On accuracy

— ac·cu·rate·ly \ˈa-kyə-rət-lē, ˈa-k(ə-)rət-, ˈa-k(y)ərt-\ adverb

— ac·cu·rate·ness \-kyə-rət-nəs, -k(ə-)rət-nəs\ noun

 I also find it interesting that the online version of Websters gives this example:  "The model is accurate down to the tiniest details."

We'll take the second definition, since it seems to be closest to what we think about when we think accurate.  Are there any 100%, "conforming exactly to truth [or a 1:1 scale protoype?–me] or to a standard" model kits out there?  Yes?  No?  And remember, I'm talking kits here, not models.  Models are what happens when you build a kit…

I'd wager no.  Sure, there are some kits that are pretty darn close.  But 100%?  In order to be 100% accurate, a kit would have to be derived from a 1:1 article that was put into Rick Moranis' "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" machine.  A truly accurate kit would be extremely fragile, and would probably not compare well when viewed alongside the prototype.  Subtle shape changes would be lost in the reduced version.  For the sake of discussion, let's say that the shrunken version may be an exact reduced size reproduction of the original, but in the process a lot gets lost in translation.

So, let's put that item into the Re-Big-U-Lator and move on.

Unless a model manufacturer making a 1/32 scale kit, for example, decides that he wants to make each part exactly 1/32 the size of the original in length, width, thickness, gauge, etc., there can be no 100% accurate kits–the kits would be so fragile you'd never get them built.  Unless the manufacturer wants to go to the point of including all of the internal doo-dads of the prototype, there can be no 100% accurate kits.  The parts need to have a draft angle incorporated so they'll pop out of the molds–making the kit not quite 100% faithful to the original.  Again, kits, not models.

So, what are we debating here?  Simply this–there are many kits that are faithful in shape to the originals.  There are many kits that are close, and there are many kits where you want to find the guy who did the master and ask him just what brand of crack was he smoking when he came up with a master that makes a mold that translates into a waste of innocent styrene.  It is what we, the modelers, do with those kits that determines how accurate the model will be.

I'm no superdetailer.  Sure, I can add details to a kit–scratchbuilt cockpits, rescribed panel lines, new landing gear–but I don't go bolt for bolt, rivet for rivet when I do so.  I admire those modelers who do want to replicate every nut, bolt, rivet, wire harness, oil line, and the like.  But to me, I look at a kit and assess it on the following criteria:  Does it look like what it is supposed to be?  Is the basic shape correct?  Are the relationships between the constituent parts correct, i.e., is the wing where it should be?  Are the proportions in harmony?  I'll study photos, and I'll consult references.  But in the end, the aesthetics of the kit is most important to me.  I can take a basic shape and add the details until the moo-cows come home…

A lot of people will drag out their "scale drawings" when a new kit comes out, compare the model to the drawings, and make a proclamation.  Problem is, the scale drawings aren't always accurate, either.  "But the drawings I have a are official blueprints of the actual airplane", you say.  I ask what you paid for them, and then tell you that someone ripped you off.  Airplanes, for instance, usually don't have a "blueprint", the closest thing you're likely to get is what they call a "General Arrangement" diagram.  If you dig through the maintenance manual, you might find some things that will get you close–Station, Waterline, and Buttock Line diagrams, for starters–but even they are an approximation.  The only drawing that reflects the actual shape of any partof the airplane are the engineering drawings for that particular part.  So, in order to have a set of "factory blueprints" you're going to need a bigger house.  There are thousands of parts on an airplane, each one with an official engineering document that tells you not only the shape of the part, but which materials and processes are used to make it.  You'd have to take those drawings and derive your own set of "accurate drawings".

Another way to get "accurate drawings" would be to extensively measure the original.  Easier said than done, but it can (and has) been done–Charles Neely's P-51 drawings, for example, have been heralded as the best drawings of the mustang in existence.  You'll need all sorts of measuring equipment, but it can be done.  In truth, a good many models were done exactly in this manner, and the care taken while measuring is reflected in the final kit.  Those subjects that were measured carefully yield great kits.  Those subjects that were measured with a length of rope and a yardstick don't.  Simple, yes?

Me?  I'll take a couple of decent photos and do a visual comparison.  If I can't see a huge discrepancy between the photos of the prototype and the kit, I don't squawk.  If details are missing, so what?  I can add them easily enough.  What I don't want to have to do it recontour a fuselage or scratchbuild a wing to make the model approximate the shapes I see in the photos.  To me, that's too much risk for too little reward.  And I'll still admire the modelers who can take a good, basic kit and make it into a model that comes close to being a 100% accurate model.

Be good to one another.  I bid you Peace.