Kitty Hawk's upcoming 48th Scale Su-22M-3 & M-4

[sharkmouth]

They are asking for input, perhaps they will make changes?

Regards,

[nicholassagan]

Looks good to me so far....

[FAR148]

I'm still not sold on Kitty Hawk but I do like that there are no open bays. Really don't care for the separate engine. Just hope that they don't split up the fuselage halves into four pieces to reduce the box size.

Steven L

[jinmmydel]

Sigh. I wish they'd be as concerned about build-ability as they are pretending to be with accuracy. Building the Kingfisher now and it's a joke. Locating pins 3x, 4x, 6x too big for their corresponding holes, stupid parts breakdown and engineering, sprue gates from the dark ages...it's a mess, and I'd have thrown it away if it wasn't for a magazine.

Disappointing because this is a subject I'm keenly interested in, but I won't be spending money on their kits until I know they are putting more thought into engineering.

[sharkmouth]

I'm still not sold on Kitty Hawk but I do like that there are no open bays. Really don't care for the separate engine. Just hope that they don't split up the fuselage halves into four pieces to reduce the box size.

I agree with all except the fuselages. I think that splitting it in four to fit a box is a side benefit as they would need to have a new rear section for the differently engine variants.

Regards,

[B.Sin]

I'm sure it will be more accurate than the hobbyboss offering.

[jinmmydel]

I'm sure it will be more accurate than the hobbyboss offering.

And the completely irrelevant shot at HB is right on cue.

[Fighting Eighty-Four]

Kitty Hawk sure has been choosing some cool and interesting subjects of late, if what was said about the Su-34 being in the pipeline is also true. Too bad I have heard some real complaints concerning engineering and fitment on some of these. I have not yet built a Kitty Hawk kit, but I do have several in the stash.

I hope Kitty Hawk knocks this one out of the park. I will most definitely be getting one regardless.

[B.Sin]

And the completely irrelevant shot at HB is right on cue.

Why would you care what I have to say about Hobbyboss either way.

[Aigore]

And the completely irrelevant shot at HB is right on cue.

It's in fact relevant since perhaps Trumpy/Hobby Boss could do with some encouragement to go that extra 3 feet to actually do their research before releasing models and perhaps make them accurate instead of caricatures of the original!

[B.Sin]

It's in fact relevant since perhaps Trumpy/Hobby Boss could do with some encouragement to go that extra 3 feet to actually do their research before releasing models and perhaps make them accurate instead of caricatures of the original!

Word

[skyhawk174]

Sigh. I wish they'd be as concerned about build-ability as they are pretending to be with accuracy. Building the Kingfisher now and it's a joke. Locating pins 3x, 4x, 6x too big for their corresponding holes.....SNIP

And this probably tells you no one at Kitty Hawk built a test shot. The builder would have flagged that right away you would think.

The designer could also do this before it even gets to the machine shop. I use 3D CAD software almost every day and there is a feature to check interference. Put the parts together on your screen and run the interference tool and it spits out the amount of interference. Wow such a simple tool IF you use it.

I was all hot and heavy for the early Voodoo kits but when I read some reviews and saw the PE in the cockpit it sure turned me off. Looks like their newer stuff have done away with that which is a good thing.

[MoFo]

Why would you care what I have to say about Hobbyboss either way.

Your criticism is stupid. Only myy criticism is valid!

[jgrease]

I'm sure it will be more accurate than the hobbyboss offering.

WTF? This is what makes ARC a trolls' paradise. Useless comment.

John

[B.Sin]

Your criticism is stupid. Only myy criticism is valid! :rolleyes:/>

Word

[ChippyWho]

A 2-seater! This I would like; there are some nice schemes -a few here.. Love the Red 305 with the funky nose art, and the all-black Polish one...is probably too much!

[jinmmydel]

So much fail. Yet again a thread will derail into nitpicking every little detail, and no one will actually care if the kit winds up build-able.

https://jimsmodels.com/2016/04/19/when-will-engineering-and-build-ability-matter/

[B.Sin]

So much fail. Yet again a thread will derail into nitpicking every little detail, and no one will actually care if the kit winds up build-able.

https://jimsmodels.com/2016/04/19/when-will-engineering-and-build-ability-matter/

The so call "pointless shot" at Hobbyboss was mine. I'm so very flattered that you mentioned me, but I'm not internet person!

[jinmmydel]

The so call "pointless shot" at Hobbyboss was mine. I'm so very flattered that you mentioned me, but I'm not internet person!

I know. And while I totally am for accuracy discussion, c'mon, man. This forum has become quite predictable it it's shots at Hobby Boss. It's like an unfunny running joke. Hopefully, you got that my point was....why does no one care if the kit can actually be built.

[B.Sin]

I know. And while I totally am for accuracy discussion, c'mon, man. This forum has become quite predictable it it's shots at Hobby Boss. It's like an unfunny running joke. Hopefully, you got that my point was....why does no one care if the kit can actually be built.

Word

[Jennings]

I'm sure it will be more accurate than the hobbyboss offering.

I wouldn't take that bet on a bet...

[ChernayaAkula]

<...> Yet again a thread will derail into nitpicking every little detail, <...>

Yeah, because nitpicking every little detail is kinda the point of the thread when Kitty Hawk specifically asks on their Facebook page:

if you see a mistake please let me know so we can fix it before metal is cut.........."

Even more so when the OP starts the thread with that very intention, whether you're sure it will devolve into a "30 page circle-jerk of arm chair experts picking apart every rivet" or not.

So we're in this wonderful situation now where it's entirely possible that an up-coming Fitter kit may be more accurate thanks to people "rivet counting the ever loving shoot out of" it (as you so succinctly put it).

Accuracy issues can already be pointed out in CAD stage. The stage at which they're the simplest to rectify. Which is probably why Kitty Hawk is asking for them now. I'm fairly sure Eduard wish they'd have double-checked the CAD work for their 1/48 109G before having to re-tool massive portions of it.

<...> why does no one care if the kit can actually be built.

Two things with that. First off, if you want to have a discussion on Kitty Hawk's fit issues, by all means have one. Start a new thread (this one's probably not the right place), maybe even in General Discussion, get everybody in (not just the jet modellers) and get a discussion about the problem as a whole.

Secondly, who is this "no one" who supposedly doesn't care whether the things fits or not? Look through the first dozen posts or so in this thread. Lots of people with reservations regarding Kitty Hawk's fit. So it's not like no one's caring.

Edited April 20, 2016 by ChernayaAkula

[Inquisitor]

Yeah, because nitpicking every little detail is kinda the point of the thread when Kitty Hawk specifically asks on their Facebook page:

Even more so when the OP starts the thread with that very intention, whether you're sure it will devolve into "30 page circle-jerk of arm chair experts picking apart every rivet" or not.

So we're in this wonderful situation now where it's entirely possible that an up-coming Fitter kit may be more accurate thanks to people "rivet counting the ever loving shoot out of" it (as you so succinctly put it).

Accuracy issues can already be pointed out in CAD stage. The stage at which they're the simplest to rectify. Which is probably why Kitty Hawk is asking for them now. I'm fairly sure Eduard wish they'd have double-checked the CAD work for their 1/48 109G before having to re-tool massive portions of it.

Two things wit that. First off, if you want to have a discussion on Kitty Hawk's fit issues, by all means have one. Start a thread, maybe even in General Discussion (to get everybody in, not just the jet modellers).

Secondly, who is this "no one" who supposedly doesn't care whether the things fits or not. Look through the first dozen posts or so in this thread. Lots of people with reservations regarding Kitty Hawk's fit. So it's not like no one's caring.

And should I add that pointing out accuracy problems on pictures and cad is easier and an earlier step in the design process unlike giving input on 'engineering' and 'buildability' which would need full cads with parts breakdown and look at their sprue design which that come later in the design process. As for buildability that would be pretty hard to measure unless you got a testshot in hand, because from CAD to Mold to having the plastic in hand there are factors that affect the final result.

Again that little gang of anti-accuracy guys, and how ironic they mention derailing, when like ChernayaAkula said the original purpose of the thread was requesting input on the cad designs and pointing out mistakes.

[mingwin]

they wanted inputs from those CAD's???

they're not very "rivet counters" friendly images to make our minds... no surfaces details... lack of contrast (a little)

i'd love to see more, with closed canopy, and without ordinances... front view, top and bottom view... a make you "zooms" on landing gears and pits.

and show us a little that you know your subjects by showing specific features of every variant you'll intend to produce.(like rear fuselage and tail, for both engines used)

my first nitpick is that they should have put the aft. pair of shaff/flare devices, as they are almost always there... ...and Kitty Hawk's guys to take a very close look at the canopy frame shape.

[sharkmouth]

they wanted inputs from those CAD's??? they're not very "rivet counters" friendly images to make our minds... no surfaces details... lack of contrast (a little)

That is what they asked for... at this stage, they are merely shapes so perhaps they're interested in that?

i'd love to see more, with closed canopy, and without ordinances... front view, top and bottom view... a make you "zooms" on landing gears and pits.

You and I both. I already noted a lack of details on the inner canopy surfaces.

and show us a little that you know your subjects by showing specific features of every variant you'll intend to produce.(like rear fuselage and tail, for both engines used)

Highly unlikely that they will show their hand and reveal all variants beyond the two (Su-22M-4 and Su-22UM-3K).

...and Kitty Hawk's guys to take a very close look at the canopy frame shape.

I'm trying to figure out what you're referring to so as to pass it on. I have offered them my references and measurements, if I can find them now, so they can check their work. Kitty Hawk is not one of the two companies I offered references to. One took it and instead of Trumpeter, it is a Hobby Boss product. No idea what they have done. The second company would only accept the references on a condition which I refused since I had already gone against it.

Regards,