Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • 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 a Harrier expert by any means, but the title of the thread reads "AV-8A", but according to the interwebs, the Stencel S-III-S that was used in the AV-8A, was the SEU-3/A, but in the AV-8B it was the SJU-4/A. Both Pavla and Aires are SJU-4/A seats and therefore not quite right, it would need face curtain pull rings for instance. J
  2. JeffreyK


    Ordered! Nice one. Cheers, J
  3. Apologies if it came across as too harsh, but my impression of the first replies to the initial post was another "they really had enough time, why is it not here already" theme. ZM usually time announcements and news with the US or UK nats (rather than Japanese shows) so I guess we'll hear news in Chattanooga. Perhaps test shots for dispaly? Perhaps a release at the UK nats in November? I have no idea, really just a guess. Cheers, J
  4. Do you guys realise that it takes years to develop and produce a model kit? The had a preliminary external shell CAD ready last year and produced a 3D printed mock-up from it to show the shapes at the US and UK IPMS nats. Even if the CAD (i.e. full external and internal detail, material thicknesses, mounting/connecting aids etc. etc.) had been ready at that point (and I really don't think it was), it would take up to a year to progress tooling to a finished kit. Yes, they can re-use a number of components from their short nose Phantoms, but there's still a ton of work involved. Today's world seems to suggest that everything can be done in a few seconds with some clicks and swipes on a screen. If anyone, I would have thought modellers would understand this...? Jeffrey
  5. Photo of an unpainted F-104 wing (can't remember which website it came from or who the photographer was - certainly at a Germany museum): The Hasegawa rivets are an over-representation and not accurate. But a completely smooth wing devoid of any surface detail neither. In particular if you're depicting an aircraft in active service with some weathering, wear and tear etc. I filled the Hasegawa rivets, sanded and then re-rivetted with a fine rivet maker wheel. J
  6. I understand your point and see the benefits, but there's a caveat. Going from CAD to tool is a several months-long process. This "grace period" would become quite long and completely obliterate Raymond's policy. As for this kit: will there be non-bulged MLG doors and different wheel options (i.e. RCAF, JASDF...) as well as two nozzle options? The 104 is the one type in my stash I have more than a couple of kits of, I think I have about 12 Hasegawa 104's of various types, plus tons of aftermarket resin and Daco parts... But one or two more can't hurt 🙂 plus, I'd like to see what the current tooling technology can achieve compared with the old Hasegawa kit. J
  7. I don't think one blade can serve as a "pilot blade" in the centre. Because if say one blade of the front rotor was dead centre over the fuselage, the blades of the rear rotor are in the same orientation , i.e. one blade is pointing dead aft, the two near the fuselage are at 60° left and right of the fuselage. You can't fold the rear blade pointing aft forward as the rotor mast would be in the way. Either the two rotors are somehow mechanically uncoupled and one is rotated 60° while the other stationary to have a blade from both forward and aft rotor dead centre over the fuselage, OR, and this is what is happening I think, the rotors stop in an odd, off-centre position where all three blades of both rotors can fold into the middle without hitting the rotor mast. So no blade would be left unfolded this way. Cheers, J
  8. ...except that the ZM canopy centre section is a bit too skinny in length. I think overall, Hasegawa is the closest and ZM comes second. I don't think any Phantom kit on the market has captured the lateral, central bulge of the real canopy (and cockpit) though. But we're entering the esoteric realm now... 🙂
  9. Well, I'm not sure...where would your three straight sections be, or their intersections? Here is an isometric view if the scanned tail and with a straight line in red below. I cannot identify straight cone sections here. The pink verticals indicate the cross sections for which I had actual construction data. The red vertical indicates the fuselage split line. When lofted, only the last four cross sections indeed form a straight cone shape. Of course you can loft all cross sections straight individually, but the scan indicates a continuous curve. Here is the connected fuselage outline, created from the cross sections, without the scan in the way (or course without the whole empennage section). The red line at the top indicates the last four sections in a straight line: Cheers, J
  10. Not only do I have the original cross section data from the structural manual, I also have a 3D scan of a 1:1 article and can say with some confidence that it’s curved. J
  11. The GWH aft fuselage is a dead straight cone, but on the real aircraft it’s curved. The bottom of the intake area is not defined enough I think. Intakes and fuselage form a sort of “UUU” shape, but as far as I remember when checking this at the time, it doesn’t quite capture the shape. But this may be down to tooling restrictions as the area is really difficult to break down into producible parts that then assemble together well. J
  12. The most striking issues are the length of the fuselage and the shape of the area aft of the cockpit. The spine is too "hunchbacked" and the aft canopy fairing is off. For a more comprehensive list, see here: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234974215-uruguay-lockheed-t-33-148-conversion-from-monogram-f-80/& http://hsfeatures.com/features04/ct133silverstarda_1.htm Note that the GWH kit is a massive improvement over both the Hobbycraft/Academy and the older Hawk/Testors kits. But there are still a few issues with the GWH kit, like the fuselage/tail cone and the belly in the intakes area... Jeffrey
  • Create New...