[STARMAN 352ND]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Pappy,
Looks like Zed550 may have hit the problem on the head (and found a potential solution) on the F-15B/D canopy/front windscreen. If he says it works, it's worth a try, assuming you have a spare single-seater windscreen, that is.

I just wonder sometimes why manufacturers make such apparently simple mistakes, which detract from otherwise very worthy models. Why, why, why?

FVD

Who knows why they do what they do..
I appreciate these models for what they are...Not for what they're not.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

Who knows why they do what they do..
I appreciate these models for what they are...Not for what they're not.

I hear you, but I was thinking from a pure marketing point of view. If you are the only one making a certain model, I guess you can get away with some obvious mistakes, but when you have competition, why risk losing sales to the other guy for seemingly simple-to-fix (at no additional cost) mistakes?

FVD

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

On the Su-27, Witty has again messed up with the canopy. The canopy (including windscreen) digs too low/deep into the fuselage compared to the real thing. However, I don't consider that bad enough to recommend not buying that model, which otherwise looks just fine. But again, the Gaincorp effort is much better IMHO. So I bought their stuff, not Witty (granted, the main reason I did was because they came out first).

FVD

I have to agree with you there and that's why I own 4 of them. I also bought the Witty Su-27 (despite the canopy flaw you mentioned) for the scheme, and it now sits along side with the rest of Gaincorp Flankers.

[Dobber]

I own 2 witty's, an F-15C...love it.....and an SU-27. The Flanker is nice BUT the canopy (particularly the Windscreen) is just completely wrong. I considered trying to fix it be painting the lower part of the frame higher but I'm not sure if that would really solve the problem.

I've totally passed on their Tomcats, too many issues for me. I really love Century's offerings anyway.

Chris

[PappyB]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Pappy,

Looks like Zed550 may have hit the problem on the head (and found a potential solution) on the F-15B/D canopy/front windscreen. If he says it works, it's worth a try, assuming you have a spare single-seater windscreen, that is.

He also has a good explanation for the bump on the rear of the F-15A/C's canopy, but that still doesn't make ot right.

On the Su-27, Witty has again messed up with the canopy. The canopy (including windscreen) digs too low/deep into the fuselage compared to the real thing. However, I don't consider that bad enough to recommend not buying that model, which otherwise looks just fine. But again, the Gaincorp effort is much better IMHO. So I bought their stuff, not Witty (granted, the main reason I did was because they came out first).

I just wonder sometimes why manufacturers make such apparently simple mistakes, which detract from otherwise very worthy models. Why, why, why?

FVD

I hear you, and it's good to know of these issues. However, my first "love" is WWII stuff which comprises the vast majority of my collection and I'm more into studying the history of that time and thus, the wrong "rivets" are more noticeable to me -- and I care more about them. However, being a fan of just about everything that flies (helicopters haven't grabbed me... yet) I also "dabble" in modern stuff.

As I know very little about the different versions of a particular jet, and really just want representations of the aircraft first, rather than exact replicas (which admittedly would be nice), these issues are not as severe to me as they are to folks that live and breathe jets -- or like Viper, flew them (very cool).

With the witty F-15 faults in mind, I still think the overall detail of the mold to be vastly superior to anything else out there -- and I have Gaincorp's Gorillas and a couple of Dragons, too. Gaincorp's panel detail and fit and finish just looks positively crude to me, even if the profile is a more accurate representation. The Witty just looks like a better made "model" to me, which is why I prefer it -- though my perspective may put me in the minority.

I think it's awesome we have such knowledgeable folk here on the forum though, I may be aware of my Wittys' faults now, but I don't like them any less for them -- except maybe for my Tomcat I got most of 'em for $20, and for that price, they are a bargain in my eyes.

I guess for me I care about the quality of the model first -- how well made it is, then how accurate it is second...

(That said, it is bizarre how some of these errors seem to be randomly introduced when a little research would have prevented them -- I would think that if I were sinking money into making a mold to produce that I WOULD certainly care about making sure the major indentifiable factors between versions A, B, C... were at least in the ballpark...)

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by PappyB

(That said, it is bizarre how some of these errors seem to be randomly introduced when a little research would have prevented them -- I would think that if I were sinking money into making a mold to produce that I WOULD certainly care about making sure the major indentifiable factors between versions A, B, C... were at least in the ballpark...)

Pappy,

I guess that sentence captured what I was trying to say pretty well. I certainly don'y dissagree with your logic for buying models, you seem to like the overall feeling of quality/finish than very accurate general mould lines. I tend to think the other way, but it's really a matter of balance between the two. It's all a personal preference thing.

See, for example, I bought the Witty NASWC Tomcat even though it has the wrong engine nozzles, and I knew it. But I like the paint scheme and the rest of the model detail is fine by me (and so was the price). But others have argued it's just a piece of Junk (or words to that effect). I don't think so, and I do own a Century Wings F-14 that I can compare it with (the CW is certainly much better - in fact it sets new standards IMHO - but it costs more).

The thing that gets me is that I can see how more money might need to be invested by a manufacturer to get more detail/higher quality finish into their models, but it seems getting the overall aircraft shape right should be a wash as far as investment (assuming that they do have to research the subject anyway). Or maybe I'm missing something...

FVD