Panoz Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Sooo coool!, with Argentina's Navy decals!! I been waiting for this one for years. I'm a happy bunny, evenhaving to replace those awful anchors. Awesome photo. Now all we need are Armada markings for a Tracker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis pacheco Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Now all we need are Armada markings for a Tracker... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) Released. In stock at HLJ : http://www.hlj.com/product/khmkh80129 A in-box review: http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/kh/kit_kh_80129.shtml V.P. Edited July 19, 2014 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastien Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I received a review from Tom Cleaver. He swore a lot at the kit, at Kittyhawk, and that he would never ever touch a KH kit again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) You mean here: http://imodeler.com/2014/07/a-word-to-the-wise/ by Tom CleaverA word to the wiseJuly 18, 2014 in AviationDo not buy the Kitty Hawk F9F-8T/TF-9J Cougar. A new world’s record was set at Le Chateau du Chat today: 2 hours 35 minutes from first part cut from the sprue to the box stomped into its component atoms and dumped in the trash, under a load of used kitty litter.Not. One. Thing. Fits. Not. One.Once again, Kitty Hawk is Lucy with the football, and you the modeler are Charlie Brown.You will never, ever, see another review from me of a Kitty Hawk kit.The sad thing is, who else was going to release Cougars? Two-seater, photo bird, fighter. Not to mention all the other 50s jets they’re in the process of fooking up. And after they’ve gotten through peeing in the Cheerios, nobody else is going to touch these.Consider yourself warned. It's a pity as their subjects are really I mean with the notable exception of their F-35...V.P. Edited July 20, 2014 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 You mean here: http://imodeler.com/2014/07/a-word-to-the-wise/ It's a pity as their subjects are really I mean with the notable exception of their F-35... V.P. Based on this, I will now go & buy both versions. I do not know the "reviewer" concerned but, I refuse to be put off by the rantings of a single individual. Funny how the review on Cybermodeller seem to paint a somewhat different picture? Allan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Based on this, I will now go & buy both versions. I do not know the "reviewer" concerned but, I refuse to be put off by the rantings of a single individual. Funny how the review on Cybermodeller seem to paint a somewhat different picture? Allan Totally agree………I'm getting really bored with these so-called reviewers and armchair experts that act like spoiled children and want everything to be a 'shake and bake'…..Life is simply not like that and instead of constantly whining and berating certain manufacturers these self proclaimed 'reviewers' should be taking a more balanced approach in their assessment. Sure, the kit may not go together like an Airfix (new generation) or Tamiya kit but what about the imagination, and 'bravery' in a constantly challenging economic climate, of the manufacturer in even contemplating the production of such a kit. As others have said, lets be thankful that some of these manufacturers are 'breaking the mould' (pardon the pun) and not continuing to pump out endless variants of the ME Bf-109 or F-16 and that they are prepared to tackle something a little more esoteric. Who would have thought we would see a new mould F-101 Voodoo series, IAI Kfir, SEPECAT Jaguar, Dassault Mirage, SH-2F Seasprite and now the Cougar (and the two-seat version FIRST)….and not ONE US manufacturer in sight !!. Sure, I will wait until the kit is properly reviewed and then make my decision but I am pretty confident at least one of these Cougar kits will make it into my stash in due course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastien Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Based on this, I will now go & buy both versions. I do not know the "reviewer" concerned but, I refuse to be put off by the rantings of a single individual. Funny how the review on Cybermodeller seem to paint a somewhat different picture? Allan Easy. Tom was overjoyed on his first review he mailed. Then he separated the parts from the sprues... and sent a second review. On cybermodeler, it's an in-box review. I tend to trust Tom, he's done his fair share of ill fitting kits. Cheers, Sébastien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Based on this, I will now go & buy both versions. I do not know the "reviewer" concerned but, I refuse to be put off by the rantings of a single individual. Funny how the review on Cybermodeller seem to paint a somewhat different picture? Allan How does a "review" that doesn't even take parts off the sprue have any legitimate bearing on comments on the fit of a kit made by someone who actually has attempted to put those parts together? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I'm getting really bored with these so-called reviewers and armchair experts that act like spoiled children and want everything to be a 'shake and bake'…. I can do without the histrionics (in general- haven't read Tom's review yet), but I find it far more useful than an in-box, "Ooh, look at all the pretty little parts!" Especially when these always seem to sum up with, "Well, it looks like a good kit!" I'll be getting one of these eventually- ill-fitting kits don't scare me enough to keep me from wanting to build one. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) How does a "review" that doesn't even take parts off the sprue have any legitimate bearing on comments on the fit of a kit made by someone who actually has attempted to put those parts together? My comments on Mr Benolkin's site reposted for those that missed it: Cybermodeler reviews??? As for Tom Cleaver (who BTW is an active member here in Britmodeller; just don't remember his username right now) he also trashed the Trumpeter 1/48 MiG-15 when it was first released back in 2002, saying that he binned it after unsuccessfully trying to assemble it, also claiming that nothing fitted. I (a rather mediocre and definitely impatient modeller) did manage to successfully build both single and two seater kits without any drama so based on that I would wait for a second more detailed and objective build review before making any decisions. As for the fools commenting on that imodeler site that they'd rather built a Monogram Avenger or Lindberg Super Sabre well I suppose they still drive a '59 Chevy (you know the one with the batwings)??? Edited July 20, 2014 by Shar2 Offensive worded picture removed 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrease Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I can't get over some of the silly "it was so bad I threw it out" nonsense that pass for "reviews". The Cybermodeler reviews are just preview out of the box at the parts, that's it. I really find it hard to believe that the Cougar kit is that bad after reading all of the hysterical silliness about the F-101, which has been a really fun kit to build with...wait for it...a little bit of putty, glue, and sandpaper! Enough already. Just wish KH would do something better with their instrument panels besides decals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I could go for an F9F-8P Stephen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 As for the fools commenting on that imodeler site that they'd rather built a Monogram Avenger or Lindberg Super Sabre well I suppose they still drive a '59 Chevy (you know the one with the batwings)??? Nobody said that they'd RATHER build a Monogram Avenger- one said he had one on the shelf of doom, and another said that it was possible to build it, as he'd done so several times. I'm afraid that this is a case of "Ooh, two-seat Cougar looks nifty!" for me- at least until I have the kit, start doing some research, and AMS kicks in... bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Nobody said that they'd RATHER build a Monogram Avenger- one said he had one on the shelf of doom, and another said that it was possible to build it, as he'd done so several times. Mea Culpa then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I can't get over some of the silly "it was so bad I threw it out" nonsense that pass for "reviews". The Cybermodeler reviews are just preview out of the box at the parts, that's it. I really find it hard to believe that the Cougar kit is that bad after reading all of the hysterical silliness about the F-101, which has been a really fun kit to build with...wait for it...a little bit of putty, glue, and sandpaper! Enough already. Just wish KH would do something better with their instrument panels besides decals. EXACTLY my point entirely…………It just appears that some have lost sight of the challenge of actually building a model rather than assembling it….If there is no challenge….there is no satisfaction with seeing a job through or having a sense of achievement. And before anyone starts along the road of "Kits are so expensive these days…..we expect a kit manufacturer to deliver a 100% accurate kit that falls together in an instant", just have a think about the fact that perhaps we are culpable for driving these manufacturers to produce kits at a faster rate than is realistically possible in order to satisfy our insatiable appetite to just stick these models in our kit stash - I would find it hard to believe that anyone is actually able to keep up with the current release programme so whats the point ???. Surely we should now urge the kit manufacturers to slow their production rates down and focus on delivering three or four really accurate, well fitting kits a year…just a thought. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Nobody said that they'd RATHER build a Monogram Avenger- one said he had one on the shelf of doom, and another said that it was possible to build it, as he'd done so several times. I'm afraid that this is a case of "Ooh, two-seat Cougar looks nifty!" for me- at least until I have the kit, start doing some research, and AMS kicks in... bob Bob Err……I beg to differ with your first comment. Sadly there ARE people out there who have made such ridiculous statements in the past. I have read on more than one thread commentary to the effect that they will continue to persist with the Monogram-Revell P-61 Black Widow rather than deal with the 'monumental' issues associated with the Great Wall Hobby version…..that the Italeri 1:32 F-104G/S is 'unbuildable' and they will stick with the 20+ year old Hasegawa offering, the Monogram C-47 Skytrain is way more accurate than the Trumpeter offering etc etc …..and several dozen similar threads viewing ill-fitting Mongram-Revell kits with raised panel lines etc through rose tinted spectacles. I will be the first to admit that some of the aforementioned Revell-Monogram kits have yet to be surpassed inspite of the issues associated with 20-30 year old moulds but some individuals continue to take kit bashing anything that emerges from the 'Axis of Inaccuracy' (China,The Czech Republic and Italy) to the extreme.…..sadly. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 that the Italeri 1:32 F-104G/S is 'unbuildable' and they will stick with the 20+ year old Hasegawa offering, 20+ year old??? More like 40+.... the Monogram C-47 Skytrain is way more accurate than the Trumpeter offering etc etc …..and several dozen similar threads viewing ill-fitting Mongram-Revell kits with raised panel lines etc through rose tinted spectacles. Typical examples of that logic, the horrible Monogram F-15 (absolutely nothing fits) & the Monogram F-18 (ditto) being seriously considered as better alternatives than the equivalent Hasegawa/Academy or Hobbyboss kits, Yes we are all well aware that Monogram did release some excellent kits in the past but even at that time they did some lemons (Mirage 2000, F-86 Sabre) and even the best Monogram kits suffered from poor fit, minor shape inaccuracies etc... Offensive worded picture removed... Where is Jennings Helig for comment when you need him??? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 You mean here: http://imodeler.com/2014/07/a-word-to-the-wise/ The link is dead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrease Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) I think there's a problem with that website. None of the links are working. Edited July 20, 2014 by jgrease Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Err……I beg to differ with your first comment. Sadly there ARE people out there who have made such ridiculous statements in the past. Yes, but the particular accusation about the particular case was incorrect, and if we're complaining about people making sweeping and inaccurate statements, I thought perhaps we shouldn't do the same. For the record, I'm sticking with the Monogram P-61, because I got two for a total of about $20 (not counting the one that's been in my stash forever, now out of reach in a storage unit) and I've always wanted to try swapping parts to make it "symmetrical"- I didn't like the mis-matched engines when I first got one! Based on what I've seen online, I do think Monogram got some shapes better (base of fins, cowling, for example) but while I do have a long history with Monogram kits, I also still remember some of the post-traumatic-stress suffered when it came time to deal with seams. Putty/sand/repeat is still my least favorite part of building! I also seem drawn to kits that people complain about because of "assembly challenges"- I guess I enjoy that aspect of building. But I also appreciate a kit that doesn't require the services of a drywall installer (oops, hyperbole creeping in, just for the fun of it!) At any rate, in this case (2-seat Cougar, remember?!) it's the only game in town, I like the "shape" (of the actual aircraft) and the wild color schemes possible, so I'll certainly give it a go. I don't think "parts fitting together" is too much to ask of modern tooling, though- if Tamiya (etc) can do it, then so can others. I can find enough challenges (I've always been one for modifying/converting) that I don't need extra ones as special bonus features! ...perhaps we are culpable for driving these manufacturers to produce kits at a faster rate than is realistically possible in order to satisfy our insatiable appetite to just stick these models in our kit stash ... Ha, true enough for me! (Well, the latter- I don't drive anyone to release.) And if you think about it, if they're just going in the stash, the fit problems are irrelevant! I just hate having stash members made obsolete by newer, actually better kits while they're waiting for me to get on with it... bob 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperService Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 It strikes me that some always see the dark cloud rather than the silver lining That used to be me until I had treatment, Yes really! and now I can take a balanced view. I totally agree that some Monogram kits, at least in 48th, are very good. The B-17, P-51B and Me262 all, in my recent experience, build quite nicely. With a bit of work and a couple of extras they can hold their heads up high. The C-47 needs about as much work as the Trumpeter one but is very cheap. You pays your money and makes your choice. I have a Monogram one that will be built when I can get round to doing the floats for one. I really think some of it is down to racism, ignorance or the need to provoke conflict. Traits I have no time for at all. If somebody states that kit X is inaccurate in these areas because....and provides some evidence then it is up to the builder what to do if anything. Such 'criticism' is OK in my book as it helps others including the manufacturer who will learn who to trust. I challenge anybody to fault the Trumpeter Wyvern or Wellington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The dragonborn Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The link is dead... it seems that it has been deleted/censored, here is a google cached copy: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PSZMVSvGZbkJ:imodeler.com/2014/07/a-word-to-the-wise/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foghorn Leghorn Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Extreme views are de facto on the web, it comes with the territory. I've come across issues with kits that were never mentioned in the press, so kit reviews (whether by mag or websites) have to be taken with a pinch of salt AFAIC. The only yardstick I go by nowadays is: Do I want to build that subject? If so, then I'll have to put up with the consequences of fit, price and availability. Neil Edited July 23, 2014 by neilscrim 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Its a shame he did not show any pictures of the bad fitting parts to back up his argument. Me, I like the Cougar but will probably wait for the single seat version. Robert 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now