When I first heard the term "Group Build" I thought it meant a bunch of guys working together to build one model, not every modeler working on their own model as defined by a specific time period, type or what have you. With a little thought on my part I guess it should have hit me that perhaps my original definition was a bit impractical. Especially considering the international make-up of the forum.
But on second thought, is it impractical? Sub-contracting has long been a part of actual aircraft manufacturing, almost since its inception. Why can't the same be done with model aircraft?
My suggestion for a future "true" group build is this:
1) Participants can be grouped together locally (at least in the same country) to save on shipping.
2) The model used should be of the highest quality (to avoid as much as possible fit problems and minimize putty use at component attachment), but also be affordable as well as widely available.
3) The number of participants could vary by component break-down. Fighters could have a minimum of two (one building and painting the fuselage and the other the wings/tail plane and landing gear) up to X (with each modeler choosing one of the following: fuselage, wings, landing gear, final painting – with all supplied sub-assemblies primed upon delivery) Bombers could have a minimum of three (one building and painting the fuselage, one the engines and the other the wings/tail plane and landing gear) up to however many and with whatever parts break-down. As we know under wartime emergencies components were delivered pre-painted for final assembly.
4) I propose that modelers also be group by ability (say beginner to experten, with any number of levels in between) for the simple reason of aesthetics. After all money is being spent here and one would be more apt to be happy with and display a model that was built with the same care that one would build their own. However it would also be interesting if modelers of different ability were deliberately mixed and matched. This would closely mirror real life as some sub-contractors (companies) have better reputations then others and deliver better product. How a team would deal with the final assembly in this case might be interesting.
5) Ideally each participant in a group would buy the agreed upon kit and build their chosen subassembly and perhaps the ones contained in each of the other participants kits. That's in a perfect world. As a cheaper way of participating in the experiment, buy one agreed upon kit and divvy out the parts based on who is assembling what.
6) Wining "manufactures" could be judged in each skill level.
Please give your feedback and any additions/changes to the suggestions above. I have deliberately kept the framework vague in the hope that everyone might have a say.
Just like real sub-contracting, the Devil would be in the logistics.
Regards, Capt. Vick
But on second thought, is it impractical? Sub-contracting has long been a part of actual aircraft manufacturing, almost since its inception. Why can't the same be done with model aircraft?
My suggestion for a future "true" group build is this:
1) Participants can be grouped together locally (at least in the same country) to save on shipping.
2) The model used should be of the highest quality (to avoid as much as possible fit problems and minimize putty use at component attachment), but also be affordable as well as widely available.
3) The number of participants could vary by component break-down. Fighters could have a minimum of two (one building and painting the fuselage and the other the wings/tail plane and landing gear) up to X (with each modeler choosing one of the following: fuselage, wings, landing gear, final painting – with all supplied sub-assemblies primed upon delivery) Bombers could have a minimum of three (one building and painting the fuselage, one the engines and the other the wings/tail plane and landing gear) up to however many and with whatever parts break-down. As we know under wartime emergencies components were delivered pre-painted for final assembly.
4) I propose that modelers also be group by ability (say beginner to experten, with any number of levels in between) for the simple reason of aesthetics. After all money is being spent here and one would be more apt to be happy with and display a model that was built with the same care that one would build their own. However it would also be interesting if modelers of different ability were deliberately mixed and matched. This would closely mirror real life as some sub-contractors (companies) have better reputations then others and deliver better product. How a team would deal with the final assembly in this case might be interesting.
5) Ideally each participant in a group would buy the agreed upon kit and build their chosen subassembly and perhaps the ones contained in each of the other participants kits. That's in a perfect world. As a cheaper way of participating in the experiment, buy one agreed upon kit and divvy out the parts based on who is assembling what.
6) Wining "manufactures" could be judged in each skill level.
Please give your feedback and any additions/changes to the suggestions above. I have deliberately kept the framework vague in the hope that everyone might have a say.
Just like real sub-contracting, the Devil would be in the logistics.
Regards, Capt. Vick
