new 1/48 kittyhawk Jaguar

[Loki]

The separate fuselage/cockpit section clearly indicates the Jaguar E version to come...

Tonka

Perhaps the Ecole version and the T2/T4 but not necessarily. The RAF nose is different from this one so that may be the reason. Nose section and French specific weapons one one sprue and the RAF nose and specific weapons on another, interchangeable with the box lid and decals.

[Finn]

The BL755s could be a little better:

http://www.mycity-mi...9_slike 587.jpg

Jari

[Laurent]

Rule 1 - Make sure the shapes are right (that includes the gun apertures)

Rule 2 - keep the cost down

Rule 3 - keep the cost down

Rule 4 - keep the cost down

Well if we go in "modeling philosophy", here are my rules

1) the designer should understand the subject: he should understand what are the characteristic shapes and curves of the aircraft, what are the characteristic features of the subject and if the proportions look ok; shape accuracy is especially important in the front fuselage (nose, windscreen, canopy) as it's the aircraft's "face"

2) the model should please (ease of build, detail level) most modelers from the casual modeler to the rivet counters (I'm not talking about the guys who lay the parts overs drawings and measure them right after opening the box)

3) the kit should be an improvement over the existing kits

4) it shouldn't be too expensive

To me the KH kit doesn't conform to rule 1: no filet between the nose tip and the pitot (characteristic of the Jaguar A and the two-seaters), the laser rangefinder blister is probably too deep, the air intake behind the canopy (it was there right from the start on the Jaguar mockup) looks too deep and sticks out too much (sanding and rescribing should fix this), the spoilers didn't need to be represented as kit parts since they are only open in flight. It doesn't conform to rule 2 either: the kit is too complicated for the casual modeler (too much PE, access panels may not fit well if they are closed) and the options (spoilers, weapons) and details (seat type) may not be relevant for the person who knows the aircraft a bit. Ok for rule 3 (even though the senior modeler may have a Heller/Airfix kit with loads of AM in the stash) and rule 4 (if the importers won't be barking mad). This kit is like a lot of Trumpeter kits: modern kit with plenty of (not always relevant) detailing and shape accuracy has been somewhat put aside. I wonder if some manufacturers fully realize what are the expectations of their customers.

[TOPGUN-ROB]

Looking forward to this one. Always been a fan of the Jaguar.

[Mike]

The more I see, the more I like it What kit doesn't have some issues? I've yet to find one, and I've got a few now It looks rather nice to me, and I'm sure Mr Song and his colleagues have engineered the kit for good fit whether you open the bays up or not. I also don't think that Kitty Hawk's prices are high at all, especially when you compare them to other companies... and some of the kits that are age-old re-pops warmed over with some new decals

Still, you can't please everyone. Produce a kit with open panels & such, and they want 'em closed. Produce one with no open panels, and they want 'em open. The original cleft-stick or Kobayashi Maru situation for the Trekkies amongst us. Nanoo nanoo...

[Alan P]

I think Song is a legend of a guy. He constantly stands up their design work to be roundly pilloried by everyone who doesn't see instant perfection, yet continues to soldier on producing very desirable kits for various manufacturers. He never gets mad, or rude, and takes the most ingracious criticism with good grace.

I hope he lives to be 150 and becomes wildly rich and personally fulfilled in every respect.

Al

[Loki]

No one is pillorying anyone here. No one expects instant perfection. I think Laurent and others are just trying to point out issues before the kit goes into production in the hope that Mr. Song, et al, take it on board and can correct the inaccuracies. If no one helps him then no one has the right to complain when the kit comes out.

Can't see the problem myself.

Would you rather have an accurate kit or one which needs extra work once it's bought? I am going to be buying a couple of these at least so I think I have the right to try and get in early to make it the kit it could easily be.

Ingracious criticism? I think you are doing others a disservice with that comment because, on the contrary, it is constructive criticism.

[turnerdad]

I think Song is a legend of a guy. He constantly stands up their design work to be roundly pilloried by everyone who doesn't see instant perfection, yet continues to soldier on producing very desirable kits for various manufacturers. He never gets mad, or rude, and takes the most ingracious criticism with good grace.

I hope he lives to be 150 and becomes wildly rich and personally fulfilled in every respect.

Al

Well said, couldn't agree more. At last, a new modern Jag, and another one fron Italeri on the way! Hopefully we'll see a 1/32 one too...I can hope.

[Alan P]

Loki, I fully understand your viewpoint, and accept that what passes in this particular thread as criticism is more constructive than what I just waded through earlier today (the Su-25 thread on another popular modelling site).

I think ALL model kits need extra work if your only criterion is accuracy. I can't recall a single kit I have ever made that was totally accurate out of the box. I have made alterations to every single model I have ever built to improve the accuracy or the aesthetic. All of those alterations were entirely voluntary, and made by my personal choice.

The problem I see with the constant picking is the completely artificial accuracy argument (no kit is ever going to be perfectly accurate, live with it) dominates all discussions about new releases, with little or no reference made to its aesthetic impression, buildability or general modelling pleasure.

I'm afraid that for me, the last three aspects are important to me. How the finished article looks to me is the important bit. If this makes me somehow inferior, less serious or deficiently gullible , I really couldn't give a rat's behind.

I'll just keep enjoying building the damn things to look like nice models while internet armchair experts argue about whether the shape is off.

Al (who needs to develop some of Mr Song's restraint!)

Edited November 3, 2012 by PHaTNesS

[Jennings Heilig]

The best thing to do (and with no disrespect to Mr. Song or anyone else in the industry - of which I have been a part for many years).... is to remember that we're talking about little toy plastic airplanes here.

This is not a cure for cancer or an end to world poverty. It's little toy plastic airplanes folks.

[techniquest]

The best thing to do (and with no disrespect to Mr. Song or anyone else in the industry - of which I have been a part for many years).... is to remember that we're talking about little toy plastic airplanes here.

This is not a cure for cancer or an end to world poverty. It's little toy plastic airplanes folks.

I don't mean to appear rude, but having been a part of the industry for many years you might have made the distinction between a precision plastic scale construction kit and a 'toy'

[Laurent]

no kit is ever going to be perfectly accurate, live with it

Everybody knows that still if there's an opportunity to fix inaccuracies before the molds have been tooled, I don't see why we couldn't comment the CAD model. It's a win-win situation: the manufacturer can improve the model, the customer has less things to fix if accuracy matters to him. Song may not have revised the Jaguar model (perhaps because the tooling phase was already started when he posted the CAD images) but some of the remarks made on the Mirage F1 CAD model may lead to modifications: Song aknowledged some of the remarks here. Anyway a manufacturer has seen the remarks that have been done on the KH threads here and sent me pictures of the CAD model of an incoming kit. I've listed the "bugs" I've noticed, the manufacturer said he'll fix some. Voila. The model will probably still have inaccuracies but less of them.

with little or no reference made to its aesthetic impression, buildability or general modelling pleasure.

How could one comment on these before the kit is actually released ?

while internet armchair experts argue about whether the shape is off.

I guess I'm one of them ? well I certainly am not a Jaguar or Mirage expert but perhaps I played "spot the seven errors" game too much when I was a kid. "armchair experts" are useful as long as long as they express themselves in a cold-headed manner (no "kit bashing") and at the proper time (before tooling has been done so during design or after the kit release by telling how to fix issues).

[Loki]

Al,

I hear you completely and utterly. You make some fair points, but I still don't understand why there is a problem in picking out a couple of points for Mr. Song to think about and try and correct before the tool is signed off.

Surely it is better for him and for us to have a product that satisfies as much as possible. The comments that have been made so far are about some things that have already caught the modellers eye:

The PE representation of open control surfaces that are only ever open in flight, the large bulbous shape of the inlet to the rear of the canopy etc.

I am certainly no expert but I do appreciate the efforts Laurent has made here to try and correct the errors he has noticed before mistakes cannot be rectified.

From my understanding, Mr. Song is quite amenable to his public and takes on board criticism with an open mind. So what's the issue?

I am sure we are all very glad that a new tool Jaguar is coming, not before time either. Mr. Song is going to do very well out of this I am sure. No one is picking holes to make themselves look better or to try and depress Mr. Song, far from it and the opposite is true.

Health and wealth to you Mr. Song! Keep going and, if a reminder were needed, this is all to help you and us. If the constructive notes are taken on board, we will both be winners.

Martin

[Shaun]

That's looking nice, great detail. Be nice to do a flight line servicing Dio with all the hatches open.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Shaun

[Loki]

The open engine panels certain lend itself to this doesn't it?Neil Burkill posted a few good pictures of some Jaguars going into the "shop" some time ago.

Would be great to see someone do super detailing an engine etc.

[Alan P]

Everybody knows that still if there's an opportunity to fix inaccuracies before the molds have been tooled, I don't see why we couldn't comment the CAD model. It's a win-win situation: the manufacturer can improve the model, the customer has less things to fix if accuracy matters to him. Song may not have revised the Jaguar model (perhaps because the tooling phase was already started when he posted the CAD images) but some of the remarks made on the Mirage F1 CAD model may lead to modifications: Song aknowledged some of the remarks here. Anyway a manufacturer has seen the remarks that have been done on the KH threads here and sent me pictures of the CAD model of an incoming kit. I've listed the "bugs" I've noticed, the manufacturer said he'll fix some. Voila. The model will probably still have inaccuracies but less of them.

How could one comment on these before the kit is actually released ?

I guess I'm one of them ? well I certainly am not a Jaguar or Mirage expert but perhaps I played "spot the seven errors" game too much when I was a kid. "armchair experts" are useful as long as long as they express themselves in a cold-headed manner (no "kit bashing") and at the proper time (before tooling has been done so during design or after the kit release by telling how to fix issues).

I absolutely take your point about the CAD stage, before the casting stage. That is truly constructive. My beef is with those entirely unconstructive comments that follow the point of kit release (even test shots can be altered if the work is minor, though suggesting completely new reprofiling at that stage is highly speculative).

The profile of the nose/pitot join is a very minor issue and at test shot stage is unlikely to garnet much response. Milliput would be a far more appropriate medium than to re-cast an entire mould. Similarly, the laser ranger could be cut off and a scratchbuilt part used to replace it. If it's such a great issue.

What is the problem with making such small adjustments at the building stage? Why chase the kit designers to change their moulds for such small adjustments? I just don't get it.

I guess we have very different approaches to such issues, therefore we will remain mystified at one another's opinion. But life would be extremely dull if we were all the same! As would all model kits.

But hear me on this! I am sorry for suggesting that you, Laurent, are an armchair expert. That sentiment is directed at those who throw stones with no desire to improve or credit the kit in question. You are clearly not trying to do that. Sorry for suggesting otherwise.

Al

[Laurent]

The profile of the nose/pitot join is a very minor issue and at test shot stage is unlikely to garnet much response. Milliput would be a far more appropriate medium than to re-cast an entire mould.

I don't think re-cast would be necessary since they'd need to remove metal from the molds. Yes Milliput would fix the issue but the builder could break the pitot.

Similarly, the laser ranger could be cut off and a scratchbuilt part used to replace it.

The blister holds a laser ranger but also a camera at the rear apparently and the blister isn't just a single part but there are some clear and opaque parts. Also the shape of the junction between the nose and the blister isn't too simple. In other words scratchbuilding the blister isn't trivial. Perhaps sanding the parts and rescribing the panel lines will fix the blister. Blister area:

http://florent1973.f...uar_A_nez_1.htm

For me the most visible thing is the air intake/spill coaming behind the canopy. Funny thing is that the proportions looked right in Song's 1/32 prototype (and the pitot-nose fillet was there). Probably easier to fix than the nose blister. Sand, rescribe, finished.

Why chase the kit designers to change their moulds for such small adjustments? I just don't get it.

I don't think I'm chasing them and in any case I believe that the guys at KH don't care at this moment as they have kits to produce. Why ? to make the kit more "modeller friendly" (less things to fix for the shape accuracy guys) and to suggest that the designers could show the CAD model to one or several persons before tooling the molds to help them "debugging" the model.

But hear me on this! I am sorry for suggesting that you, Laurent, are an armchair expert. That sentiment is directed at those who throw stones with no desire to improve or credit the kit in question. You are clearly not trying to do that. Sorry for suggesting otherwise.

To be perfectly honest I wasn't sure you were talking about me. No apology to be done.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Laurent

[Jennings Heilig]

I don't mean to appear rude, but having been a part of the industry for many years you might have made the distinction between a precision plastic scale construction kit and a 'toy'

People make like these "precision plastic scale kits" are the be-all and end-all of their lives. My point was that regardless, they're just little plastic airplanes. Nobody is going to die if the shape of the nose is off by 0.00434mm as it would often seem based on reading some of the postings. The entire plastic model kit industry could disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, and human kind wouldn't be in a lot worse shape than it already is. That was my point, not what we call the little plastic airplanes.

[Laurent]

Nobody is going to die if the shape of the nose is off by 0.00434mm as it would often seem based on reading some of the postings.

It didn't kill you but you were pretty preoccupied by the Academy F-4B here. I wouldn't be surprised if the dimension that made people yell at the kit was submillimetric.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Laurent

[Laurent]

A guy found that the size of the wheels is different between the ones in the Heller/Airfix kit and in the KH kit so he asked for someone to measure the wheels of a real Jaguar (it's a E version):

Main wheels: 615 x 225 mm

Front wheel: 550 x 250 mm

In 1/48:

Main wheels : 12.8 x 4.6 mm

Front wheel : 11.4 x 5.2 mm

I don't own the KH kit so I can't measure the parts. It would be nice from KH is they could make new wheels for the incoming GRx... if there's any wrong obviously.

Source: http://www.master194...9685e&start=200

Edited December 11, 2012 by Laurent

[Tonka]

I don't mean to appear rude, but having been a part of the industry for many years you might have made the distinction between a precision plastic scale construction kit and a 'toy' - Jennings H -

Well, I think all of Us here and in other Forums, being people who knows the finest detail in determined aircraft , are authorized to criticism new or old productions of the model aircraft Industries, including alerting future buyers, builders and consumers about errors, misshapes between the REAL think and the SCALED think, because in my point of view that means the obligatory respect that all of the manufacturers must have for any consumers of Theirs production.

Scale models are not toys.

If We lessen our demands, arguing and thinking that "it is only a model" or "looks like" We will not pursue the high quality that the products must have to have and, with regard to the scale models, without a doubt the most important high quality is the accuracy, and the Industry must have the tools that are necessary to ensure the implementation of this work. Otherwise it will be the CHAOS .

Tonka

[Loki]

Fair comment Tonka, one which most people would agree even if some do not.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Loki

[Mike]

Mainwheels (inc tyre) diameter 14.71mm width 4.50mm

Nose wheel (inc tyre) diameter 10.03mm width 5.56mm

I've not taken them off the sprues yet, so can't accurately measure the total width, but have extrapolated by measuring a half tyre and doubling it.

Have you got any hub dimensions so that I can see where the difference appears?

[Laurent]

Have you got any hub dimensions so that I can see where the difference appears?

Nope but I've forwarded your query.

[Jennings Heilig]

\Well, I think all of Us here and in other Forums, being people who knows the finest detail in determined aircraft , are authorized to criticism new or old productions of the model aircraft Industries, including alerting future buyers, builders and consumers about errors, misshapes between the REAL think and the SCALED think, because in my point of view that means the obligatory respect that all of the manufacturers must have for any consumers of Theirs production.

Scale models are not toys.

If We lessen our demands, arguing and thinking that "it is only a model" or "looks like" We will not pursue the high quality that the products must have to have and, with regard to the scale models, without a doubt the most important high quality is the accuracy, and the Industry must have the tools that are necessary to ensure the implementation of this work. Otherwise it will be the CHAOS .

Tonka

I'm pretty sure you took whatever it was I said completely out of context, since I agree 100% with what you just said. I do think some people get *way* too wrapped around the axle about accuracy (perceived or otherwise). Some of the "discussions" about it border on the psychotic. In the end, we *are* talking about little plastic toy airplanes, not a cure for cancer or an end to warfare and hunger.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Jennings Heilig