derek burton Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Anyone got any ideas about when we are going to see this kit? Dek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Anyone got any ideas about when we are going to see this kit? Dek. Hi, I've been watching this since Hannants released their transfers for this kit back in November. I've just noticed that photographs of the sprues have been added to their site. So hopefully it's getting closer... Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek burton Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) I will go and have a look at that. Dek. looks like its all there two guns so we can do foreign users and if you need large bore jet pipe it can come of a scrap Revell kit so i s`pose can other bits? Edited April 6, 2011 by derek burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/XK72013 Mmm, interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat C Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) Does the fact that the nosecone is a separate piece mean we can expect a T8(M) do you think? Edited April 6, 2011 by Pat C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Does the fact that the nosecone is a separate piece mean we can expect a T8(M) do you think? Might be ! I'm sure that even if this doesn't happen, there will be conversion sets available very soon ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek burton Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Probably have to wait for after market or scratch. Dek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Does the fact that the nosecone is a separate piece mean we can expect a T8(M) do you think? I think the T8M nose starts further back that there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorsten_Wieking Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Got mine today in a german model shop, seems that some kits made a detour on their way to Lowestoft. Nice kit, three interesting decal options. Maybe I get a second or third or I just wait for a Special Hobby release with even more options. Cheers Thorsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek burton Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 Can you tell us what Decal options the three are. Dek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorsten_Wieking Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Can you tell us what Decal options the three are. Dek. Sorry for the shameless selfadvertisement, but here is a short review I wrote about the kit. http://www.modellversium.de/kit/artikel.php?id=8538 â– Hawker Hunter T.7 XL573, No.237OCU, RAF Honington, 1986/87 (Coverart) â– Hawker Hunter T.8, "The Admiral's Barge" RNAS Yeovilton. â– Hawker Hunter T.7, WV372/R, No. 2 Sq. RAF, RAF Wildenrath, Germany, July 1970 Cheers Thorsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek burton Posted April 24, 2011 Author Share Posted April 24, 2011 Thanks for that Thorsten, its climbing higher up my "to buy" list, when it gets into the UK. Dek. P.S. just need the missus to do a bit of translation when she wakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Lime Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I'm positively salivating now! Big thanks to Thorsten there for the pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonR Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Thanks for the link, looks good dosnt it - do we know when it will be in stock at Hannants? Cheers Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Looks good, not cheap but no more expensive than other similar products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenMG Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 (edited) I'm reluctant to comment based on nothing more than sprue shots but, based only on what I can see in the photos, it looks terrible frankly. Hopefully the photos are misleading due to the lighting angle/shadows possibly, but for the thick end of 20 quid this looks pretty bad to me. As I said these observations are based on the photos only, and I dearly hope to be proved wrong, but... - lower fuselage shape looks wrong - the underside looks far too flat in the photos, the real thing has a nice gentle curve running right from the tail to the nose. - upper nose profile (between the windscreen and the nose cone) looks awful, almost concave when it should have a definite convex bulge - hopefully this is a trick of the light in the photos - net result of the above two points is that the radome would be too low relative to the centreline of the aircraft and the whole thing seems to be bent downwards from the intakes forward - wings appear to have a fairly smooth transition between the mainplane and the stub wing/intake section - there is a distinct angle at this junction on the real thing - leading edge extensions are too far inboard and the lower surface of the extension is completely the wrong shape, lacking the 'droop' which was what made the extensions work - tailpipe looks the size/shape of the 'big bore' 200-series engine - fine for many of the export marks (in which case the second cannon can be used) but wrong for all RAF/FAA/FRADU aircraft - several other errors in panel lines, catches etc. As I said these are just my observations from the photos. Hopefully the real thing is much better - surely they can't have got it that wrong can they? Especially with the Revell kit available as an example of how things should look? Oh, and I forgot to mention the seats which are completely wrong - those in the photos are Mk.2H seats, the T-birds used Mk.4H seats which are totally different - no thigh guards on the seat pan, no parachute container, horseshoe parachute pack and combined harness etc., etc.. And where are the flaps? Moulded in to the wing upper surfaces and not separate presumably? C'mon, that's not what I'd expect from a 20 quid kit! Edited April 24, 2011 by StephenMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenMG Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 I think the T8M nose starts further back that there. No, the T.8M nose started from the same place, i.e. the point where the detachable nose-piece attached. The T.8M featured a slightly downward angled 'adapter' section which the SHAR-style Blue Fox radome attached to, so it would be correct to add a T.8M nose at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorsten_Wieking Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Hey guys, thanks for the nice words on my review. I just took the sprues in my hands once again and.... - lower fuselage shape looks wrong - the underside looks far too flat in the photos, the real thing has a nice gentle curve running right from the tail to the nose. You are right, at least I would call it a gentle curve. More a straight line with a very light curve. - upper nose profile (between the windscreen and the nose cone) looks awful, almost concave when it should have a definite convex bulge - hopefully this is a trick of the light in the photos Not quite concave, but not convex either. Again more a pretty straight line. - wings appear to have a fairly smooth transition between the mainplane and the stub wing/intake section - there is a distinct angle at this junction on the real thing Hard to judge. Although I do have quite a few of the Revell Hunters, it has been quite some time since I took one out of the box. There is an angle but the bent is more pretty round, more like a curve than a kink. And where are the flaps? Moulded in to the wing upper surfaces and not separate presumably? C'mon, that's not what I'd expect from a 20 quid kit! Yupp, the flaps are moulded into the upper wing halve. Thanks for your hints, although I do have the SAM Datafile on the Hunter, I neither had access to it yesterday nore the time to check the drawings. And honestly - I am not that good at comparing kit parts to drawings or pictures of the real deal. What really made me wonder (since I still remember the part from the Matchbox kit) - the Canopy looks very straigt on top where the frame divides the part. I would expect at least a slight curve. Cheers Thorsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) I'm reluctant to comment based on nothing more than sprue shots but, based only on what I can see in the photos, it looks terrible frankly. Hopefully the photos are misleading due to the lighting angle/shadows possibly, but for the thick end of 20 quid this looks pretty bad to me. As I said these observations are based on the photos only, and I dearly hope to be proved wrong, but...- lower fuselage shape looks wrong - the underside looks far too flat in the photos, the real thing has a nice gentle curve running right from the tail to the nose. - upper nose profile (between the windscreen and the nose cone) looks awful, almost concave when it should have a definite convex bulge - hopefully this is a trick of the light in the photos - net result of the above two points is that the radome would be too low relative to the centreline of the aircraft and the whole thing seems to be bent downwards from the intakes forward - wings appear to have a fairly smooth transition between the mainplane and the stub wing/intake section - there is a distinct angle at this junction on the real thing - leading edge extensions are too far inboard and the lower surface of the extension is completely the wrong shape, lacking the 'droop' which was what made the extensions work - tailpipe looks the size/shape of the 'big bore' 200-series engine - fine for many of the export marks (in which case the second cannon can be used) but wrong for all RAF/FAA/FRADU aircraft - several other errors in panel lines, catches etc. As I said these are just my observations from the photos. Hopefully the real thing is much better - surely they can't have got it that wrong can they? Especially with the Revell kit available as an example of how things should look? Oh, and I forgot to mention the seats which are completely wrong - those in the photos are Mk.2H seats, the T-birds used Mk.4H seats which are totally different - no thigh guards on the seat pan, no parachute container, horseshoe parachute pack and combined harness etc., etc.. And where are the flaps? Moulded in to the wing upper surfaces and not separate presumably? C'mon, that's not what I'd expect from a 20 quid kit! Its always dangerous to assess a kit from photo's, but from what I've seen here, I have to totally agree with Stephen - the shape of the upper nose in particular looks very poor! Lets hope its just the angle of the photo's...... Decal sheet looks nice! Edit: just had another quick look - is there an arrestor hook included for the T8? Edited April 25, 2011 by Bill Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenMG Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Thorsten - thanks very much for your reply and for your photos/review, they are much appreciated. Unfortunately I think you've confirmed my worst fears, that this kit appears to be a big disappointment and a definite missed opportunity. Is there any chance you could trace around one of the fuselage halves onto paper and scan it so we could see the shape of it please? Bill - you're absolutely correct of course, slating a kit based only on photos is a risky business and I don't usually fall into the trap of doing it. Having said that, there seem to be such major problems with the fuselage shape of this thing that I'm not at all sure it's just down to photographic 'issues'. Hunters are my 'thing' and I'll freely admit to being very picky when it comes to models of them. I'd willingly pay the asking price for a good representation of a T.7 (after all we've been waiting long enough for one!) but this looks to be a huge disapointment. I find it astonishing in this day and age that a model of one of the best documented aircraft around, and with plenty of real examples still in existence, can emerge as bad as this seems to be, especially at the price it is. I appreciate there'll always be the "it looks like a Hunter so that's good enough for me" argument, and I fall into that camp myself in a lot of cases, but there are limits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Thorsten - thanks very much for your reply and for your photos/review, they are much appreciated. Unfortunately I think you've confirmed my worst fears, that this kit appears to be a big disappointment and a definite missed opportunity. Is there any chance you could trace around one of the fuselage halves onto paper and scan it so we could see the shape of it please?Bill - you're absolutely correct of course, slating a kit based only on photos is a risky business and I don't usually fall into the trap of doing it. Having said that, there seem to be such major problems with the fuselage shape of this thing that I'm not at all sure it's just down to photographic 'issues'. Hunters are my 'thing' and I'll freely admit to being very picky when it comes to models of them. I'd willingly pay the asking price for a good representation of a T.7 (after all we've been waiting long enough for one!) but this looks to be a huge disapointment. I find it astonishing in this day and age that a model of one of the best documented aircraft around, and with plenty of real examples still in existence, can emerge as bad as this seems to be, especially at the price it is. I appreciate there'll always be the "it looks like a Hunter so that's good enough for me" argument, and I fall into that camp myself in a lot of cases, but there are limits! Hunter's aren't only your "thing" Stephen!! I hope we are wrong, but it looks like Xtrakit have got it spectacularly wrong - yet again! In fact, this kit looks little better than the Matchbox kit. Why are Hannants/Xtrakits not getting these fundamentals correct? Very disappointing............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) I'm another who will rarely make comments on photos - but have to concur with what's been said - with the addition that they've done what Revell did with their 1:32 FGA Mk 9 and moulded it with tapered ailerons (they should be constant chord). At least that's an easy fix. Iain Edited April 25, 2011 by Iain (32SIG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat C Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 tailpipe looks the size/shape of the 'big bore' 200-series engine If that is so that will be truly unforgiveable. I was very p'ed off buying the LF models resin 2-seat Hunter to find that the rear end is a cloned Revell FGA9 and no thought was given to the smaller tail fairing. I was thinking I could mate its T8M radome with the Xtrakit T7. Tricky to tell from the pics, as the difference is most obvious when looking from the rear. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonR Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) Had a better look at the photos today and after reading you guys comments, after an initial positive reaction I am also dissapointed with it as well, but will reserve judgement until I see it in the flesh - what a shame though - its not as if its the most difficult aircraft in the world to get right. I recently purchased a T7 conversion from Odds & Ordanance for the Revell kit which looks very nice, comes with smaller tailpipe, only downside is the front fuselage has an Aden either side so some work needs doing to do an RAF Hunter, ok for Swiss one though but no need for the tailpipe! Cheers Simon Edited April 25, 2011 by SimonR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzH Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 No, the T.8M nose started from the same place, i.e. the point where the detachable nose-piece attached. The T.8M featured a slightly downward angled 'adapter' section which the SHAR-style Blue Fox radome attached to, so it would be correct to add a T.8M nose at that point. This any good.... 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