Jump to content

dryguy

Members
  • Content Count

    371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dryguy

  1. Could the front wheel/gear be put in the compressed position? If so, this set +the kasl wings could turn the Tamiya cat into a possible cat launch option. To tell the truth I am still waiting for the gwh cat..
  2. For anyone reading this thread and interested in this sort of thing--I highly recommend 'Greg' s airplanes' on YouTube. I thought I was knowledgeable on aerodynamics and the physics of flight-till I started watching his channel.
  3. The photos shown by Haneto confirm what we know- the slope is too great particularly where the engine nacelle meets the wing bags. I do also think that the planview is ever so slightly too curved- the pictures that solo provided seem to show that. Zactoman- you will be doing us a great service if you can point out the shape issues and possible fixes. On the plus side, at least most of the issues seem to be fixable with putty/resin and sanding. One of the things that put me off fixing the Academy kit was the canopy-no putty can fix that. I do like the details on this kit. I also believe that th
  4. Hmmm....had a bunch of posts deleted...don't really understand why. I think the pictures with tape comparing cross sections of the hip area with tamiya were quite helpful...
  5. Stunning model. The picture looking at the rear end of the model imho does show the issue with hip area. Thankfully the rest of the model looks good. (in terns of shape). Really need to get cross section comparisons of this area compared to tamiya.
  6. Well the differences seem pretty small if those are in fact the actual shapes. The whole front section seems to meet the main fuselage at a slightly different angle, but the overall shapes seem very similar. I am relieved that the canopies seem to be the same size-I was quite concerned that the AMK version was too small.
  7. Would a company such as Grumman sub-contract airframe parts to other manufacturers? If so, how tight were the tolerances on actual shape? Does the possibility exist of there being subtle shape differences from airframe to airframe due to different manufacturers? That would really suck if it did- so i certainly hope not.
  8. I too would clarity on this new potential issue - if the nose misshappen then i do regard that as quite a serious issue.
  9. Really excellent build thread. In some ways its such a pitty about this shape error around the hips because in terms of detail this kits looks spectacular.
  10. Wow Zactoman that's an excellent analysis! I think the error on the lower surface of the engine side fairing will certainly be less noticeable than the upper surface error. I am hoping that any other errors are at least less visible than than say the Hasegawa kit.
  11. I hear you and totally understand-however I am one of the insane people that likes to try my hand at sculpting etc, I guess I aspire to one day have Zactoman-like skills. I guess we all have different goals and strangely I get some enjoyment out of fixing these sorts of things. I tried to fix the nose of the academy kit, but gave up because the windshield was so badly misshaped and I wasn't up to the task of vacuum forming a new one. However I can only fix an error when I fully understand what the problem is. I guess I am one of those people that is really looking forward to getting the kit, a
  12. So if i am understanding correctly, the problem starts with the wing bladder bulging up too high just behind the wing, and then sloping too low after the wing bladder? I wonder how much of the exaggerated slope is caused by the overly bulging wing bladder? The reason why I say this is because removing material from the wing bladder via sanding will be a lot easier than adding material to the rear engine fairing. Can we start another thread analyzing Academy's F14 shape errors? That would be quite fun.
  13. Assuming that the slope is incorrect, what do you guys ( Zactoman!) suggest as a fix? I have been quite happy with polyester body filler - in fact i was able to modify a kinetic mirage iiie into a Cheetah C with the stuff. My thinking is to build up the area in question, and perhaps build mutiply 'negative ' cross sections to check for symmetry between left and right. The difficulty will be restoring little things like lost vents etc. I like the look of this kit and think i will be extremely happy with it. Yet i do think the rear shape is wrong, and will enjoy the challenge of fixi
  14. Very nice engineering for the windshield fit. And i think the shape of the "face" loots pretty good. My excitement level for this kit has certainly returned. Thanks for posting the build pics👍
  15. The model and the drawings are both perfect- it's the Grumman F14 that's off
  16. I was trying to post pictures that i had drawn lines over in paint to show exactly what you describe- i am glad someone else is seeing what i see. You described perfectly what i think the main problem is- ie too steep of slope towards the edge in cross section. It looks great on plan view but not in cross section, essentially. Granted that the pictures are at different angles, so i dont think the problem is a big one. When all is said and done, i think this kit looks fantastic and i can't wait to buy/build it.
  17. Well, I am very much looking forward to buying this kit because I have always wanted to build an F14 about to do cat launch. Having said that, trying to correct errors is part of the enjoyment of the hobby for me. Something definitely doesn't look quite right about the hips, so I am hopeful that talented modelers like Zacto can point out the actual shape error here when we have kit in hand. The other issues to me are relatively minor so I am not really cared about them. I tend to agree that the issue seems to be incorrect cross section of the hip area, as it look pretty accurate in
  18. A book i would whole-heartedly recommend to all of you is 'Goodbye Mickey Mouse' by Len Deighton.
  19. Zacto- i would appreciate your input on this- am i correct in saying that the major flaw of the "hip" area is more the cross section as opposed to the planform? It seems to me that said area slopes down too much, which then makes the whole thing look too curvy from certain angles. This is where i for one really appreciate the red lines drawn over the kit vs the real thing, so as to see if i can execute some sort of fix. I am thinking that perhaps some polyester resin followed by sanding to alter the shape would be a possible solution? Obviously far from ideal but a possibility for those incli
  20. Thanks for posting that; should be interesting reading. I know that the heatblur f14 is only a sim, but I think i have already learnt so much about the f14 just from watching the pre-release videos; particularly as to just how lethal the aim54 actually was. Regarding the AMK f14, it seems to me that the error on the 'hips' wasn't so much the actual top-down view, but rather the cross section, which made it look too curvy fro certain angles-have a look at Dave-Roof's comparison of the actual planform views with other manufacturers. That being said, I would have thought that the corr
  21. Galfa, I don't usually get involved with these sort of mudslinging contests on Arc, but I feel I have to add my 5 cents. The photo that Dave has shown with both the kits superimposed shows essentially zero difference. I really cannot understand why you have already made up your mind that that AMK tomcat is inaccurate, and that it will not be worth 'every penny.' Until not so long ago, we ll built Hasegawa tomcats; a kit which I did not enjoy building, does not come with weapons, and has its own accuracy issues, small though they may be. BTW the hasegawa F14D is incorrect in it's afertbur
  22. Dave thank you so much for that. This issue, which for me wasn't really an issue, is now put to bed. And well done AMK for fixing it if indeed it actually needed a fix. At first glance the panel lines on the AMK kit also look nice, crisp and not too deep. This was a common criticism of some of their previous kits.
  23. I think you are absolutely correct. I think that the AMK may have a very, very slight amount of a Kardashian rear end going on, but I think the amount is greatly exaggerated by the difference in wing bladders, inflated vs deflated. Deflated wing bladders would significantly 'straighten' the curve in that particular view
  24. Berkut and Dave, just trying to clarify what I think Mstor is saying, is that the on the rear fuselage of the actual plane, above the rear portion of the stab, isn't as smooth of a curve as it would initially seem. It appears to have a sort of very subtle 'double bump' before terminating at the afterburner. After much looking at the pictures, it appears that he is right. Having said that, this shape is extremely, I mean extremely subtle. To the point where it is well within my threshold of things that do not bother me, and I am one of those f 14 nuts...nearly as bad as darren and Manuel lol! I
×
×
  • Create New...