Jump to content

Kitty Hawk's OV-10 A/C Main Wing Update 9/8/2017


Joel_W

Recommended Posts

Joel,

    Great fix!  That wing really needed some proper internal structure to save you the irritation.  I generally don't worry about aerofoils...  Until the part don't fit that is. 

 

 

Gaz

 

Gary,

  words of wisdom for sure.  :hmmm:  :help: 

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great fix I'm the wing Joel. I just purchased my first Kitty Hawk kit and I hope it goes together a little easier than your troubles.

 

Tony,

  Gotta be the T-28C. Both Ernie and Brian love it, so I'm 101% positive you'll build a perfect model.

 

   the fix actually worked out perfectly. go figure. Must have screwed it up in the opposite direction. :oops: 

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  No sooner have I solved the wing lower inner wing section problem (pics to follow in a few days), then another issue pops up. 

 

 

   Next up I painted the IP anti glare panel Nato black and then installed the IP I made a month ago. Went perfectly. But to install it into the pit I need to fit the windscreen as it's a buldged shape. Naturally, those design engineers who gave us that wonderful multi upper piece wing must have designed the glass and cockpit as  well. For starters the windscreen is a tad to narrow, but it's easy enough to spread and glue as I just dry fitted it at this point. But the anti glare panel is another est. placement issue, which is why i needed to dry fit the wind screen. And just to make it more of a challenge they put the fret attachment on the upper surface rather then on the bottom surface that gets glued to the fuselage. So now I have to very carefully cut, scrap, sand and polish, which of course I ended up with two scratches, so it's going to need a Pledge bath, Then to make it even more fun lets have two huge, and I mean huge pour points all on a the lip that visible when the cockpit glass is open.

 

   What the hell is wrong with these people? It's like they go out of their way to create issues that should never be, and been done a million times correctly by other manufactures. 

 

   Sorry Brian, but you can tell Glen for me that I'll never, ever, buy another Kitty Hawk kit again. Way to much frustration over issues that should never be. It's plain to see that the engineering team doesn't have any model building experience, or they never would do things the way the do,  

 

  I've never boxed up a 1/32 scale build yet, but this sucker is quickly reaching that stage. 

 

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

 

   What the hell is wrong with these people? It's like they go out of their way to create issues that should never be, and been done a million times correctly by other manufactures. 

 

   Sorry Brian, but you can tell Glen for me that I'll never, ever, buy another Kitty Hawk kit again. Way to much frustration over issues that should never be. It's plain to see that the engineering team doesn't have any model building experience, or they never would do things the way the do,  

 

  I've never boxed up a 1/32 scale build yet, but this sucker is quickly reaching that stage. 

 

Joel

 

:lol:  :lol:  I have to apologize Joel, I laughed a bit when I read this. Except for two recent builds (T-33/F-80) I steer clear of frustrating kits. It's a young company, so maybe still going through growing pains? I know nothing about the Bronco, are there any shape issues with the kit? 

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:  :lol:  I have to apologize Joel, I laughed a bit when I read this. Except for two recent builds (T-33/F-80) I steer clear of frustrating kits. It's a young company, so maybe still going through growing pains? I know nothing about the Bronco, are there any shape issues with the kit? 

 

Don

 

Don,

  No need to apologize. I more then glad I can bring a smile to anyone's face. The reviews don't mention any shape issues, so I'm assuming it's close enough. I'm not a rivet counter, so I rely on others to keep me out of trouble.

   

   KH has been around long enough to have learned enough about model building and modeling to avoid these issues. The wing is just plain Moronic. Much like their F9F Cougar that had 4, that's right, 4 sections per fuselage side.  And their F-101 Voodoo has similar issues that they got creamed for just about everywhere. I was going to buy the kit, but the old Monogram kit is more accurate and has a 2 piece fuselage. Go figure.  I'm betting that the gun pods will be tons of fun since I plan on closing them.  And just to add a little spice to the story, the fuselage has a sealed compartment with doors that aren't meant to be opened, you can't see in period, yet there is a detailed floor, and two detailed bulkheads, plus the clamshell doors that are basically a butt joint.  

 

  I honestly just don't get it.   :fight:  :BANGHEAD2:    It's almost like  :deadhorse: to death.

 

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel just to let you know the rear hatch is not a clamshell it's a bubble that swings to the left when you're facing the rear. There is no shape issues as most of us commented on those mistakes in the cad drawings and Supply them with photos. The photos that I sent you wear the same ones sent to Glen during the design process. Please keep going on the build and try to have fun.

 

CHEERS

Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Clunkmeister

Tony,

I see. Going to take work to make it a proper T-6 from what I've read and heard.

Joel

The only real accuracy issues I've heard of are the landing gear being slightly too close together, which is an easy 20 minute fix.

I recently also heard the prop diameter might be slightly off, but Harold has resin fixes for that.

 

My issue with the kit was that they must have used a restored rebuilt airplane as a pattern, because it's like goulash. A little it of this, a little bit of that....

To make a truly accurate period T-6 from a certain time, place, and service branch or nation, you need to do your research.

The vac canopies available really help the cause greAtly.

Edited by Clunkmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't know about their other kits having strange engineering choices, kinda like Trumpeter and some of their engineering marvels...too bad Hasegawa won't do new releases in their simple ways...

 

Don

 

Don,

   Just might be the Chinese connection.  In today's day and age, the real aircraft for the most part are scanning into a CAD program, it's not like the old days where it took a team of design engineers to do all of this the old fashion way; by hand. And then master mold makers made the molds. Today computers do just about all of it, so the accuracy side should be as close to perfection as a Computer program and associated hardware can get it. The human factor should be all about making the model building experience as enjoyable and frustrating free as possible, by focusing on how each part interacts with the other parts in each sub assembly. Having huge gaps and ill fitting parts should almost be a thing of the past. If Tamiya can get it right, then there just isn't any excuse as far as I'm concerned.  Clearly as I've alluded to at Kitty Hawk, the parties in control aren't modelers, or they just wouldn't accept all these wacky concepts. Multi pc fuselages halves for the sake of a different version, but they also seem to cherish doing this to increase parts count whenever possible.  the number of gates  on sprue frets, their size, and positions are a major issue for otherwise nicely designed and executed parts. I've yet to read a single build on a Kingfisher that didn't take KH to task for the ignition manifold ring, and the sloppy designed and thus finicky motor mount assembly. A highly detailed engine that will be buried and never seen is a waste of resources and budget on their part. Both better put to use on visible details. 

 

   the bottom line for me as a senior is to get the best bang for my modeling buck. Not spend my modeling time working out one poor design issue after another. If I want issues that need solving, I've got plenty of them at work and enough of them on the home front. 

 

  So for me, the bottom line is that until KH takes and makes the next step to correct all these nagging issues, I'll just take a pass on all things kitty Hawk. 

Joel

Edited by Joel_W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More building...less ranting Joel!

 

:)

 

Shaka Hi,

  I'm still building the Bronco, but the constant fighting  and problem solving issues since I've left the cockpit really has made working on this build less then enjoyable, and a Mojo killer. But as Chuck posted yesterday, I'm from the school of one build at a time to completion, no SODs. Kits that defeat me mentally pay the final price with a one way trip to the county recycling center. That's how I build, and that's how I feel. 

 

 I have full intention of finishing this build, and to the contest standards that was and still is it's main build goal.

 

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel just to let you know the rear hatch is not a clamshell it's a bubble that swings to the left when you're facing the rear. There is no shape issues as most of us commented on those mistakes in the cad drawings and Supply them with photos. The photos that I sent you wear the same ones sent to Glen during the design process. Please keep going on the build and try to have fun.

 

CHEERS

Danny

 

Danny,

  I assumed from the lack of shape issue posts that the kit is nicely designed accuracy wise. As I've posted now numerous times, my issue(s) is with their complete lack of understanding what modelers really want in a large scale model.  The old expression of they just keep on shooting themselves in the foot, certainly applies to them.

 

  The Bronco is right next to me, and I'm typing rather then spending a few hours working on the build. I never use to do that to this degree. It's like I look for excuses not to work on it right now.

 

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ernie my Fir

 

The only real accuracy issues I've heard of are the landing gear being slightly too close together, which is an easy 20 minute fix.
I recently also heard the prop diameter might be slightly off, but Harold has resin fixes for that.

My issue with the kit was that they must have used a restored rebuilt airplane as a pattern, because it's like goulash. A little it of this, a little bit of that....
To make a truly accurate period T-6 from a certain time, place, and service branch or nation, you need to do your research.
The vac canopies available really help the cause greAtly.

 

Ernie my friend,

  You've nailed it to a tee. They're always trying to see just how many versions of a model they can create from a set of molds even if none of the finished options are accurate enough. this has always been the big knock on the KH T-6. Close but not close enough. a real shame. And as you said, they come so close, but never quite get there because no one seems to be a modeler who understands these issues. And the results speak for themselves. 

 

  Now when Mr Tamiya was alive and ran the show, it was the complete opposite. His love of F-1 showed in his 1/12 and 1/20 line of F-1 cars, and the fact that his personal collection of F-1 cars are housed in the lobby. the 1/20 F-1 division head designer left and started Ebbro car models, and is funded in several ways besides just cash by Tamiya. A great idea  and concept put into practice. 

 

Joel

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...