Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Andrea Bolla

Members
  • Content Count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Andrea Bolla

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)
  • Birthday 05/31/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Italy

Recent Profile Visitors

7,546 profile views
  1. After a bit of time spent reworking the 3d design I got this: a new low pressure turbine with the bypass duct and with the afterburner gutter
  2. Still working on the engines, both the low pressure turbine and the augmentor gutter are badly replicated in the kit parts: and the worst part in this kit: Thought about some aftermarket replacement but considering that IMHO the best representation of this area is/was done by Shawn Hull or KA Models, the first long OOP and the latter more expensive than the kit itself I decided to design my own replacement parts: first test confirms it's printable on my YHD-101: have to fix a couple of things in my 3D model and repair the UV curing station but hope to have them ready in a few days
  3. Hi everyone, after a long hiatus I'm resurrecting this build: putting aside the nose section that caused this stop I worked on the engines; decided to split the one-piece tubes into three sections to make it easier fixing the seam and paint: to clean the seam on the corrugated tubes I made a "tool" with superfine Milliput simply pressed on the inner surface: and then, working with a small ball milling bit on the two halves before gluing them, made enough space for a good amount of superfine Milliput and formed it with the "tool". Using the closed nozzle as a template I drew a mask and cut them with a Silhouette Portrait: not perfect but a near miss...
  4. Same problem here, also tried other email address posted here without success.
  5. intake trunks needs taking care of ejector pin marks and a bit of sanding to remove tool machining marks; fit is really good so they will become seamless with just a bit of MrSurfacer. DACO book just arrived so I started working on the MLG cutting the oleo and preparing to replace it with a polished metal rod: while drilling the upper part a bit of Milliput come loose...
  6. Just another small update: modded the IFR receptacle support to match the modified door and, instead following instructions, glued part U2 before inserting the tub/well compound into fuselage. everything fits good so far.
  7. English is not my first language, so maybe my choice of words is not always perfect. The "fancy review" I was talking about is the one you quoted in bold and it's quite obvious that it's much more a promo than a review. I never denied that there are differences between the kit and Grumman blueprints and never said the shape of this kit is perfect too. For sure they are fantasy or BS both the "machining marks" and all the "problems" around infamous part U2 in the japanese video. For panel lines width up to your taste... maybe we could ask Janissary why he dared to desecrate the holy Tamiya rescribing it.
  8. All the well known shape issues are there (hips, IFR, tailerons, MLG oleo compression), up to you if consider them a deal breaker or not. IMHO the most annoying one is the IFR because it's so emphasized by the paint line running nearby; to my eyes the most offending problem in the hips area is the wrong cross section of outer engine nacelle extending to the inflatable bags, the extra width being negligible; for the taileron shape I doubt I can spot the difference on a built model so again it's up to your personal knowledge of the subject; I'm used to replace LG oleos with polished metal rods whenever possible so this one is not a grat problem for me. Panel lines width, as wrote in a previous post, is a matter of personal taste: this kit has the very same panel width as the GWH Su-35 while KH Su-34 have them slightly larger (10% more or less) with same depth; someone may find them too big, someone consider HB even bigger, someone rescribes both a Tamiya and a HB... Size apart some of the surface detail is missing as well documented. Speaking about molds and production quality my kit has none of the defects noted by Dave or Zacto nor it has any broken or scratched part as noted by italian reviewer so maybe those problems are just restricted to an early batch; parting lines are present but they are much exaggerated by photography than they are in real life (both my canopy lines took a fraction of the time I needed to clean the only one seam on a Hase F-15J) but they are not all the same size (again in my canopy the area on the rear right was worse than the area on the front) and it's true that some panel lines running across them needs some fix; there are also a lot of ejector pin marks, quite annoying but not more than in similar kits.
  9. Considering that this thread is about the kit and not about fancy reviews I'm not moving the goalpost at all: I have the kit, courtesy of my wallet, so I can check the real thing before spamming whatever BS found over the net. Surface detail is exactly like any other top quality kit (after my post I also looked at a KH Su-34 through the same micro and it has a slightly larger panel lines with a better surface finish, I have not added those pictures to my post because I changed the micro setup a bit so to be correct I should have re-took all the snapshots again), parting lines are present but, apart causing a little mismatch in a couple of panel lines as noted by italian review you posted above, they are much smaller than they look in those photos (those on my canopy took just a couple of minutes of a polishing nail soft stick to be removed) and flowmarks are not common at all, maybe present only in an early batch.
  10. Let compare AMK with a recent kit (GWH Su-35) under the same conditions (Celestron digital micro at same enlargement): GWH AMK My nose section has been reworked (see my slow start build in "in progress" section) so you can see the original plastic only around the antenna plate (there is a bit of primer left I that used to check the panel re-scribing work around the IFR): and here the slime light frames toned down a bit and polished with 00000 steel wool (lot of cleaning required here): Sorry not to include a Tamiya kit in this comparison but their most recent A/C kit in my stash is the He162 Salamander that is 14 years old.
  11. Of the statements you quoted in bold the only questionable one is about the accuracy and execution of surface detail, where it was clearly demonstrated that they are not nor accurate nor perfectly executed. Fit of main fuselage parts is indeed quite perfect and plastic surfaces are as smooth as they any other top quality kit (the "machining" marks on the surface in the build you posted are just nonsense). Panel line size/scale is just a matter of personal taste: even the worst maintained and battered A/C in quarter scale should be as smooth as silk with almost invisible surface detail considering a panel gap of 2mm would scale to 0.04mm or 0.001in; look into the "in progress" section and you will found someone re-scribing and deepening the "perfect" Tamiya kit, and you can bet it will turn out an amazing build. Regarding the nose cone fit I checked on my kit and as supposed you can add part U2 to the cockpit tub before inserting the whole assembly into front fuselage; that part is not really needed to keep the nose cone in place so if you think it can be more a problem than a solution you can avoid to use it; even if you follow the instructions that part fit without any major issue in it's place without need of pliers or brute force shown in video from your post.
  12. It's a line between two separate parts not an engraved one, up to the builder how to finish that seam.
  13. Considering the conical shape of the nose and that part U2 attach to the front of the cockpit tub I suspect that it should be mounted before sliding the tub assembly into the fuselage. Beside that, if I was the video's author I would not have wasted the 3 minutes shown and would have sent that part directly to the scrap box.
  14. What do you mean? Do you think is the inner part (U2) that cause the gap? That part is absolutely unnecessary, it may have been designed to help to align the nose cone but it fits perfectly without it.
  15. Thanks for your kind reply! So we can see a "full dirty" wing just for seconds during spoiler checkup and in that precise spot on the deck, is this correct? Hold back bar is attached by the same guy? And a last general question, watching a few youtube videos about deck operations saw sometimes jacket/shirt color mismatch like a yellow jacket on a green shirt or brown on a white one: is this common or just an excepion. Thanks in advance for you patience...
×
×
  • Create New...