Great Wall Hobby 1/48 MiG-29 all new tooled

[Deino]

The first that I see done:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234934404-great-wall-hobby-mig-29-finally-done/

I always get a warning when I want to enter britmodeller.com ??? Does anyone else have the same problem or is the site safe ??

Deino

[Jennings]

It's a safe site. The had some kind of a SNAFU a few weeks ago.

[dedalus]

I purchased mine from Squadron when they had their sale and there was no warp (that I could tell anyway).

Rob

My two kits came from Squadron--one in each of the last two 30% off sales they have had. No warping.

Mike Todd

[Thomas]

Maybe Yufei could suggest to GWH to retool the incorrect parts and not only add them into their new 9.13 kit, but also sell them as separate set for those who have the incorrect parts in the 9.12 kit.

Bronco did that with their upper turret part of the M-24 Chaffe kit.

The inital production run included a turret with incorrect features. Bronco retooled it and sold the upper turret for very little money.

Thomas

[dedalus]

From a PR perspective, it would be worse to sell the replacement parts. People would object to the notion they have to pay to fix a problem GWH created. However, we get kits all the time with problems. People complain, and write negative reviews, and eventually it's just a situation where you buy the kit if you want it. It wouldn't be me being so vocal, but I know what I've seen on these forums.

When Academy fixed (or at least changed) the nose on the F-22, we didn't get replacements, free or otherwise. When Kinetic changed (but clearly didn't "fix") the front end of the Viper, they didn't offer replacements. Granted, these are larger parts, but then they are also more integral to the kit. You can build the Fulcrum without external tanks (I think, not an expert) but you really can't build a jet with main portions of the airframe missing.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer the opportunity to buy the parts over no chance at all. And I'd probably buy them if the price seems reasonable, if it seems like it takes into account that I've already paid a lot for the kit. But you never can tell these days.

A better option would be to simply replace the parts free of charge. The kits still new and there must be paper trails regarding where they all went. Replacing them would help establish this relatively new company as someone who stands behind its products. It also encourages them to get it right in the first place. Or is it right to cut corners, rush production? And if they make a mistake, they can look for the backlash? If there is one, they make replacements, and make even more money off of them.

Mike Todd

[madcop]

From a PR perspective, it would be worse to sell the replacement parts. People would object to the notion they have to pay to fix a problem GWH created. However, we get kits all the time with problems. People complain, and write negative reviews, and eventually it's just a situation where you buy the kit if you want it. It wouldn't be me being so vocal, but I know what I've seen on these forums.

When Academy fixed (or at least changed) the nose on the F-22, we didn't get replacements, free or otherwise. When Kinetic changed (but clearly didn't "fix") the front end of the Viper, they didn't offer replacements. Granted, these are larger parts, but then they are also more integral to the kit. You can build the Fulcrum without external tanks (I think, not an expert) but you really can't build a jet with main portions of the airframe missing.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer the opportunity to buy the parts over no chance at all. And I'd probably buy them if the price seems reasonable, if it seems like it takes into account that I've already paid a lot for the kit. But you never can tell these days.

A better option would be to simply replace the parts free of charge. The kits still new and there must be paper trails regarding where they all went. Replacing them would help establish this relatively new company as someone who stands behind its products. It also encourages them to get it right in the first place. Or is it right to cut corners, rush production? And if they make a mistake, they can look for the backlash? If there is one, they make replacements, and make even more money off of them.

Mike Todd

Hi Mike

I think Yufei has passed the word to GWH. I started with all this and my assumptions were based on the Zlinek plan. I think that GWH people are serious enough to take these points into consideration.

I think they are checking the matter ( Who know , I could be wrong , or ZLINEK plans could ...) and might review their production in the future. I think this is a pretty good attitude as it wouldn't be safe to take anybody's remark into consideration before having checked it twice !.These guys have also production schedule to meet I suppose .

As far as I am concerned , this kit is so beautifull that I decided to go on my own and bring corrections to these fuel tanks and pylons myself. After all that's part of the hobby.

If I am glad with my work , I may have some examples moulded in resin so as to save work in the future.

Of course , I still hope GWH will do that work for me...cause I am pretty convinced now ( by looking at pictures, etc... etc...) that I am right.

One thing is certain , this won't prevent me for buying the 9-13...my fuel tanks are ready !

Madcop :)

[ya-gabor]

The Zlinek plans are almost 100% good! They were far ahead of their age. There are some very minor outline errors in it as it was explained by Aleksandr Skylark710, a Russian specialist of the Fulcrum. Still the Zlinek is far better than anything available. The fine details in this publication are exactly where they should be! I am sure GWH designers and Yufei have seen them during design.

There are mistakes in the GWH kit, but I think Yufei has already said that they are under correction and will surface in the next versions of the Fulcrum.

I dont see any reason why a manufacturer should provide free correction sets. Have a look at any kit on the market, none are 100% correct (or they just show one particular example that the manufacturer had a chance to look at, measure, photo, examine . . .) and you dont see free correction sets floating about. GWH (or the resale shops) did provide replacement parts for occasional warped upper fuselage (my example did not have any problems even though it was on that black cardboard), which is (should be) a normal procedure. Just the same most manufacturers will send you replacement parts for damaged, broken or misformed parts as a replacement. But to have a free correction set, I don't think so. The kit, even with its mistakes is the best Fulcrum in any scale and I would even say it has a chance to be the kit of the year. Have a look at the positive response to the kit from the modeling community on different forums, at club level meetings . . .

GWH has to congratulated on its positive approach to the production of this kit and the time, money and patience it takes to make the necessary corrections.

I certainly look forward to the 9-13 kit and hope to be able to build that "01" codded Soviet AF example that was one of the first to be shown to the general public (and one of the first outside Russia) at the Kecskemet airshow back in August 1990 standing next to a Spangdahlem based F-16C!

Best regards

Gabor

[dedalus]

I dont see any reason why a manufacturer should provide free correction sets.

You don't see ANY reason? Seriously? Now, I'm not saying they absolutely must or we'll throw these fine kits away. I'm not saying they must or their whole business will go down the drain. But at least there is a reason to do it. They made a mistake that they later corrected. They have the parts. There's a reason. It may not be reason enough. And I could understand their rationale, but there is a reason. And it's reason enough for many/most/all people who own the kit. It may not be reason for others involved. This is not the first kit with no errors--I'm not sure there has ever been a kit free of any errors. But in nearly all cases, the model company doesn't correct it. They leave it to modelers to ignore or correct, or for the AM to correct it. Because of the expense of retooling, I wouldn't expect a model company to correct mistakes at all, and it's very rare. What GWH has done in correcting these problems is rare. However, once the expense of that is done, then I can see a reason to provide modelers with those parts. I see a reason to do it, but I don't necessarily expect it. That would be even rarer.

As to this being kit of the year, I could see that, even with the kit as it is. (I honestly can't remember when it came out for sure and whether the year would be 2012 or 2013.) I'm wondering how official that is or who decides. Is it a vote at a particular website, like this one? Does each forum website have it's own kit of the year? And then how do you compare an aircraft kit to an armor kit or a car kit. So many modelers stick to just one genre, like (for example) just planes, or even just jets, or even mostly Soviet-era jets. I couldn't even tell you one ship or tank model that came out this past year. So would I not vote, if voting were even an option? And to be honest, I just think there are good kits and great kits and amazing kits, and have really never bought into the idea that one needs to be pointed out as the absolutely one and only "best." The Mig-29 is amazing, and that's why I have two, even though the Mig-29 is something I'm only mildly interested in as an aircraft. (Not to put down the aircraft--I mean no disrespect. It's just not something I go nuts about. I have no problem with people who are nuts about it. I like the Flanker a lot more, in case GWH is listening.)

Mike Todd

[RichardL]

I dont see any reason why a manufacturer should provide free correction sets.

This statement is completely absurd. Are you insane? When things are defective, then they must be fixed free of charge to the customer. When the Toyota Prius had problems with the accelerator pedal, Toyota fixed it for free. When a software company releases a buggy app, does it charge the customer for an update patch?

[dedalus]

This statement is completely absurd. Are you insane? When things are defective, then they must be fixed free of charge to the customer. When the Toyota Prius had problems with the accelerator pedal, Toyota fixed it for free. When a software company releases a buggy app, does it charge the customer for an update patch?

To be fair, the Prius example is analogous to GWH replacing warped parts, which they've done. But when Toyota develops better functions/radios/etc for later model years, they don't give them out for free to current owners. But I still think its not completely absurd to suggest GWH consider this request.

[11bee]

This statement is completely absurd. Are you insane? When things are defective, then they must be fixed free of charge to the customer. When the Toyota Prius had problems with the accelerator pedal, Toyota fixed it for free. When a software company releases a buggy app, does it charge the customer for an update patch?

That's a bit dramatic. Are you suggesting that for every part found to be inaccurate on a kit (and pretty much every kit ever made has some issues), the manufacturer is obligated to re-tool the part and distribute free of charge? These guys are in business, at some point they need to make a profit or they won't be around for very long.

I think GWH did a great thing by addressing the wing warp issue (which was a major problem) but if we find other, less critical misses (such as the fuel tanks), I really don't think they should be expected to correct each one at their expense. If they choose to do so, great but it should not be expected of them.

I'm pretty content with the current state of this kit. If someone feels that it's not worth building due to certain problems, they can wait for the next guy to release a better product.

Edited February 8, 2013 by 11bee

[RichardL]

So you are saying a good business practice is to make a flawed part and then charge the customer extra for the good part? Sounds shady and corrupted to me.

[dryguy]

It depends what you mean by 'defective.' The wing warp issue may possibly be considered a defect, and kudos to GWH for adressing this.

Do the drop tanks fit well? yes they do

Does the plastic crumble? no it doesn't

Does it represent the real thing fairly well? Yes it does.

You are welcome to have your own brand of AMS. Please don't call others 'insane' because they don't subscribe to it.

[11bee]

So you are saying a good business practice is to make a flawed part and then charge the customer extra for the good part? Sounds shady and corrupted to me.

So are you saying that a model manufacturer who did their best to build a first rate kit should be required to go back and re-tool and re-distribute every time a modeler finds a flaw with one of the parts, regardless of how significant (or easily corrected by the modeler) that flaw is?

Name one kit that considered to be 100% accurate, with zero defects. It's a short list. Now list all the other thousands of kits with known inaccuracies that were never corrected. How many of those "shady & corrupt" manufactures (such as Hasegawa, Tamiya, Eduard, etc) are on that list?

Good business practice is to do the best best you can to design an accurate kit. If you find that you made a major error, do your best to correct it. With regard to the GWH kit, I think they have met that standard.

Like I said, if you don't want to support such a shady and corrupt company, just wait a decade or two for the next outfit to release the perfect MiG-29. It's your choice.

[ch9862]

This statement is completely absurd. Are you insane? When things are defective, then they must be fixed free of charge to the customer. When the Toyota Prius had problems with the accelerator pedal, Toyota fixed it for free. When a software company releases a buggy app, does it charge the customer for an update patch?

You're exaggerating. Plastic kit manufacturers (or merchants, actually) do not promise to deliver 100% accurate kits, only for them to be complete and free of manufacturing defects. Which is why I have received weapon sprue missing from Trumpeter MiG-23 kit - from the place I bought it (can't remember off hand). And GWH parts without warp - from Dragon. I can recall few more occasions over the years where either vendor or manufacturer sent me parts to replace defective or missing ones.

But manufacturers rarely alter molds to remedy accuracy issues, and I don't think it's reasonable to exepect them to do so.

And don't get me started on software :)/>.

[Thomas]

So where´s the problem if GWH sells the corrected parts at cost?

If you don´t wan´t them, don´t buy them.

I´d be happy to get corrected parts from later batches/ editions of the kit, even if I would have to pay a little amount.

It worked very well for Bronco with their corrected M-24 turret. Nobody in the armour modelling world complained. All who owned a first batch kit were happy to get the replacement without trouble from shops around the world. Bronco charged about 2 USD for it. Later batches included the corrected one.

I would be totally p*****d off, if I knew there would be corrected parts available and couldn´t get them.

Thomas

[dedalus]

If you don´t wan´t them, don´t buy them.

This is quite an overused expression in forums. (That and, "Well, it looks like a [fill in the blank] to me" as a review.) People get it. Everyone knows this. Don't buy it. If someone doesn't have that much intelligence to know not to buy something if he/she doesn't feel it's worth it, then how does he/she even figure out how to get out of the house in the morning. But with forums, people vote with their voice in forums as well as with their wallets. And using forums can be more useful than with one's wallet. With just one's wallet, manufacturers don't know WHY the market isn't their. And there is evidence that at least some companies are paying attention. (Though some may still have their heads in the clouds.)

Regarding buying "at cost", that's kind of tricky. The cost of the styrene pellets injected into the machine? A modest premium for paying the workers on station? The cost of a little baggie to ship it in? Doesn't sound too much. A reasonable shipping cost? Okay. But the cost of development to help subsidize the production of the later kit? The profits of each middle man along the way? It's kind of scary to think about how much we're talking now.

[ya-gabor]

There are different questions here. 11bee is right in that the issue of warp was corrected, and at no cost. This is a small technological problem with packing, I am sure they have learned the lesson and in future kits will do it differently (still have no idea where they will find the space in the kit box as it was full to the rim already).

Most manufacturers will not do anything when they see that their kit is not a 100% replica of the real thing. I have to add that there is no 100% perfect kit! In some cases they will even deny that there is anything wrong. remember the Fujimi MiG-21 family in 72nd scale which was actually not a 72nd scale kit. They did not retool the kit, they did not even do a new box and say it is 78th scale. They did nothing, and nothing happened. It was a very nice kit still. You don't have to go back that far, just last year Eduard had a WW2 kit which was not to 48th scale and what was the response to it in Eduard INFO, its a minor mistake. Did they retool the whole kit, no. Nothing happened. It is still a very nice kit, OK not exactly to 48th scale but is that a reason to do it all from scratch again and send it out to the original buyers. No it is not. The scale is a bit wrong but the kit is still perfect.

There were other instances in model manufacturing history where they did changes and in the next production batch it appeared already in a corrected form. That is all to it. It could be a new instruction sheet, a new decal or some modifications to the original production tool.

Dryguy is right. The PTB 1150 looks OK even if it is not exactly to scale. I can only hope that they will appear in a future set in a corrected form but also hope that GWH will consider releasing a separate weapons set with all the great missiles (the R-27, the R-72 and the R-60) that are in the Fulcrum kit. I also hope that with time the heatseaker version of the R-27 will also be made by them as well as the bigger brother versions of it. They could be used on many other types. The PTB 1150 was also used on many Sukhoi aircaft so it will be handy to have around.

Best regards

Gabor

Edited February 8, 2013 by ya-gabor

[dedalus]

Eduard did something with the 1/32 109. The canopy needed a fix and they fixed it. Then I can't remember how it worked. I ordered another on with a discount and free shipping and they through in the replacement canopy for free. Something like that. Who remembers?

[Jennings]

Who remembers the 1970s? Why, when I was a lad, we were LUCKY to get one new kit a year. And my old dad would beat us about the 'ead and shoulders with it until we bled, then we had to assemble it in a DITCH in the RAIN!

Oh aye, but ya tell that to kids today and they won't believe ya.

[Liberator24]

I was 2-10....I played with Lincoln Logs and Erector....didnt sniff clue till my teens....

-Jim

[madcop]

Who remembers the 1970s? Why, when I was a lad, we were LUCKY to get one new kit a year. And my old dad would beat us about the 'ead and shoulders with it until we bled, then we had to assemble it in a DITCH in the RAIN!

Oh aye, but ya tell that to kids today and they won't believe ya.

Good old rock and roll days Jennings. :D/>/>/>/>/> Remember those Frog models.

We were sweating to death to get the max out of it , without auto adhesive coloured PE, resin, turned brass , pigments, and all that stuff. And you know what , I think we had more fun at that time cause we weren't that spoiled !.

I still can remember the day I found a Mattel vacuform machine on a garage sale. That was each modeler's dream at the time. She is still performing very well... just like my Fender Strat !

The day will come soon when a guy will put a maker to court just because his kit is 1/71.9 scale instead of the announced 1/72 on the box lid... and he will ask him 1000000 $ for his prejudice.

I am still wondering how I managed to do this Wessex at the time. I suppose I had still nerves...

C'mon , Yufei , bring us that 1/47.7895 MiG-29 9-13.

Madcop :)/>/>/>/>/>

[dehowie]

Its pretty atypical of many things people think THEY deserve these days because they are perfect have never made an error and how dare anyone else.

This misguided veil that people believe they are perfect and therefor there perfect money should only be used on perfect products.

Heaven forbid they purchase something imperfect..

So Eduard puts out a 109 with a dud canopy that makes it look like one of Frankensteins creations.

They release a replacement canopy so it now looks remotely like a BF109 and I'm wondering how that compares to a drop tank which it took precise measurements to determine there was an error because most couldn't see it or still cant?

And it seems some would like Fedex to deliver a priority parcel from GWH with the replacements that many wont even use to their front door.

Better solution..buy a razor saw..learn what you use one of them for..get some sheet styrene..if you think droptank looks bung insert said styrene into cuts made with your newly found wisdom with your newly purchased saw into said droptanks.

Kapow..not only do you now have unbung droptalks in your own eyes because half he team cant see what your whining about but you have learnt something we have been doing for 30 years.

Enjoy your new found skills!

Edited February 9, 2013 by dehowie

[dedalus]

Exactly. If that's all it should take, they should not have retooled anything. They should have just included directions on doing this in the later kits. And let the rest of us download the PDF, too. For a reasonable fee.

[Laurent]

Eduard did something with the 1/32 109. The canopy needed a fix and they fixed it. Then I can't remember how it worked. I ordered another on with a discount and free shipping and they through in the replacement canopy for free. Something like that. Who remembers?

I think that Trumpeter reworked their 1/32 Wildcat in some way because of an accuracy issue.