Nice release, I love the fact that this EA6 is low vis, but I think the duck egg blue is not necessary and is much too light... If Hobby Master has any chance, they could just do away with it, use the other gray from the nose area for the rest of the underside, and you'd have one really great looking prowler model.
It still looks a bit too blue (evidently another product from HM's secret Smurf factory..), but nowhere near as bad as it does in the dreadful HM¢ pictures..
TFM photos can generally be trusted; for whatever reason, those on HM¢ are really not reliable, but TFM take all their own of every release. That's my experience anyway.
However, Pics are never all that reliable a source for determining exact colour tones. Looks different on my iPad when compared to my desktop for instance.
I must say, HM does a very good job with the Prowler, just sucks they let this one down with the blueish paint. Since they aren't making many Eagles now, they must be putting the blue paint to use elsewhere.
Agreed, The Flying Mule has THE best photos in the business, no doubt about it, these days I'm not buying anything till I see legit photos from The Flying Mule. Especially when models hit some stores early and they are still using the release drawing to sell the product. That's just not acceptable when paying $150.
It still looks a bit too blue (evidently another product from HM's secret Smurf factory..), but nowhere near as bad as it does in the dreadful HM¢ pictures..
TFM photos can generally be trusted; for whatever reason, those on HM¢ are really not reliable, but TFM take all their own of every release. That's my experience anyway.
i do agree. the official photos seem to suffer from saturation/contrast/exposure issues of late. and yes, tfm do seem to do a better job at getting the colour reproduction right in their publicity shots. perhaps collectors with this model can share pics of this model with feynman to see whether this actually came out from hm's smurf factory or otherwise
Oh for crying out loud, we have heard the "screen color differentiation" - "HM bad camera photos" - "its your eyes malfunctioning" - "I'ts not blue, but an official military smurf grey tone" excuse for the last TWO YEARS and their models ARE BLUE!
STOP THE EXCUSES, Cripes these excuses are past old and HM needs to stop making blue models.
TWO YEARS of bad excuses is beyond enough, laughable, HM needs to get it right and they are not.
Oh for crying out loud, we have heard the "screen color differentiation" - "HM bad camera photos" - "its your eyes malfunctioning" - "I'ts not blue, but an official military smurf grey tone" excuse for the last TWO YEARS and their models ARE BLUE!
STOP THE EXCUSES, Cripes these excuses are past old and HM needs to stop making blue models.
TWO YEARS of bad excuses is beyond enough, laughable, HM needs to get it right and they are not.
trip... they did come good with the demo eagle though. so i guess perhaps monsieur ukrainian falcons is right, they've gotto be using that extra paint SOMEWHERE
Oh for crying out loud, we have heard the "screen color differentiation" - "HM bad camera photos" - "its your eyes malfunctioning" - "I'ts not blue, but an official military smurf grey tone" excuse for the last TWO YEARS and their models ARE BLUE!
STOP THE EXCUSES, Cripes these excuses are past old and HM needs to stop making blue models.
TWO YEARS of bad excuses is beyond enough, laughable, HM needs to get it right and they are not.
So have you seen the model in the flesh then to make these statements?
Oh for crying out loud, we have heard the "screen color differentiation" - "HM bad camera photos" - "its your eyes malfunctioning" - "I'ts not blue, but an official military smurf grey tone" excuse for the last TWO YEARS and their models ARE BLUE!
STOP THE EXCUSES, Cripes these excuses are past old and HM needs to stop making blue models.
TWO YEARS of bad excuses is beyond enough, laughable, HM needs to get it right and they are not.
I don't know if the model is blue or not. I haven't seen it yet.
Sometimes the colour of a model is close to the photos - sometimes not.
The only way to know for sure is by seeing a model in person or by waiting for other collectors to report back on their purchase.
Just like the recent F-15E release - Contrast was not an issue. The photos from the manufacturer were simply under exposed. The colour was the same as the previous Strike Eagle release.
Dan
Even photos of the same model can differ (my photo followed by SKF's of Hobby Master's CF-18).
Whether the model is blue or not in the metal, this propensity of HM¢ to publish such terrible photos is a major PITA for those of us who primarily buy from internet vendors and it cannot be doing HM any favours commercially
Are decent photos for a hobby that primarily relies on internet sales channels really that much of an ask?
Sure, some models it is just poor photography, but others have been truly, unforgivably dreadful - the Smurf Eagles being the canonical example (though by no means unique!). For this reason it's quite impossible for people who are concerned with accuracy to take it on trust that the photos are wrong..
If the best people can say is "see it in the metal, don't rely on photos" then I must ask what do we for whom the internet is the only practical way to purchase the models do?
The only safe option is to simply not purchase, but that is grossly unsatisfactory for we who collect and would kill HM.
I don't have a silver bullet solution and have to say the best option is going by TFM pics - which in this case do still look blue (both on my desktop and my mobile devices - if these are massively different the settings on one are incorrect BTW) despite not having a blue background or being noticeably over-saturated.
To be frank, simply saying "just see it in person" is a cop out that helps nobody..
That is defo how I spend now, if I can't see the HM photo (crap or not) I don't buy it, if the HM photo is bad, I'll wait till either someone has bought it or a dealer has RL photos of it, preferably The Flying Mule.
What is worse is how HM now try to sell models without even the marketing photos from themselves, hiding something much ?
Zero tolerance for garbage or fakery. And the fakery isn't exclusive to HM, Corgi with CAD drawings and clay mock ups and Calwings with decals.
That is defo how I spend now, if I can't see the HM photo (crap or not) I don't buy it, if the HM photo is bad, I'll wait till either someone has bought it or a dealer has RL photos of it, preferably The Flying Mule.
What is worse is how HM now try to sell models without even the marketing photos from themselves, hiding something much ?
Zero tolerance for garbage or fakery. And the fakery isn't exclusive to HM, Corgi with CAD drawings and clay mock ups and Calwings with decals.
This is a great point - those Corgi "photos" (CAD generated..) that get published with announcements must have led to a lot of disappointment once people actually get their models. The dreadful looking Pearl Harbour P-40B is probably the current canonical example of that..
WRT photos, Armchair Aviator also takes all his own photos (he also adds a bunch of extra information about the real aircraft and its history on top of what the manus provide) which are always really good quality. If you're worried about a given release, a cross-reference of both TFM and AA will give you a good selection of photos of the real model, as it hits the shelves..
A lot of vendors rely on just the publicity shots, but both the Mule and Armchair take their own, which is why I mention them both. Of course, what is brilliant about the Mule is (with Google's help) you can find pretty much every diecast model ever released (at least every model they have sold..).
If anyone else has a vendor they know who provides good pictures they have taken themselves then please do share!! The more we all know, the better
Shouldn't we be able to trust official marketing materials?
Or are we meant to just buy on trust and wear it if it sucks?
Please do explain your thoughts..
That's my point.
It is what it is. Photos will never be a 100% reliable source. Photos will differ from the model and photos will differ from the actual aircraft. Which one is right?
There is no alternative other than placing a model against an example of the real aircraft.
I enjoy being entertained when there is always back and forth bantering about color
Well here's my 2 cents......I like the TaoBao website...just put in the model only number HA5005 or any other HM plane and you get all sorts of photo layouts of the plane you search.
It kind of makes sense that being produced in China.....the Chinese collectors would have the opportunity to get and photo the plane first before other parts of the world.
So here is HA5005 in all its glory.....it doesn't look so blue to my aging eyes. Scroll down the webpage.
It is what it is. Photos will never be a 100% reliable source. Photos will differ from the model and photos will differ from the actual aircraft. Which one is right?
There is no alternative other than placing a model against an example of the real aircraft.
Dan
So, if I may summarise/paraphrase, your advice is "don't buy anything unless you can get the model and look at it next to the real aircraft"?
Welp, if I followed that advice I wouldn't have a collection at all..
I enjoy being entertained when there is always back and forth bantering about color
Well here's my 2 cents......I like the TaoBao website...just put in the model only number HA5005 or any other HM plane and you get all sorts of photo layouts of the plane you search.
It kind of makes sense that being produced in China.....the Chinese collectors would have the opportunity to get and photo the plane first before other parts of the world.
So here is HA5005 in all its glory.....it doesn't look so blue to my aging eyes. Scroll down the webpage.
They are good photos, and most of the model looks - to me - to be fine (the underside certainly, and the wings); however, I am not so sure about the shade around the cockpit..
Anyway, at least we are providing Feynman with a good selection of different images to compare, so thanks for sharing
Ultimately, for those of us who don't solely buy from museum gift shops (and only then models of aircraft in the museum), but rather prefer to shop on the internet, we have to rely on photos - the best thing we can do is (sorry if this is becoming repetitive) check as many (independent) sources as we possibly can.
At least in cases such as this where the accuracy is a matter of concern to those of us who care about accuracy
Yeah the pre-pro plane UF provided against the white background does show some blue. Here's the pre-pro with white background at TaoBao expanded. Scroll down the webpage.
Yeah the pre-pro plane UF provided against the white background does show some blue. Here's the pre-pro with white background at TaoBao expanded. Scroll down the webpage.
Do you have this release/plans for it to join your bunnies BB?
If you do add it to your warren could you please share a picture or two to settle things?
I am now really curious indeed, but my local B&M LHS isn't even going to get any, so I can't go to see for myself (let alone hold it up to the real aircraft )..
Do you have this release/plans for it to join your bunnies BB?
If you do add it to your warren could you please share a picture or two to settle things?
I am now really curious indeed, but my local B&M LHS isn't even going to get any, so I can't go to see for myself (let alone hold it up to the real aircraft )..
It's funny you should mention bunnies because the way the C and Y is arranged on the tail...it does indeed look like a bunny head. A Playboy Bunny logo knockoff? Hmmmmm
I remember asking William about producing a prowler , forgot which squadron, with the actual Playboy Bunny logo like the black bunnies....he told me he can't....he has been having problems with Playboy Enterprises responding to his requests for licensing as of late.
No .... I'm not buying this....I buy all online....no over the counter retailers are near me.
Personally as long as the colour is close it doesn't bother me much
And there it is..
The question that started all of this was a member's concern about the levels of blue for this model; seeing as nobody seems to have actually bought a copy to share pics of the discussion has followed based on what evidence is available.
If you don't care then I'm happy for you, it must make choosing what to acquire very simple.
What others are happy with is up to them though, and we're all entitled to an opinion.
Absolutely wrong would be green, pink or something like that: nobody is saying it's absolutely wrong.
Why not just let people say what they think and mention what they are happy to accept? Ultimately it is up to each of us to decide what we do or don't add to our collection, and the point of a forum such as this is to discuss models.
It's funny you should mention bunnies because the way the C and Y is arranged on the tail...it does indeed look like a bunny head. A Playboy Bunny logo knockoff? Hmmmmm
I remember asking William about producing a prowler , forgot which squadron, with the actual Playboy Bunny logo like the black bunnies....he told me he can't....he has been having problems with Playboy Enterprises responding to his requests for licensing as of late.
Given the squadron is VMAQ-2 "Playboys", I suspect that arrangement of the tail code is intentional, and HM have been very clever in selecting a scheme that avoids Playboy Enterprise's recalcitrance
It's a shame they can't do the scheme in the image above though, it's a great scheme and one of the classic, iconic even, Prowler schemes from the type's history IMO
Last edited by tker76; 02-03-2017 at 12:56 AM.
Reason: Found a larger copy of the image :D
Your pic is correct....there was also a single cockpit model shown below....but that's not what HM produced....yes if he produced what you pictured...I would buy it for sure...it's the traditional bunny head.
Here's the Prowler I asked him if he can do....that's when he told me of Playboy Enterprise resistance....now, this I would buy because it's the traditional Playboy Bunny logo.
BB
Yep, same squadron - it's a great scheme, isn't it?
I wonder if they had to adjust their tail art due to copyright concerns?
You'd hope companies would let squadrons in the military use their logos without hassling them, and I thought that was what actually happened..
Anyone know why they chose the arrangement of letters over the bunny head IRL?
The question that started all of this was a member's concern about the levels of blue for this model; seeing as nobody seems to have actually bought a copy to share pics of the discussion has followed based on what evidence is available.
If you don't care then I'm happy for you, it must make choosing what to acquire very simple.
What others are happy with is up to them though, and we're all entitled to an opinion.
Absolutely wrong would be green, pink or something like that: nobody is saying it's absolutely wrong.
Why not just let people say what they think and mention what they are happy to accept? Ultimately it is up to each of us to decide what we do or don't add to our collection, and the point of a forum such as this is to discuss models.
Not try to shut any discussion down..
Like I said, you can't seriously say that a model's paint colour is wrong based on photos only.
Dan
Last edited by make.me.laugh; 02-03-2017 at 08:40 AM.
Reason: off topic
Not my fault you can't accept the limitations of the discussion.
Like I said, you can't seriously say that a model's paint colour is wrong based on photos only.
Dan
you're right, especially when photos are generally for illustration purposes only and does not truly represent the actual model. i never once had a big mac that looked remotely like the one in the photo but what the heck, the photo doesn't tell me what that big mac actually taste like and the one that i have in my hand, although it looks like a pos, tastes good. but i think monsieur ukrainian falcon has a point... not all of us have the good fortune to be able to see the actual models before purchase (as it is common these days to purchase online). that's why we rely on pictures. and again monsieur ukrainian falcon is correct to say that it's best we compare pics of the actual models before making our decision. and thus, feynman's humble request. dan, you do seem to be getting models ahead of anyone else and it would be nice to see your review of this model too. after all, that's what this forum is all about, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACpilot
I know I've enjoyed seeing photos of your collection.
Removed due to off topic
Dan
oh dear, monsieur tripoli is so gonna rip me with this one... i have a confession, i have the smurf eagles
Quote:
Originally Posted by tker76
I do love my 200s, but not for planes I can get in 72..
Looks like a nice little model though
was this from an earlier era? that cream nose and dessert grey (is that the proper term?) looks similar to the early jr tomcats.
Last edited by make.me.laugh; 02-03-2017 at 08:43 AM.
Reason: Quote removed due to off topic statement
no... no... no... kitchen floors will do just fine. camera phone, point and shoot... whatever. we're not all photojournalists to get 'em exposure and white balance perfected. heck... even hm gets 'em wrong with light boxes and what nots. do whatever it takes... just get 'em pics up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukrainian_Falcons
Cool, glad you enjoyed them, more piccies should be coming very soon, new themes, very exciting times
Well the Topcats Viking was essential after all
would that be the russian theme? i am looking forward to all the russian themes in the pipeline...
Hobby Master HA5005 USMC Grumman EA-6B Prowler, VMAQ-2, 2008
Your Privacy Choices
