andrew.deboer Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Who's gonna be the first to take one for the team and see if it's better than the Kitty Hawk one? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 (edited) It's quite expensive in Europe it seems - only 5 EUR cheaper than the Kitty Hawk kit. At that price, I wouldn't bet that it's a better value than the other kit, based on the level of detail seen in the sprue shots. Edited May 12, 2017 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Been waiting on this comparison.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Marv Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 (edited) I have "fondled" both the Kitty Hawk and Hobby Boss Su-17/22 kits, and I have a couple observations. First, the Kitty Hawk kit includes an amazing amount of Russian-designed ordnance...basically, if it isn't in this kit, it probably doesn't exist. The Hobby Boss kit includes a representative amount of rocket tubes, bombs, and missiles, that will allow you to make the model look great; the kit just doesn't have the amount or variety the Kitty Hawk kit has. Second, and perhaps the deal-maker (or -breaker) is the multi-piece fuselage in the Kitty Hawk kit. as opposed to the Hobby Boss kit which includes a more traditional fuselage (one solid piece per side). I have seen Spencer Pollard's videos where he glues together the various Kitty Hawk fuselage pieces; that's just a lot of work to get to where the Hobby Boss kit starts off. Even though Spencer's technique looks promising, you just know that gluing together a rather long fuselage that has three big pieces per side is not going to yield perfection. The rest of the plastic in these two kits looks good, and either should build-up into a great-looking Fitter...it's just how much pain one whats to endure during the build process. Edited May 15, 2017 by Marv spelling Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Having seen comparaison pics (not on a public site), the windscreen and canopy issue don't seem to be the only inaccuracies. Fuselage length and cross-section shape look strange. 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.