Small Scale Military Headquarters

You know what though guys all in all at least we have gi joe sized world war two airplanes clogging up our homes. I mean they could have never been made...I know they all have there little details that make them off from real life...but you still can look and say that p-47 mostly resembles a p-47 or that me-109 looks close to one...I complain too, but Im just glad we seen these made in our time. When I was collecting 1:32 it was like these are nice but not big enough. Now That I have alot of 1:18 I feel like a kid again. I mean I have dogfights with my daughter around the living room....And to me there is no small detail that would make me not love these things....even at the price and the points of interest that show them incorrect..not that you guys dont have good gripes..lol

I agree 100% with that. The criticism is based on the original topic. They are quite amazing, flaws and all! In 1/18 you really appreciate how big a plane the P-47 and Hellcat are.

The Hellcat from BBI was the absolute worst in my opinion. Functionally, it's a floppy mess. There is so much to be frustrated by... The flaps, the wings, the main gear, the canopy shape... It's a real shame too!

In regards to the Quad .50 trailer, I think it is actually a well-done piece for what it represents. It seems everybody's issue is that 21C should have picked something different; but I don't remember any complaints on its actual executiion/details. The spot for the figure is super-small, but I think that's fairly accurate to the original, and I think 1/18 plastic just doesn't bend/compress like the real thing enough to wedge a person in there.

But I can't disagree on the M113 crewman - I finally threw away the body and legs last night; I saved the head/boots/arms/hands for parts. But maybe even then... That whole series from 21C (afghan fighters, royal marine, spec ops) were of a noticeably decreased quality. They must have lost some important talent that took too long to replace.

As for the In-Toyz guys, the head sculpts were always weird, and the arms/hands chunky on some. But I thought the gear, and sculpting/details on figs like the SEALs was generally good.

I thought the BBI "British" figures (http://www.sshqdb.com/18/index.php?cat=120) were lame, not because the figures were so bad, but because they just took their US figures and repackaged them. As British figs they are obviously horrible representations (kind of like taking a so-so P-51, repainting it, and then saying here is our "Real As It Gets" Spitfire ), but if you ignore the "British" part they're ok I guess.

Another example of that is 21Cs attempt to re-package their P-40 as the Sky Captain movie plane (http://www.sshqdb.com/18/index.php?cat=75). Except for it being painted black and based on a P-40, it had almost none of the distinctive features of the bird in the movie. Again, a lame attempt to reuse something without bothering to even change a few essential details. Their support of the Sahara movie suffered the same types of problems.

Still, these are pretty much the exceptions in what overall was great product from 21C and BBI. Admiral did great vehicles, and even their president agreed their figs had major problems, so it's almost too easy to pick on those

tko211 wrote:The Hellcat from BBI was the absolute worst in my opinion. Functionally, it's a floppy mess. There is so much to be frustrated by... The flaps, the wings, the main gear, the canopy shape... It's a real shame too!

I'm inclined to agree -- very frustrating model. I took mine down from the ceiling the other day to clean it and tried to put the gear down and wings up for the first time . . . never could. Then, getting it back together to hang again was a real pain. I have a second one in a box stashed somewhere. One of these days I might just take it out and see what trying to glue the wing into a decent flying position might involve.

tko211 wrote:The Hellcat from BBI was the absolute worst in my opinion. Functionally, it's a floppy mess. There is so much to be frustrated by... The flaps, the wings, the main gear, the canopy shape... It's a real shame too!

I still don't rate the BBI Hellcat as the worst item ever made. Not as good as other BBI releases, but certainly not the worst. Plenty more fodder from BBI's main competitor Accurate or not, the Hellcat has better wings than the 21c Avenger... Even though they are somewhat inaccurate, they have more dihedral and are more robust. I can live with the flaps, though they are brittle and delicate, as well as the oversized canopy.

Trying to hang the Hellcat at the Museum was tough. Seemed like we could never get everything to stay "up". We'd get the flaps to stay and then a gear door would come down and so on. I never noticed the oversized canopy. I'll have to check that out. I did notice it has a -3 windscreen on the -5 airframe. The visual difference between the F6F-3 which the model is painted as and the F6F-5 is no bulge at the exhaust exit, no window behind the canopy and a flat front windscreen without the extra frame. The model is a combo of a -5 and -3.

tko211 wrote:The Hellcat from BBI was the absolute worst in my opinion. Functionally, it's a floppy mess. There is so much to be frustrated by... The flaps, the wings, the main gear, the canopy shape... It's a real shame too!

I agree about the floppy control surfaces. A real annoyance !! I fixed mine with a bit of white glue on all the hinges, per a suggestion by one of the members here.

I think the folding wings are an abomination !! They are not secure when extended, and do not sit in the correct position when folded. I would much rather have had wings that could be "plugged in" in either a folded or extended position. Functional features are sometimes detrimental to these models from a practical standpoint or scale appearance. Probably the manufacturer felt the model would not sell without the folding wings.