Jump to content

Kitty Hawk Fw-190 new renders


Martinnfb
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

This is wild!  If they get this right, they’ll sell gazillions of them.

the one 190 we DO need is a really good short nose A-0/1/2/3/4.

Just make the engine mounting non goofy to avoid potential alignment issues with the inevitable multi piece cowl.

Do it right, you’ll make lifelong customers.   The T-28 was brilliant. This can be too.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moulded-in recess in the wing at the rear of the gun bay is a little worrying. The cover sat on top of the wing surface and not embedded within; I can understand the rationale for doing it but it's not representative, and a real Bear to fix. Zoukie-Mura did this with their Ta-152 kit in 2010; I wouldn't expect them to repeat that error in their forthcoming Fw-190 releases, and a new Player really shouldn't be either

Screenshot_20181118-083527.jpg.715ee2779ae1c0493982cde6412826c5.jpg

On a positive note, at least the MG151's aren't handed like the ZM Tank. 

S

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, Wumm said:

The moulded-in recess in the wing at the rear of the gun bay is a little worrying. The cover sat on top of the wing surface and not embedded within; I can understand the rationale for doing it but it's not representative, and a real Bear to fix. Zoukie-Mura did this with their Ta-152 kit in 2010; I wouldn't expect them to repeat that error in their forthcoming Fw-190 releases, and a new Player really shouldn't be either

Screenshot_20181118-083527.jpg.715ee2779ae1c0493982cde6412826c5.jpg

On a positive note, at least the MG151's aren't handed like the ZM Tank. 

S

Did you notice how the port and starboard covers are not mirror images of each other?  These CADS are still early so I'm sure things will change considerably along the way.  I could do without the whole engine too, just a decent looking plug is fine with me since it's virtually invisible when it's buttoned up anyway.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undecided about the asymmetrical aspect of the covers, or whether it's just a poorly defined render. I will say that given that they've considered how these covers will fit onto the wing; that it points towards an initial attempt at kit design, and not just a ploy to get Zoukei-Mura to move the chains on their version (which was my fervent hope!). However, it's way behind the Z/M CAD, where the render already actually looks like the parts we're going to get in their kit. 

Given the outspoken minority of KHM haters, the boorish "Not another "190" crowd, and the impending release of a possibly better Competitor's offering, not sure if this is the best allocation of resources going forward.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is an indentation into the wing surface on the outside of the starboard cut-out, it's just that it's not visible due to the lighting perspective used. But they really shouldn't be there at all, only the cut-out section in the wing with the cover sitting flush on top.

At least the cover itself actually looks like the real thing. The Revell kit's representation (on the right here, behind the Hasegawa) is too long, too narrow and completely the wrong shape.

20181119_085802.thumb.jpg.56714c7da1d0e1c19441318cd253ef8e.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 11/18/2018 at 1:04 PM, Wumm said:

Undecided about the asymmetrical aspect of the covers, or whether it's just a poorly defined render. I will say that given that they've considered how these covers will fit onto the wing; that it points towards an initial attempt at kit design, and not just a ploy to get Zoukei-Mura to move the chains on their version (which was my fervent hope!). However, it's way behind the Z/M CAD, where the render already actually looks like the parts we're going to get in their kit. 

Given the outspoken minority of KHM haters, the boorish "Not another "190" crowd, and the impending release of a possibly better Competitor's offering, not sure if this is the best allocation of resources going forward.

I throw up in my mouth a little whenever anyone asks for another kit that's not 190! :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 11/18/2018 at 7:43 PM, Clunkmeister said:

Well, with all the 190s out there, and the recognized experten in the field, there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever a 100% accurate model can’t be produced.

Revell brought in six 109 "experten" (including Lynn Ritger) for their G-6 and still had a couple of major gaffs.  The bean counters usually win in the end.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikester said:

I throw up in my mouth a little whenever anyone asks for another kit that's not 190! :)

Too true Mike...

Sarcasm is really the best weapon against that type of Passive Aggression. Should you engage them in any discussion about these kinds of attitudes, you're only end up feeding their petty attitudes, and that of the others that enable them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2018 at 1:43 PM, Clunkmeister said:

Well, with all the 190s out there, and the recognized experten in the field, there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever a 100% accurate model can’t be produced.

100% accuracy would be wonderful, but it's probably just not possible in our scale, given the intricacies of reducing the size of certain objects while retaining fidelity of detail. At the time, I wondered whether Z/M had cut in to the wing around the wing gun covers because of the limitations of being able to successfully mould the interior of the cover, needing that little bit of extra depth to get the necessary detail inside. Then, I saw that Eduard managed to do it with their 1/48 Fw190 kits... so did Z/M take a short cut, or has mould technology progressed that much in a few short years? Who knows...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, Wumm said:

Too true Mike...

Sarcasm is really the best weapon against that type of Passive Aggression. Should you engage them in any discussion about these kinds of attitudes, you're only end up feeding their petty attitudes, and that of the others that enable them.

The level of angst that some people have against Luftwaffe subjects used to really irritate me but now it's actually a source of entertainment.  The only thing that still riles me is the complete ignornace of the representation of subjects in 1/32.  A Bf 109E-4 is nowhere near a Bf 109K-4 but they'll point to one or the other and say "you have that one, why do you need another one?"  Gee Tamiya makes a gorgeous P-51D, why do you need a P-51B, they're not the same?  :rolleyes:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mikester said:

A Bf 109E-4 is nowhere near a Bf 109K-4 but they'll point to one or the other and say "you have that one, why do you need another one?"

The exact problem with the new tool Revell Bf109 G-6... They measured the G-4 in Speyer, which has a narrow cowl to house the MG17's and no associated cowl bulges, and transferred those measurements to the kit. Subsequently, they guessed the shape of the bulges and the position of the cockpit air vents and got them both wrong... and none of the SME's picked it up. Had they respected the subject in the first place, there wouldn't have been a problem.

I felt a little for Lyn, who got a bit titchy there for a while, because if you put your name to it and it's somewhat less than accurate you end up owning someone else's mistakes.

The thing about the Luftwaffe subjects is off on another tangent altogether. One fellow constantly complains that the colours are boring. It's the internet equivalent of leaning over your Neighbour's fence and shouting "Why did you buy a Samoyed, they only come in white?"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I agree. My use of hyperbole can be and often is,.. extreme-ish.  But my point remains, given the number of experten out there, plus the number of wholly original or just softly restored examples out there, there are no reasons to miss on this just do the legwork.

As for LW subjects, I don’t understand the hostility. 109s or 190s always bring out the haters, andyet, as was mentioned before, especially in 109s, they’re all different. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wumm, thanks for the tip on the MG151 wing covers. I hadn't noticed those on Revell's were so skinny.

Martinnfb, love the plan drawing. Amongst the 190 plans you may or may not have, can you see how thick the engine mount pipes are? I think the Revell ones look a bit skinny but I can't find a decent plan showing the dimension of them.

More 190s is always a good thing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
8 hours ago, Kais said:

Wumm, thanks for the tip on the MG151 wing covers. I hadn't noticed those on Revell's were so skinny.

Martinnfb, love the plan drawing. Amongst the 190 plans you may or may not have, can you see how thick the engine mount pipes are? I think the Revell ones look a bit skinny but I can't find a decent plan showing the dimension of them.

More 190s is always a good thing. 

would this help?439723939_oilsystem.thumb.jpg.af5895a3cd99692be6d6206b2ec8d742.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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