Jump to content

Kittyhawk 1/48 Mig-25


Recommended Posts

Thanks for detailed answers Gabor & Berkut to point out the mistakes.

I will still buy the kit though.

Apart from the tail and canopy mistakes (which is not *that* bad) all other mistakes seems trivial to *me*.

Also, I think you guys take it a little personal with the emails and responses you got. I think kit is not a disaster at all. For me most important think is the general shape. Wings, body looks good and the nose may be bad but I cannot tell it from the pictures we have. I guess it is dropping too much which is bad but it is not a disaster since can be fixed with a resin one. It ranks same with academy su-27 to me :D The real caveat is the price... academy su-27 costs half of this. Since I will buy resin or eduard exhaust and cockpit plus probable nose (which what exactly I do with flankers) it will be well over $100 :( well, I will only built one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Price is a major issue wrt Kittyhawk. They are charging premium prices and signally NOT delivering a premium product. Prices are pretty much in line with GWH, who, in the case of the mig-29, are delivering product that makes me eager to part with money. Kittyhawk are certainly no better than Kinetic, and in many cases worse, but Kinetic are significantly cheaper. This is important stuff to me, not the cost per se, but the return on my investment. Some are providing decent returns every time, Kittyhawk are far more questionable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, I tried marketing 3D scanning services to some of the model companies. They were not interested in the least. Didn't even want to discuss costs. For a few $k, they could have absolute, real-world, unimpeachable accuracy, potentially for a whole museum full of airframes. For me, that would be a dream come true... But no, it's not important enough to spend a few $k for that. Thanks for calling.

Which makes me wonder, what is the average research budget for a small model company project? What about in a big model company? it will cost them, what, $100K or multiples of that amount to set up the tooling, not to mention marketing, advertising, legal etc. And they can't drop a few thou on a plane ticket and a scanner rental, to ensure they don't lock themselves into a disaster?

And what is the problem with having knowledgeable people practically falling over themselves to impart FREE expertise? Essentially, doing your job, for free?

Could the real answer be, that modelers who really care about accuracy can safely be ignored, because they are vastly outnumbered by modelers who DON'T care?

That's gotta be it.

In fact, does it matter to a model company whether a kit is even buildable? Which brings up the question of box-art and associated design costs vs. research costs. I wonder what that ratio is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Gabor clearly explain and point out all those issue... that's very sad... i think i might get one of each...

.... in a couple of years ...when Aftermarket producer will have address at least the nosecone-forward fuselage miss, canopy shape, nozzles...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, I tried marketing 3D scanning services to some of the model companies. They were not interested in the least. Didn't even want to discuss costs. For a few $k, they could have absolute, real-world, unimpeachable accuracy, potentially for a whole museum full of airframes. For me, that would be a dream come true... But no, it's not important enough to spend a few $k for that. Thanks for calling.

Which makes me wonder, what is the average research budget for a small model company project? What about in a big model company? it will cost them, what, $100K or multiples of that amount to set up the tooling, not to mention marketing, advertising, legal etc. And they can't drop a few thou on a plane ticket and a scanner rental, to ensure they don't lock themselves into a disaster?

And what is the problem with having knowledgeable people practically falling over themselves to impart FREE expertise? Essentially, doing your job, for free?

Could the real answer be, that modelers who really care about accuracy can safely be ignored, because they are vastly outnumbered by modelers who DON'T care?

That's gotta be it.

In fact, does it matter to a model company whether a kit is even buildable? Which brings up the question of box-art and associated design costs vs. research costs. I wonder what that ratio is.

3D scan is a good thing, but I know of a big company which has used it and still the end product was far from perfect and when a secondary measurement was made it became obvious. So . . . Sure, there are different systems available and some are better than others, and of course it is a question if the given company intends at all in investing in research. It was interesting to see Mr Song writing that the real aircraft MiG-25 is out of reach for research. Have a look few pages back. Yes, you can do a kit from some published photos, some questionable drawings and say it is OK and the target group "Thats good enough for me" will make me a return on the investment of producing the kit and I dont really care about its accuracy! Well it is one way of doing business.

I did not approach KH myself, just heard what experiences other people had, so there was no point in making a contact.

Fortunately there are some companies who do care about details, and in some cases very fine details too in research phase. And there are those who willing to invest in making corrections to any mistake they made in the first place.

As said before all the points made above are based on the available photos of the kit, they concentrate only on some of the issues visible straight away. There are lots of other issues bit it would fill dozens of pages here on ARC.

We will have to see the kit itself, for the accuracy of the details, overall shape and dimensional questions. And here is a big question. It is obvious that the makers have used as a reference (one of the references?? or just one reference ??) the book by Yefim Gordon (Red Star volume 34 MiG-25 Foxbat) which had the photos of the original test radar unit reproduced in the kit as well as the Russian drawings published several times in the past two decades by Oleg Putmakov (they are very good drawings I have to say) but in the past have been scaled up and down and were published last time around in the wrong scale in the Ukrainian Aiviatcia i Vremja. The point is that I would be interested in the size of the kit. Fortunately some original technical documentation have been made public by the Russians so it is possible to know the real dimensional data of the Foxbat. Hope Mr. Song did the right conversions to the 48th scale!

Let us see the kit (sooner or later).

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the real answer be, that modelers who really care about accuracy can safely be ignored, because they are vastly outnumbered by modelers who DON'T care?

This is absolutely the case. The vocal few that come here and outline the problems are not the mainstream consumer. If you look at discussions about Russian releases, it's almost always the same handful of people that are pointing out the flaws.

Part two to this is that there are varying degrees of what people will accept. While Gabor called this a "40% effort" on the previous page, I look at it more like a 80% effort. The overall shapes look generally okay, there are some detail issues, but most of them are easily overcome. We are modelers afterall, we should be willing to put some work into our projects.

Whether it be laser scanning, or just some simple free consulting - let me put a critical eye to your CAD model - There is some value in trying to get it "a little more right" - of course accuracy is an exercise in diminishing returns. You're going to pick up a few more customers with a more accurate model, but there is a limit to that (think 80/20 rule).

So while the vast majority of modelers will look upon this kit as pretty good, or a "good enough" MiG-25 for their collection, and the kit will sell reasonably well. There will be a handful left behind because of the accuracy issues. So for the modeling company, they don't lose that much.

The danger to the modeling company, is just what happens in a thread like this, all the inaccuracies get exposed, and while those that weren't going to buy it because of the inaccuracies, there are those that come and see the issues and decide they're not going to but it - on bad reputation alone.

Ultimately, KH has a model that they follow, they've been successful enough to release multiple kits, and while the help that was offered was free, it didn't fit their economic model.

For me, the canopy is the only thing that really has to be fixed, I can take care of everything else myself - but that is just MY perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely the case. The vocal few that come here and outline the problems are not the mainstream consumer. If you look at discussions about Russian releases, it's almost always the same handful of people that are pointing out the flaws.

Part two to this is that there are varying degrees of what people will accept. While Gabor called this a "40% effort" on the previous page, I look at it more like a 80% effort. The overall shapes look generally okay, there are some detail issues, but most of them are easily overcome. We are modelers afterall, we should be willing to put some work into our projects.

Whether it be laser scanning, or just some simple free consulting - let me put a critical eye to your CAD model - There is some value in trying to get it "a little more right" - of course accuracy is an exercise in diminishing returns. You're going to pick up a few more customers with a more accurate model, but there is a limit to that (think 80/20 rule).

So while the vast majority of modelers will look upon this kit as pretty good, or a "good enough" MiG-25 for their collection, and the kit will sell reasonably well. There will be a handful left behind because of the accuracy issues. So for the modeling company, they don't lose that much.

The danger to the modeling company, is just what happens in a thread like this, all the inaccuracies get exposed, and while those that weren't going to buy it because of the inaccuracies, there are those that come and see the issues and decide they're not going to but it - on bad reputation alone.

Ultimately, KH has a model that they follow, they've been successful enough to release multiple kits, and while the help that was offered was free, it didn't fit their economic model.

For me, the canopy is the only thing that really has to be fixed, I can take care of everything else myself - but that is just MY perspective.

Absolutely agreed with you. Just look at the Academy 1:48 Su-27:

- Canopy issues (too small, wrong shape)

- Wrong scale (1:50)

- Nose (wrong shape)

- Poor cockpit details

- Fictional nozzles.

etc.

But people still build the Academy 1:48 Su-27 coz it is a reliable kit and it is good enough. This applies even to the old Academy 1:48 Mig-29.

Edited by hobby506
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for detailed answers Gabor & Berkut to point out the mistakes.

I will still buy the kit though.

Apart from the tail and canopy mistakes (which is not *that* bad) all other mistakes seems trivial to *me*.

Also, I think you guys take it a little personal with the emails and responses you got. I think kit is not a disaster at all. For me most important think is the general shape. Wings, body looks good and the nose may be bad but I cannot tell it from the pictures we have. I guess it is dropping too much which is bad but it is not a disaster since can be fixed with a resin one. It ranks same with academy su-27 to me :D/>/>/>/>/> The real caveat is the price... academy su-27 costs half of this. Since I will buy resin or eduard exhaust and cockpit plus probable nose (which what exactly I do with flankers) it will be well over $100 :(/>/>/>/>/> well, I will only built one.

Considering you think nose and intakes are trivial, i am sorry, but i am not taking your word for body looking "good". And i have no problem telling the nose looks horrible from perfect side on. ;)

And you just can't compare acad's Su-27's nose and this nose. Academy nose had for most part nose cone issue. Replace that and you are good, more or less. Replace the nosecone on KH MiG-25 and you are worse off than you started. As i have repeatedly pointed out, the invented curve is not just on the nosecone but also on area in between nosecone and windsheild.

So yeah, it is a disaster and to fix it you would need entirely new nose section, not just nosecone.

Absolutely agreed with you. Just look at the Academy 1:48 Su-27:

- Canopy issues (too small, wrong shape)

- Wrong scale (1:50)

- Nose (wrong shape)

- Poor cockpit details

- Fictional nozzles.

etc.

But people still build the Academy 1:48 Su-27 coz it is a reliable kit and it is good enough. This applies even to the old Academy 1:48 Mig-29.

Terrible example is terrible. Yes, just because others haven't released 101 % accurate kits before that makes it ok for KH. Pretty sure Academy was not offered help for free either.

Academy is really old kit, and don't forget it is basically the only kit in that scale. Popularity of it is explained by default there. Same goes for MiG-29 and MiG-21 too. Yes, the scale is wrong and shapes looks "compressed", but hey, atleast that is spread over the frame... Sure nosecone is wrong, but easily fixed with 5$ resin replacement. As to the last two points, it is matter of technology limitations and so on.

Besides, i would even give MiG-29/Su-27 kits from academy benefit of doubt because of "lack" of reference. Not exactly lack of, but it wasn't as readily available. By that time Su-27 and MiG-29 has been on many airshows but none the less it wasn't internet age where high quality pictures are clicks away.

And wrong scale is explained by negligence, not by lazyness and negligence.

Edited by Berkut
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Berkut,

You say that the green line is "roughly" where the actual shapes should be...don't take this the wrong way, but isn't this where the original problems seem to start with KH, in that they are using the same analogy "roughly"? If you are going to challenge the shape of a kit from a manufacturer, I would think that actual shapes should be used, as oppossed to "roughly"

Again, please don't take this the wrong way.

Cheers

Brad

Gabor is choosing to point out the details (which i am sure plenty will deem as "rivet counting"), so i will do a comment on the shapes themself now that we have final (probably) test shots.

Three main areas shape wise as i see that are wrong:

1 - Tails. The leading edge is absolutely wrong. The real plane has a leading edge of around 34 degrees, while the kit (according to the profiles*) has a leading edge of 38.4 degrees. While it might not *sound* as a big difference, it most certainly shows. It just doesn't capture the "racy" look of MiG-25. I am sure overall proportions are wrong as well, but i just can't be bothered to look into detail on that.

2 - Nose. Well, to start with there is a weird curve going on. I am not entirely sure if the kit has the same curve going on between windshield and nosecone. However, the nosecone curve is certainly there making it look extremely odd.

If you were to split the nose cone on the real aircraft right in two horizontally, those two parts would be equal. In other words, top side curve is equal to the underside. On the kit that isn't the case, at all. Regarding area between windshield and nosecone, i am gonna go Occam's Razor on it and place my bets it looks like on the profiles. In other words, a curve there as well. I am not sure if the real thing that area has no curve whatsoever (need to dig through pictures) but it is certainly not as curved.

3 - Intakes are all over the place. They just have lots of oddities not only in details, but also in shape.

Quick and dirty to show the nose and tail issue. Green line on the tail is roughly the angle it should be.

3nbf.jpg

*Yes, assuming that the profile reflects the real kit is dangerous, Jennings can tell you all about it. :rolleyes:/>/>/> J didn't look at the pictures of the F-4B build up that were already available during that small incident, i have looked at the picture of KH MiG-25 build up. I see the mistakes done in the profile being repeated in the kit, so, Occam's Razor...

UPDATE: Forgot about this shot, where the curve in front of the windsheild is seen. So yeah, profile = the real deal.

995183_571056456284556_311440898_n.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Berkut,

You say that the green line is "roughly" where the actual shapes should be...don't take this the wrong way, but isn't this where the original problems seem to start with KH, in that they are using the same analogy "roughly"? If you are going to challenge the shape of a kit from a manufacturer, I would think that actual shapes should be used, as oppossed to "roughly"

Again, please don't take this the wrong way.

Cheers

Brad

Not taking it wrong way at all Brad. :) Critique is not one way street.

I guess you are referring to the green line on the stab? (the green line on the nose was only used to mark the outline on the profile, not to mark "this is how it should be" as done on the stab) I said roughly because i used GIMP to measure the angle, and Paint to paint the line on. It should be within 0.1's of 34o. In fact, i just measured the angle of my quick and dirty green line on the stab, and it is 34.21o. So *very* close to as what it should be in real life.

If you need more info on how i measured the angle or proof, PM me and i will be happy to answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still see the nose area as being fixable with resin. It won't do anything to fix the cross section, but the profile, and the radome "cut" line can be fixed. So while the Academy Su-27 was fixable with just the radome, this will be a slightly larger piece (and consequently more expensive) that covers both radome and forward fuselage back to the join line at the canopy (and I will never display the radar, and therefore it can be solid cast, won't make a difference to me). Same with the fins. Won't be the first time that Quickboost will have the opportunity to make such a fix.

And in fairness, I do see the point that both Gabor and Berkut have made - this is 2013, there is access to other information beyond just one set of drawings or photos in a book. Take an extra DAY and just check against alternate sources.

I don't expect perfect, but I do feel like it's okay to expect a little better than this. This *for me* is not so bad that I'll skip it, but I'll probably grumble when I have to spend an extra $20 - $30 on corrections.

AND (and I have to find that link) there's still the post I read about a delay for further corrections.

Edited by RedStar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering you think nose and intakes are trivial, i am sorry, but i am not taking your word for body looking "good". And i have no problem telling the nose looks horrible from perfect side on. ;)/>

And you just can't compare acad's Su-27's nose and this nose. Academy nose had for most part nose cone issue. Replace that and you are good, more or less. Replace the nosecone on KH MiG-25 and you are worse off than you started. As i have repeatedly pointed out, the invented curve is not just on the nosecone but also on area in between nosecone and windsheild.

So yeah, it is a disaster and to fix it you would need entirely new nose section, not just nosecone.

Definitely, don't take my word.

Yes, su-27 nose is easier to fix maybe but its 1:50 scale is a bigger error if you ask me.

I compared this kit to su-27 because I think it will need exactly same aftermarket treatment. So it is acceptable as a model but expensive.

So I hope quickboost will be fast with the resin nose!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am slightly confused why everyone is expecting QB to do anything of significance. They release small sets of small size, preferably 2-3 parts at most. I remember people expected QB to ride in on white horse and save the day in regards to Su-24M from Trumpeter. I can picture them doing nosecone, but whole nose section (that is what this kit needs)? Nah, can't see that happening. They have done horizontal tails for Su-27 and Su-33 (what for anyway?) in 1/72 scale, but i can't recall them doing parts of such size in 1/48.

ZIP-whatever made whole new nose and exhaust section for Su-24M, i would expect some cottage firm like that to maybe make a correction. But not QB other than the usual antennas, seats and whatnot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am slightly confused why everyone is expecting QB to do anything of significance. They release small sets of small size, preferably 2-3 parts at most. I remember people expected QB to ride in on white horse and save the day in regards to Su-24M from Trumpeter. I can picture them doing nosecone, but whole nose section (that is what this kit needs)? Nah, can't see that happening. They have done horizontal tails for Su-27 and Su-33 (what for anyway?) in 1/72 scale, but i can't recall them doing parts of such size in 1/48.

ZIP-whatever made whole new nose and exhaust section for Su-24M, i would expect some cottage firm like that to maybe make a correction. But not QB other than the usual antennas, seats and whatnot.

Yes, QB do mostly small sets, but if they fix the nose, it's essentially one big part, solid cast from the front of the windscreen forward. Yes that's bigger than the Su-27 Radome or similar larger castings that QB have done, but it's, to my mind, essentially the same thing. And if it doesn't fit in the standard bag, it would fit in the box size that I've seen them use for larger sets.

Same thing with the verticals. They've done similarly large pieces in the past - the 1:48 MiG-21MF correction they did for the Academy kit comes to mind.

Komplekt Zip have done Su-24 mods, and maybe they'll do the same for the MiG-25. But this isn't too far outside of the realm of what we've seen QB do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly question: Is the Revell nose accurate? Maybe grafting the Revell nose to this kit will get us to a more acceptable position. I'm not really a "rivet counter", but if I can make it more accurate I will. Thanks for pointing all these errors out, I definitely wouldn't have known otherwise.

Sincerely,

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all

i have sent all of your concerns to the main metal man at Kitty Hawk.

i will keep you all up to date if changes can be made.

thank you all for your imput.

Glen@ KittyHawk

please, if you can only (re)do One thing... please do the "canopy+windshield" correction to make it "rounder" it's a small thing that would make the "rest" slightly less obvious...

every other things that have been pointed out are also important, and they should all being corrected if it's not already too late to do so...

if you do so, i can promise you that every penny that would not be put on correction aftermarket for that kit, will be put on an other KH MiG-25 kit purchase!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly question: Is the Revell nose accurate? Maybe grafting the Revell nose to this kit will get us to a more acceptable position. I'm not really a "rivet counter", but if I can make it more accurate I will. Thanks for pointing all these errors out, I definitely wouldn't have known otherwise.

Sincerely,

Dave

short answer, NO

the Revell nose section is somewhere in between all variants of MiG-25... but fits none...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you produce a perfectly round new canopy which fits into the side profile of the aircraft, that is it will be inline with the top of the fuselage by pure geometry will be far too narrow. Mind you the cockpit of the MiG-25 is fairly narrow in comparison to how big a beast it is, and you have to stand beside it to feel its size! It is huge!!! My girlfriend was sitting inside the engine exhaust at Hodinka (when they still had all the engine exhausts in place) and she was dwarfed by the thing!

I think this was the problem in the first place, they tried to make the canopy and the windshield wide enough for the cockpit and the fuselage and this is why they had to make it flat on top.

The problem is somewhere in the wrong geometry of the whole cockpit section and the nose. One would have to hold the plastic in hand to see what is wrong here, the few photos we have dont give enough detail on this question.

Look forward to what they can do with this. I would think not too much unless the whole nose section (starting from behind the cockpit) is redesigned. At this stage . . .

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, even more interesting kit and, above all, very interesting they didn't get it right given all the help and references available. It's amazing.

These kind of discussions are one of the main reasons I really like to visit ARC every day, even though I don't have that much time for actually building kits these days (two little children). This is what these forums are for if you ask me! (Once one of the main attractions for me was the Real Aviation forum as well and it's very entertaining discussions :rolleyes: ) Talking about models, their accuracy issues etc. make these forums interesting. After all, we are in the business of building scale models! They are supposed to be as precise as possible. In my opinion that's the very definition of a scale model.

So, what I'm trying to say is naturally these kinds of major flaws will be noticed and discussed in detail. Those who don't care, just build the kit and enjoy! I have nothing against that view. But if I'm building scale models, they are supposed to look like their real life counterparts in every possible aspect. A minor flaw here and there naturally doesn't count, but major issues like on this kit are not acceptable, not when you have a thing called "internet"! We as consumers have a right to demand more. Much more than this kit of a magnificent plane promises to deliver. I know some people will once again say "it looks like a MiG-25 to me and I'll buy it anyway". Feel free to do that! I just can't accept half-arsed attempts from people that necessarily aren't model builders themselves and which are clearly made for non-connoisseur modelers (kids..?) with making easy money as the prime goal.

Luckily 1/48 isn't even my scale. That being said, if Eduard would relese a MiG-21-like "perfect" model of the mighty Foxbat, I might consider. I'll probably end up getting the Eduard bis one day, if not for the scale, just for the sake of a well researched model that is done by passionate modelers - for passionate modelers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Janman,

It is interesting that actually Finland has one of the very few complete MiG-25 Foxbats in the Western world. Heard that it was on show a few years back and that it was for sale. I have no information on its current status. But would be interesting to see it in more detail!!!

Do you have any info on it????

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothig shapewise will be changed.

They are probably tweaking the mould because of the fit.

They left wrong intakes on Mirage F1 and that issue was considered solved 6 months ago over on Britmodeller.

Accuracy is not priority here, this is not kit done by passionate modelers - for passionate modelers as Janman said.

And as Berkut stated, QB will release scoops and antennas for the mig nothing else,cans and cockpits, wheel wells will be by Aires, front fuse and nose correction will unfortunately have to be made by Komplekt-Zip or someone like that...if only.

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...