Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Homebee

1/48 - MiG-25PD/PDS "Foxbat-E" by Kitty Hawk - released - Master pitot tube

Recommended Posts

I'm still really excited about this kit. Pity they seem to have made some basic and avoidable errors according to the guys on ARC but, to be honest, I reckon even I could remedy most of them (thanks to them pointing them out), even with my rudimentary skills! And as for the radar, I am a close everything up guy anyway. I'd be happier if they knocked all these panels and internal gubbins on the head. It'd possibly reduce the price of the kits and best of all, these open-able damn panels never fit when closed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks pretty good to me . I don't know about any "errors" but, I make it a policy not to go looking for faults in a kit. Got more important things to worry about. As long as the quality of the detail is good & it fits together well, that's all I need. Agree with Filler re the Radar etc!! I'd rather they limited internal detaiil to the likes of the cockpit/wheel wells/jet pipes. Leave the rest to the after market people!! :D

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, something has just occurred to me. I seem to recall a lot of fuss being made about one aircraft - possibly the F-15 - being the first where you could take a wing off one, attach it to another, and it would fit. So before that, every aircraft of a given type must have been made ever so slightly differently, despite being manufactured from precise drawings and assembled by what most people would assume had to be among the most skilled staff possible. Is it any surprise when small errors creep in when a model is created from the real thing?

Or, as someone's signature puts it, the real thing has 20,000 parts, and you want an exact replica from 35 bits of plastic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again :-) Let's wait and see whats in the box - and if there are any - what these "issues" really are... Besides I do not even know about what was written on FSM - maybe stuff like "the 475 gallon tank was never used on a MIG-25P in conjuction with XYZ-pod on Saturday afternoons" - means: easy to fix...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, something has just occurred to me. I seem to recall a lot of fuss being made about one aircraft - possibly the F-15 - being the first where you could take a wing off one, attach it to another, and it would fit. So before that, every aircraft of a given type must have been made ever so slightly differently, despite being manufactured from precise drawings and assembled by what most people would assume had to be among the most skilled staff possible. Is it any surprise when small errors creep in when a model is created from the real thing?

Or, as someone's signature puts it, the real thing has 20,000 parts, and you want an exact replica from 35 bits of plastic?

Differences in parts on different aircrafts of the same type do exist as every part ever manufactured by man is made within certain (set) tolerances. However these tolerances are such that once reduced in scale they would be totally invisible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had a squint to see what's supposed to be wrong with the tooling, it doesn't seem to amount to much more than a few details around the airframe and the airbrake bay, which itself can be fixed by leaving it closed. The rest are eminently fixable if they bother you by the application of some of that modelling skill we occasionally hear about. The constrictor ring in the exhausts doesn't sound too hard to fix if it's just a ring, but name me one injection moulded exhaust that hasn't been simplified. :shrug: Unless I've missed any gripes about major structural and shape issues, I'm not seeing what the fuss is about yet. :shrug:

People should be made to read Bootneck's signature, which says "The real thing has over 24,000 components, and you expect me to make an accurate representation with just 35 bits of plastic?". It does put a bit of perspective on it, doesn't it? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how those that pick up on minute and often fixable issues seem to be such a tiny minority but they managed to get the majority of us so easily riled!

I still struggle to get my head around F-16 blocks and yet the irony is that within reason, I don't actually care but, a quick trip to the internet for a kit review and the next thing I know is that I'm all deflated about building it. I did it last night when I was looking into an Academy F-15C. In the end I was left thinking that Academy's Eagle is sh*t and that Hasegawa's was too expensive and also a bit sh*t. I even read stuff critising the Revell F-15E and I'd previously thought that was supposed to be really good.

So balls to it, I will get a Foxbat and I will enjoy it and I will continue to be blissfully ignorant of the correct aerials!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differences in parts on different aircrafts of the same type do exist as every part ever manufactured by man is made within certain (set) tolerances. However these tolerances are such that once reduced in scale they would be totally invisible.

That's not my point. I was only saying that, if experts using drawings can't make two "identical" objects the same, we shouldn't be surprised if models derived from those objects aren't 100% accurate reproductions either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not my point. I was only saying that, if experts using drawings can't make two "identical" objects the same, we shouldn't be surprised if models derived from those objects aren't 100% accurate reproductions either.

Actually the "experts" have been able to make two identical objects the same for a large number of years (well more than a century). Where the terms "the same" means the same within tolerances set by the designer. The sum of these tolerances can lead to variations in the finished article when this is something as complex as an aircraft, but we should put these variations into the right perspective: an aircraft might vary by say 20 mm in total length compared to another one, but these 20 mm are just 0.2% on a length of 10 m.

To keep putting things into perspective, a value of 0.2% is an elongation that a structure under stress can easily withstand therefore it is possible that individual parts of the same aircraft in flight are longer (or shorter) by 0.2% compared to their original length. The same happens to supersonic aircrafts at high speeds due to thermal expansion, so It is true to say that the overall length of an aircraft is not the same in every flight regime... however the variations are always small anyway, we're talking fractions of %. The tolerances that even the most devoted accuracy buffs accept in model kits compared to the real things are an order of magnitude higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks pretty good to me . I don't know about any "errors" but, I make it a policy not to go looking for faults in a kit. Got more important things to worry about. As long as the quality of the detail is good & it fits together well, that's all I need. Agree with Filler re the Radar etc!! I'd rather they limited internal detaiil to the likes of the cockpit/wheel wells/jet pipes. Leave the rest to the after market people!! :D

Allan

I'm with you on this, if it knocks £10 of what will probably be a expensive kit, well initially anyway, leave it out. Someone will be along with a load of resin to replace whats there anyway.And if you want it closed as has been said the panels don't seem to fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how those that pick up on minute and often fixable issues seem to be such a tiny minority but they managed to get the majority of us so easily riled!

I still struggle to get my head around F-16 blocks and yet the irony is that within reason, I don't actually care but, a quick trip to the internet for a kit review and the next thing I know is that I'm all deflated about building it. I did it last night when I was looking into an Academy F-15C. In the end I was left thinking that Academy's Eagle is sh*t and that Hasegawa's was too expensive and also a bit sh*t. I even read stuff critising the Revell F-15E and I'd previously thought that was supposed to be really good.

So balls to it, I will get a Foxbat and I will enjoy it and I will continue to be blissfully ignorant of the correct aerials!!

Just short as it is off topic. Hasegawa has reworked the F-15E in both scales. So the new 1:72 Eagle seems to be pretty accurate now and even the 1-48 was treated with new parts and was regarded superior to the Revell (which was regarded the best F-15E in any scale) on another site. So might be worth checking. Surely it will cost a grand ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that things are sometimes better left close (I am talking about the Foxbat now...) - However when I take a look on what great detail seems to be included in the Jaguar, I am not sure if I would invest in a resin cockpit for instance. There is an excellent build somewhere here which makes me wonder if the usual resin pieces make a huge improvement. Though my opinion is only based on pictures as I will wait for the GR version and what Italeri has to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how those that pick up on minute and often fixable issues seem to be such a tiny minority but they managed to get the majority of us so easily riled!

I still struggle to get my head around F-16 blocks and yet the irony is that within reason, I don't actually care but, a quick trip to the internet for a kit review and the next thing I know is that I'm all deflated about building it. I did it last night when I was looking into an Academy F-15C. In the end I was left thinking that Academy's Eagle is sh*t and that Hasegawa's was too expensive and also a bit sh*t. I even read stuff critising the Revell F-15E and I'd previously thought that was supposed to be really good.

So balls to it, I will get a Foxbat and I will enjoy it and I will continue to be blissfully ignorant of the correct aerials!!

Lol! A very healthy attitude & I'm right with you on this!! :lol: . In any case, we haven't even SEEN the actual kit yet!! Personally, I think there's a great deal of amusemment to be had witnessing people getting so worked up over what are usually utterly trivial issues. I'm sure though that no mattter how good the model is, there will be some individuals who are determined to find fault somewhere. I'm really looking forward to this one & I hope that K H can find it within themselves to also produce the photo-recon version along with a MiG 31, SU9/SU-11/SU-7/17/22, Yak 25/Yak 28 series............

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how those that pick up on minute and often fixable issues seem to be such a tiny minority but they managed to get the majority of us so easily riled!

I still struggle to get my head around F-16 blocks and yet the irony is that within reason, I don't actually care but, a quick trip to the internet for a kit review and the next thing I know is that I'm all deflated about building it. I did it last night when I was looking into an Academy F-15C. In the end I was left thinking that Academy's Eagle is sh*t and that Hasegawa's was too expensive and also a bit sh*t. I even read stuff critising the Revell F-15E and I'd previously thought that was supposed to be really good.

So balls to it, I will get a Foxbat and I will enjoy it and I will continue to be blissfully ignorant of the correct aerials!!

There's nothing wrong with picking up on inaccuracies like the guys on Arc are doing if it makes manufacturers get things right before the kits come out. As the guy on Arc says maybe KH themselves want some feedback to get things right. I can handle a few small inaccuracies myself but manufacturers should at least take notice of what people are saying.

That's one reason I'll point out what I think are inaccuracies before the actual kit comes out....not because I like moaning but so manufacturers might notice and do the finished product correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair enough. I don't have a problem with people pointing out issues as, if something is wrong it is wrong. And those with the knowledge and interest pointing them out is great as it allows others who want a finished model to be as accurate as possible to achieve that. My problem is very personal in that I could easily live with the model as is because I like military aircraft but not enough to spot the differences between aerials sticking out.

As regards 'helping' the manufacturer is concerned, I suspect that the pointing out of issues on forums is too late. I'm sure that the status of things in Shenzhen by the time someone says that something is a bit too pointy after seeing a CAD image or test shot is too far gone for them to enter into dialogue with overseas forum members. I think I've said this before; just try to imagine how many kits we'd see on the shelves if the design process involved enthusiasts debating how gradual the taper on the nose is. I think that it would be fair to say that scratch building would be our only option to build anything. And if KittyHawk did listen to us, after a couple of years or arguing, CAD work and tooling mods we would probably be able to buy a second hand Foxbat from the Russian Air Force for less money!

That's why I personally am just happy to have a pretty acceptable representation of an aircraft and then decide if I want to go to the effort and expense of using modelling skill and aftermarket to take the thing as close as is possible to the real thing with plastic.

Sorry for going on a bit. And I am going to try and retire from this and similar debates as I already spend far too much type typing about modelling aircraft rather than actually modelling them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair enough. I don't have a problem with people pointing out issues as, if something is wrong it is wrong. And those with the knowledge and interest pointing them out is great as it allows others who want a finished model to be as accurate as possible to achieve that. My problem is very personal in that I could easily live with the model as is because I like military aircraft but not enough to spot the differences between aerials sticking out.

As regards 'helping' the manufacturer is concerned, I suspect that the pointing out of issues on forums is too late. I'm sure that the status of things in Shenzhen by the time someone says that something is a bit too pointy after seeing a CAD image or test shot is too far gone for them to enter into dialogue with overseas forum members. I think I've said this before; just try to imagine how many kits we'd see on the shelves if the design process involved enthusiasts debating how gradual the taper on the nose is. I think that it would be fair to say that scratch building would be our only option to build anything. And if KittyHawk did listen to us, after a couple of years or arguing, CAD work and tooling mods we would probably be able to buy a second hand Foxbat from the Russian Air Force for less money!

That's why I personally am just happy to have a pretty acceptable representation of an aircraft and then decide if I want to go to the effort and expense of using modelling skill and aftermarket to take the thing as close as is possible to the real thing with plastic.

Sorry for going on a bit. And I am going to try and retire from this and similar debates as I already spend far too much type typing about modelling aircraft rather than actually modelling them.

To which you could add that if manufacturers were to produce kits to the standard that the accuracy fanatics seem to want, they'd probably be so expensive as to be unaffordable for most of us. Even then, I reckon someone would find something to complain about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To which you could add that if manufacturers were to produce kits to the standard that the accuracy fanatics seem to want, they'd probably be so expensive as to be unaffordable for most of us. Even then, I reckon someone would find something to complain about

Why should they be more expensive ? There's plenty of kits on the market that are highly rated for accuracy yet they do not cost more than the others. Some of these very accurate kits cost less than £10, I'd hardly call these expensive !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To which you could add that if manufacturers were to produce kits to the standard that the accuracy fanatics seem to want, they'd probably be so expensive as to be unaffordable for most of us. Even then, I reckon someone would find something to complain about

Why ?

Accurate is not the same as detailed.

Why would an accurate shape be more expensive to produce than an inaccurate one?

Edited by Sebastien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accurate is not the same as detailed.

I fully agree with you here. It's pretty easy to see if the manufacturer emphasizes detailing over accuracy or accuracy over detailing. To me Trumpeter, Hobby Boss and KH belong to the first kind while Kinetic (in their later kits) belong to the second kind. Sometimes "well balanced" kits appear. To me the GWH MiG-29s are such kits.

Why would an accurate shape be more expensive to produce than an inaccurate one?

Well yes and no. Involving people who know the characteristic shapes and proportions of the real aircraft lengthens the development phase of the project. Time is money remember ? There may also be additional expenses if the designer travels abroad to study the real aircraft.

Edited by Laurent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old way of creating models had its emphasis in carving the molds when the hand made master had to be "translated". This has changed with the introduction of 3D/CAD techniques. Now the designer at his computer is setting the standards of the model and the translation of the data is machine labor (mostly). I just learned my lesson when a world class 1 designer gives only 40% of his abilities (for whatever reason). I think Hasegawa and Tamiya have learned this lesson others still have to learn it.

We will surely talk more about this when we have the Kfirs from Kinetic and AMK in our hands. Both were designed in parallel stressing different items of the object.

Cheers

Andreas Beck,Charlottengrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the "experts" have been able to make two identical objects the same for a large number of years (well more than a century). Where the terms "the same" means the same within tolerances set by the designer. The sum of these tolerances can lead to variations in the finished article when this is something as complex as an aircraft, but we should put these variations into the right perspective: an aircraft might vary by say 20 mm in total length compared to another one, but these 20 mm are just 0.2% on a length of 10 m.

To keep putting things into perspective, a value of 0.2% is an elongation that a structure under stress can easily withstand therefore it is possible that individual parts of the same aircraft in flight are longer (or shorter) by 0.2% compared to their original length. The same happens to supersonic aircrafts at high speeds due to thermal expansion, so It is true to say that the overall length of an aircraft is not the same in every flight regime... however the variations are always small anyway, we're talking fractions of %. The tolerances that even the most devoted accuracy buffs accept in model kits compared to the real things are an order of magnitude higher.

In an ideal world, yes 20mm would be great! However, i have heard tales of RAF Phantoms that were different in length by a total of a meter along the flight line! And im sure you have heard of the great idea that someone had of building new computer designed wings to be fitted on 60s handbuilt aircraft!!!

In the 1.72nd kits i mostly build, i can take a mm or 2 here and there, but the way the majority of the detractors that are starting to creep in here, you would think every kit was unbuildable!!!

Arabest,

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have heard tales of RAF Phantoms that were different in length by a total of a meter along the flight line!

Tales based on facts ? Wouldn't such a length dispersion have a strong influence on aircraft handling (CoG displacement) ?

In the 1.72nd kits i mostly build, i can take a mm or 2 here and there

A mm or 2 when talking about a whole fuselage (lets say 200-250mm) or a wingspan is one thing. A mm or 2 when talking about the height of a canopy (about 10mm) is another. I'm not interested at all in strict dimensional accuracy but rather in proportions accuracy.

but the way the majority of the detractors that are starting to creep in here, you would think every kit was unbuildable!!!

It would be interesting to hear what the "majority of the detractors" would actually say instead of putting words in their mouth. I strongly doubt that they'd say that every kit is unbuildable. Some would rather say "I've compared this CAD model / test shot build with such and such photos of the aircraft and I've noticed some things... given the amount of work that I feel would be necessary to improve those things and given the cost of the kit, I don't think that I'll buy the kit".

Edited by Laurent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world, yes 20mm would be great! However, i have heard tales of RAF Phantoms that were different in length by a total of a meter along the flight line! And im sure you have heard of the great idea that someone had of building new computer designed wings to be fitted on 60s handbuilt aircraft!!!

In the 1.72nd kits i mostly build, i can take a mm or 2 here and there, but the way the majority of the detractors that are starting to creep in here, you would think every kit was unbuildable!!!

Arabest,

Geoff.

Sorry but the whole idea of having a 1 m difference in length between two aircrafts of the same type and version can just be a tall tale told by someone who has no clue about aircraft design and manufacture. Even more when the overall length of a Phantom is less than 20 m. Aircrafts are made from parts made to certain tolerances and are assembled on jigs designed to have a decent accuracy, are not built by eye looking at a general arrangement drawing. If a part does not satisfy the tolerances required, it's discarded, it's not that the rest of the aircraft is built changing its dimensions to fit this part.

Moreover, the aerodynamic calculations are done considering certain lengths, spans and areas, if similar variations existed then different aircrafts of the same type would exhibit totally different flight characteristics. And I mean totally, not the small variations that are normal.

As for not being able to fit wings, a difference of a few tens of mm in the fitting would be enough to prevent a wing from an aircraft to fit on another one. Yet plenty of WW2 fighters were repaired with wings from other aircrafts without any problem...

The well known problem of a certain late '60s aircraft was due mainly to the fact that said aircrafts had not been made with modern manufacturing techniques while the new wings were all designed to be the same.... but the fact that a certain company was using obsolete techniques in the '60s does not mean that everybody else did.

Edited by Giorgio N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Box art.

Source: http://www.themodellingnews.com/2013/05/nothing-much-to-add-to-foxbat-cad-pics.html#more

Ok - as well as the artwork we have the previous pictures of the progressive CAD shots of the new KittyHawk models Mig 25 Foxbat which is set for June 2013 release,these reveal a little more of the weapons and the details we could not see on the first shots.. Please do enjoy until we can show more..

Green radome? Should be grey.

Zero flaps deflection on take off...

382737_523810751009127_140750020_n.jpg

V.P.

Edited by Homebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...