> The bottom line for a modeller is this. Anyone pedantically quoting any
> kit as innacurate because of a supposed difference of "inches" in length
> or span, or imperfect agreement with published plans is talking what we
> colonials impolitely call utter bullshit.
I agree. Although, if we are to have a reference to go by, I'll use
the Windsock/Datafile drawings over anything else. It could be off
by a millimeter or two, but I'm not pedantic. If I need to scratch a
rudder, or stabilisor, then I'll use the drawings, just for
simplicity sake.
> As usual its up to you. I subscribe to the - Looks right, agrees with my
> best knowledge, is right, school.
Same here. I'm alway suspect when someone looks at a model and says
something like "That top wing is too long". Who died and made them
boss?
> Sorry all, but I have had to get on this soapbox as a judge to protect
> modellers from nutcases wedded to a micrometer, and I tend to repeat it
> occassionally.
Instead of being too "scale perfect", I always goes with - as you
said - does it look right, as well as has it been corrected. Not
necessarily to "scale", but - as an example - has the modeler added
the exhaust channel to the underside of the Airfix Pup, as well as
add the kingpost at the rear.
> End of sermon. Normal transmission resumes. Bzzzztttt.
Bzzzztttt...
> (most used acronym in this group is AFAIK - I wonder why ?)
Okay, I give. I can't figure this one out. Help!
Matt
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Matthew Bittner WW1 Modeler, ecto subscriber, semi-new dad,
meba@cso.com PowerBuilder developer; Omaha, Nebraska
Disclaimer: opinions expressed by me are my responsibility only.
"Villians I say to you now: knock off all that evil!"
- The Tick
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+