Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Raymond Chung

ARC Sponsors
  • Content Count

    828
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Raymond Chung

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!

Recent Profile Visitors

16,351 profile views
  1. Yes MF1 always in the queue, but we have to monitor the market condition to fire up the trigger to steel cutting.
  2. For you my advise to get the F-104A plus the G tail if this is a must for you. The G parts already have recess line at the back so you can cut it and mate with F-104C front. the cost for the new tooled one can let you buy a BMW series 3, so you understand what it is. F-5A/B no plan at the moment.
  3. Experts are people, people make mistake. But I am sure everyone do their best already. Luckily we just miss one point.
  4. 1. A slight change of the "slope" on the parts is simple putting putty for modellers. However in the steel mold, you cannot not just redo the trouble portion. Think about the cavity and core (front/back of the tooling), you have change multiple parts together in a confined area. This is something like doing a heart operation to "fix" something. Thus, the manpower effort and risk to fix the tooling is even more difficult than make a new one. Besides, once the tooling is "injected" few thousands times, the steel has already have some micro blending or some steel get lose. Therefore, retooling would require some "guess" in finding the "exact" position to "modify" the section. Especially with the "Gold series" tooling, the precision tolerance is even require higher precision. Thus, modification a parts means total retool the entire fueslage and it means 90% of the tooling. 2. M2K was a product backed in 2010, we were just a baby walking with 2 foot and 2 hands. At that time, I don't even know what they are complaining. As for the G short coming, some italian modeller fix it with some putty and sanding and redo the panel line. But as we see most of the average modellers would even notice until you tell him and they search around for 15 mins to see what you notice. I do pass the CAD to someone who has no idea of the subject and go for the final snap check. Because of our years of experience in design, all done by human. Each person has blind spot. Especially those experts are well known the subject in details, there focus is on the "details", sometimes, miss the overall shape, dimension. This happens many times not only at Kinetic, it does happen on other brand as well (like Hasegawa F-104 is under scale) and usually calculate from "unclear" dimension basis (e.g. the document state the length - whether include pilot tube or not? ) The F-104G CAD has been submitted to multiple review people in US (with on-site visit), Italy, France, UK contributors. Now we see that the cross section material on hand does not have the loft line clearly stating shape changes on the intake duct, there is where the mistake come from. Remember, we almost does not use photo to validate shape as photo many times create error from photo angles and no way to proof whether the shape is correct or not. Therefore, we depends on drawings and tasks of validating the drawings is also excessive. We have multiple cases happen where the CAD developed for some months and ready to go for next stage and discover some basic shape or dimension goes wrong. Especially when an experts drill their head too long and too much on the details. And the guy who has no idea on the subject -> similar to general buyer. So, if they don't see this is problem, then the product will fit for majority. Of course, for passion people who loves the subject, they will go for point by point. Just want to share one of the funny things in development on the upcoming IA-58. We go to UK to on site "measure" the fuselage but failed. Some people say using a LASER to do it. But we try to figure out other way as we think LASER is also not too reliable if we depends on the scanned grid too much. So, we try to get the drawings on the IA-58. But the IA-58 was a captured plane, no material. So, we turn to our contributors bank pool to see who can have it. and the plane was made in Argentina, so we find some people there and the reported the IA-58A blueprint was burned in a fire. Thus, they just have the IA-58C (a new nose). So, we are very upset with that. But 6 months later, some one knows the mechanics who maintained the plane before. He has a copy in his own library in Brazil. ( I don't know why from Argentina -> Brazil). So, we are happy to the loft line and we can restart the CAD design. But it also takes almost 2 years to rework the parts break down to suitable for tooling. (The bottom of the IA-58 has tons of panel line). 3. The F-5A is not too much parts breakdown, it just the tooling tolerance level is low at the point where the fitting takes a lot of effort to make it join together. Well, that is a journey of a brand development.
  5. Dear delide, The retooling of the small place is same as new tooled F-104A/C, so unless it has a strong reason, we rather put the investment to other new item than retool it. Yes, I believe same as every maker, they do have something omitted, for us, nose, canopy, intake shape, wing shape is unfixable from the consumer, so we put high priority in those area. Everything from the "back" would classified as "less" critical. In our validation process, we have a named "15-mins" rules. Where after all the shape is validated by us and contributors, we will pass to a newbis who has no idea about it. Give him 15 mins and if he cannot identify any shape error, the 3D CAD can move on. To our experience, the experts team who devote into the project usually make the biggest mistake on basic shape or even dimension issue. So, in our workflow, we will ask someone who does not run the project and ask him to have a snap check. 90% of the time, the newbie usually discover some basic flaw and sometimes lead to overall redo the entire CAD we did before. Kinetic is 10 years old already and we flight for different stage of improvement from shape validation, technical issue such as fitting, parts breakdown..... now we are moving into the stage to try to deliver the details with reduced parts count and also user friendless in assemble and painting. We don't drill into breaking parts to eliminate aftermarket replacement. Instead we try to classify the "need" of the group of customers where we try to serve the widest range of average modellers need and leave the room to aftermarkets+basic kit for advance modeller. We take building a model like a travel experience, do the same kit with different experience with different options - OOB, superdetails, mass array building. We define the "Gold Series" label to let customer identify those kits under the new engineering standard. Not only the tooling quality, we actually work back from the injection system to the tooling specification. To make sure the the parts cannot only be "tooled" out, but also consider the long running injection quality stable condition - we move from QC to Process Control. Thus, the tool made now will consider whether the dedicated injection system can be produced in a stable way. We have put excessive investment in the injection system where it is no way to find a subcontractor with such equipment to do subcontracting for us. Those effect has appear on the F-104G product and now you will see the Harrier GR1/3 and IA-58 and see how far we go since the F-16.
  6. Same as our F-104g release we will provide more details after we officially release the product.
  7. We took the shape validation seriously, we are not 3D scan other brand product and doing take and remove approach. for F-104 we spend a few months in shape validation checking and on site visit to resolve those undocument or conflict in data collected area to try to make the things as correct as possible. we also distribute the CAD to our contributors to review. But we are human we made mistakes, and many contributors cannot use the 3D viewer to examine in details. Checking a 3D validation is something a detector going on the crime scene and try to figure out the difference between measurement, photo and loft line. But we are human we are not perfect, I have to live up with that. with over 250 sheets of review and comments, we may lose in between. The F-104 review board include 6-7 people who devote time and efforts and that is the best we can did at that time. Of course each mistakes will be another input to improve our validation process. So we always thinks we can do better from projects to projects, thus we never claim we deliver the best F-104 in 1/48 or any scale. We have to accept we no way to achieve Perfection but we need take the balance between time budget and delivery. as for the fix up the shape some Italian modeller try it with a easy putty to reshape the intake duct till the end and redo the panel. as I stated in fb before, some customer is more concern with the shape of the end (not front of the intake) than the actual scale dimension. Then hasegawa is the way you go. But if you are so demand on the accuracy, in terms of the overall scale error or a bit shape error, both product does not meet you demand until someone got another new kit meeting all your need.
  8. Dear Thomas, We address this issue in TF-104 and coming F-104A/C when we receive and recheck the issue. For you the shape error is a factor that you would not take this kit as your choice, I respect that. But at the same time, other kits form from other brand has also some sort of issue. In 1/48, Hasegawa one is 1/49.5 not 1/48. So, each kit has it pro and cons and you as a consumer have to choose base on your needs. As for the TF-104, we take your feedback and luckily we are on time to revise the part before going to tooling, so the TF-104, F-104/AC will have this small issue resolved. As for F-104G, we evaluate that we will not do anything on it as cost to recover it to "your" comment is not worth the fiscal effort. Sorry that we are not running model contest to win the prize, we are running a business to provide consumer product with cost, budget concern. Just like TAMIYA F-4 in 1/32 posses some shape issue on the E/J model, unless you have a better option, as a modeller either you live it that or fix it yourself or find another alternative. If you want to stay a fair suggestion to the other people, you should also mention the compete pictures of all alternative pros and cons, instead of just putting focus on the one of the difficult to notice (of course not for you), So, the message stated here will provide a more clear and fair comparsion. I see you are very upset on this issue and posting all notes on facebook, forum to stand out the error to anyone who may not notice before you state it out. I am sure some one will provide you a perfect 104 sometimes at your promotion.
  9. For those who order surface mail to US or Canada, the container arrive in mid June but get inspected by US custom. it should be released next week and all parcel will reroute to you by USPS or FEDEX the next container to US will leave by end of July and arriving late August
  10. We may different from Hasegawa approach our decal variant runs for years. We have different approach for different subject, for some niche item we put all possible marking into one box. But for subject like f-18 or f-104, the market demand decal variant for different distribution and we will release according to the demand.
  11. Actually LuckyModel has become a multiple location mail order operation. For Trumpeter and Meng item, we are processing in China warehouse. The 6 weeks restocking time is waiting the arrival of some backorder from the maker. sometimes fast, sometimes slow. So we ask them to ship whatever they have and don't block the other item temp out of stock. But we should do it better to keep sending notification to customer before you ask. That what we are doing the system updating now.
  12. By 2019, we experience more case of temp out of production case from maker in China. Where most of the makers in China is reaching 6-7 years old with sizeable catalog. Keeping the back catalog in stock is a challenging tasks even more difficult to make a new item. like GWH F-15C, it takes almost 8 months to get to back in stock. And the question for dealer is we never know their reproduction plan so all we can do is waiting. And keeping asking supplier every week and update to customer.
  13. Logically it can. but remember we are working on a plastic. Even the tooling is 100% accurate, the produced parts produced will have different degrees of tolerance which make it difficult to assembling. And more importantly, the long term running cost of injection is bigger than the one time tooling cost. Therefore we already abandon the multi parts design to save tooling, instead we duplicate the parts in the tooling to save production cost. But different manufacturers position at different stage, so each has its own concern. But that is just our thinking.
  14. Please PM me I am working out
×
×
  • Create New...