Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
sda1976

1/48 - Sukhoi Su-35 "Flanker-E" by Great Wall Hobby

Recommended Posts

Thanks - just to be clear on this I am not taking anyone's side here. One can form an opinion based on the information available; and if I may this process i.e. of trying to find (or get closer to) the absolute truth is probably one of the great aspects of this hobby!!! 

 

Btw, I am really looking forward to receive the G.W.H. kit I have ordered...😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all the development of the G.W.H Su-35S kit.

 

I am not a CAD person only the research designer, all I could do is to show the shapes based on hundreds of photos and the personal experience of touching the real Su-35 fighter, spending days “learning” its shape.

Initially the G.W.H CAD guys had an intention of making a nose cone as a copy of a Su-27 cone without the pitot because a Russian guy told them that it was not changed at all (the same guy wanted to have a surface full of round "pressings" as on the Su-27 in the area behind the ejection seat, under the canopy, which is completely flat on Su-35).

I have shown my own views, there was a lot of correspondence and exchange of photos and CAD views but in the end managed to persuade them based on hard facts (photos, lots of photos) and not only my subjective views. I am happy with the end result.

Facts like the issue of the lighting protection lines on the sides of the nose cone, which are a recessed line on the real aircraft. And so they are recessed on the kit part. 

I am happy with the end result, the plastic kit.

 

As for the aftermarket:

I am sure the manufacture would be more than happy to show us what the problem is with the kit part. This is important both for their marketing and sales but also for example for me, to learn from a mistake (if there is one) and do a better job next time.

 

But of course there is another side of the story. Jumping on a bandwagon of

“let’s do an aftermarket no matter what, people will buy it (they will not know the difference and we will not tell them)”.

 

I have spoken to several aftermarket manufacturers and they have a “business strategy”:

no matter how good a kit is we will make aftermarket for it because we have to make money. The release of a new kit is a business opportunity for them, it smells of hard cash, so lets grab it.

Which results in an aftermarket product which has no basis of reality, but true, people will buy it even if they don’t know why they should buy it.

 

It is in some cases a question of a mix of National pride and Company politics. Another manufacturer making the same aircraft kit as we do, even if it is good we have to show them that we can make “corrections” to it. No matter what the costs are, it is a question of Company pride!

 

 

Small side note: no kit is perfect and there is always place for improvement. Since I was involved in the initial kit development, I am also interested in its after life, and look closely at people’s opinions, aftermarkets, builds . . .   exactly to learn for future projects.

All the aftermarket producers have missed points, some obvious and some not so obvious which would have needed extra detailing on G.W.H Su-35 kit which was out of scope for a plastic, injection moulded kit.

This is what they should have produced, obviously I will not give them hints.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

First of all the development of the G.W.H Su-35S kit.

 

I am not a CAD person only the research designer, all I could do is to show the shapes based on hundreds of photos and the personal experience of touching the real Su-35 fighter, spending days “learning” its shape.

Initially the G.W.H CAD guys had an intention of making a nose cone as a copy of a Su-27 cone without the pitot because a Russian guy told them that it was not changed at all (the same guy wanted to have a surface full of round "pressings" as on the Su-27 in the area behind the ejection seat, under the canopy, which is completely flat on Su-35).

I have shown my own views, there was a lot of correspondence and exchange of photos and CAD views but in the end managed to persuade them based on hard facts (photos, lots of photos) and not only my subjective views. I am happy with the end result.

Facts like the issue of the lighting protection lines on the sides of the nose cone, which are a recessed line on the real aircraft. And so they are recessed on the kit part. 

I am happy with the end result, the plastic kit.

 

As for the aftermarket:

I am sure the manufacture would be more than happy to show us what the problem is with the kit part. This is important both for their marketing and sales but also for example for me, to learn from a mistake (if there is one) and do a better job next time.

 

But of course there is another side of the story. Jumping on a bandwagon of

“let’s do an aftermarket no matter what, people will buy it (they will not know the difference and we will not tell them)”.

 

I have spoken to several aftermarket manufacturers and they have a “business strategy”:

no matter how good a kit is we will make aftermarket for it because we have to make money. The release of a new kit is a business opportunity for them, it smells of hard cash, so lets grab it.

Which results in an aftermarket product which has no basis of reality, but true, people will buy it even if they don’t know why they should buy it.

 

It is in some cases a question of a mix of National pride and Company politics. Another manufacturer making the same aircraft kit as we do, even if it is good we have to show them that we can make “corrections” to it. No matter what the costs are, it is a question of Company pride!

 

 

Small side note: no kit is perfect and there is always place for improvement. Since I was involved in the initial kit development, I am also interested in its after life, and look closely at people’s opinions, aftermarkets, builds . . .   exactly to learn for future projects.

All the aftermarket producers have missed points, some obvious and some not so obvious which would have needed extra detailing on G.W.H Su-35 kit which was out of scope for a plastic, injection moulded kit.

This is what they should have produced, obviously I will not give them hints.

 

Best regards

Gabor

 

 

I am bringing mine together currently. Only thing that disappointed me so far is the exhausts. Since I have the Su-33 going on too, I keep comparing the two. Kinetic exhaust are single piece and have the same level of detail. So they are much easier to achieve a better finish. I don't understand why GWH keeps doing these 4 piece exhausts. Same thing was true for their F-15 and Mig-29 kits too. I kind of understand for F-15 featherless exhaust but I don't get it for Flankers and Fulcrums. 

 

Otherwise it is going great ! 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you like the kit.

 

Both Haneto and me tried to persuade the manufacture to have a more simple exhaust where there is an alternative between the “static” version (exhaust “hanging” at a given angle) and to have them in an alternative “flight” / engine running position. G.W.H boss is the boss and he insisted on having an exhaust which can be rotated to any demanded position. I don’t agree with this but he is the boss so there is nothing that I can do.

The “two settings” version would have been simpler to make and to build for the modeller.

 

The four part exhaust is OK for me, although I would have had some other ideas here too. B) B)

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the radome is fine, I agree with Gabor about the shape difference, even though the overlay photos on page 12 seems to match. I think with curvatures, the differences can be smaller than the line width of the drawing, but still be noticeable in direct comparison, this make things like nose, canopy, spinner difficult to get right.

 

Surely no kit is perfect, but with some kits you can spot general shape problems quickly/easily, and some more difficult, but with GWH's Su-35 my efforts were futile, so to me it's perfect in general shapes, which is the most import thing to me.  However, especially in comparison to the impeccable research, it is a bit let down by the production: flow marks in canopies, sink areas at raised details at multiple places on mine.

 

Anyway, really well done and thank you to Gabor and all, that kind of research... it really turns plastic to gold to me.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2018 at 9:18 AM, Raymond Chung said:

For those Su-33 parts has shrinking please got to www.kineticmodel.com for replacement procedure and we can offer the new replacement and sorry for the trouble caused. 

 

The issue sue has been resolved with changing from outsourcing production to in house production. 

Hi Raymond, that's really good to know! Since when have you switched production or what is my chance to get a in house produced kit, if I buy from a seller in Germany now? I'd like to buy one more kit, but I can wait and prefer to buy a in house produces one, than ask you guys to sent me the sprue, that sprue with the tail planes was riddles with sink marks😣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

All the aftermarket producers have missed points, some obvious and some not so obvious which would have needed extra detailing

 

Rant mode on.

This statement is SO true, not only of the GWH Su-35 (not sure where but I'll take your word for it), but of countless other kits. It boggles the mind trying to figure out what logic some aftermarket makers use to decide which products to release. Where some kits are screaming for aftermarket help they are ignored and instead we get yet another ACES ejection seat or yet another F-4 phantom exhaust. Not that improvements in technologies don't make new versions of these products desirable, but there are so many kits that desperately need help and are ignored, and these are not obscure or old kits, but new and popular subjects.

Rant mode off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 5:14 PM, B.Sin said:

Mr. Matt Foley, 

       If you read a couple of post up, someone said they're inquiry to Aries as the reason for a nose cone correction piece, was because GWH got the shape of the nose wrong. I would like to see proof of myself.

 

WORD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×