RE: On the issue of belief in plans, kit

Matt Bittner (
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 07:35:30 -0500

On 18 Oct 95 at 9:45, typed diligently:

> 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

> 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.


> (most used acronym in this group is AFAIK - I wonder why ?)

Okay, I give. I can't figure this one out. Help!


Matthew Bittner WW1 Modeler, ecto subscriber, semi-new dad, 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