious axiomatic statement if there is a lack of weathering (usually with armor) or a quality control issue. One doesn't need to 'sugar coat' a negative aspect of a diecast, but, on the other hand, one doesn't need to degrade or belittle a diecast company either.

I just don't remember seeing anyone here give a review in poor taste. Can somebody post a link as an example? All this may just be a non-issue!

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by theodore

I do agree; making valid points about possible errors in a diecast is very important, but I want to add 2 things to this. First, people should use better tact when criticism is due. For example, say "The horizontal stabilizer is too long and needs to be a little shorter", rather than "Why these people couldn't figure out the tail assembly is beyond me. What a bunch of morons". Secondly, if there is an inaccuracy in a diecast, then reveal the source that can verify this mistake. What source allows you to make this statement? Obviously, one can make an obvious axiomatic statement if there is a lack of weathering (usually with armor) or a quality control issue. One doesn't need to 'sugar coat' a negative aspect of a diecast, but, on the other hand, one doesn't need to degrade or belittle a diecast company either.

theodore, personally I agree you about using tact to get a point across. IMO, it's more effective. The point I was trying to make is this- if a person buys a model, and isn't satisfied with it, he has a right to make whatever comments he wants, whether tactful or not. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.
I also agree with backing up the claim with a source, or sources. I'm under the assumption that the manufacturers already use a variety of resources when conducting their research for making a model, including visits to museums/airparks with the actual aircraft. They may not have every source available, but I'm thinking they may have the majority of the same sources that most everyone else has (and will be quoting from).
As far as degrading or belittling a company, I agree that that does not need to happen (at least at the beginning of the process of bringing a defect to light, and getting it corrected). However, if a company doesn't incorporate the lessons, then maybe a little belittling is in order. Sometimes, a good ***-chewing is more effective than a mere counseling session.

[theodore]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

Actually using your strict criteria, pilots probably would not be the most knowledgeable with regards to aircraft specs. These questions would have to be for the crew chiefs and maintainers then. Reference materials in the past were not necessarily the best, but some of the current materials are quite excellent. Some of the reference materials I have do a great job in breaking down the differences in model types. One does a great job in breaking down the model differences of Bf 109G series, an example would be covering the differences between the Bf 109G-4/R-2 and the R-4 variants. Reference material in the past just were not that detailed, while some of the more current material goes into great depth. I just do not buy into the you have to have sat in it to have an basis for an opinion. By the way anyone have guess on what the differences between the R-2 and R-4 models are? I guess you probably would had to have some time in a Bf 109 to know,,, I haven't but do know the difference.

My statement earlier was based upon the man I worked for, the owner, Tom Reilly, who restored 10 B-25's, 2 B-17's, a B-24 (one of only 3 actual bomber variants in the world that are airworthy; the others were converted transport aircraft), a Corsair, a P-40, etc. Since Tom built these aircraft, usually over the span of 4 years on average, and flew the bombers in airshows, then he understands the flight characteristics of these birds better than any other person that I know. He knows more about American WW2 bombers than any other person on this planet, period. The man did restore these and other aircraft over a span of 30 years and has over 10,000 hours in Mitchells, Flying Fortresses, and Liberators. I went to airshows and watched him fly B-25's and B-17's on many occasions. If he gave a review of a B-25, B-24, or B-17 diecast and stated that there was inaccuracies in the aircraft, then I would believe him since he is an expert on these aircraft.

I never stated that the only opinion one can have on a diecast is if you have sat in the aircraft; walking around the aircraft (again, the correct variant/sub-model) and comparing the 'real' aircraft to the diecast is your most accurate assessment. This still will not answer the possible scenario of field modifications, which were common and a possibility that the diecast manufacturer took into consideration. As for books, not all of them have accurate information. For example, many books that I have stated that the top speed of a B-17 is 287MPH. The man who restored 2 of these to operating condition and has logged more than 800 hours in them said that there is no possible way a B-17 can reach that speed, even in a dive. I will believe someone with his knowledge and understanding of his stature over someone who reprinted information from the design specifications of a B-17 that was 'supposed' to reach this speed. In other words, the Boeing design team anticipated this speed when it was put to blueprints and this erroneous information was simply passed down thru the years. Books are excellent, but I like to link this information with people that I interviewed, combat footage (both black-n-white and color), and, if possible, the actual aircraft itself.

[Captain Eddie]

Originally Posted by lanslide

I just don't remember seeing anyone here give a review in poor taste. Can somebody post a link as an example? All this may just be a non-issue!

I believe the type of comments that Theodore mentioned, ie "moronic" or some such, have been made, but I know for certainty that some have been what I would consider dismissive and/or insulting to folks who may like the model they are critiqueing, by suggesting that only a total idiot would buy such an item. I believe this is really the exception than the rule, however. I personally only remember one time.