Cyber Modeler kit release schedule

[jpk]

Kitty Hawk, future release, a 1/48 F7U Cutlass.

[RKic]

I love the F7. Though my excitement is measured given my past experience with this manufacturer.

Edited July 18, 2018 by RKic

[jpk]

I will tend to agree with you however at least they are doing one. Time will tell if it is worth buying or not.

[Mstor]

I love the Cutlass. It'll be interesting to see if KH can pull off a decent kit. I have a Fischer 1/32 scale kit that I've never built and will probably sell if the KH kit turns out half way OK.

[skyhawk174]

Well we have only ever had the Lindberg and the Hobbycraft kits I believe in 1/48th. ALso was there not one from Collect Aire? I built the Hobbycraft version just before it was released as I was passed a test shot. I did not know how accurate it was at the time as that was not the point of the build. It was pretty simple in details from what I can remember.

 

The Fujimi Cutlass kits in 1/72nd are supposed to be great and I have seen several built up. Very nice models they are. Here's hoping KH gets this correct. There are some beautiful schemes out there for the F7U.

[jpk]

4 hours ago, skyhawk174 said:

Well we have only ever had the Lindberg and the Hobbycraft kits I believe in 1/48th. Also was there not one from Collect Aire? I built the Hobbycraft version just before it was released as I was passed a test shot. I did not know how accurate it was at the time as that was not the point of the build. It was pretty simple in details from what I can remember.

 

The Fujimi Cutlass kits in 1/72nd are supposed to be great and I have seen several built up. Very nice models they are. Here's hoping KH gets this correct. There are some beautiful schemes out there for the F7U.

Collect Aire did a F7U-1 not a F7U-3 but they did do a correction set for the HC F7U-3 Cutlass. The correction set consists of a complete new forward fuselage with cockpit and vac canopy. New intakes with trunks and nose gear strut with gear well. The set corrected the really poorly shaped HC kit's nose and canopy and was very nicely done. The ejection seat however was a combination of resin and white metal parts that did not fit together too well. Hopefully KH is working with some good research material. 

[skyhawk174]

2 hours ago, jpk said:

Collect Aire did a F7U-1 not a F7U-3 but they did do a correction set for the HC F7U-3 Cutlass. The correction set consists of a complete new forward fuselage with cockpit and vac canopy. New intakes with trunks and nose gear strut with gear well. The set corrected the really poorly shaped HC kit's nose and canopy and was very nicely done. The ejection seat however was a combination of resin and white metal parts that did not fit together too well. Hopefully KH is working with some good research material. 

 

Yeah we can hope KH used the advice of thosein the know. I love the shape of the Cutlass as it looks fearsome especially with that high nose attitude.

[Mstor]

2 hours ago, jpk said:

Hopefully KH is working with some good research material.

 

We can only hope. They have ignored easily available materials on more popular subjects. I would think finding the same amount and quality materials on the F7U-3 will be a bit more difficult. Maybe they have one of Fischer's kits to work from. They are very accurate.

[Laurent]

9 hours ago, jpk said:

Hopefully KH is working with some good research material. 

It's not enough. A CAD designer's job is to produce a 3D model according to specifications. He can design a washing machine, a car, anything. The CAD designer is not very familiar with the subject he's supposed to depict unlike the guys who will have done the research. Those guys must be given the opportunity to review the CAD model before tooling is done. If this isn't the case the CAD model may have inaccuracies even if the reference material used is of high quality.

[Dave Roof]

Many were excited when they announced an F2H as well. Sorry, but I just don't get excited when KH announces anything as they continue to screw the pooch with each subsequent release. In contrast, GWH, Kinetic and several others get better with each new release. 

[Ben Brown]

5 hours ago, Laurent said:

It's not enough. A CAD designer's job is to produce a 3D model according to specifications. He can design a washing machine, a car, anything. The CAD designer is not very familiar with the subject he's supposed to depict unlike the guys who will have done the research. Those guys must be given the opportunity to review the CAD model before tooling is done. If this isn't the case the CAD model may have inaccuracies even if the reference material used is of high quality.

 

In reading Bert Kinzey's comments on the F2H-2, it sounds like they had access to a lot of good info during the design phase, but failed use it properly or follow the advice of those very people who provided them with those excellent resources. I think the main problem is this Mr Song. He may be a heck of a CAD draftsman, but he doesn't have a clue about how to design a model kit, nor apparently does he make changes to the designs based on input from people who know the subject. I'm looking forward to the FJ-2 & 3 and RF-101A/C, but after the F-101A/C and Banshee fiascoes, I won't buy any kits from them until long after they hit the streets. 

 

Ben

[RKic]

10 hours ago, Ben Brown said:

 

I think the main problem is this Mr Song. He may be a heck of a CAD draftsman, but he doesn't have a clue about how to design a model kit, 

 

Ben

You may be onto something there. 

My father is also a CAD man, and I once challanged him to design a model around a simple 3-D model he had of a tiger tank. He did thinks like split wheels in half, and made the barrel join up from three or four short cylinders. If Mr. Song is like my dad, that would partially explain some of KH's engineering decisions. 

If Mr. Song is anything like my dad, then he also doesn't listen to advice from others, because he's always right and always knows best.......

[Laurent]

5 hours ago, RKic said:

He did thinks like split wheels in half, and made the barrel join up from three or four short cylinders. If Mr. Song is like my dad, that would partially explain some of KH's engineering decisions. 

If Mr. Song is anything like my dad, then he also doesn't listen to advice from others, because he's always right and always knows best.......

I agree and disagree at the same time. A designer creates his model according to specifications and these include tooling and injection constraints. We customers do not know what are these constraints and these are not our problem but the producer's problem. High parts count comes from high level of details, optional parts but also presence of undercuts. The later can be partly addressed by using slide molds but these have a cost so profitability is impacted. Producer will also want to avoid occurence of short shots during production so he'll avoid making parts too thin or long and narrow parts. We can say "Oh but how come Tamiya/Hasegawa have no issues while Kitty Hawk does ?" but we as customers do not know the limitations of CNC, EDM and injection machines used by Kitty Hawk. 

[AD-4N]

On 7/19/2018 at 7:16 AM, Ben Brown said:

 I won't buy any kits from them until long after they hit the streets.  

 

 

Bingo!  Ben is the winner.  

[Ben Brown]

2 hours ago, AD-4N said:

 

 

Bingo!  Ben is the winner.  

What do I win, an accurate 1/48 Banshee? 😈

 

Ben

[jpk]

Kitty Hawk needs to use the resources available to them more wisely. During the design of their recent helo kits, the CAD's were reviewed by Floyd Werner someone who is familiar with the subjects. He offered his knowledge to them during design and consequently those kits have gotten pretty good reviews. I know he posted they didn't follow everything he suggested but certainly his input resulted in a better product than would have been otherwise. If KH enlisted the services of Tommy Thomason and Bert Kinzey to review the CAD's to offer suggestions on corrections for their aircraft kits, they might avoid some of the issues they've had in the past. I know both of them have offered to Kitty Hawk to help for free if it will improve their product. They have supplied reference material in the past to KH but having a set of experienced eyeballs on the CAD's prior to cutting metal would no doubt produce a better kit.

[dehowie]

Kittyhawk

F-5 1/32 Best in scale and very nice kit.

SU-34 Best in scale and very nice kit.

OH-6 Best in scale and very nice kit.

T-28...another great kit.

 

Should we just say all Mongram kits are complete rubbish because of the F-111 and ignore everythng else they released as some would like with KH, Trumpeter, HB etc...

Or maybe judge each release on its merits rather than talking complete rubbish..

 

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by dehowie

[Mstor]

What pisses me off is right on the F-101B box is says the research data came from Detail and Scale by Bert Kinzey. After seeing how the kit came out I'm like "What the %$#*!"

They had the research data, but still couldn't get it right. I just doesn't make sense.

I'm still going to build it. I like the Voodoo too much. Might even get another one because I'd like to do a couple of the Canadian airframes, one with standard camo and one of the painted up birds.

One thing that KH has done right is keeping the price of the kits low. Their Su-34 is half the cost of the Hobby Boss kit and as dehowie states, its a very nice kit. Not without it issues but over all I am fairly impressed with it.

So, I hope they do the F7U Cutlass and I hope they can do a half way decent job of it. Its another of those aircraft from my youth that brings fond memories.

[Laurent]

2 hours ago, dehowie said:

Or maybe judge each release on its merits rather than talking complete rubbish..

I agree. In fact this applies to any kit released by any producer. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to take the Sea Harrier FRS.1 as a reference of Tamiya's current productions quality.

[Laurent]

1 hour ago, Mstor said:

What pisses me off is right on the F-101B box is says the research data came from Detail and Scale by Bert Kinzey. After seeing how the kit came out I'm like "What the %$#*!"

They had the research data, but still couldn't get it right. I just doesn't make sense.

The relationship between the producer's design team and the contributors should be bilateral. Contributors provides the reference material on which the CAD model is based on but in turn the design team should submit the CAD model to the contributors and ask them to review it.

What puzzles me is how contributors accept to have their name associated to a certain project when the producer-contributor relationship is unilateral. It's like handing out the producer a blank cheque. Unacceptable to me.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Laurent

[jpk]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 2:06 AM, Laurent said:

I agree and disagree at the same time. A designer creates his model according to specifications and these include tooling and injection constraints. We customers do not know what are these constraints and these are not our problem but the producer's problem. High parts count comes from high level of details, optional parts but also presence of undercuts. The later can be partly addressed by using slide molds but these have a cost so profitability is impacted. Producer will also want to avoid occurence of short shots during production so he'll avoid making parts too thin or long and narrow parts. We can say "Oh but how come Tamiya/Hasegawa have no issues while Kitty Hawk does ?" but we as customers do not know the limitations of CNC, EDM and injection machines used by Kitty Hawk. 

This. KH's sprues/runners/trees, are three times thicker than most other mainstream manufacturers. They are more like short run types. I have the KH F-35C and the runners are so thick, there's enough plastic in them alone to mold almost another kit from the plastic. Their injection gates are huge compared to other more main stream makers. Obviously there is some sort of issue there, whether it is they type of plastic they use or the injection machines they use. I like the subjects but their QC is not quite there both in manufacturing and in research. 

[jpk]

8 hours ago, dehowie said:

Kittyhawk

F-5 1/32 Best in scale and very nice kit.

SU-34 Best in scale and very nice kit.

OH-6 Best in scale and very nice kit.

T-28...another great kit.

 

Should we just say all Mongram kits are complete rubbish because of the F-111 and ignore everythng else they released as some would like with KH, Trumpeter, HB etc...

Or maybe judge each release on its merits rather than talking complete rubbish..

 

 

The Monogram F-111 is the very old, mid-late 1960's Aurora kit slightly reworked and reissued. It is NOT a Monogram kit.

[habu2]

9 hours ago, Mstor said:

One thing that KH has done right is keeping the price of the kits low. 

 

You gets whats you pays fors....  😉

[Mstor]

8 minutes ago, habu2 said:

 

You gets whats you pays fors....  😉

 

Yea, I was going to say that too, but I thought it too obvious

[Tracy White]

On 7/19/2018 at 6:16 AM, Ben Brown said:

I think the main problem is this Mr Song. He may be a heck of a CAD draftsman, but he doesn't have a clue about how to design a model kit, nor apparently does he make changes to the designs based on input from people who know the subject.

 

Trumpeter has the same issue. I helped Dragon with some of their ship products and they definitely listened - I'm not saying that they did this with all of their product but they had a good reputation for accuracy of their ship kits (lots of complaints about instructions and complexity) when the team I was with was providing commentary and correction. I wish more manufacturers were willing to do this. It would just benefit us all so much more....