Jump to content

Jim Pearsall's review of the Roden Boeing 720 …


SkyKing

Recommended Posts

… fails to mention that the engines are too large, cabin windows are too small, fuselage panel lines are in the wrong place, and wheels/tires are the wrong size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you might be at cross purposes here Mike.....or maybe have greater expectations due to you knowing more about the airplane.

 

What I read in the review is a fair description of the kit and how it builds up. I didn't see any attempt to judge its accuracy anywhere. He tells how its builds up, recommends better sequences for the build than following the kit instructions, and then calls out the short comings of the supplied decal scheme that is incomplete and requires some sophisticated painting beyond the reach of much of the general public (i.e.-main market). I don't see the review as a rave or a pan, but a fair commentary on the kit's pluses and minuses.

 

He may have omitted any attempt at judging its accuracy due to lack of knowledge or references; or perhaps he felt that wasn't part of his responsibilities. I see the info you provide above as additional info; note worthy to those who demand accuracy, but of only passing interest to those who want a Boeing 720 for their collection. Your info is useful, but not needed to know HOW the kit builds up, which I took to be the purpose of his review.

 

You may also want to post your critique as a reply under his review, but I would add (if you can) what can be done to correct the problems you perceive. Are there replacement engines available? Can better gear and tires be sourced from elsewhere? How would you correct the windows? Once again, knowing a kit isn't perfect doesn't make it unbuildable, or even eliminate it from consideration. It may still be the best 720 available. THAT is what I'd like to know from the review. Cheers, and thanks for the additional insight!

 

GIL :smiley16:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'm at cross purposes at all. If a review is, as you say, "a fair commentary on the kit's pluses and minuses," then why omit such minuses as gross inaccuracies in a review? Why have we become so complacent about the products offered to us that we are willing to overlook flaws in those products? If a review can call out the "shortcomings of the supplied decal scheme," then why can't it call out the shortcomings of its representation of the subject? Those of us who "demand accuracy" are as entitled to know what's wrong with a kit as those who have only a passing interest in the subject; our hobby dollars are just as good.

 

My comment was not meant as a criticism of Jim's review so much as it was a comment on how, in general, our "reviews" have become so un-critical to the point that they really don't tell us anything. When IPMS was founded, its objectives were to help modelers build not just better models, but more accurate models, including advice on correct paint colors, correct markings, and correct shapes and sizes of the plastic parts. Knowing how well a kit's parts fit together is important, but a review should be more than just that.

 

I'm not an expert on the Boeing 720. My remarks on the accuracy of the Roden kit were based on comments by others, whose opinions and knowledge I respect, on other forums:

 

http://tinyurl.com/l8uaj66 (BritModeller)

 

http://tinyurl.com/ktyffg4 (Airliner Cafe)

 

Best Boeing 720 available: Authentic Airliners or Welsh Models

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

 

I can answer that. The reviewer corps are not experts on planes nor do we want them to be and the reviews are meant to honest but not critical. If it looks like the finished product, that is good enough. The reviews are meant to comment more about fit issues, gross errors and any tips on how to paint it or build it and not whether the engines are precisely the correct version.

 

The majority of modelers who buy this kit are better served by knowing how to get it together and not accuracy. We are trying to get away from the perception that IPMS is an accuracy required group and support the majority of modelers who simply do not care about this kind of item. I understand that do and certainly support that but that is a minority thin and not a majority

 

That being said, if there are gross issues with fit or things that look completely incorrect (Hobbyboss P-80 comes to mind), they will be mentioned- politely)

 

Dave Morrissette

Reviewer Corps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael: again, you're approaching the entire review from the standpoint that accuracy is THE criteria a kit MUST measure up to. That's true for many, but certainly NOT true for the vast majority of builders, and especially those who are not IPMS members (i.e.-"serious" modelers). I have no problems with the IPMS standards for their reviews, or the fact that IPMS needs to have some tact in them.

 

For me, the difference is when a kit become cartoonish. The HB P-80 kit Dave mentions comes to mind, as does their 1/48 F6F Hellcat. Another would be the very early release of the Trumpeter F4F-4 Wildcat in 1/32. These kits had MAJOR outline problems, all the more exacerbated by the fact that other models with accurate airframes were already available in those scales! The items you mention have to do with details, and not the overall look of the model. In short, are those engines SO large that they change it from a 720 to something else? Are the tires SO small that they look out of scale to the plane?

 

As to IPMS having a "goal" (ever) of helping members build more accurate models, THAT is not a policy truth. It IS what has happened in the dissemination of info in our magazines, but within the context of starting when kits had NO interiors, NO wheel wells, and working features that spoiled the outlines and accuracy of the airframes. What started 50yrs ago as a necessity has carried on to today, except now we're often nit-picking nice kits with good interior detailing and reasonably accurate airframes.

 

Again, instead of taking the review(er) or IPMS to task, I suggest you add your info as an addendum to the review, and address it to those fellow builders who DO demand a higher level of accuracy. As I said above, it's welcome info, until you try to say it should have automatically been included in a build review.

 

GIL :smiley16:

Edited by ghodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gil, I've never said that accuracy should be the sole criteria of a kit review. A kit that's 100% accurate but impossible to build because of poor design and instructions is, to me, as worthless as a kit that's well-designed for ease of assembly, has easy-to understand instructions, and has beautifully printed decals but is completely wrong in shape and size.

 

I simply maintain that an assessment of a kit's accuracy should be included in any review as part of that "fair commentary on the kit's pluses and minuses."

 

In looking at the Reviews section of our web site, I see no easy way to add critiques, comments, or addenda to reviews. That needs to be fixed, so they can be added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup! I agree...

 

IF IPMS is going to pursue a policy of reviews that are tilted towards the build, and light on critique, then there SHOULD be an ability for others to add additional info, and experiences with that item that can either support or challenge the original review. The bottom line is to give the membership the BEST idea of the pluses and minuses of each item, and it may take more than a single build and opinion to do that fully.

 

 

(EDIT 11/21)

Michael- all you need to do is scroll down below the original review posting and "reply" to it, just like we've all done here. You can easily add the info you deem important to that thread. You cannot (of course) add or alter anything about the original review posting.

 

 

 

GIL :smiley16:

Edited by ghodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...