There are several UK RTR products which despite many very good qualities, and their suitability to my modelling interest, I am either reluctant to purchase, or simply will not purchase. In every case the reason is a body shape error. Where there is reason to believe the error may be corrected, the purchase will go ahead, and the rectification required is attempted. If it succeeds then well and good, and there may be further purchases, if not then no more are purchased. Models which defy correction, whether due to the disproportionate effort required, or straight up inability (of Mr Ninethumbs here) to do the job to the standard required; are simply left on the retailer's shelf.
The prime example of this is Heljan's 47. A very good product in so many ways, but I never bought one due to the bodyshape error, particularly when seen in head on view. The prospect of a near complete rebuild of the body shell, and cutting down the chassis block sides did not appeal. Very simply it was going to take near as much effort as building a kit, with some doubt as to whether I could maintain the good finish of the model. Happily in that case a much superior alternative is now available. However, since then there have been several more such flawed body shapes, and the prospect of a better alternative emerging seems slim. Duplication of the commonest BR diesel was a pretty sure bet, but when the prototype is a less common type, a (hopefully better) duplicate will be a long time in coming.
That's unfortunate, and is something that is at greater risk of happening nowadays, with the tool development being carried out by people who near inevitably have not seen the prototype. In an ideal world this aspect of every model would be 'right'. How can that be achieved? The answer may well have been provided by Dapol's experiment of showing their CAD development on-line. However, I can see some sensitivity there, if a manufacturer feels that commercial advantage may best be secured by discretion. Any other thoughts?
The prime example of this is Heljan's 47. A very good product in so many ways, but I never bought one due to the bodyshape error, particularly when seen in head on view. The prospect of a near complete rebuild of the body shell, and cutting down the chassis block sides did not appeal. Very simply it was going to take near as much effort as building a kit, with some doubt as to whether I could maintain the good finish of the model. Happily in that case a much superior alternative is now available. However, since then there have been several more such flawed body shapes, and the prospect of a better alternative emerging seems slim. Duplication of the commonest BR diesel was a pretty sure bet, but when the prototype is a less common type, a (hopefully better) duplicate will be a long time in coming.
That's unfortunate, and is something that is at greater risk of happening nowadays, with the tool development being carried out by people who near inevitably have not seen the prototype. In an ideal world this aspect of every model would be 'right'. How can that be achieved? The answer may well have been provided by Dapol's experiment of showing their CAD development on-line. However, I can see some sensitivity there, if a manufacturer feels that commercial advantage may best be secured by discretion. Any other thoughts?
