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. :)

sharkmouth

Kitty Hawk's 1/48th Scale Su-22M-3 & M-4

Recommended Posts

They said on the Face book page to tell them of any problems before they cut metal, so this would only be at the CAD stage now I would say. Therefore if anyone has any info for them step up and let them know.

Julien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am definitely not THE specialist here...

and I am NOT on facebook, so... maybe sonebody con forward this to KH if seen relevant....

CAD is for an Su-17 M3/M4, and Su-22 M4 and and maybe UM3K (2 SEATER), but NOT an Su-22M3....

Su-22M3 has a different engine (R29) with a way thicker, fatter, exhaust, rear fuselage area.... as used by many interesting airforces... (Peru, Libya, Iraq, Hungary,...)

for an M4 it generally looks good to my already a bit tired eye...

maybe the exhaust area is still a bit skinny i.e. too thin?

nose cone looks to be in in line with the main fuselage, not tilted down as the front fuselage is...

inner wing pylons might be a bit too high. looks a bit like the adapter pylons are mated on twice... but without the contours and panel lines that is a bit difficult!

cockpit s for an early Su-22M3/4, without the TV screen necessary for guided missiles guidance (sic...),,, (Ch-25MT, Ch-29T) letters CH-.. can be found as KH as well...

weapons/ load out is for a Su-17/22M3/4R i.e. recce version, the tilt-able 23mm cannon pods are not normally seen on recce equipped planes. the SPS-141 jamming pod was always counter balanced with an (empty?) rocket pod UB-32 or B-8M

all in all very welcome CADs!

Ya-Gabor will come along with all the necessary input for sure, hopefully not too late!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks good, another Su-22 enters the fray. And they are asking for advice which is a good sign.

And just as I was getting ready to start the eduard one :banghead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am NOT on facebook, so... maybe sonebody con forward this to KH if seen relevant....

I will forward it to the owners. You picked up some of what I saw and the rear fuselage may be separate indicating that the M3 may be on the horizon as well. This would be part of the sprue tree design which comes later as there is still a bit missing (such as canopy details).

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never good at 'spot the difference' but the pylons look tall to me, ought to be about 2/3rds of the height? And the upper edge of the middle and inboard pylon ought to be parallel or near parallel...

The hump seems suspicious as well but it's hard to pinpoint the exact reason, even harder to put it in word! Let's try: it ought to be taller just after the canopy and the 'ramp' longer.

I'm not sure from the pics whether the hump is faired to the fuselage, but in case, there's a well-defined line between the two on the real a/c.

The wing's leading edge is perhaps too sharp.

This is what jumped to my eye and might have been influenced by my acquaintance with the KP kit. But I'm sure more knowledgeable modellers will offer their thoughts about the matter.

Only, please, please, please, whether you do a Fitter or a Tinker or a Plumber, above all else KH do something about warped sprues. The MiG-25 I bought did not comply with Euclidean geometry, and I don't know if I will ever get around to build it.

Somewhat surprisingly I'm less than happy with that.

It would be a deal breaker if I hear complaints about the next releases as well...

Edited by Bonehammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hump seems suspicious as well but it's hard to pinpoint the exact reason, even harder to put it in word! Let's try: it ought to be taller just after the canopy and the 'ramp' longer.

I'm not sure from the pics whether the hump is faired to the fuselage, but in case, there's a well-defined line between the two on the real a/c.

It isn't possible to have a clear picture because of the shading. If wire-frame rendering is used, things are more contrasted and one can eventually overlay the CAD model and pics or drawings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it looks good, maybe a few minor changes, but I cant vouch for the 4+ plans I used to overlay on the CAD. If plans are good the the part where the nose meets the canopy is slightly off shape as is the tail. But I am sure there are better experienced people out there.

1_zpsmv1jlbli.jpg

Not bad if you ask me

Edited by Skids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm cautious about 4+ drawings. The windscreen and canopy are too shallow. It's a good thing KH didn't trust 4+. I prefer Zlinek or Armada. Also the shading only allows to look at the outline, not at the inside.

Edited by Laurent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ventral fin springs too my eye when looking at your overlay Skids,

rest looks surprisingly spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm cautious about 4+ drawings. The windscreen and canopy are too shallow. It's a good thing KH didn't trust 4+. I prefer Zlinek or Armada. Also the shading only allows to look at the outline, not at the inside.

Thanks for pointing that out wasn't sure how good they were. I dont have the Zlinek or Armada. I was only looking at the outline shape and waiting to see more.

ventral fin springs too my eye when looking at your overlay Skids,

rest looks surprisingly spot on!

If the 4+ plans are not that good then maybe they are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 4+ plans are not that good then maybe they are right.

attention,

there is some artificial reflection in the CADs exactly on the ventral fiin tip... I missinterpreted it on the overlay........ so maybe they are correct...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only add what I have pointed out on ARC this morning at a first glance. I did not compare it to any drawings just the feel of it. Of course the ejection seat was the first I noticed! :winkgrin:

One part which is most visible of the cockpit is the headrest of the ejection seat. The CAD image shows problems with details of the headrest:
- The area around the PPK units is completely wrong.
- The front padding of the headrest is wrong shape.
- The seat arming strand cover is missing.
- The proportions of the stabilizing guns housing are wrong.
- That cylindrical “thing” on the back of the seat (visible on the CAD so visible on the final kit too) should not be there. It was on experimental seats only!

- The chaff/flare dispensers on the bottom of the tail are missing. They were a standard fit to Russian airframes.

- The pylon for the KKR container has some problems.
- Based on the CAD this is only the KKR-1 container while the Russians in most cases used the later version which is different.

One thing is (but it is only my idea) concerning the swing-wing. It is sad that kit manufacturers want to give you the option of a REAL swing-wing kit, I would say making the scale kit into a TOY. By offering the choice of moving outer wings they have to make place for it inside the unmoving part of the wing. Then there is minimal thickness of plastic, all this results in over thick wing root. Just see the KP / OEZ Su-17 kits. A simple solution would be to do separate outer and inner wings, one for open and one for closed swing-wing version. Yes it would add to costs in tooling and more parts on sprues (big parts they are too) but would result in authentic wings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This would be far more important than to have a fully detailed engine!!!!! How many times you have a fully detailed engine next to the kit??? Compared to this every kit has its wings. biggrin.gif So what is more important??? hmmm.gif

Having seen (and sold it as quickly as possible) the Kitty Hawk MiG-25 I don’t think this manufacture will be the one who goes this way. I have serious doubts about Kitty Hawn kits. But you never know what comes in the end. . .

Best regards

Gabor

One more thing: if they want to do the real Su-22M3 with the Tumansky engine one has to know that it is not just the exhaust area but all the way to frame where the tail is separated for engine maintainance. The whole after section was different!!!!!!!!!!!!! The underfuselage strake is compeltely different design on the M3. The nose section also has some differences so . . .

For the M3 you would have the earlier K-36DM ejection seat which has a completely different headrest!

Note that there was the Su-22M3 with the Ljulka engine also which is basically identical to M4 version.

Edited by ya-gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found a version of the Armada plans (not great res) and overlaid them on the CAD and it looked a lot better.

attention,

there is some artificial reflection in the CADs exactly on the ventral fiin tip... I missinterpreted it on the overlay........ so maybe they are correct...

The ventral fin looked better but the rear angle of the Tail fin was slightly out. Will see if I can get a better version tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that there was the Su-22M3 with the Ljulka engine also which is basically identical to M4 version.

thanks for chiming in!

I never heard of a Su-22M3 with Al-21 before, of course there is the Su-17M3 with the Al-21!! was it ever exported as Su-22M3?? Of course, this is more or less a designation thing, but who operated these planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be Su-17M3 or the M3R.

Concerning the Su-22M3 with Tumansky engine few years ago there was a resin conversion set for the KP kit. It shows clearly from were the new tail should be.

Su-22M3Tumansky.jpg

Do the KH people have a photo from the CAD of the windshield?? Manufacturers usually get it completely wrong.

Here is the front armour glass that I have in my museum.

Su-22.jpg

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice piece of front armour glass Gabor

Managed to get a copy of the armada plans and here is a rough overlay.

armada_zpsqpdutidx.jpg


I know KH have a bad rep but maybe just maybe with the help of the people who know there stuff it could be a good kit.

Simon

Edited by Skids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should really try and hire a real expert instead of relying on Facebook comments. We've all seen it before. Some armchair "expert" will say this or that's wrong when it isn't.

After all we don't want another Mig 25 type disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should really try and hire a real expert instead of relying on Facebook comments. We've all seen it before. Some armchair "expert" will say this or that's wrong when it isn't.

After all we don't want another Mig 25 type disaster.

Good point, also being that there are plenty of Fitters still about could they not employ Airfix's method with LIDAR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, also being that there are plenty of Fitters still about could they not employ Airfix's method with LIDAR?

To employ "experts" cost money, to go and have a look / measure / photo / “feel” the real aircraft costs money, to do a 3D scan of the original (aircraft/tank/whatever the subject) and all the later comp. work (also buying the appropriate software) associated with producing a real 3D CAD model costs even more!!!!

Unfortunately most kit manufacturers don’t like spending money on research /development but LOVE the sound of the cash machine when they sell the kits! It is far easier and lot, Lot, LOT cheaper to use some dubious scale drawings and few internet/google photos to produce the “masters” for the next kit.

Any contribution from those wanting to help in production (of a better kit / representation of the real aircraft in scale) is taken by the manufacturers as a gratis donation. In some cases they demand a lot of real work and research from the contributors which in real life terms costs a lot of money. They would never pay for it. And here we are not only talking about manufacturers from the Far-East but also many Western kit makers!

There is a limit to the amount of work one is willing to do free purely out of love of kits and scale modelling for the manufacturers and the funny thing is that in some cases the manufacturers are the ones who feel offended when the contributor refuses to help!

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should really try and hire a real expert instead of relying on Facebook comments. We've all seen it before. Some armchair "expert" will say this or that's wrong when it isn't.

Relying on a single person is a very bad idea. It's not because the person knows the subject that she knows how to explain the issues. Several contributors are necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the costs would be too high Gabor just wishful thinking on my part.

If I had good knowledge I would freely give it, but I don't and any research I do would just emulate mistakes others had made before.

How would someone go about getting the correct drawings? Would it be trying to get them from Sukhoi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately most kit manufacturers don’t like spending money on research /development but LOVE the sound of the cash machine when they sell the kits!

Most kit manufacturers cannot afford to do research so it's outsourced to contributors.

There is a limit to the amount of work one is willing to do free purely out of love of kits and scale modelling for the manufacturers and the funny thing is that in some cases the manufacturers are the ones who feel offended when the contributor refuses to help!

The limit is imposed by the producer because he doesn't reveal enough of the project for the contributors to work efficiently.

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...