As I mentioned at the end of my previous post on the fuselage, so far I had not seen any of the problems Kitty Hawk has a reputation for, and was even wondering whether the stories may have been a tiny bit exaggerated.
Well fear not, I found the lunacy!
Last time we left off having assembled the cockpit and built the landing gear bays. This entry will deal with the fuselage: closing it up, assembling the engines, and the landing gear itself. The next entry will cover the wings and weaponry, and then we’ll do a final write-up on the completed build.
Following my in-box review, here are my thoughts after building the cockpit and some fuselage elements. So far, I’m really enjoying it. I’ve found things that I like, things that I found a bit ominous, and some silly mistakes which I point out below.
This is the first post in my Su-35 build. I introduce the kit and my review rules, and look at what you get in the box.
I got fed up splitting elastic thread to rig the Mikasa, so I’ve put that to one side for the moment and decided to start the next build instead. I wouldn’t normally have two open at once, but as I’m really excited about this one and was just going to do a rush job of Mikasa to get to it, it seemed a better plan. I fancied a nice, relaxing, jet build.
So, I got Kitty Hawk’s new Su-35 in 1/48. Makes sense, right?
One of the interesting aspects of business strategy is that doing something different to everyone else is often successful, so why do the majority of managers want to do exactly what their counterparts in the competition are doing? I guess it’s easier to justify a decision when it’s “best practice”, rather than finding an argument that “best practice” is simply “what works for those guys, and we keep saying we’re different to them”.
In this blog I intend to show the ways in which this approach is affecting companies in one industry (scale model manufacturers), why they have fallen into this trap, compare and contrast two manufacturers and show how different strategies are valid.