Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
Curt B

Which 1/48 SU-17 Fitter?

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

I hope everyone isn't getting overly tired of my requests for opinions on various things...I just like getting feedback from knowledgeable folks who HAVE real opinions...

 

So, this time, I'm interested in what people think about the 1/48 Kitty Hawk Su-17/22 versus the Hobbyboss SU-17M4.  I've read and heard things on these.  First off, I don't care about the slight differences in the versions of the planes between the two models.  

 

Matt at Doog's really DIS-recommended the Kitty Hawk, based on their 'lazy engineering' and difficult build, and the Finescale Modeler comparison said similarly, that the KH was much better detailed but difficult, while the HB was easy to build but weak in details.  I'm a detail kind of modeler, so I can see myself going for the KH version, but the KH is REALLY pricey (and though cost is really not a big deal to me, I don't want to pay a lot for a not-very-good model), and, frankly, I'm not the best builder, especially when it comes to filling and sanding seams and restoring lost detail, etc.  

 

All that said, have any of you had experience with either or preferably, both Fitters, and if so, what do YOU say?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went with the KH kit because it is more detailed and a bit more accurate (as far as I know). I have Cold War Studio's belly correction and nose cone intake splitter part, plus some other aftermarket. I should say that I also have the old KP kit in it Mistercraft boxing with just about every aftermarket part I could find, including Cutting Edge's set with dirty wing replacements. I got all that before the KH kit came out. Not sure if I'll still build it, but with all the extras I got, I would probably turn out OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mstor said:

Not sure if I'll still build it, but with all the extras I got, I would probably turn out OK.

KP and HB front fuselages look the same. Windscreen and canopy are too narrow so the windscreen doesn't wrap around the nose enough. Only the 1/72 Modelsvit and 1/48 KH kits have "Su-17M3 and later"ish look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full disclosure, I was the one that reviewed the 2 kits for FSM. I still stand by my comments, but ultimately it is up to the individual builder as to what is more important. The HB kit builds very easily, with good fit and clean engineering, and produces a fair representation of the real jet. There are several detail sets available now for this kit, which while adding mising details, also brings the price paid, up. The KH kit is trickier to build, and seems "rushed' in many areas, almost like there was less input from actual modelers. But the detail and "accuracy" is better, and there are more options. This seems to be a common trait for the 2 companies. The same qualities evident in the respective Su-34's as well. The other consideration is, as you mentioned, price. If you shop around you can find them both for pretty decent prices.

 

Good luck with your build. Be sure to post photos!!

 

M

Edited by Matt Walker
Added info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curt, if you or anyone else is interested, I have a NIB Kitty Hawk Su-17M3/M4, along with the Cold War Studios resin belly correction & p.e. engine bay doors, as well as a KASL splitter cone correction set, that I am looking to sell. I will let it go for $45 plus domestic U.S. shipping. Just the resin and p.e. sets will set you back $31 dollars and some change (exclusive of shipping), if you buy them from the shops. So I am letting the Su-17 go for $14! Let me know if anyone is interested by a pm here and I can ship as soon as payment is confirmed. I accept Paypal. KH_2.jpg.b659bc0e2dde195276d3a07e41bb7319.jpg

KH_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick (is it?),

 

Please see your PMs

Edited by Curt B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Matt Walker said:

Full disclosure, I was the one that reviewed the 2 kits for FSM. I still stand by my comments, but ultimately it is up to the individual builder as to what is more important. The HB kit builds very easily, with good fit and clean engineering, and produces a fair representation of the real jet. There are several detail sets available now for this kit, which while adding mising details, also brings the price paid, up. The KH kit is trickier to build, and seems "rushed' in many areas, almost like there was less input from actual modelers. But the detail and "accuracy" is better, and there are more options. This seems to be a common trait for the 2 companies. The same qualities evident in the respective Su-34's as well. The other consideration is, as you mentioned, price. If you shop around you can find them both for pretty decent prices.

 

Good luck with your build. Be sure to post photos!!

 

M

Thanks, Matt!  Looks like A KH Fitter is in my future (see the post after yours).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitty Hawk's kit hands down. The Hobby Boss kit forward fuselage/windshield joint and shape look exactly like the old KoPro kit. Also, the oval shape of the forward fuselage in the Hobby Boss kit is pure fictional.

As for the engineering of the Kitty Hawk, Spencer Pollard has a video on YouTube which shows a way to put together the fuselage sections with no trouble at all.

However, the Cold War Studio fixes (nose cone intake and belly correction) are mandatory for the Kitty Hawk kit.

 

Edit: is the shape on the Hobby Boss forward fuselage oval or squarish...? An oval square? A round square? A mix of all of them? 

Edited by Hubbie Marsten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Matt Walker:  Matt, in my response to your post, I neglected to tell you what a great job you did on both of your Fitters!  I’m always impressed, on top of all the other qualities of a great model, to note when someone is able to complete a kit from start to finish in a very short time, which you appeared to do with those two.  It seems to take me months to complete even the simplest of kits, which means it would take me until the turn of the century (81 years!) to get through the stash of models I have NOW, much less any future additions...  I have been getting FSM magazine for years, and it is my FAVORITE magazine.  I can’t wait, whenever I see it in a pile of mail, to sit down and rip it open (figuratively speaking, of course!)  I usually read everything in the mag, except for the figures features (which I think was a GREAT addition to the magazine, just doesn’t happen to be my ‘thing’...)  

 

I always like to give credit and compliments to those folks whose work I find to be beautiful, impressive, inspiring, or just plain GOOD, and I get upset with myself when I fail to do so.  I didn’t want to leave you out, especially since you responded directly to me...that was very kind.

Edited by Curt B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curt. Thanks! Growing up in Australia I read FSM from cover to cover also. It was the first mag available to me, and I found it to be such a great resource. Now I live in the US, and feel very honored to have been asked to be a review modeler. I hope that my small contribution is valuable and beneficial, and maybe "pays it forward" for the next generation.

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Matt Walker said:

... I hope that my small contribution is valuable and beneficial, and maybe "pays it forward" for the next generation....

 

Absolutely, your contribution is/was valuable.  I hope we get to see more reviews from you!

 

By the way, since you mentioned it, how did you end up becoming a contributor?  Did you send them an e-mail to ask yo be considered?  Did they contact you, based on some work of yours they had seen somewhere else?  Just curious... and I understand if you can’t say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved to the US from Australia for work, 13 years ago. Being a fairly "enthusiastic" modeler, I started building again here, and looked for a local IPMS club, which happened to be the Bong Chapter in Milwaukee. FSM is based in Waukesha, just west of Milwaukee, and the guys from FSM were members. Paul Boyer, Aaron Skinner, Mark Hembree, Tim Kidwell, Elizabeth Nash, and many of the review modelers included. The club has a once a year competition, which I won Best of Show the first year I entered. Then a couple of meetings later, Aaron was moving around the room with an armful of new kits, including the then new F-5E from AFV Club. I jokingly asked if he needed anyone to review it, not thinking he would say "yes"! I've now done several dozen reviews for the magazine. So, it really was a little bit of "being the right person, in the right place, at the right time". A happy coincidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, great story, and lucky you!  Thanks for the information, and looking forward to more reviews from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hubbie Marsten said:

:woot.gif: Very nice, Alex!

Could we please see a picture showing the underbelly correction bit from the side?

49209262861_138f09b542_b.jpg

49209265246_26e8a16c94_b.jpg

49209267346_a40dd49d34_b.jpg

Ok! Better pictures will be ready tomorrow.

Edited by Alex Matvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alex Matvey said:

49209262861_138f09b542_b.jpg

49209265246_26e8a16c94_b.jpg

49209267346_a40dd49d34_b.jpg

Ok! Better pictures will be ready tomorrow.

 

That looks awesome Alex. I have Cold War's product on hand already, but might want yours as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Matt Foley said:

That looks awesome Alex. I have Cold War's product on hand already, but might want yours as well.

 

Me too. Would like to see a direct comparison. CWS's part looks very good, but the detail on A.M.U.R. Reaver's likes finer. I checked their website, but there is no info on this yet. I think The48ers carries A.M.U.R. parts, so they will probably get it in stock eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mstor said:

 

Me too. Would like to see a direct comparison. CWS's part looks very good, but the detail on A.M.U.R. Reaver's likes finer. I checked their website, but there is no info on this yet. I think The48ers carries A.M.U.R. parts, so they will probably get it in stock eventually.

 

I looked for it. It's not up yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to give a shout out to madmanrick, from whom I just received the Kitty Hawk SU-17 M3/M4 Fitter-K kit and extras, as he posted earlier in this thread.  I've never seen ANYTHING packaged as well as Rick did for this shipment to me...amazing!  So...I'm now committed to the KH Fitter, for better or for worse!  I've read several things about this kit, as i mentioned in my first post, but I guess it is the opportunity (if I can call it that) to show that I'm more than just an 'assembler' of parts, and really am a 'modeler', to take something that is basically 'there' and turn it into something that it was originally not.  I'm either up to the challenge, or not.  We'll see which I am.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Wickham also did a good build review, with solutions for the fit issues, on The Modelling News page. Basically, for the fuselage top pieces, remove the alignment "teeth" from the spine parts,  and fill the holes on the body parts. Gives a much nicer result.

 

BTW. This conversation has made me pull my KH 2 seater out of the stash. Might look good in Polish markings....

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Hubbie and Matt.  I'm happy to take any advice/direction I can get!

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...