Jump to content


1/25 Revell Mustang 5.0 LX Drag Racer


  • You cannot reply to this topic
221 replies to this topic

#201 Danno

Danno

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,709 posts
  • Location:Okay. By now you all know ~ Aridzona.
  • Full Name:Nameless Natural Luminary

Posted 01 July 2014 - 04:17 PM

What was this thread about?  I got lost with all the math and concerns about things I've already forgotten...............

 

 

I think it was about a chopped top Mustang kit with too many parts.    B)



#202 niteowl7710

niteowl7710

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • Location:FayCoPA
  • Full Name:Doing the grunt work so the U.S. Postal Service can deliver your mail.

Posted 01 July 2014 - 04:50 PM

I can unfortunately see the "median intelligence" argument, looking at my wall of Revell behind me here...what is a 2n1?

 

Is it something like the current version of the '68 Corvette which has that blown drag version to go with the factory stock?  Or is it the 2010 Camaro SS which the "2" is a different set of wheels and some ground effects.  Does those 8 parts REALLY justify it as a 2n1?  Is putting a different set of rims and some ground effects REALLY a completely different build option?  Not if you compare it to ye oldern day 2n1 & 3n1 kits where you were getting two or three honestly different end results. 

Because when you really look at things like the California Wheels branded kits (Mini Cooper, VW Beetle excluded) Revell's idea of a 2n1 kit for the past half a decade is a set of low-pro tires and large modern rims.  That would arguably change the style of the end result, but is a '72 Cutlass Convertible riding on 20s really any different than the model painted the same color rolling on stock wheels?

 

This Drag LX is an honest to goodness old fashioned 2n1, and apparently Revell didn't know exactly what to do about that. :blink:



#203 Brett Barrow

Brett Barrow

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,267 posts
  • Location:Deep in the swamps of Jersey
  • Full Name:Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist Brett M. Barrow, Esq.

Posted 02 July 2014 - 06:06 AM

 

That's what I've been saying the whole time!  :D

I see that now.  What I was thinking of was just a blurb in the text box on the side, like the way they do the Foose Edition kits.  

 

Regardless of how they handled this one, early sales have been very positive.  Our RPP shipment of these sold out the first day, and they're going strong now that they're in regular distribution.  Wouldn't be surprised if this one ends up like the 62 Corvette Gasser kit, where the 2nd version waaay outsells the first.  And the first version of this one sold pretty well...  

 

And a happy surprise is the "drag" kit with all its extra parts is $2 cheaper MSRP than the original 2 n 1.  Maybe Revell did us all a favor, if they'd called it a 2n1, they'd have to give it the 2n1 price.  :D


Edited by Brett Barrow, 02 July 2014 - 06:10 AM.


#204 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,368 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 02 July 2014 - 08:19 AM

And a happy surprise is the "drag" kit with all its extra parts is $2 cheaper MSRP than the original 2 n 1.  Maybe Revell did us all a favor, if they'd called it a 2n1, they'd have to give it the 2n1 price.  :D

 

Or if they were actually on the ball over there, they would have made a point of mentioning the kit is a 2-n-1 without the "2-n-1 price!"

 

Marketing. They might want to look into it...  :P 



#205 Rob Hall

Rob Hall

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,124 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona
  • Full Name:Robert Hall

Posted 02 July 2014 - 08:24 AM

 

Or if they were actually on the ball over there, they would have made a point of mentioning the kit is a 2-n-1 without the "2-n-1 price!"

 

Marketing. They might want to look into it...  :P

I could see that putting the 'Special Edition' banner on the box would add a couple bucks to the price ;)   At least they didn't label it as a 'Streetburner'..


Edited by Rob Hall, 02 July 2014 - 08:24 AM.


#206 Danno

Danno

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,709 posts
  • Location:Okay. By now you all know ~ Aridzona.
  • Full Name:Nameless Natural Luminary

Posted 02 July 2014 - 09:13 AM

I still think "2n1" should be 2 complete models in 1 kit.  Like the old AMT doubles.   

 

But that's just me.    ^_^



#207 bad0210

bad0210

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Location:deer park, texas
  • Full Name:brandon dove

Posted 02 July 2014 - 09:26 AM

they should of made a kit that was just the extra parts for half the price. since that's all I will be using out of it. they can keep the body parts.



#208 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,368 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 02 July 2014 - 09:48 AM

they should of made a kit that was just the extra parts for half the price. since that's all I will be using out of it. they can keep the body parts.

 

Oh, ok... they should have made a kit based on your personal wants.  ^_^



#209 bad0210

bad0210

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Location:deer park, texas
  • Full Name:brandon dove

Posted 02 July 2014 - 11:50 AM

just a joke. to a lot, the body is useless.



#210 kentak

kentak

    MCM Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6 posts
  • Location:Lakewood, CO
  • Full Name:Ken

Posted 10 July 2014 - 10:42 AM

After reading the various posts regarding Revell's LX Mustang I thought of the book, "Master Modeler: Creating the Tamiya Style", that talks about the Tamiya Company and how it has come to be. He has a chapter called "Models: More Than Mere Miniatures", where he talks about building the wood masters using literal, scaled down measurements but the model never looked right. To get it right they ended up adding to the width and modifying the height away from the actual measurements until it "looked right". To me this implies that producing a good, accurate model can be an artistic as much as formulaic exercise and efforts to get a car looking right can be interpretive effort. When I first saw the 1:1 LX during a test drive I thought the rear roof proportions looked odd and much preferred the hatchback. The Revell interpretation actually looks better to me than the real thing! So I wonder if the kit designer shared my sense of proportions and chopped the roof to get it to "look right"?

 

BTW, this book is an excellent insight into the process of model kit manufacturing and very interesting if you want to know how they do it.

 

Ken



#211 moparfarmer

moparfarmer

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
  • Full Name:Wayne Farmer

Posted 10 July 2014 - 11:48 AM

Isn't the new stuff created in China?  The new tools are done by machine(and not as good as previously) done like in the old days where they were done by hand

and had sharp lines.  Machines don't do as good a job as before..Live with it, cause thats just the way it is now..Its not going to change in our life time as long as

the economy is like it is now..Maybe some day they will go back to human molding processes...



#212 Abell82

Abell82

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts
  • Location:Central Florida
  • Full Name:Jason

Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:56 PM

You know why they won't fix the top? They don't CARE!!! If it were a 69 Charger that they grew up with then they would fix it, oh wait they did!

#213 DaveM

DaveM

    MCM Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 126 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Full Name:Dave Manley

Posted 10 July 2014 - 06:07 PM

The Charger was a different time period altogether.  Revell had different management, different competition and a very different customer base back then.  They would have been the laughing stock of the modeling world if they had not fixed the Charger kit.  They would have been shredded in the magazines, and they never would have sold a kit from that mold until they fixed it.  Now, it is not as serious a market and plenty of people are buying the kit even though it is uglier than an Aztec.  With the kit having great sales, they have no need to fix it.  They will sell a bunch, deformed roof or not.  I think many people are buying this kit for all of the drag parts and not even worrying about the body.

 

It has as much to do with the buying public today as anything.  Call it the death of the rivet counting generation.  



#214 Greg Myers

Greg Myers

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,624 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Full Name:Gregory Myers

Posted 11 July 2014 - 06:25 AM

Looks like a winner. http://www.revell.co...ml#.U8APjfldVyU  85-4195-lg.jpg



#215 Danno

Danno

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,709 posts
  • Location:Okay. By now you all know ~ Aridzona.
  • Full Name:Nameless Natural Luminary

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:04 AM

It's the same roofline.  Color, accents, and that skyscraper hood thing make it 'appear' different but it is not.



#216 johnbuzzed

johnbuzzed

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
  • Location:Indian Land, SC
  • Full Name:John "the Buzzard" Buzzerio

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:56 AM

There seems to be a lot of exaggeration here.  Is the body really so ugly, so out of proportion as to be totally unusable?  From what I see in the pictures, it looks fine. Consider the rest of the kit.  Is it 100% accurate in all dimensions, proportions, details, etc?  

 

There are options:1.Use the aftermarket body.  2.Build the kit as is.  3. Don't get the kit at all. 

 

I have nothing against using an aftermarket resin replacement body if that's what floats your boat, but I wonder about the rest of the model that is being created with that body.  Just how accurate will it be?  How perfect can you get it?

 

As I have posted in this thread before- NOTHING is perfect.



#217 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:Fairfax/Bay Area, CA

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:13 AM

Well, if nothing else, at least we're now seeing the tires the rear fender arches were sized for from the start...  B)

 

After reading the various posts regarding Revell's LX Mustang I thought of the book, "Master Modeler: Creating the Tamiya Style", that talks about the Tamiya Company and how it has come to be. He has a chapter called "Models: More Than Mere Miniatures", where he talks about building the wood masters using literal, scaled down measurements but the model never looked right. To get it right they ended up adding to the width and modifying the height away from the actual measurements until it "looked right". To me this implies that producing a good, accurate model can be an artistic as much as formulaic exercise and efforts to get a car looking right can be interpretive effort. When I first saw the 1:1 LX during a test drive I thought the rear roof proportions looked odd and much preferred the hatchback. The Revell interpretation actually looks better to me than the real thing! So I wonder if the kit designer shared my sense of proportions and chopped the roof to get it to "look right"?

 

BTW, this book is an excellent insight into the process of model kit manufacturing and very interesting if you want to know how they do it.

 

Ken

 

That angle and even that book have come up several times in discussion 'round here before, Ken.  And Tamiya certainly got their approach to work - but I'd argue that's because they'd mastered the sorts of distortions to flatter a subject, and I've long held we're less likely to notice deviations of that variety.  Far as the Mustang goes, you're not alone in thinking the model looks better.  But implicit in the definition of a "model" is something that represents a subject as closely and accurately as possible, and the body shell in this kit is an objective failure in that regard.

 

I'd go so far as to say the mode of thinking expressed in Master Modeler is no longer entirely current.  It was conceived at a time when scaling techniques stopped well short of assuring you scale accuracy not just in linear dimension, but in every angle and every change of curve radius. So while their masters might have been bang-on in every linear dimension (as the old Monogram 1/24 '69 Camaro is purported to be), two factors may have contributed to a master not "looking right":

 

1) 3D curvatures, much less straightforward to scale accurately, were probably off, and

 

2) the paradigm of holding a miniature up and standing right next to the 1:1 to compare it may have played a part.

 

That latter has been used as a justification for all sorts of "shape-teasing" and it practically guarantees a distorted result.  Unless you constantly view your model at a distance proportional in scale to that from which you'd closely examine the 1:1 - if it's 3 to 4 feet from a 1:1, that'd mandate your eyeballs around 1.5 to 2 inches from your 1/25 model - it just won't add up.  Your actual working distance from a model is more like what, 1 to 2 feet depending on how you hold it? Which puts your perspective of the model around the equivalent of viewing the 1:1 from around 25 to 50 feet away.  This is why I'd argue that photographs, for all their distortions from perspective and focal length, are probably a somewhat more reliable comparison standard than standing feet away from the 1:1.

 

What do I have to buttress my point of view?  The Polar Lights '66 Batmobile - very publicly documented as patterned after 3D scanning of the subject - looks right.  It may not have the correct number of apertures in its strobe, it may not have been possible to mold aerials and gadgets perfectly in scale, but in gross proportioning it looks ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.  And it is gross proportioning we're talking about - off by close to ten percent in this LX's roof height, very noticeable to many - before anybody starts greasin' this "perfect model" slope that just don't slip.

 

Then there's Moebius, and Revell itself.  Both have developed kits from traditional scaling methods and from CAD data.  Guess which efforts reliably look more like their subjects. Revell's 2nd-gen 197 Mustangs and the '15 are in an entirely different league for proportional accuracy than this LX, and unless there's been any "teasing" that we don't know about in those examples, I'll have to guess there's more accurate data gathered by more contemporary means playing a part.


Edited by Chuck Kourouklis, 11 July 2014 - 10:56 AM.


#218 Brutalform

Brutalform

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Location:Pa
  • Full Name:Tom Andrukaitis

Posted 13 July 2014 - 08:09 AM

I can care less about the inaccuracies, I'm buying one!!!!


Edited by Brutalform, 13 July 2014 - 08:09 AM.


#219 freakshow12

freakshow12

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts
  • Location:melfort saskatchewan canada
  • Full Name:fred mckee

Posted 13 July 2014 - 08:14 AM

I have 4 of the first issue and just ordered 4 of these. Now that I see some forging ahead and building them up I must say some of the issues that are glaringly wrong on a bare white body seem to fade away a bit once there is paint, trim and all the other stuff added to it. The whole pkg does not look as bad to me as a pile of raw parts

#220 Jaguar man 21

Jaguar man 21

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • Full Name:Jeremy Krnzel

Posted 17 July 2014 - 11:28 AM

Everyone just needs to try this kit mines almost done it awsome