jgrease

Seriously Mike, you're calling me a troll because I questioned your review? Is that what happens when your review is questioned? Thanks very much.

Mike, You've provided a kit review in the box, and for the life of me I can't conceive how one can look at the contents of a box of plastic and judge them to be "very highly recommended". Let me address your points as they appear: -Regarding the fit and finish of the parts, you suggest "using modeling skills" to resolve them. This is one of the oldest lines these days - trust me - I am certain that I have "modeling skills", and the poor fit of parts and the over-engineering can't be explained away with any lack of said skills. Poor fit and finish is poor fit and finish. I've had plenty of experience with KH kits - I built the F-101A/C kit when it came out just to counter the argument made by some that it was "unbuildable" - it took work and went together adequately. However, the Su-34 in my opinion, shows little improvement over previous KH releases. It's as if the kit designers have never built a model airplane in their lives, and it seems like they can't even be bothered to go online and learn from other manufacturers. Sorry Mike, but "using modeling skills" is not an excuse for poor kit design and implementation. Your taped together fuselage isn't going to show you issues like the multi-part engines not going together into a circular shape, or the fit of the resin exhausts to those engines. -These particular decals were not at all like previous one I've used from their kits. Usually, they go down and can't be moved again, but take the shape of anything protruding. I've not had issues with previous ones, but these were out of register and thick. They did not settle under Micro-Sol and even after lathering on Solvaset they would not settle down into panel lines or contours. -Finally, why would it be "disrespectful" to ask questions about how you arrived at your conclusions? If you don't want to answer, then why not just post your "reviews" and disable comments? I haven't called you any names, and all I've done is ask questions and make observations. When you bought your last car, did you just look at it and pay for it, or did you look at the performance specs and take it for a ride? When you asked to take a test drive was that "disrespectful" to the salesman because you asked questions? Oh well, I'll take your passive-aggressive responses intimating a lack of skill on my part for what it is - it's human nature to get defensive when one's opinions are questioned. Thanks anyway Mike.

Can Mike explain to me what makes this kit "very highly recommended"? Is that a reflection of the perceived value of what's in the box versus cost? It's obviously not a reflection of parts fit, the quality of the decals when applied, or anything similar. Perhaps the review is geared towards kit collectors vs kit builders? My boxing of the kit featured lots of flash, poor fit in some places, and the decals were thick and did not respond to setting solutions. How am I to trust any reviews on BM after that kind of experience? Perhaps Mike can build the Su-34 kit using nothing more than what's in the box and show readers how well a "very highly recommended" kit goes together.

They released their anti-aircraft kit already, and this was posted last Saturday. Just a thought...

There's a post on the Tanmodel Facebook page with a short video saying "where are we", showing what looks like a warehouse and a whole lot of Tanmodel boxes. No mention of the contents, but I'm thinking...

It's always fascinating to watch Nigel's work in 1/72 - my sausage fingers are disqualified from this kind of work. John

Great stuff so far - have you seen this tidy bit of inspiration?

Great work so far John - looking forward to more! John

Thanks Perdu - I am very disappointed with certain aspects of the kit - the cockpit is empty - if I didn't put those figures in it would have been bare except for the awful decals on the instrument panels. The paint issues are mine alone - The metallic paint I used on the underside as well as the clear coat I applied on the plane after decals - I should have thinned down the clear a bit and I didn't. The Testor's paint on the underside was an experiment, so lesson learned. I have the Kitty Hawk 1/48 two-seater, and I have bought decals and a refueling probe for the nose to make it into a French bird - I am trying to find a way to get both cannons on it, but at least I have my paint matched for the colors. I'll finish this one up by next week and post the results. John

Sorry for the delay in getting an update in. Here is what the Jaguar looks like as of today: Some observations about the kit and the assembly - the main landing gear legs have large locating holes, while the struts have no positive locating holes or slots at all, and the instructions don't help. The panel lines are nice, but I could not get much wash to stay in them - maybe that was me being heavy-handed on the cleanup. And a couple of notes about my painting - I had nothing but grief with the Testor's silverfish color I used on the underside. Even after a couple of good coats of Future, I still wound up removing a good bit of paint on the undersides of the wings. my mistake. Also, after the decals and dark wash, I applied a couple of coats of Testor's Semi-Gloss Clear over the entire plane, and I wound up with fuzz all over certain parts of the plane - you can make it out on the tail here: I've wiped the plane down with a paper towel dampened with mineral spirits, but nothing changed. I'm not too happy with that. Here's one last shot of the nose: The tires aren't finished with paint yet. Some of the detail is great, but the lack of any cockpit detail and the crappy landing gear assembly is not acceptable for a kit costing over $40. I will continue to the finish with this, but I am not a fan at this point. Please share any comments of observations. John

Guillaume - thanks very much! The camo is Lifecolor, the green is actually their UA052/RLM71 (FS34079), and the grey is UA145/French Blue Grey (FS35237). When I build one in 1/48 I will get the paints to look more faded - that is the one area that I wasn't able to get the way I wanted it. John

Sorry for the eternal delay in getting an update done. I've learned from a friend a new method of applying Future/Klear/whatever-it-is-called-in-your-neck-of-the-woods. After mixed results using my airbrush, I was informed that brushing works best for even smooth coverage. Well, sure enough that was correct. Using a #8 flat brush with synthetic bristles works a treat - put some Future in a small cup, dip the brush and make sure you remove the excess. Then lightly touch the surface in one direction with a constant motion. Don't overlap - each stroke should be one next to the other. I let it dry, and if it seems rough or dull, I polish that coat with micro mesh - anywhere from 6000-12000 grit until it feels smooth. Here is the fuselage after about four coats with the micro mesh treatment: The finish is nice and smooth. I've got a 1/48 F-5E that got the same treatment, and it's the shiniest finish I've ever managed! Here's the bottom of the fuselage - I repainted the gear bays with Interior Green again, and the bottom will get another coat of Future after decals: I've finished with the fuel tanks as well: My seam work on the tanks is lacking - I believe that to be my failure to get a good glue joint all around. But I'm not going to mess up the detail I managed to keep on these. I used a pre-made wash from Testors on the rivets and panel lines, and I really like it. As I mentioned, decals today and I may have the next update later today. Thanks for looking in! John

Dudikoff - Yeah it was that bad. Like I said I am not one of "those guys" that picks a kit apart before opening the lid. I was going to be more than happy to build it straight out of the box, making whatever changes I could based on ya-gabor's photos and explanations. But the huge rear fuselage with no positive locating points was the end of it for me - the nose was awful to try and get aligned, and the forward fuselage with the cockpit again had no positive locating points for the cockpit and the forward gear well. The gear well itself was awful - I'm supposed to enjoy building this not get agita. Sorry for the bad news. John

I know I'm late to the party, but what an awful kit. I am a generally patient modeler, and I want to like Kitty Hawk for bringing certain kits to market. Heck, I built their F-101 A/C just to spite all of the naysayers that called that kit "unbuildable". However, there is just so much bad engineering and lack of thought that it's really not worth the time. Just a couple of things that led me to bin this kit: -I'm not a rivet counter for the most part, but the panels and details on the fuselage of the kit match no version of the MiG-25 in particular. The builder will find him/herself removing or modifying lots of features on the fuselage. I have wanted to build the MiG that Viktor Belenko flew to Japan, and without a LOT of work, the plane will never look remotely close. -The fit of the various fuselage parts is troublesome at best. The nose gear bay consists of six pieces, none of which has a really positive fit - you need three hands to get the pieces to stay in place correctly. The cockpit rear wall has no positive fit to the tub - it could move within the rear of the tub laterally. The rear fuselage consists of a large top and bottom halves and there are NO pins, tabs, or any other way to keep the two halves lined up for assembly. I guess it comes down to how badly do you want to add a MiG-25 to your collection - I have rarely binned a kit but the KH MiG-25 is just too much work for too little reward. I hear there are other manufacturers that will shortly be bringing this plane to market - I will wait for that one. John

Antoine - you're correct. I was painting the upper camouflage freehand. At most points I was getting a nice fine line, but the blurred areas you referred to were places I had issues with my airbrush. I will look to correct some of them later on today. Thank you Antoine and David for the feedback. More to come today. John