Jump to content

Great Wall Hobby G.W.H L4824 1/48 Su-27 “Flanker B” Heavy Fighter


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, falcon91352 said:

As with the Su-27UB, this kit is looking very nice, too. I will get at least one! 👍

I promise you this kit will be the easiest to build 1/48 scale Flanker kit (yes I have already built 2 UBs and 1 single seater).

So you can expect some enjoyable building experience.

 

10 minutes ago, paulsbrown said:

Looks amazing, nice to have early single seat and two seat Flankers of this quaility. Makes sense that the Su-30SM will be next with the amount of commonality with the Su-27UB. 

Yes especially considering we already have Su-35 data which shares some same parts with Su-30SM, it will be very natural to release the 30SM in a short time period, with some help from our Russian friends/resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, haneto said:

Yes especially considering we already have Su-35 data which shares some same parts with Su-30SM, it will be very natural to release the 30SM in a short time period, with some help from our Russian friends/resources.

 

 

f83e13fc005394433a6a76a793f11042.jpg

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

I promise you this kit will be the easiest to build 1/48 scale Flanker kit (yes I have already built 2 UBs and 1 single seater).

So you can expect some enjoyable building experience.

 

 

In the past, I have build two GWH MiG-29 and one F-15C and those are among my most enjoyable builts ever! 

 

Hopefully, GWH will continue the 1:48 kit series with other aircraft types in the future. However, I don' t want to open a wishlist debate here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Solo said:

Will buy it, but after Minibase Su-33 that kit looks so simplified. 🙂

Indeed.

As I said, how to replicate most detail by least parts shows the designer’s true capability, and to keep the best balance between easy/fast building and enough detail is the main design concept.

To add more details by simply adding more parts and raise the hurdle for user to build, is not a smart way in my dictionary which I will definitely avoid by all means.

If everyone spends one year on a single kit, then this industry will just keep going down since manufacturers cannot make enough profit from repeated buyers.

Different user has his different view but a kit for everyone is what we want to offer to attract more repeaters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's better if G.W.H. release 2-3 well detailed, shaped and fitted kits per year than 1 per 2 years which is extremely detailed. There are still many subjects to cover (still waiting for F-14s :D). I believe some purists will still use resins with Minibase kit anyway, there is simply no way you can satisfy them with plastic with it's limits. For average modeller who just place his models on the shelf and sees them usually from distance GWH kits are already detailed even way more than enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know GWH manufactures kits well detailed, but not as detailed as Minibase one(s). They are still very good kits, but with Minibase one I can make things which are much more hard and complicated to achieve, just because there are a lot of separated parts I can process with. And that is what I like, that is the way for me. But of course GWH kits are still very attractive for me, although those models are not the best now regarding details. Technological progress is hard fact and I like it. So Haneto, I understand your point of view, but please remember that more detailed kit, with more part, is still harder to build, but it gives you much more possibilities to build good model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The GWH kits are among the very best you can get. To me, these are almost on par with Tamiya.

 

Minibase has only released one kit, yes it represents may be the benchmark for 1:48 jet kits indeed. If this meticulously researched kit will be followed by more from this manufacturer, only time will tell after it has been proved to be an economic success or failure.

 

But to me, this diminishes the outstanding qualities of GWH kits in no way. There are a plethora of aftermarket sets available for those, who want to go far into detail. A bit of own scratchbuilding does the rest.

 

My understanding of the hobby is more to challenge the individual skill of the modeler to achive a realistic model, rather than just putting parts together. Here, GWH kits are a perfect base, as well as Tamiya, Kinetic and others. This is my opinion, but accept others as well.

Edited by falcon91352
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tapchan said:

It's better if G.W.H. release 2-3 well detailed, shaped and fitted kits per year than 1 per 2 years which is extremely detailed. There are still many subjects to cover (still waiting for F-14s :D). I believe some purists will still use resins with Minibase kit anyway, there is simply no way you can satisfy them with plastic with it's limits. For average modeller who just place his models on the shelf and sees them usually from distance GWH kits are already detailed even way more than enough.

 

Edited by flybywire
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tapchan said:

It's better if G.W.H. release 2-3 well detailed, shaped and fitted kits per year than 1 per 2 years which is extremely detailed. There are still many subjects to cover (still waiting for F-14s :D). I believe some purists will still use resins with Minibase kit anyway, there is simply no way you can satisfy them with plastic with it's limits. For average modeller who just place his models on the shelf and sees them usually from distance GWH kits are already detailed even way more than enough.

+1

Sorry don't know what happened, it just went straight to triple posting.....

 

Edited by flybywire
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Solo said:

I know GWH manufactures kits well detailed, but not as detailed as Minibase one(s). They are still very good kits, but with Minibase one I can make things which are much more hard and complicated to achieve, just because there are a lot of separated parts I can process with. And that is what I like, that is the way for me. But of course GWH kits are still very attractive for me, although those models are not the best now regarding details. Technological progress is hard fact and I like it. So Haneto, I understand your point of view, but please remember that more detailed kit, with more part, is still harder to build, but it gives you much more possibilities to build good model.

As I have said, I'd prefer to hear your thoughts AFTER you actually finish those "super detail" kits.

Some kits are desgined very "idealistic" so it may looks nice and fancy in box, but building it is another story.

By the way, so called "super detail" kits already exsited in AFV models, e.g. Miniart, Bronco ones, so it's not that brand new concept or something so innovative/inspiring.

 

Also don't forget the fact, that more parts means higher risk to lose them during your built.

Needless to say how frustrating for user to get spare parts(and extra time cost), on the other side providing spare part sprues is also a nightmare or heavy burden for manufacturers, since it requires additional cost for producing, inventory management, etc.

 

Yes, I intentionally simply kit details during the design work.

If you have ever touched model kit design wok, then you will know that actually "simplying details" is much more difficult than replicate everything by adding parts, because you need to condiser and select, based on your experience and understanding of "model art".

Talking my experience, I build various brands model kits and various types of them, generally 3-4 aircraft models + 1-2 ship models + 3-4 Gunpla every year(You can find them in my face book albums.) to learn and feel the advantage from different brands as a normal user.

So I believe my experience and demand could stand for most modellers, which is align with this kit's prospecting target users.

 

Well enough has been said although I understand it's meaningless to convince either side, just sharing some of my thoughts as a veteran modeller and kit designer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, haneto said:

Also don't forget the fact, that more parts means higher risk to lose them during your built.

More parts means higher risk, harder work, more difficulties, but also one thing more: opportunity to make greater model. That is, nothing more, but that is everything for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Solo said:

More parts means higher risk, harder work, more difficulties, but also one thing more: opportunity to make greater model. That is, nothing more, but that is everything for me.

 

If the model is becoming good or even greater is primarily laying in the hand of the modeller. The numer of parts is not the most prominent indication if the model is becoming great or not. If the kit detail is not going far enough, simply help yourself with the aftermarket or scratchbuilding. By the way, creativity is one fascinating aspect of this hobby.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To add more details by simply adding more parts and raise the hurdle for user to build, is not a smart way in my dictionary which I will definitely avoid by all means.

I absolutely agree with this. My suggestion - it would be great to optimise (minimise, simplify) the decals count. Because it hurts, for example, to apply like dozen of tiny stencils on single pylon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PouK9 said:

I absolutely agree with this. My suggestion - it would be great to optimise (minimise, simplify) the decals count. Because it hurts, for example, to apply like dozen of tiny stencils on single pylon.

 

How would you optimize it? By having a huge piece of silvering carrier film connecting al the pieces? If it hurts you, you don't have to use all of them?

 

They did that for the instrument panel and I'm skeptical of how this will work out in the end over all that raised detail.

 

Their MiG-29 kit had all these instrument faces as separate decals and while it took some time, it was less tedious than initially expected and the end result was well worth it IMHO.

 

 

Edited by ijozic
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ijozic said:

 

How would you optimize it? By having a huge piece of silvering carrier film connecting al the pieces? If it hurts you, you don't have to use all of them?

 

They did that for the instrument panel and I'm skeptical of how this will work out in the end over all that raised detail.

 

Their MiG-29 kit had all these instrument faces as separate decals and while it took some time, it was less tedious than initially expected and the end result was well worth it IMHO.

 

 

I have already post these in the UB thread.

 

123919585_1023411404842551_2332813936420177543_n.jpg

124169501_1023411491509209_4881895524615220088_n.jpg

124417827_1023411504842541_7103464124060919021_n.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I've seen them already and a similar approach with the Minibase kit test build, I'm sure experts can make it look really well with various decal softening solutions and techniques, but from experience I'm skeptical about what it will look like on MY build without the latest and greatest tools in modelling tech.

Edited by ijozic
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PouK9 said:

I absolutely agree with this. My suggestion - it would be great to optimise (minimise, simplify) the decals count. Because it hurts, for example, to apply like dozen of tiny stencils on single pylon.

1 minute ago, ijozic said:

Yes, I've seen them and similar approach on the Minibase kit, I'm sure experts can make it look really well with various decal softening solutions and approaches, but I'm skeptical about what it will look like on MY build.

No special skill needed, I even did not bother to cut them off.

Just put the decal on the surface with several rounds of softner, you can what you see in the pictures.

Extremley simple and straight forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, haneto said:

No special skill needed, I even did not bother to cut them off.

Just put the decal on the surface with several rounds of softner, you can what you see in the pictures.

Extremley simple and straight forward.

 

Which softener did you use? I've only used Micro Sol and Set and I can't say I'm exactly thrilled with them (though they are super old so maybe they lost some or all of their effectiveness).

Edited by ijozic
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PouK9 said:

I absolutely agree with this. My suggestion - it would be great to optimise (minimise, simplify) the decals count. Because it hurts, for example, to apply like dozen of tiny stencils on single pylon.

You are talking the exact pain point: is it really necessary to put so complete and accurate stencil decal in a kit?

 

For Su-27 & Su-35 kits, thanks to Gabor's great help, we were able to put 90% of the airframe stencil decals.

It took around 1 month restless design, decade rounds of correction, back and forth.

Lots of suffer for both design side and supervisor side.

 

But is it really necessary to achive it by that level?

Some big brands even do not go that far, e.g. Tamiya.

 

How many users will recognize its real value and show appreciation?

Afterall, many people still buy the aftermarket stencil decal, which sometimes is unfortunately inaccurate.

But people don't care, or simply don't believe it is inaccurate because they believe the extra money paid must worth its value which is not always true.

 

I'm seriously thinking if it's necessary to reduce such "hardcore" features going forward, since the cost performance(at least for manufacter) is really quite low.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...