Jump to content

Kinetic Super Etendard: beautiful kit, but.....


Recommended Posts

I am happy that Kinetic has chosen subject matter not already covered by other manufacturers. The Mirage kits are a good example. However, I feel that the quality as compared with other manufacturers is still lacking. As mentioned by other modelers above, I am not bashing Kinetic but rather providing them with constructive criticism. Its time to stop taking short cuts, modellers are willing to pay for a quality model with good fit and detail.

Modelling is just as much about time as it is about subject matter. By that I mean we as modellers are looking for a good fitting model that will save us the time so that we may buy more models and complete them. Hence more $$ for you manufacturers.

Case in point, Tamiya. It goes without saying, but the building experience provided by them is absolutely pleasurable however they have a limited choice in subject matter. Combine your subject matter with Tamiya fit and quality and you can pretty much print your own money.

Kinetic's choice in having decals printed by a third party was an excellent idea and I hope that out of the box thinking like that will continue at your organization.

Just my two cents!

Here's my two cents.

I'm NOT willing to pay extra for a model to just fall together and relieve me of the waste of time building it.

If time saving was the issue, I wouldn't be in a hobby - A hobby by definition is a way of using time for entertainment rather than "productively". The more time I spend, the more entertainment I get.

Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my two cents.

I'm NOT willing to pay extra for a model to just fall together and relieve me of the waste of time building it.

If time saving was the issue, I wouldn't be in a hobby - A hobby by definition is a way of using time for entertainment rather than "productively". The more time I spend, the more entertainment I get.

Shane

Very good comment on kitbuilding metaphysics. And I totally agree...

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my two cents.

I'm NOT willing to pay extra for a model to just fall together and relieve me of the waste of time building it.

If time saving was the issue, I wouldn't be in a hobby - A hobby by definition is a way of using time for entertainment rather than "productively". The more time I spend, the more entertainment I get.

Shane

So you scratchbuild everything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Just looking at the photos of the kit on HS today. It looks nice, and is certainly an improvement over the old Heller kit.

But can someone show me a photograph of a real airplane with rows of giant holes in the flying surfaces such as are portrayed on the vertical fin of the kit? Seriously, they look like something a golf ball would fall into on a green.

And what cockpit has ever had neat rows of buttons in rectangles on the side consoles? If you're going to design a kit using CAD, can you not look at a photo of the actual cockpit and reproduce what you see? Even Monogram 35-40 years ago was able to replicate the actual detail found on consoles and instrument panels accurately. To me, that's just throwing something on there for the sake of having something there. We get our knickers all in a twist if the wing span is 2 mm too long, but nobody seems concerned that a lot of the detail is 100% fiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at the photos of the kit on HS today. It looks nice, and is certainly an improvement over the old Heller kit.

But can someone show me a photograph of a real airplane with rows of giant holes in the flying surfaces such as are portrayed on the vertical fin of the kit? Seriously, they look like something a golf ball would fall into on a green.

And what cockpit has ever had neat rows of buttons in rectangles on the side consoles? If you're going to design a kit using CAD, can you not look at a photo of the actual cockpit and reproduce what you see? Even Monogram 35-40 years ago was able to replicate the actual detail found on consoles and instrument panels accurately. To me, that's just throwing something on there for the sake of having something there. We get our knickers all in a twist if the wing span is 2 mm too long, but nobody seems concerned that a lot of the detail is 100% fiction.

I understand your sentiments, but almost all of my builds are in fight with a pilot figure so cockpit detail isn't as much of a concern to me. I went ahead and purchased the kit. Hopefully they will followup with the deck tractor and pylon/chaff dispenser set.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my idea. The GBU, chaff dispensers and Tow tractor

That would be great, but it would have been even better to get at least the GBUs and chaff dispenser together with the kit.

They're kind of part of the aircraft, nowadays.

I'll get the kit anyway, as well as this addon, if it becomes reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you scratchbuild everything?

No, but neither do I whinge that building a model is wasting my valuable time. I do scratch build though, and by that I don't mean "detail a kit with a few bits of plastic strip", but make a model using raw materials like styrene sheet, wood, brass and so on. It's absolutely immaterial that the models have taken as much as four years to finish because I enjoy the process as a means of spending my time

Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jennings, all,

As with everything else in life, perception is reality.

I have this kit in my hand and the detail is actually much more subtle than shown on the pics on HS. Guess it's all a question about the light setting and contrast:

From HS:

03_fs_zpsam31eeq4.jpg

My shot

IMG_9735_zpsqiligzsn.jpg

super_etendard_modernisee_29_of_77.jpg

As for the cockpit, I can only find one photo of the side console on-line:

10_zpskbi5qmyc.jpg

IMG_9737_zpsus9seu12.jpg

Comparing the detail to the kit tub I would give Kinetic a big pad on the shoulder for a job well done. Taking into account that the kit cockpit may represent another configuration/block number than the actual aircraft console shown, it's still way better than anything I have ever seen from Monogram.

I am not familiar with the SuE at all but I am guessing that the "neat rows of buttons in rectangles on the side consoles" on the very aft part of the console could be circuit breakers.

Bjarne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at the photos of the kit on HS today. It looks nice, and is certainly an improvement over the old Heller kit.

And what cockpit has ever had neat rows of buttons in rectangles on the side consoles?

To me, that's just throwing something on there for the sake of having something there. We get our knickers all in a twist if the wing span is 2 mm too long, but nobody seems concerned that a lot of the detail is 100% fiction.

Seems like your getting your knickers in a knot over Kinetic getting it right.

And yes almost every aeroplane has rows if switches in straight lines in cockpits particularly since the early 70's when ergonomics actually became a design factor.

F-15 nice neat rows.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/attachment.php?attachmentid=7066&stc=1&d=1209271537

F-14 neat rows.

http://www.cockpits.net/website/lightbox/imagesF14A/f14a_20.jpg

F-16

More neat rows.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7dmGaMdnWFIdm95g1YSLplATHyPRJY7cGIZKXUccMAqQrhDBPnwBncY3LDA

Airbus

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7CWlIlCNUBoxsLOQpMSavulkMzEuiQb-vUyQ0j7zpImPMuDevMR9hT0A0

And to prove there is an exception to design intelligence and the use of ergonomics to make pilots lives easier the Boeing 737 Max overhead panel leading the world into the 1960's!

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDcJ5JlYX_osSy12EwBNkOYwIPE5QWoyzstJCwFZCAsSndf3vuabcaZCFkiQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun on all Argentine Military aircraft is plain gold and there is a face within. The sun is GOLD not yellow or any other shade of yellow. The face may be faded slightly because of the suns effect on paint but it is there.

That said, GOLD not yellow!

There are no arguments because that is a fact.

http://postimg.org/image/kcgwt78wz/

The anchors both black and white on this decal sheet are also incorrect. The anchors are much more angled and especially the cross bar at the top which is tapered nt straight as in these decals.

Maybe go for aftermarket?

Seems like you've opened Pandora's box, Martin (@ AMK Models) icon_mrgreen.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've bought one and I'm going to enjoy building it. Thanks Kinetic!

Same here; thanks a helluva lot, Kinetic. :worship: It won't do to wait 'til AMK releases "they're" example, 'cause, accordin' to whut I heard at the spot they're doin' "they're" SuE research down here, it's still gonna take quite several months to be released.

Seems like your getting your knickers in a knot over Kinetic getting it right.

Or perhaps is it 'cause Kinetic released it first, me wonders...? Besides, whinin' 'bout 'em rows is utterly pointless. Maybe the radar switch which passes 'em data to the 'em Exocet missiles was rendered wrong? :rolleyes:

Seems like you've opened Pandora's box, Martin (@ AMK Models) icon_mrgreen.gif

Well? Sure they've got Capt. Curilovic's mount to check that detail out...? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

modellers are willing to pay for a quality model with good fit and detail.

That's a hasty generalization and one I only agree with *to a point.* These $65-90 kits coming out might be super nice, but they're also super expensive (I believe all of Kinetics 1/48 releases in the last few years have been well north of the $65 line here in the US). As a builder, I'm ok with a kit that has a few flaws that I can flex my modeling skills to correct... especially if it means I can get the kit for less than $50 without having to find a pre-order special or something)

For you kit assemblers who don't have the time and inclination, throwing large amounts of disposable income at a kit might be more viable, but some of us model on a budget, and if I have a choice between a $75 dollar model that is perfectly accurate, or a $50 dollar model that maybe gets a shape wrong or is missing half a dozen antennas or inlets I can scratchbuild, I'll buy the $50 kit every time.

I'm not saying they should intentionally build flawed kits, I'm simply saying that there is a line where some modelers consider a kit acceptable that others do not, so your blanket statement that modelers are willing to pay for a quality model with good fit and detail is a bit of an overreach. Certainly SOME are, but definitely not ALL... and I feel pretty comfortable saying there are more of us that can't/won't than will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 2/2/2016 at 3:57 PM, tko24 said:

Will the tractor, inner pylons, GBU and chaff dispensers be plastic or resin? I'm not in a rush even though I almost bought 2 of them this past weekend. Are you able to give us an idea when this set might be available?

Are there any udates on the release of this set for the missing chaff dispensers/inner pylons and tow tractor? It was supposed to be released last summer? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tko24 said:

Are there any udates on the release of this set for the missing chaff dispensers/inner pylons and tow tractor? It was supposed to be released last summer? 

 

I contacted Kinetic about this last week and their response was "no schedule yet".

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...