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 - Sukhoi Su-17/22UM-3K "Fitter-G" by Kitty Hawk - released

Recommended Posts

Oh yes!! .....A tiger scheme as well. On the shopping list straight away.

Thanks for the heads-up Homebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is a great scheme!

wonder if the all black wild boar is also included ??

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Werner, my mate! :cheers: How's it hanging, bru? 

With regard to this new release, is it still packing a banana down there?

And while at it, what about Stenka's proposed fix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem with the Hungarian version is that it was the Tumansky engine version, so from about 1/3 in the back the complete fuselage is different!!! It is shorter and more bulbous and of course the whole engine exhaust is different.

 

This is really nit-picking on my part but shouldnt the Ukrainian and the Czech version be a UM version and not the single seat Su-22M4 and Su-22M3 designation respectively. This art-work mistake of course will not make the kit unbuildable! :D Just shows the attention for detail by the maker.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya-gabor, could you go ask Stenka if there's any news regarding CWS releasing their correction set for the banana-shaped underbelly + wrong shock cone on the Kitty Hawk 1/48 Fitters, please? It's been quite a while now since I read these correction sets were ready for the reaping.

Thanks, bloke.

Cheers,

 

Unc2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will mever underdtand why you prrpare a kit to involve all possible variants ( different front and rear fuselages) and than do not care putting the correct markings on the respective variants....this Hungarian one fimüly does not make any sense.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Will mever underdtand why you prrpare a kit to involve all possible variants ( different front and rear fuselages) and than do not care putting the correct markings on the respective variants....this Hungarian one fimüly does not make any sense.....

Well, isn't that Kitty Hawk in a nut-shell?
Just look at what they did with SAAB JAS 39 Gripen kits as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flarpen said:

Well, isn't that Kitty Hawk in a nut-shell?
Just look at what they did with SAAB JAS 39 Gripen kits as an example.

Yeah...... unfortunately true....

Or the weapons in the Raf Jaguar boxing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say that unless this kit comes to the shelves for a lot less than the prices we were seeing for the original KH Su-22 kit, I won't be bothering. If I am going to spend that sort of money I expect to not have to deal with that absolutely farcical error of the the nose centrebody by having to to pay extra for a resin unit that is actually simpler in execution than the models effort.

 

I can deal with the multi part fuselage and the other more esoteric errors, but I can't get past that nose at that price. Fix the nose or drop the price, KH

 

Les

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To include the Hungarian version is a joke! ! !  :D  :D  :D

Kitty Hawk are you serious??? There are so many other air forces and nice schemes of the Ljulka powered Su-17 versions. Why force and insist on including the Tumansky engined Hungarian version???

 

Wrong tail, wrong engine, wrong stabilizers, wrong small intakes, strake, nose aux intakes, ejection seat . . .

 

WHY??? :wall: :wall::wall:

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And wrong fuselage , front air intake and still a VERY VERY VERY VERY nice kit for some of the specialized press experts !

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Madcop  :whip:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

WHY??? :wall: :wall::wall:

 

Because they don't really care?

 

The ironic thing is, it looks like the only green on the decal sheet is in the Hungarian insignia, which means they'd need a screen (and ink, and curing time) specifically for that layer.  So it actually added complexity and cost to include them.  It would have been cheaper *and* more accurate to include Slovak markings.  Or Angolan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

 WHY??? :wall: :wall::wall:
 

:rolleyes: Oh, "they're" drama, bloke...

Nothing Mr Stanislav Petkov wouldn't be able to fix by means of a resin correction set, I'm sure.

Oh, and in case that you're in your usual whine-just-because mode regarding kits that were not thoroughly researched and stuff, let me remind you that the Kitty Hawk Fitters still hold the best nose shape by far within all Fitter kits that were issued in 1/48th scale last year - and which is what matters the most. Everything else like, "Wrong tail, wrong engine, wrong stabilizers, wrong small intakes, strake, nose aux intakes, ejection seat" is easily fixable.

Cheers 'em,

 

Unc2 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that  Uncle Uncool  still hold the best nose shape by far also , but not only that , the meanest tongue as well ! 

 

KH scre..d it up ... that's all !

 

Madcop :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27.1.2018 at 5:31 PM, ya-gabor said:

To include the Hungarian version is a joke! ! !  :D  :D  :D

Kitty Hawk are you serious??? There are so many other air forces and nice schemes of the Ljulka powered Su-17 versions. Why force and insist on including the Tumansky engined Hungarian version???

 

Wrong tail, wrong engine, wrong stabilizers, wrong small intakes, strake, nose aux intakes, ejection seat . . .

 

WHY??? :wall: :wall::wall:

 

Best regards

Gabor

On a lighter note:

Maybe KH is right and Hungary just got the wrong plane? :devil:

 

Engine availability and or MiG-23 commonality can't be that important ;)

Or fake news altogether?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎27‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:31 PM, ya-gabor said:

To include the Hungarian version is a joke! ! !  :D  :D  :D

Kitty Hawk are you serious??? There are so many other air forces and nice schemes of the Ljulka powered Su-17 versions. Why force and insist on including the Tumansky engined Hungarian version???

 

Wrong tail, wrong engine, wrong stabilizers, wrong small intakes, strake, nose aux intakes, ejection seat . . .

 

WHY??? :wall: :wall::wall:

 

Best regards

Gabor

Or, you could simply ignore the Hungarian option and go for one of the other "correct" ones??  There now. Easy isn't it. No need to throw a hissy fit or go into rant overload!

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Albeback52 said:

Or, you could simply ignore the Hungarian option and go for one of the other "correct" ones??  There now. Easy isn't it. No need to throw a hissy fit or go into rant overload!

 

Allan

Would you be just as forgiving if a manufacturer would release say a Tornado GR.1 kit and include with it a scheme of a Tornado F3. I would be interested to hear the opinions of British modellers about this!

 

Would this be perfectly normal???

“Just don’t use those marking”

or “add a bit here and a bit there and you have an F3, after all a simple modelling job . . .”

 

I don’t think so!

 

I think Exdraken is right! For everyone who has ever seen the Su-22UM3K with Tumanskiy engines it was just a pure optical illusion and all photos remaining of the aircraft are just Photoshop tampering with reality. :winkgrin: :D KH is right!

 

Now the only problem is what do we do with the actual remaining airframes to alter them to the Ljulka version to complete the plot. 07 was taken to France after the crash, 09 and 08 are still with us and are visible to thousands of people every day!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

Would you be just as forgiving if a manufacturer would release say a Tornado GR.1 kit and include with it a scheme of a Tornado F3. I would be interested to hear the opinions of British modellers about this!

 

Would this be perfectly normal???

“Just don’t use those marking”

or “add a bit here and a bit there and you have an F3, after all a simple modelling job . . .”

 

I don’t think so!

 

I think Exdraken is right! For everyone who has ever seen the Su-22UM3K with Tumanskiy engines it was just a pure optical illusion and all photos remaining of the aircraft are just Photoshop tampering with reality. :winkgrin: :D KH is right!

 

Now the only problem is what do we do with the actual remaining airframes to alter them to the Ljulka version to complete the plot. 07 was taken to France after the crash, 09 and 08 are still with us and are visible to thousands of people every day!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Actually, I would. If a manufacturer DID produce a GR1 kit with, among the options an F3 set of markings then I would have a good laugh, then disregard the F3 markings and use them on a more appropriate model.  If the hypothetical GR1 model included appropriate marking options as well, then I don't see any problems.

 

I am savvy enough to know the difference between the two types and, I rather suspect most modellers are which, is why I find your comment : "add a bit here and a bit there and you have an F3, after all a simple modelling job . . .”  - just a little bit silly and patronising. That however is also just my opinion. Having said that, if someone wants to put F3 markings on a GR1 kit, then I have no problem with that either because, after all it's their choice and their model!

 

I cannot speak for others but, I am certainly not given to hysterical over reactions just because somebody puts an incorrect set of markings in a box. It's just a model after all and certainly not worth getting upset over.

 

Allan

 

Ps If KH or anybody else were to produce, for example a MiG 29 with RAF markings, I would personally be delighted. Totally incorrect and inappropriate of course but, I don't really care because I think it would look great!

 

Edited by Albeback52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Albeback52 said:

Actually, I would. If a manufacturer DID produce a GR1 kit with, among the options an F3 set of markings then I would have a good laugh, then disregard the F3 markings and use them on a more appropriate model.  If the hypothetical GR1 model included appropriate marking options as well, then I don't see any problems.

 

I am savvy enough to know the difference between the two types and, I rather suspect most modellers are which, is why I find your comment : "add a bit here and a bit there and you have an F3, after all a simple modelling job . . .”  - just a little bit silly and patronising. That however is also just my opinion. Having said that, if someone wants to put F3 markings on a GR1 kit, then I have no problem with that either because, after all it's their choice and their model!

 

I cannot speak for others but, I am certainly not given to hysterical over reactions just because somebody puts an incorrect set of markings in a box. It's just a model after all and certainly not worth getting upset over.

 

Allan

 

Ps If KH or anybody else were to produce, for example a MiG 29 with RAF markings, I would personally be delighted. Totally incorrect and inappropriate of course but, I don't really care because I think it would look great!

 

Hi, yeah....

But "our" "problem" is a different one!

We desperately WANT a R-29 powered Su-22,  best out of a box :)

But there is none in1/48 ....unfortunately yet!

KH sprues look like such a version was planned, and now we want it! But instead KH sells an M4 as an M3..... Su-22 that is, not the Su-17 where it might have been nearly ok (but for the fin fillet)

Some people are simply dissapointed!

 

I gof myself have a   Su -7 and a Su-17 from the old and older KP/ Kopro, OEZ family for just such a conversion....  but as a much more modern tooling is in reach ( at least I thought so!!) It id still stored and not started...

 

Sorry for the long and probably boring answer! ;)

Cheers!

 

Fürkészdarázs!!

 

(Edited, sorry for spelling from the phone..... (always an excuse, no?? ;) ))

Edited by exdraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, exdraken said:

Hi, yeah....

But "our" "problem" is a diffetent one!

We desperately WANT a R-29 powered Su-22,  best out of a box :)

But there is none in1/48 ....ungortinately yet!

KH sprues look like su h a verdion was planned, and now we want it! But instead KH sells an M4 as an M3..... Su-22 that is, not the Su-17 where it might have been nearly ok (but for the fin fillet)

Some people are simply dissapointed!

 

I gof myself have a   Su -7 and a Su-17 from the old and older KP/ Kopro, OEZ family for just such a conversion....  but as a much more modern tooling is in reach ( at least I thought so!!) It id still stored and not started...

 

Sorry for the long and probably boring answer! ;)

Cheers!

 

Fürkészdarázs!!

That's a very fair comment which I totally understand. No apology needed! 😁 We both have different approaches to modelling. I am happy to accept what comes out of the box because, I too want a modern kit of a much neglected aircraft.

 

Others, yourself included are disappointed because of accuracy issues. I understand and respect that point of view. I am just happy to have this kit.  I also remember battling the old Kopro/OEZ kits!! That is why I am content with this new model!😁

 

Happy modelling

 

Allan

  

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...