Xotic Rebuttal
After reading the review posted on Internet
Modeler of the Exotic P-64 kit, I feel I need to respond to some of
the statements made in the review as well as provide some additional information
that was not available to the reviewer.
One of the reviewer's first comments states that tail stripes are not
provided with the kit. As the original decal photos in the August
Internet Modeler show, the tail stripes for both the American and
Siamese version are provided on the decal sheet. The decal sheet does
not have the side stripes for the civilian version as I felt the extra
cost would detract from sales and was not warranted for the kit. I am
considering offering them as an additional stand alone product.
In the first footnote, the reviewer states his perception that the shape
of the wings is inaccurate. Later he concludes they are correct. However,
the way it is written creates the first and possibly lasting impression
of a criticism, rather than a complement, ie. "In spite of all the
confusion, they got it right."
There was a lot of complaining about pin holes in the resin. All resin
kits have pin holes. Our kit is manufactured by Anigrand in Hong Kong
and matches the resin used by the latest Anigrand kits. Sanding or cutting
any resin only exposes more pin holes, and if pin holes are frustrating
to you, you will be frustrated by resin kits in general. It is inaccurate
to characterize this kit as somehow being substandard. I feel the resin
quality of this kit falls into the good or very good category compared
to so many other resin kits and parts currently on the market. Many modelers
are uncomfortable working with alternate media like resin, vacuform, or
etched brass. Being critical of the media and its challenges should not,
however, be a reflection on a specific kit.
The frames on the vacuform canopy do not seem wider to me than many
other kits. It would be helpful if the reviewer distinguished between
his personal preferences and the actual condition of the kit.
Most of the footnotes are from the instruction sheet and should have
been credited. The lack of crediting implies the modeler had to discover
these facts for himself rather than having them provided with the kit.
Here are a couple items which were not available to the reviewer due
to the very early copy sent for review:
- The instruction sheet is available as a PDF file from the website.
I decided to do this as an experiment to see if modelers found any utility
in it. It lets me update the instruction sheet and allow the modelers
to find the updated sheet if they purchase an earlier issue of the kit.
- Also on the website is a link
to several pages containing:
- Photos of the P-64
- Photos of the surviving example at the EAA Museum
- Additional photos of the kit in progress
Finally, I have to disagree with the reviewer's summary statement that
"the pinholes won". He applied reasonable modeling skills and
techniques to the kit. The final results are evident in the photos of
his nicely finished model. It is contest quality (by his own statements)
and represents an aircraft never modeled before. Even in our in house
test builds, this is one scheme we did not construct.
Overall, I feel the comments made in the review are at odds with the
photos provided of the finished product and appreciate the opportunity
to set the record straight.
|
|