Gun bay detail on 21st a/c what do you think about them?

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:38 am

Gun bay detail, what do you think about them?

I personally like them, it gives the model a certain amount of “detail depth” to a large model like toy. I like to display mine with them open, expect with the mig-15 almost imposable to display it unless you make a few mods to it. I hope the next level of detail that comes down the road will be removable engine covers and more detail in the gun bay, like wiring and hydraulic lines.

King O' Fools · Post by **King O' Fools** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:07 pm

To be honest, I’d rather see 21c addressing the ubiquitous QA issues with their paint jobs first and foremost. There's no point in having more detailed gun bays if paint flaws ruin the overall impression. I mean, if I owned a Ford Pinto the last thing I'd be concerned about would be the quality of the stereo.

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:15 pm

I agree with the Q/A issues, If 21st does have a problem my guess is that 21st would try to fix it. to be 100 percent honest I have not seen to many bad paint jobs on 21st stuff, and what I have seen would have been a very small nitpick.

overall I think 21st is headed in the right direction, my 262 had no flaws in it.

MightyMustang · Post by **MightyMustang** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:15 pm

I have to agree about Q/A issues as well. I know we get bad batches but lately all I have seen at my local Walmarts have been poor paint jobs on Old Crow and BBD. Like I said those may be bad batches but even when they are new shipments? That being said I would love to see detailed gun bays and removable cowlings ect that would be cool. Wasnt that gonna be one of the features of the BBI Hellcat before the idea was dropped because of cost? I think Mike did mention that and it was also supposed to have opening gun bays as well I believe. That would have been very cool to see that on the F6F. I have already added brake lines to my Hellcat so thats done.

tmanthegreat · Post by **tmanthegreat** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:03 pm

Yes on the quality control issues before anything else!! Its all fine and great that a plane does just about everything in terms of detail except fly, but when you get that plane and there are scratches, misprints, broken parts and the like, it is really a sour feeling. Now, I'm not demanding PERFECT specimins, but when you have to scour through 12 of the same aircraft to fine one with the fewest mis-alignments and scratches on prominent markings (as I did when I got my BBD P-51 at Wal Mart) that is not really acceptable! BBI and AT seem to get it right with few flaws on their mass-produced planes, so why can't 21c

That rant aside, gun bays are neat features. 21c did a very nice job with the gun bays on the F-86 and Mig-15 which blend perfectly into the fuselage and paintscheme. If 21c can successfully repeat that quality on future aircraft, gun bays will be a nice addition

popeye357 · Post by **popeye357** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:21 am

I think the extra detail is awesome but like everyone said, QA should be more important and I think a nice paint job would cost less than an extra peice of plastic.

digger · Post by **digger** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:42 am

I don't think QC on paint is an issue anymore. My Mig and F-86 are perfect. My Starfighter is perfect, and my 262 is almost perfect. I found a tiny scratch after trying to find a flaw. I don't have any of the new Mustangs but the paint looks pretty darn good on those too.

grunt1 · Post by **grunt1** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:56 am

The checkerboard nose on 21c's BBD (2nd issue) and Old Crow were very bad. Like tman, when encountering a pile (6-10) of these, generally there were one, maybe two that were decent. The rest had visible over spray, bleeding or multiple splotches between checker squares. Very obvious stuff even to me..

That being said, I agree that they nailed it on many other models like the 104 and the F-86, Mig, etc.. I'm guessing that there were problems with the engineering behind the checkerboard technique. The rest of the methods appear to work really well as evidenced on several other models.

FieroDude · Post by **FieroDude** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:31 am

Adding details like the gun bays or eventually removable engine cowlings with detailed motors underneath would be great, as long as everyone realizes that it does add to the cost and design time, as well as the risk of quality issues. For example, I had to modify the gun bay cover on my Huff just to keep it from falling off. Same goes for details like movable air brakes--I can't hang my Mig in a banked position without them falling open. But, yes I would be willing to pay an extra $10-20 (or more, depending on the level of detail added) per plane for engine details or gun bay details. Same goes for ground vehicles, actually. I like the details on the M41 and Tiger, but was rather disappointed with the Panther.

At the same time, I would like to see some of the other quality issues resolved first. Paint problems, poor fit or overly brittle matierials (I have had to repair something more than once right out of the box because pieces simply don't fit together well or are poorly engineered--the P-38 nose gear is a classic example), or control surfaces that won't stay in place, like the classic tail droop on the Avenger. I would like to see 21st especially get these issues resolved before they start trying to get more complicated than they already are.

MightyMustang · Post by **MightyMustang** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:16 pm

Paint problem's aside I will say this for 21st and thats that they have produced some very nice and well done aircraft such as the new tooled P-51D. Yes for some of you that cant believe I said that, I did! Avenger, ME 262 ect. 21st just has to shore up the QC paint problems for me.

Website · Post by **Teamski** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:45 pm

IMHO, I think detailed gun bays are a waste of time and money. I'd rather see better panel detailing and more attention to aircraft lines than interior detail that you will only see once in a blue moon if your airplane is hanging.....

-Ski

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:52 pm

Teamski wrote:IMHO, I think detailed gun bays are a waste of time and money. I'd rather see better panel detailing and more attention to aircraft lines than interior detail that you will only see once in a blue moon if your airplane is hanging.....

-Ski

But what about for those that don't hang them. who like to show them being worked on.

MightyMustang · Post by **MightyMustang** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:50 pm

VMF115 wrote:
Teamski wrote:IMHO, I think detailed gun bays are a waste of time and money. I'd rather see better panel detailing and more attention to aircraft lines than interior detail that you will only see once in a blue moon if your airplane is hanging.....

-Ski
But what about for those that don't hang them. who like to show them being worked on.

I agree. I'm going to making a diorama scene featuring one of my Mustangs very soon. More detail would be better.

Rogue · Post by **Rogue** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:01 am

I'd rather see more planes than spending the time on gun bays etc.
If I wanted super detail, I would be building scale models.
They look fine hanging, which most would do if there out of the box.

Small Scale Military Headquarters

Gun bay detail on 21st a/c what do you think about them?

Gun bay detail on 21st a/c what do you think about them?

well..