Scooby Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Glad to see the parts will be fixed for the only Hornets that matter, the F-18A or B. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 The internet didn't exist when the Hasegawa F-18 kit came out Uhh... yes it did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flybywire Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) error Edited May 29, 2016 by flybywire Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flybywire Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 From my perspective, no one "rushed" to find an error or missing detail. The missing part and error in the instructions were noticed by the modelers that got the kit and mentioned on the forums. How they were brought up, or the tone in which they were, varied among those that posted. Whether it is the first time a kit was missing a detail or not is completely irrelevant. Those kits have absolutely nothing do to with this kit whatsoever. Are modelers just supposed to accept a kit with missing or incorrectly shaped parts? Are they just expected to keep their mouths shut when they find errors in the instruction guides? How are manufacturers supposed to improve the products they bring to market if errors aren't brought to their attention? How are modelers supposed to actually build the model correctly if the errors in the instructions aren't discussed? It is this exact type of critical input that has brought these types of state of the art models to the modeling world. Those that criticize the "rivet counter" modelers simply don't stop to think they are the reason we have the outstanding plastic kits that are being produced today. If it wasn't for "rivet counters", there wouldn't be an AMK working on a masterpiece F-14, or a MENG with an awesome ZSU-23 or a Kinetic trying to bring a better F/A-18 to the scene and on and on. It is also because of "rivet counters" that we have aftermarket! Their attention to detail is what brought the current ranges of resin details and decals to the forefront. Yes, Kinetic has released a very nice F/A-18C kit in 1/48 scale. However, in its current state, it is not better than the Hasegawa kit. It is missing a part, the vertical tails are incorrectly depicted and the instruction guides are not complete. It doesn't matter if modelers can scratch build the missing parts, what matters is that they shouldn't have to! Now that the problems with the F/A-18 have been brought to Raymond's/Kinetics attention, they will be addressed in subsequent releases. The vertical tails will be corrected in the F/A-18A release and the incomplete instruction guide will also be addressed. There is also a good chance that the next kit Kinetic starts to work on will be gone over more thoroughly before it is released. We don't expect perfection. We expect the best possible products to be released and our goal in pointing out errors is to help manufacturers do just that. Dave I totally concur with you Dave! ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Uhh... yes it did. The internet as we know it didn't exist, the worldwideweb came in August of '92 where as the first Hase Hornet was 1991, correct? I don't recall as I was in grade school.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 From my perspective, no one "rushed" to find an error or missing detail. The missing part and error in the instructions were noticed by the modelers that got the kit and mentioned on the forums. How they were brought up, or the tone in which they were, varied among those that posted. Whether it is the first time a kit was missing a detail or not is completely irrelevant. Those kits have absolutely nothing do to with this kit whatsoever. Are modelers just supposed to accept a kit with missing or incorrectly shaped parts? Are they just expected to keep their mouths shut when they find errors in the instruction guides? How are manufacturers supposed to improve the products they bring to market if errors aren't brought to their attention? How are modelers supposed to actually build the model correctly if the errors in the instructions aren't discussed? It is this exact type of critical input that has brought these types of state of the art models to the modeling world. Those that criticize the "rivet counter" modelers simply don't stop to think they are the reason we have the outstanding plastic kits that are being produced today. If it wasn't for "rivet counters", there wouldn't be an AMK working on a masterpiece F-14, or a MENG with an awesome ZSU-23 or a Kinetic trying to bring a better F/A-18 to the scene and on and on. It is also because of "rivet counters" that we have aftermarket! Their attention to detail is what brought the current ranges of resin details and decals to the forefront. Yes, Kinetic has released a very nice F/A-18C kit in 1/48 scale. However, in its current state, it is not better than the Hasegawa kit. It is missing a part, the vertical tails are incorrectly depicted and the instruction guides are not complete. It doesn't matter if modelers can scratch build the missing parts, what matters is that they shouldn't have to! Now that the problems with the F/A-18 have been brought to Raymond's/Kinetics attention, they will be addressed in subsequent releases. The vertical tails will be corrected in the F/A-18A release and the incomplete instruction guide will also be addressed. There is also a good chance that the next kit Kinetic starts to work on will be gone over more thoroughly before it is released. We don't expect perfection. We expect the best possible products to be released and our goal in pointing out errors is to help manufacturers do just that. Dave Sorry Dave, I respect your opinion, but I cannot totally agree with all the point you mention. Yes, critics can help to manufacturer to make a better kit. Since the days of F-16, we receive all the critics and we continue to improve the development process, CAD design and production. Of course, not a smooth ride. We make mistake, learn and correct it. We never turn back on any constructive comments and we even get the assistance that complain us the most to help the next project. So, I don't put the development critics personal. Like the missing details, too straight vertical tail, we all take those advise. For the instruction manual, we may overlook 2 part no. label (we do provide the launch rail on the wingtips) and 2 brace implemented by PE. Those feedback happens daily, we take that all and we will implement a new procedure to avoid the mistake. As for the comment on "Did the Kinetic is superior than Hasegawa kit ? " Well, I think it is very personal taste - NOT A FACT. I respect each one's opinion maybe they stick with what product features suitable for them (some on the shape, some on the details, many of them on the fitting). Just putting a single and simple message - "Kinetic hornet is not better than Hasegawa hornet" is no good to both brand model. (I never claim our hornet is better than others, because we aim to serve my customer, not looking the competitor) Because we both have different product features either on parts breakdown, option as well as pricing and distribution. We aim to deliver something the customer is waiting for. Again, I want to restate that I respect everyone opinion and also pointing out the mistake on the product. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a4s4eva Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Well Raymond, despite the minor fault with fins, and the instructions, IMHO the Kinetic Kit is clearly superior than the Hasegawa kit. It has intakes, much nicer moulding, a better looking parts breakdown, much better decals, weapons and it's RRP is a heap less. I think you're onto a winner here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andrew.deboer Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) Not sorry to see some of the posts in this thread disappear. A debate can so easily degenerate into name-calling and hurt feelings. Our society has not lost the ability to have a debate and remain civil, but on the Internet that talent is under appreciated. Picture this: you want to build a Hornet, posed as if on the deck, armed and ready for the pilot. Wings will be folded, canopy will be up, and some sort of ordnance will be hung on it. So you go to your local hobby shop , and discover that they have both the Kinetic and Hasegawa Hornets on the shelf. Which one will you pick? Here's how my thinking would go: "Hmm. Kinetic is missing a bump on its nose, and about a dozen people know and care that the shape of the tips of the fins need to be fixed... But it was tooled in this millennium, and it has a load of ordnance and full-length intakes, as well as a 27-piece cockpit, and an aftermarket-quality decal sheet, and it costs $40. Hasegawa has both nose pimples, but it also has no ordnance or intake trunks, and the external tanks will need to be fixed or replaced, and the cockpit is not nearly as detailed as Kinetic's; I'll want at least an aftermarket seat. And the decals probably have to go. And it costs more." So which kit do you walk out with? If you said Hasegawa, then let me know what hobby shop that was so I can go and get the Kinetic kit! Edited May 29, 2016 by andrew.deboer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 The internet as we know it didn't exist, the worldwideweb came in August of '92 where as the first Hase Hornet was 1991, correct? I don't recall as I was in grade school.... As someone who was on ARPANET (yeah I'm old) I can tell you the internet as we know it didn't really get rolling until about 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned and many of the restrictions to public access were removed. With respect to scale modeling and rivet counters etc. I think the farthest you can look back is the old rec.models.scale newsgroup (now a google group) which appears to have been started around 1996/97. Hasegawa 1/48 F/A-18A kit P24 has a 1991 copyright date on the box. Research and tool mold design was obviously done before that date. The Hasegawa kit was excellent when it was released. A lot of technological advancements have come along in the last 25 years. Would you compare a 2016 automobile with a 1991 automobile? How about your state of the art personal computer in 1991? An iPhone would run circles around it. Taken in that context I think the Hasegawa kit has held up quite well. Again, taken in context, I think the new Kinetic kit can hold it's own, and is more fairly compared/contrasted with more recent releases (e.g. Hobbyboss Hornets in 48th) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Roof Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) Not sorry to see some of the posts in this thread disappear. A debate can so easily degenerate into name-calling and hurt feelings. Our society has not lost the ability to have a debate and remain civil, but on the Internet that talent is under appreciated. Picture this: you want to build a Hornet, posed as if on the deck, armed and ready for the pilot. Wings will be folded, canopy will be up, and some sort of ordnance will be hung on it. So you go to your local hobby shop , and discover that they have both the Kinetic and Hasegawa Hornets on the shelf. Which one will you pick? Here's how my thinking would go: "Hmm. Kinetic is missing a bump on its nose, and about a dozen people know and care that the shape of the tips of the fins need to be fixed... But it was tooled in this millennium, and it has a load of ordnance and full-length intakes, as well as a 27-piece cockpit, and an aftermarket-quality decal sheet, and it costs $40. Hasegawa has both nose pimples, but it also has no ordnance or intake trunks, and the external tanks will need to be fixed or replaced, and the cockpit is not nearly as detailed as Kinetic's; I'll want at least an aftermarket seat. And the decals probably have to go. And it costs more." So which kit do you walk out with? If you said Hasegawa, then let me know what hobby shop that was so I can go and get the Kinetic kit! Just to clarify, I never said the Kinetic kit shouldn't be considered, nor do I expect anyone to pass on it simply because of the issues that have been pointed out. As it is well known, the Hasegawa kit is not without its own faults. The too narrow spine being the most visible. The point of identifying and mentioning the problems with the Kinetic kit are to possibly provide Kinetic with the opportunity to correct them on the next versions (which, by the way, has seemed to have happened). What the Kinetic kit offers above what the Hasegawa kit offers doesn't change the fact that it still has a few issues. I also just learned via a post on Facebook that the instruction sheet has a number of errors in it (parts incorrectly identified, parts not used on the F/A-18C being in the build sequence, etc.) Pointing out and discussing these errors is only to help make the next version better. It is also for the benefit of the individual modeler. Whether they choose to correct the problems is up to them. However, at least they know what the problems are. Dave Edited May 30, 2016 by Dave Roof Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flybywire Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Interestingly, the Kinetic kit's splitter plates have a small slot molded into the back which may be for a brace but just not called out in the instructions. They seem to have missed several parts during the assembly sequence. Of note is the lack of instructions on installing the wingtip launchers. Mark Several PMs sent to you. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aircal62 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 To Dave Roof, ... Dave my comments were not about you or about the very constructive comments or suggestions most post here about kits. My comments were directed at the tone in some comments where finding fault or errors seemed to be the goal. Dave you are certainly one of the very good guys here on this forum whom we are blessed to learn from Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aircal62 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 To Dave Roof, ... Dave my comments were not about you or about the very constructive comments or suggestions most post here about kits. My comments were directed at the tone in some comments where finding fault or errors seemed to be the goal. Dave you are certainly one of the very good guys here on this forum whom we are blessed to learn from Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 The rush to find an error, missing detail, etc is crazy. So the kit missed a plastic part. antenna on the nose. Not the first time a kit was missing a small detail. Black box years ago did an F-18 update set which had those very pieces included. The brace on the inside of the intake, well ever had to use a piece of rod or sprue on a build? What I am saying is that Raymond has delivered a very, very good kit in the F-18. Better than the Hasegawa kit in shape, detail, design, build ease and price. This kit I think over the years will become the Tamiya F-16 to F-18 builders. Those who rush to find fault have likely never designed a kit, kept track of 250 parts, managed not only design, but research, development, packaging, marketing and spent your own money to do it. Most older kits, like the Hasegawa F-18 were never seen by the modeler during the design phase with design drawings (CAD details in the case of the Kinetic F-18, AMK MiG-31 etc), shown to the modelers of the world for comment. It is exceptional transparency that a manufacture of a kit would do this. I would personally like to commend Raymond, Martin, Vadimir and others, manufactures like Airfix, AMK, Eduard, Kittyhawk and others for allowing the modeler to see, comment and be part of the design phase of the kits. I've worked for a kit manufacture and have been called into the CEO's office several times and questioned why so and so is commenting on a part while the kit is in the design phase? Tried to explain that is called research and obtaining input from experts in that particular area, but they were not happy that anyone would have knowledge of a kit's design or details before it was released. I am excited that my Kinetic F-18's are on their way to me, and will certainly clear off any projects on my workbench to begin this kit. Like the F-14's I love the aircraft, but earlier kits were too expensive to build very many (Hasegawa F-18), hard to build (Hasegawa F-14) or when affordable just tough to build (Monogram F-18). A very big thank you to Raymond Chung and Kinetic for this kit, for being interactive with the modelers, for allowing us to be part of the design phase, and most especially being part of this great hobby. Some manufactures work hard to become better with each kit, others seem to have gone backwards (in my opinion other un-named manufactures in China). So now its just a waiting game with the postman. :woo: :cheers: :thumbsup: Totally agree. Well said. ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Got mine today.....very nice kit. Think it might end up being Swiss or Finnish. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Got mine today.....very nice kit. Think it might end up being Swiss or Finnish. Blasphemy! I know I'm odd, when I was in San Diego (Mirimar) on TD I just thought it was weird to see Hornets in foreign markings. Anything but a Maple Leaf looked weird. 😃 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Got mine today.....very nice kit. Think it might end up being Swiss or Finnish. Hmmmm. Might have some decals you want to look at........... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Blasphemy! I know I'm odd, when I was in San Diego (Mirimar) on TD I just thought it was weird to see Hornets in foreign markings. Anything but a Maple Leaf looked weird. 😃 Very true..... didn't we have a Hornet with C tails? I'm not talking about the ones we got for parts but one that actually flew. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Hmmmm. Might have some decals you want to look at........... Lol.....your just want me to bring it over so you can fondle it....😂 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) Lol.....your just want me to bring it over so you can fondle it.... Well....that too. I am even home today....PLEASE!!!!!! Tina has me washing all the outside windows!!! Edited June 4, 2016 by phantom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Just got off work bro.....I'm off Monday and Tuesday Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 I'm off for the dentist, Monday morning works great for me.............BTW....do you still have decals for a 1/48 Labrador? Or at least the lighting bolt?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Emvar Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Maybe.....I'll have to check. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Colin K Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Very true..... didn't we have a Hornet with C tails? I'm not talking about the ones we got for parts but one that actually flew. I know of a CF-18B that had a replacement left vertical stab off of an F/A-18C. 188929. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Solo Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 I have just bought this kit and I am a little bit confused. Why? The model is just superb. Beautiful. One of the best I have ever seen. Seriously. The details, panel lines, rivets - all of this is close to best models of Hasegawa or Tamiya's F-16. Word. But what it is with those ordnance?! Should I believe that Kinetic used old sprues with missiles and bombs from its F-16 kits and put it inside the box with Hornet? I think this is the fact, but I wish to be wrong. Three sprues from Kinetic's Hornet kit: and And the sprues from Kinetic's F-16: Similar? All ordnance is really bad, with wide panel lines, and soapy details. The pods are little better, but far from quality level of Hornet's sprues. That is not all. Here you have a list of ordnance (really available in box), but there are no decals for: - GBU-38 - AGM-88 - AIM-7 - AAS-38 - Sniper XR. Instead, there are many decals for ordnance and pods not available in this kit: - Mk-82 - AGM-65 - GBU-24 - ALQ-184 - AAQ-14 - AAQ-13 - GBU-31 - AAQ-131. Also there is small mess in manual. For example, on the table of external stores, there are few pods that are not available in kit. AAQ-28 pod according to manual, should be built with parts that are not available on the sprues. There are different parts in box, and different in manual. Of course numbers and sprue letters are also different. Last thing: there is no instruction for decal placement for pods in the manual (there are only instructions for weapons). How it is possbile to make such serious mistakes and issues in such beautiful (in general) kit? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.