That makes it even more tempting to me :smiling3:
[/QUOTE]
I'm with you on this one Jakko, I feel the same. Just how bad a kit is it,
[/QUOTE]
I'm with you on this one Jakko, I feel the same. Just how bad a kit is it,
Kitty Hawk 1/32 OV-10D Bronco
- Thread starter BarryW
- Start date
- Status
I know some of you guys really enjoy the challenges offered by poorly designed kits - and some of you can really turn pigs ears into silk purses. That's good for us because quite often you will develop techniques and source tools & materials for solving problems we lesser mortals can use.
However, there is a downside to that. What's going to make the manufacturer improve his products if you're going to buy them anyway?
Thoughts anyone?
However, there is a downside to that. What's going to make the manufacturer improve his products if you're going to buy them anyway?
Thoughts anyone?
I'm in your camp Dave I won't be buying one from Kitty Hawk in the future.
Very true on the last bit of your quote Dave if people keep buyin them they will just keep sellin the kits without any attemps to put things right an my jag was
:angry: as I found out an it was quite a exspensive kit but no one told me how bad this kit was :angry::angry::angry::angry::angry: very wise John :thumb2:chris
G
Good point Dave. It's a business after all and if Kitty Hawk are still selling their kits as they are, what incentive do they have to invest money in improving them?
Bringing in Barry's other post about reviews, if people saw more of this kind of realistic review they may be less inclined to buy from Kitty Hawk, causing a subsequent drop in sales. That may persuade them to pull their finger out in the R&D department leading to better kits, which would benefit us and them.
Bringing in Barry's other post about reviews, if people saw more of this kind of realistic review they may be less inclined to buy from Kitty Hawk, causing a subsequent drop in sales. That may persuade them to pull their finger out in the R&D department leading to better kits, which would benefit us and them.
A pic of my jag this is how bad it can be the the engine cover wont meet up because the cover is already hitting the engine an the main undercart wouldn't fit again major sugury on them as well an the engine mountings were a very bad fit as I done a dry fit an the engine were out of alinement 
G
I’m seriously thinking of taking a gamble on it now
There is that, of course. Part of the problem, you could say, is that often poor kits are your only choice. If you want to build, say, a 1:35 scale Tiger tank or a 1:72 scale Messerschmitt Bf 109, you have the world of choice, and anyone releasing a poor kit of one will find it a waste of effort because every serious review will say, “Spend your money on <other brand> instead.” On the other hand, if you want a 1:32 scale OV-10 Bronco, then Scalemates says you have exactly two choices: Kitty Hawk’s OV-10D or Kitty Hawk’s OV-10A/C. If they’re good kits then there’s no problem, but if they suck badly then it’s either build a bad kit or don’t have a model at all.
Not buying the kits, though, probably sends the wrong signal. The manufacturer is likely to think the subject was a poor choice, rather than that there’s a market for good kits of the same thing.
That’s about the only way, yes. Even then, reviews are subjective to a degree: what I might consider a very buildable kit with minor issues could have someone else give up in desperation, for example — or vice versa. But it probably helps to see if the review is reasonably objective and, importantly, if it’s an actual build review or an in-the-box one. The latter won’t tell you anything about fit problems and may truthfully say it looks like a great kit (when it’s actually a total dog to build, but you may not be able to tell from looking at the sprues and instructions).
That said, some manufacturers do learn. When Trumpeter first released AFV kits about twenty years ago, they were pretty poor models of the T-55 tank that were moulded in ABS rather than polystyrene, so you couldn’t glue it with normal model cement. Oddly, Trumpeter themselves realised this because they actually supplied a tube of ABS cement with the kits … Since then, they’ve improved a great deal, with much better kits (made of regular polystyrene
) that are far more detailed than their early efforts. Still not quite sure why they made the strange first move, though.
And if you look at the main undercart bay you will see I had to fit a bit of white plasticard over this an shape it as a big gap after surgery to get the main undercart to fit an I was :angry: as I thought how much the kit cost
PJ and I had similar problems with his 1/72 Kitech Mig 25 - but we only paid £5 for it! Buy cheap and get cheap is only to be expected, but if you're paying prices comparable to mid-range quality kits, you should get better than cheap quality.
Jakko: I see your point about low sales maybe leading to subjects not being modelled rather than being improved. I don't know what the answer to that problem is, but at least poor sales should force the manufacturer to ask why?
I wonder how many manufacturers visit fora like ours to get some proper customer feedback, rather than paying folk for favourable reviews. I have seen responses from small scale manufacturers on fora where they have listened to their customers and made improvements to their products. I've also heard that a couple of the bigger companies such as Trumpeter have done the same. When was the last time you heard of Revell or Tamiya doing that?
G
To be honest, model kit prices probably reflect more “what the madman will pay for it” (as a Dutch expression goes) than actual production cost plus markup. But even if the price does accurately reflect the time and effort the manufacturer put in, there could be just as much work etc. in releasing a poor-quality kit as a high-quality one.
Hopefully
But as I said, one of the possible conclusions is that the market just isn’t interested. Whether or not this is the case is obvious with some subjects: if other manufacturers also produce kits of them, and keep doing so, then there must be interest (see my remark about Tigers and 109s), so if yours don’t sell well, then people likely think yours aren’t good enough. But if yours are the only ones on the market …?When have you last heard of Apple, Toyota or Boeing respond directly to customer’s complaints or suggestions? Revell and Tamiya are their modelling equivalents, really. (Another thing here is that Tamiya especially has pretty much never had a need to improve a kit due to poor design. Buy any Tamiya kit, regardless of whether it’s the latest one or 50 years old, and it will fit fine.)
I just read somewhere that Kitty Hawk are developing a 1/32 Sepcat Jaguar. Hopefully not that 1/48 upscaled!!
I really would like a Jaguar but not one produced by Kitty Hawk. I might, it is a very big might, consider it if the Tiger is a good build.
I really would like a Jaguar but not one produced by Kitty Hawk. I might, it is a very big might, consider it if the Tiger is a good build.
P'raps Boeing should have listened as the problems with their 737 Max have just cost them around $5bn.
I can't blame you for giving up on this one, I've only ever built their Jag. Its one of my favourite aircraft so was an instant choice for one of my first builds after re starting modelling. It was an absolute pig especially trying to get it to close up around the engines and it ended up with more filler than my first car. In the end I had to simplify stuff to get it finished. It looks ok but its amazing what paint and filler can hide.
HI Mick I built this jag as well an not only the engines cover not fittin but did you have trouble fittin thr main undercart in fusealarge ? an the destruckions are wrong the only things I found that did fit were the fusealarge covers on the front nose over the avionics bay
chris
- Status
Legal Notice
scalemodelling.co.uk is a privately operated online discussion forum. All content posted by members reflects their own views and opinions and does not necessarily represent those of the forum owners or administrators. While reasonable efforts are made to moderate content, no responsibility is accepted for user-generated material. By using this site, you agree to comply with UK law and the forum rules.