Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JeffreyK

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ...not to rain on the parade of what looks like an excellent kit, but the stabs look a bit odd to me. I just overlaid the dimensions of my (carefully hand measured and also backed up by the Daco book) stab dimensions and indeed the demarcation line between the inner and outer parts look to be off. The painted outer part is a bit too wide and the unpainted inner part too narrow, placing the fish plate too far inboard as well... Note I'm NOT overly concerned about the longitudinal discrepancy, I think that's photo and angle distortion. At the moment, I'm only talking about the lateral misplacement of the fore-aft panel line. It's better than on the Acedemy kit, but not quite right either....
  2. The Academy 1:72 kit has all the errors inherited and downscaled from its 1:48 brother, i.e. the size if the natural metal area vs. painted area on the stabilators, the wrong orientation of the tabs connecting the stabilator leading edge ("slots"), weird shape of the tail, A/C intakes and canopy proportions. As it's more detailed and sharper moulded than the older kits those issues are often ignored.
  3. ...the Revell kit is NOT my development, it's completely separate and independent. I will cooperate with GasPatch Models on releasing my kit. As far as I know, Revell have had it in development for several years, perhaps a couple of years less than I have (I don't know about the development team resources of Revell, but I've been working largely on my own while also doing other things). I've been reporting less progress on my design recently, but it's moving along nicely. Did or does Revell know about my project? No idea, but now they made their plans public perhaps I could ask ๐Ÿ™‚ Cheers J
  4. This does look amazing, I must say. Not my subject, but from a manufacturing point of view - amazing. J
  5. When it's ready Sorry for the cocky answer - I still can't give any precise dates, only that I'm on the home stretch design wise. All going well, next year will be spent on the tooling front and that will take many months. J
  6. Hi guys, just a quick heads up for you that the AG-330 Star Cart kit is now officially released and available on my website. Mainstream injected plastic, PE and Cartograf decals with full stencils, ID markings and instrument gauges. The kit can be built as a Buick and Chevy engined variant, the starter probe in stowed or extended position. https://www.hypersonicmodels.com/product/ag-330-start-cart Also available from these stores: the48ers.com F4dable Models BNA Modelworld Further outlets t.b.a. Cheers, Jeffrey
  7. Exactly the opposite! Scale model Manufacturers put labels like "14+" or "not suitable for children under 14" etc. on their boxes precisely to identify them as anything BUT toys. Toys are are things suitable for children and as such must pass MUCH tighter safety regulations, such as material composition, part size, sharp edges etc. etc. Most plastic model kits would fail these regulations and if an accident happened the manufacturer could be sued (if the product was allowed to be sold in the first place). J
  8. As seen today at Osaka Hobby Fest (at the Doyusha stand). Please feel free to discuss and compare: Cheers, Jeffrey
  9. Yes: Hobbyland, Honmachi (hobbyland.jp) Ms-Plus, Honmachi (ms-plus.com) Volks (Zoukei Mura), Namba/Nipponbashi (volks.co.jp) (Joshin Kidsland, Namba/Nipponbashi, but sounds like you know that one...?) Yodobashi Camera, Umeda (Osaka) Cheers, J
  10. A voice of reason and sanity, skilfully bending out all the "noise" (other descriptions may apply ๐Ÿ™‚ ) in between. Thank you J
  11. Sold! Now waiting for a K (but Bobcat was doing one as well, weren't they?). J
  12. "This particular kit is the very first attempt of ICM to release MiG-24BM plastic kit in 1:48 scale into the market" That sounds too funny! :)) So how many "attempts" do they think they'll need? Bookmakers to the fore! Cheers J
  13. Let's just say "nun's hat" ๐Ÿ™‚ Examples of non-3D scanned errors due to copying of non-standard detail: Tamiya 1:32 F-4 (battle damage patches), Czech Model F3D (ex-Raytheon test bird with added ducting etc.)... I don't think that a 1:1 translation of 3D scan data into a CAD model is a sensible method for creating a scale model. A 3D scan will give you and unbelievable amount of surface data, too much and too "noisy" to work with. You need to clean it all up and create workable shapes. Even cross sections from a 3D scan contain too much data - clean cross sections with a vastly reduced point count need to be created in order to create something usable and that's best done from scratch. The 3D scan (plus drawings, measurement data and photos) will work as a constant reference object, not just for shape check, but also for detail creation and location. Jeffrey
  14. The USAF sheet has got some interesting things on it and I'd welcome a re-release, but it's flawed as well - the wing top "USAF" for instance barely fits onto the wing, let alone in the correct position... J
  • Create New...