Kitty Hawk Su-34 Fullback (KH80141) 1:48

[Mike]

Su-34 Fullback (KH80141)

1:48 Kitty Hawk

 

 

The Sukhoi Su-34, known by the NATO reporting name 'Fullback' is an all-weather strike fighter, designed to replace the ageing Su-24 Fencer in Russian service. Despite being based on an existing design (the Su-27), the type endured an extremely protracted development, punctuated by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Eventually, 200 of the type are expected to enter service, replacing approximately 300 Su-24s. There are many differences between the Su-27 and the Su34, principal amongst which is a completely new nose, which accommodates the crew side-by-side, and gives it a duck-billed look that is hard to capture, plus small canards forward of the main planes, all of which has a reduced front radar signature, due to basic stealth shaping.  Since September 2015, Su-34s have been involved in the conflict in Syria, dropping BETAB-500 and OFAB-500 bombs. There has already been interest in the type from overseas customers. Algeria has ordered an initial batch of 12 aircraft, while Vietnam is apparently also interested in the type.

 

The Kit

This is a complete new tool from Kitty Hawk, following on from another manufacturer's slightly flawed attempt, so a lot of people are hoping it's right.  It arrives in a large box, as it is a big aircraft with 12 hardpoints for attaching munitions, of which KH are apt to include many!  The boxtop art shows a Fullback climbing out after causing some chaos with some oil storage tanks, and inside the lid it quite a full box – the artwork header has also been updated from the original to a more modern, funky look to catch the eye, as you can see above.  Many of these semi-blended designs are moulded with wings integral to the fuselage halves, which reduces the part count and usually means that half the box is taken up with just two parts.  Not so here, as the wings are separate, and all the available space is taken up with parts.  The fuselage halves still take up the full length of the box, and there is a high parts count due to the generous provision of Russian weapons.  Beside the two fuselage halves there are thirteen sprues in pale grey styrene, a sprue of clear parts, four resin (yes, resin!) exhaust cans, a sheet of Photo-Etch (PE) parts, and three decal sheets of various sizes.  The instruction booklet has a glossy cover with fold-out leaves that detail the box contents in front and painting of the weapons at the rear, while the full colour painting and markings guide is found in the centre of the booklet, which will be more use when removed carefully and the staples bent back so your instruction booklet doesn't fall apart, which is exactly what I've just done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First impressions are good, with a little flash around the large complex fuselage mouldings, which isn't entirely surprising, as they are complex shapes.  There are slide-moulding seams behind and forward of the cockpit opening that will need a little attention before construction, and just aft of that a few panel lines have been tooled very faintly so they don't catch on the mould as the part is ejected.  These would be best deepened with your favourite scribing tool before you get too far into the build.  The inboard walls of the rear engine nacelles also suffer from this to a slightly lesser extent, so while you have your scriber out, fix those too.  They're not defects, but necessities of production that have been present since injection moulding model kits began.  The massive array of weapons provides spans six sprues, and it's best to consider them as a generic set, as there are some that won't be used and more that the Su-34 can carry.  It's cheaper for KH to tool one set of weapons for all Soviet/Russian subjects than individual load-outs again and again.

 

 

 

Construction begins with the cockp…. Nope, with the engines for a change, which KH have included for good measure, and to which are fair quantity of parts are devoted, only to be hidden away unless you're planning on opening up some panels, which will of course require some surgery to the upper fuselage, but if you flip it over, you'll see that KH have thoughtfully included two panels above each engine that can be cut out from the inside to provide access to the engines, with rivets engraved on the interior so they can be left lying about as if they are being worked on.  Sure, they're a bit thick, but this is a much better option than just hiding the detail away, and if you're interested in scale fidelity, you have a shape template to base your work on.  Both Saturn AL31FM1s are included, and they are set aside until later on in the build.  Whether you paint them fully is entirely up to you and whether you want to cut those panels out, but I'd probably just do the front and rear faces, as they're all that will be seen eventually.  Now it's the turn of the cockpit, and the first item is a pair of well-detailed Zvezda K36dm seats, which have PE seatbelts included, and are an improvement on earlier kits.  The cockpit floor has the side consoles moulded in, and slots for the ejection ladders, plus control columns and decals for all panels, which are printed on a small decal sheet that has an almost photographic look to it.  The rear bulkhead and access door fit to the back, and the instrument panel to the front to finish off, then this too is set aside while the gear bays and cannon bay are built up.  The former are well-detailed with individual panels and additional parts to give a busy look, while the cannon bay is somewhat simpler with only a few parts in addition to the breech.  The nose gear bay is more complex, and has the hatch for crew access moulded in, with a ladder built into the nose gear bay later on.  This explains why you should never see a Fullback with its cockpit open, unless the crew are about to disappear on their ejection seats.  Finally, the fuselage is ready to close up, after the aforementioned fettling and the removal of the residual sprue gates that can be found on the mating surfaces in places, which is an effort to avoid marring surface detail and IMHO is a great idea that is slowly creeping into kits from various manufacturers.  The gear bays, two engine supports, the engines themselves and the cockpit are all added to the lower half, with the upper fuselage dropped on and glued along with the canards, which pivot on a pin, so you can set them to whatever pitch seems appropriate after checking your references.  The forward facing radar is fitted to the blunt end of the fuselage, and the nose cone is popped over it, covering it up unless you do some scratching and pose it opened.  The pilot's HUD is a sizeable part, and has a trough in the cockpit coaming, a PE glass support, and two part glazing, plus a horizontal lens on the clear sprue.  A few probes and the refuelling probe are added, although I'd leave those until later on in case I broke them off.

 

 

 

 

The twin vertical stabilisers are next, with a single thickness that is bolstered at the root, and with separate rudder, antennae and clear formation light.  These are also set aside (the theme of this build!) while the exhausts and stinger are made up.  You may have noticed that the exhaust cans are resin, and you can choose open or closed positions to suit your intended situation, with the tabs at the rear locking it in place on the two-part exhaust trunks.  Careful painting whilst paying attention to your references will result in a good finish to this area.  The Stinger is the fairing between the engines, and contains the rear radar, as well as various other equipment, and the chaff and flare dispensers that are fired to confuse and thwart incoming missiles.  The body of the stinger is two part, with a recess in the top for the PE dispensers, and holes in the rear that accommodate three PE exhaust vents, which will need rolling to fit the contours of the surrounding area.  These assemblies are all fitted to the rear along with some more small parts, and the tail fins attach to the sides of the fuselage with two locating pins each.

 

 

Before the engine nacelles are installed, additional parts are added inside the main wheel bays that will mate with the corresponding cut-outs in the nacelles later on.  Each nacelle is built up in the same manner, with a main outer skin, small PE auxiliary intakes on the sides, plus a pair of blow-in doors further back.  The intake ramp attaches to the eventual roof of the intake, and a two-part trunk changes the interior profile to match the cylindrical shape of the engine front.  A small elliptical insert is added to the outside of each one before they are fitted to the fuselage, along with a few more small parts hither and thither.

 

It still needs wings, which is next and begins with the elevators, which have fairings added at their base, and when they are attached to the fuselage, another part is added, which connects them to a hinge-point in the fuselage rear.  The main wings are each two parts, with slats and flaps front and rear respectively, along with a small wing fence toward the tip, and a choice of straight or curved fairing where the leading edge meets the tip rails, which you'll need to check your references to select the correct one for your airframe, as all the decal profiles show curved fairings.  They fit into the fuselage on two tabs with a good mating surface, and should blend with the upper surface with a little care and test-fitting.

 

Landing is tricky without wheels, and Russian fighters invariably have tough gear for rough field operation, and twin rear wheels on bogies are the norm.  The Fullback has sturdy struts reminiscent of the Mig-31, but with both wheels on the outer face of the bogie.  The legs have separate scissor-links and additional actuators, with a pair of two-part wheels each, which have decent hub and tyre detail.  There should be some circumferential tread, which is absent due to moulding limitation, but as these aircraft are often seen with threadbare tyres, painting them to resemble well-used examples gets round needing to replicate this.  Either that or you could treat yourself to a set of wheels from Eduard that will doubtless fit this newer tooling.  The nose gear is also pretty substantial and has a high parts count, which includes a pair of clear landing lights.  The crew ladder is in two parts and fits to the rear of the leg, above the mudguard that nestles behind the tyres to reduce FOD intrusion into the airframe on rough airstrip movements.  The wheels are each two parts, and again there is no tread, despite it being shown on the diagrams.  Happily, each gear leg can be added to a completed airframe, which is good news as it saves them from damage during handling.  There are scrap diagrams of each main gear bay showing how things should look once you have installed them and the small surrounding panel at the rear of the bays.    The front gear bay doors are single parts, while the rear bay doors all have additions before they can be inserted, with actuators adding a bit of realism.  More scrap diagrams show their orientation after they are added, so there's little chance of making a slip-up here.

 

Before you can load up your Fullback, you need pylons, which are all fitted with PE shackles or styrene sway-braces before they are added to the model alongside the wingtip rail.  A twin rail fits between the nacelles, and either three underwing pylons, or two and a double are attached to each wing, plus the wingtip pods already mentioned.  Additional single rails fit to the underside of the nacelles level with the gear legs.  As already mentioned, there is a ton of weapons on those six sprues, with ten pages devoted to building them up.  This is what's selected to be carried by the Su-34:

 

2 x FAB-500-M54 general purpose bomb

2 x BETAB-500 bunker buster

2 x OFAB-250-SZN bomb

2 x SPPU-22 gun pod

2 x U-6 pylon adapter

2 x R77 Missile Adder medium range A2A missile

2 x R73 Archer short range A2A Missile with APU-73 adapter

2 x UBK-23 gun pod

2 x GUV-8700 gun pod

2 x R27-ET/R27-ER Alamo medium range missiles with APU-470 pylon adapter

2 x R27-T Alamo medium range missiles with APU-470 pylon adapter

4 x R60 Aphid short-range A2A missile with three types of pylon adapters

2 x U-4 adapter rail

2 x UB-32 rocket pod

2 x KH-35 Kayak anti-shipping missile

2 x S-24 rocket with APU-68 pylon adapter

2 x KH-23 Kerry A2G missile with APU-68 pylon adapter

2 x KH-59 Kazoo TV guided missile

2 x KAB-250 satellite guided bomb

4 x FAB-250-M62 bomb

4 x FAB-250-TS bomb (there's a spelling mistake showing it as "F2B" on the instructions)

4 x FAB-250-M54 bomb

2 x BETAB-500-ZD penetrator bomb

4 x SAB-100 high explosive bomb

2 x S-25-A, B & C rocket

2 x RBK-500-250 cluster bomb

2 x B-8M rocket pod

2 x B-13 rocket pod

2 x KH-25-ML/MT Karen A2G Missile

2 x KH-29L Kedge laser guided A2G missile

2 x KAB-500KR TV guided bomb

2 x KAB-500L laser guided bomb

2 x KAB-1500-L/KR laser/TV guided bomb

2 x UB-16 rocket pod

2 x KH-31 A2G missile

2 x KH-58ME Kilter missile

2 x KH-58 Kilter missile with AKU-58 pylon adapter

 

 

 

 

There are two pages of diagrams showing which stations the various weapons are suitable for, but if you're going for accuracy, check your references for some real-world loadouts, as with all aircraft there are limitations.  The parts on the sprues are also marked by designation, with all the parts for each weapon sub-numbered within that section of the sprue.

 

Markings

The largest decal sheet is for the armament, with each weapon's stencils and markings sectioned off with a dotted line and the designation, which will make applying them a much easier proposition.  Four pages of colour diagrams at the rear of the booklet show their colours and markings.

 

Once you have unpicked the main painting guide from the centre of the booklet, you can rotate them so they're easier on the eye, where you'll discover that there are four markings options, each with four views so that there is no guesswork with the camouflaged options.  Everything is a good size too, which makes reading the decal numbers and other details a lot easier than some of their first kits, proving that KH have come a long way in all departments.  There is a variety of schemes available out of the box, two of which use the three shades of blue camo, one in primer, and another in dark blue over blue, and all rocking a fetching white radome.  There are also large expanses of bare metal where paint wouldn't last, on the underside of the engine nacelles, and the leading edges of the elevators (hot missile exhaust?).  From the box you can build one of the following rather generically described airframes:

 

• Russian Aerospace Defence Forces Red 02 in three-tone blue camo
• Russian Aerospace Defence Forces Red 03 in three-tone blue camo
• Russian Aerospace Defence Forces in primer
• Russian Aerospace Defence Forces in dark blue over pale blue

 

 

 

 

It is unclear where and by whom the decals were printed by, but in general they are of good quality with decent sharpness and colour density except for the use of half-tones to create orange and the dielectric panel decals.  On my sample, the dielectric panels also expose an element of mis-registration of the white, which is offset, giving the panels a drop-shadow effect on the sheet, which will probably disappear once applied.  I would however be tempted to paint them and create some masks using the decals as templates.  The white also shows up in the outlined digits as well as the tail decal BBC POCCИИ having the entire white outline projecting from the top, rather than equally spaced around the letters.

 

 

Conclusion

The plastic looks great, and as Kitty Hawk has stated that they want their Su-34 to be the best on the market in the scale, it shows that they have put additional effort into this model.  The huge choice of weapons are also highly detailed, which are likely to be seen again as KH fill more gaps in the Soviet/Russian line-up, and we can forgive them for the little faux pas with the decals, which can be rectified fairly easily – hopefully it's an isolated case.

 

As to shape, I've put some of the main parts together with tape to get a feeling for the overall shape of the airframe, and my first impression is that it's a good overall shape, with maybe a little more of a flare to the tip of the radome needed at the front, but it's very hard to gauge against photos of the airframe due to distortion and such, so I'll leave the final decision to you guys.  If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the main forums and link back to this thread

 

 

 

 

 

Very highly recommended.

 

We're now building this one, and you can find the thread here, with plenty of hints and tips, as well as pictures of the process

 

Review sample courtesy of

Available soon from major hobby shops

 

[Mike]

Edited to add in the taped-together pictures.  it's kind of BIG!

[asgardiano]

i did compare the two kits in quesion and of course the KYTTYHAWK  is more better then the other ! which cost me a fortune in resins and etched metal parts ! 

[Flankerman]

4 hours ago, Mike said:

and a choice of straight or curved fairing where the leading edge meets the tip rails, which you'll need to check your references to select the correct one for your airframe, as all the decal profiles show curved fairings.

 

Great review Mike - although not my scale.

 

Re the curved fairings - they appear to be fitted when the wingtip ECM pods are carried - but not when the wingtip missile launch rail is used.

 

Must be an aerodynamics thing.

 

Ken

 

 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Flankerman said:

Great review Mike - although not my scale.

Thanks Ken - I'm tempted to say I'd heard that about the fairings before, but I couldn't guarantee it was about the Fullback.  Should be called the Fullbox

[aircooled]

Still waiting for a build review before I pull the trigger - the Kitty Hawk plastic looks great but the real test will be to see how it all fits together.

[ChrisL]

Is there a decent 1/72 Fullback? I like the aircraft but it is very large! I have a vague idea that there's a fairly recent 1/72 tooling but at what almost seems to be 1/48 pricing, is it any good?

[Julien]

41 minutes ago, aircooled said:

Still waiting for a build review before I pull the trigger - the Kitty Hawk plastic looks great but the real test will be to see how it all fits together.

@Mike did mention something about building it

[March]

Oooh! I've got one on order and I'm just finishing up my build of the KH Su-35S, the main fuselage and wing assembly for the Su-34 is identical to the Su-35. If my experience is anything to go by, as long as care is taken attaching the wings, there should be little trouble. The tail fins gave me the most issues, and even then they were not that problematic. 

 

 

[Flankerman]

9 hours ago, ChrisL said:

Is there a decent 1/72 Fullback? I like the aircraft but it is very large!

 

Trumpeter do a 1/72 scale Su-34......

 

 

The nose shape needs fixing - along with a few other issues - but it is currently the best 1/72nd Su-34 available.

 

My build is here.

 

And.... for completeness, my build (and upgrade) of the old Italeri Su-34.

 

And... for even more completeness, my conversion to make the Su-34 prototype.... the Su-27IB.

 

Ken

 

[Marlin]

I think I now know what I'm getting for Christmas.  

Thanks for the review Mike. 

 

/Bosse 

[exdraken]

On 7/2/2018 at 5:39 PM, Mike said:

Edited to add in the taped-together pictures.  it's kind of BIG!

Thanks for the review Mike!

Shouldn't it be the same size as any Flanker.?..just more massive!

 

[Radleigh]

I had two HobbyBoss Su-34's, and sold one to make way for this, and I made the right choice.. It looks better and better each time! Just need to find the money now as I spent the last lot  

[salomon]

I just get mine yesterday, the kit is really a nice one and I'm happy with it. Please think about the SU-24, the SU-25, SU-54 (PAK-FA), also the Kamov 50/52 and the Mi-28, there are so many exciting aircraft and helicopter that I really want to build.

[thepureness]

Happy with my HB kit as my experience with kitty hawk isn't the best

[IGKent]

Magnificent review Mike!  (as always)  When you start build it? Some parts will need to change on correct aftermarket details. 

[jgrease]

Can Mike explain to me what makes this kit "very highly recommended"? Is that a reflection of the perceived value of what's in the box versus cost? It's obviously not a reflection of parts fit, the quality of the decals when applied, or anything similar. Perhaps the review is geared towards kit collectors vs kit builders? My boxing of the kit featured lots of flash, poor fit in some places, and the decals were thick and did not respond to setting solutions. How am I to trust any reviews on BM after that kind of experience? Perhaps Mike can build the Su-34 kit using nothing more than what's in the box and show readers how well a "very highly recommended" kit goes together.

[Mike]

You seem a little bitter about this kit, so please accept my commiserations.  I've built a couple of Kitty Hawk kits in the past, and apply the same methodology to them, using modelling skills (such as they are) to resolve any issues.  KH aren't a company that you can just slap together without first testing fit, and I have said this a number of times in my reviews.  I'm sorry you got the special "flashy" boxing, but you can see from the sprue shots and detail pics that there was little in the way of flash on my example, and I can assure you that we don't get special versions that are superior to what's available on the shelves.  Flash isn't something that should slow you down by much anyway unless you don't have tools such as a sharp blade and sanding sticks, so I've never really found it a problem.  Clearly, I prefer not to have it, so I was happy with my example, and can only judge by that example. Models like this require and deserve the application of modelling skills, and as we're all only human, sometimes it's our fault when things go wrong.  It's just the way things go, and recognising your own fallibility is a healthy way to view the world.  I have to say though, the tape-up I did (check the photos again) was very encouraging with fit.

 

I've used KH decals in the past too, and although they have improved somewhat in the printing, they've never been comparable with the likes of Cartograf, who seem to be the de facto benchmark for decal quality.  Also, I can't tell how well the decals will go down on this particular model by tasting the glue or carrier film, so they must be judged on past experience.  I've never yet met a decal that I couldn't soften with either Gunze Mr Mark softer/setter, or the excellent Daco strong solution, so perhaps pick up a pot of that next time you're shopping?  Looking at the decals they don't appear thick in my boxing, so maybe you got the special edition "leatherette" version?  I'm making light of it, as I don't have your decals to look at, but how could I have a different sheet when they're all printed in a run?

 

Finally, we don't have time to build everything we review or we'd need some form of time dilation device, and mine would need to be permanently set to maximum as I'm a slow builder for various reasons.  Don't forget that this is an in box review at essence, showing what's in the box, so calling my veracity into question over "issues" that couldn't possibly be visible in the box is a bit of a leap and a little on the disrespectful side.  I'll put it down to sour grapes because you didn't enjoy the model, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others won't.  I've seen people build a kit with no problems that someone else has built with massive gaps, copious filler and additional screw-ups, and it's not always novices having trouble, so it's clear that it's to a great extent objective. Except Silver Cloud.  We all agree they're horrific!

[jgrease]

Mike,

 

You've provided a kit review in the box, and for the life of me I can't conceive how one can look at the contents of a box of plastic and judge them to be "very highly recommended". Let me address your points as they appear:

 

-Regarding the fit and finish of the parts, you suggest "using modeling skills" to resolve them. This is one of the oldest lines these days - trust me - I am certain that I have "modeling skills", and the poor fit of parts and the over-engineering can't be explained away with any lack of said skills. Poor fit and finish is poor fit and finish. I've had plenty of experience with KH kits - I built the F-101A/C kit when it came out just to counter the argument made by some that it was "unbuildable" - it took work and went together adequately. However, the Su-34 in my opinion, shows little improvement over previous KH releases. It's as if the kit designers have never built a model airplane in their lives, and it seems like they can't even be bothered to go online and learn from other manufacturers. Sorry Mike, but "using modeling skills" is not an excuse for poor kit design and implementation. Your taped together fuselage isn't going to show you issues like the multi-part engines not going together into a circular shape, or the fit of the resin exhausts to those engines. 

-These particular decals were not at all like previous one I've used from their kits. Usually, they go down and can't be moved again, but take the shape of anything protruding. I've not had issues with previous ones, but these were out of register and thick. They did not settle under Micro-Sol and even after lathering on Solvaset they would not settle down into panel lines or contours. 

-Finally, why would it be "disrespectful" to ask questions about how you arrived at your conclusions? If you don't want to answer, then why not just post your "reviews" and disable comments? I haven't called you any names, and all I've done is ask questions and make observations. When you bought your last car, did you just look at it and pay for it, or did you look at the performance specs and take it for a ride? When you asked to take a test drive was that "disrespectful" to the salesman because you asked questions? 

Oh well, I'll take your passive-aggressive responses intimating a lack of skill on my part for what it is - it's human nature to get defensive when one's opinions are questioned. Thanks anyway Mike.

[Mike]

32 minutes ago, jgrease said:

Oh well, I'll take your passive-aggressive responses intimating a lack of skill on my part for what it is

The irony!   You're clearly in it for the trolling, so we'll leave it at that, eh?

[jgrease]

Seriously Mike, you're calling me a troll because I questioned your review? Is that what happens when your review is questioned? Thanks very much.

Edited November 16, 2018 by jgrease
Spelling error.

[thepureness]

On 11/16/2018 at 4:47 PM, jgrease said:

Mike,

 

You've provided a kit review in the box, and for the life of me I can't conceive how one can look at the contents of a box of plastic and judge them to be "very highly recommended". Let me address your points as they appear:

 

-Regarding the fit and finish of the parts, you suggest "using modeling skills" to resolve them. This is one of the oldest lines these days - trust me - I am certain that I have "modeling skills", and the poor fit of parts and the over-engineering can't be explained away with any lack of said skills. Poor fit and finish is poor fit and finish. I've had plenty of experience with KH kits - I built the F-101A/C kit when it came out just to counter the argument made by some that it was "unbuildable" - it took work and went together adequately. However, the Su-34 in my opinion, shows little improvement over previous KH releases. It's as if the kit designers have never built a model airplane in their lives, and it seems like they can't even be bothered to go online and learn from other manufacturers. Sorry Mike, but "using modeling skills" is not an excuse for poor kit design and implementation. Your taped together fuselage isn't going to show you issues like the multi-part engines not going together into a circular shape, or the fit of the resin exhausts to those engines. 

-These particular decals were not at all like previous one I've used from their kits. Usually, they go down and can't be moved again, but take the shape of anything protruding. I've not had issues with previous ones, but these were out of register and thick. They did not settle under Micro-Sol and even after lathering on Solvaset they would not settle down into panel lines or contours. 

-Finally, why would it be "disrespectful" to ask questions about how you arrived at your conclusions? If you don't want to answer, then why not just post your "reviews" and disable comments? I haven't called you any names, and all I've done is ask questions and make observations. When you bought your last car, did you just look at it and pay for it, or did you look at the performance specs and take it for a ride? When you asked to take a test drive was that "disrespectful" to the salesman because you asked questions? 

Oh well, I'll take your passive-aggressive responses intimating a lack of skill on my part for what it is - it's human nature to get defensive when one's opinions are questioned. Thanks anyway Mike.

 

I agree with you in a sense here, mine went straight back to eBay to sell as at a minor loss.

 

The kit looks ok in images but when you get it out the box and start inspecting the over complicated breakdown of parts, the flash, the ridiculous ejector pin locations and what is with these 1-2cm long bits of plastic protruding out of the plastic on some of these ejector pins. You then questiong "Will this fit?"

 

Like yourself Jgrease, I built the F-101 Voodoo and it was quite simply the worse kit I've bought and built in the last 10 years, not based on my skills but the state of the plastic in the box. I wrote a review for it in which I recommended throwing it in the bin or don't buy it and buy the old Revell/Monogram kit instead. 

.

But saying that I do trust Mike's judgement and have purchase kits based on his reviews. AMK Mig-31 for example, but we are all human and can get something wrong on rare occasions 

[Homerlovesbeer]

Hmmm I'd better pull my kit back out and have a closer look at it by the sounds of it.

 

Shame if it's as poor as mentioned as I love the SU-34 😞

[DarrenH]

On 11/17/2018 at 3:26 AM, jgrease said:

Seriously Mike, you're calling me a troll because I questioned your review? Is that what happens when your review is questioned? Thanks very much.

Well considering you coukdnt finish a KH kit is it a surprise you are here whinging about KH again...

Maybe you should stick to Tamiya and poor taste jokes on your blog...

As for the SU-34 

18 hours ago, Homerlovesbeer said:

Hmmm I'd better pull my kit back out and have a closer look at it by the sounds of it.

 

Shame if it's as poor as mentioned as I love the SU-34 😞

I wouldnt worry about one word jgrease cough cough doogs has to say about KH...

The kit is just as sharp as the HB kit with a very nice nose profile and doesnt need the work the HB kit does.

Overall a nice kit and only agenda driven Texans would have an issue with it...

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by DarrenH

[Peter McGlone]

Hi All

 

I have just bought this kit and I don't know why anyone is whinging about it.

Its great, has heaps of stuff in the box, a zillion weapons and looks like it will go together well.

It was my Christmas present to me so I'm not allowed to start until after the 25th...bugger.

It might not be to  Tamiya standard where you shake the box before you open it and Ta Dahhh  its built but it looks good.

 

Old saying down under is "Do yourself a favour and go get it"   and no I don't work for Kitty Hawk