Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JeffreyK

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!

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. The chute canopy is printed in a flexible material and is (reasonably) thin, just thick enough to ensure good printing and structural integrity. As you will need a support prop under it anyway this will automatically induce a little deformation due to sag. Perhaps not as extreme as in some pictures (a proper kink or fold-in), but a gentle cardiod shape. J
  2. I have and keep exploring more and better options for materials and assembly. The dental floss is the best scale representation for the riser lines but it's rather difficult to rig as it's not stretching and wants to curl up on itself. Currently, I'm testing a number of stretchy materials to find the best recommendation. I also found out that the carbon rods don't glue wel with CA glue. I found the best way is to "tack" them in place with a tiny bit of CA and then secure the joint properly with 5min epoxy. All this will make it into the instructions or even as a material addition to the s
  3. Hi everyone, I just wanted to draw your attention to a new product of mine coming up that's the result of a considerable development effort. It's a full brake chute set for the Revell SR-71 in 1:48. The set comes with the (3D printed) open chute bay set I had released already, but with s small modification to accept the mounting pin of the shackle assembly. There is the lower riser bundle and shackle, cast in resin with a carbon fibre rod inside for stability. There is a riser fan-out piece with 44 holes to thread through the individual riser lines and then of course the big,
  4. My sheet contains stencils, including ejection seat and landing gear placards...but of course it's a full markings sheet, not just the stencils. https://www.hypersonicmodels.com/product/f-15e-operation-odyssey-dawn
  5. Thanks for that 🙂 Woking it geometrically in CAD (and at slightly rounded, scale converted figures) I get 0.6° sweep so in accordance with your calculation. While one drawing I took from a manual is showing the stabs in their downward projection view (i.e. with anhedral, span forshortened), the drawing posted above is an actual size representation, not forshortened. Also, all measurement figures given above (and in other drawings), except for the butt line where the root is located, are the dimensions of the flattened, actual stabilator as if it had no anhedral, not the downward pro
  6. My concern is that when I do something I want to do it as best and as accurately as I can 🙂 And if I find a discrepancy I want to find the cause for it. I would not alter the leading edge sweep - 40° is stated in pretty much every document so I don't think there is +/- wiggle room on that. Now, surprisingly, the drawing from the Aerofax book lines up nearly perfectly with what the geometry I had produced with the figures (also supported by real-world measurements as well). Most importantly, it lines up with a trailing edge that is very slightly swept!! So not dead-perpendicular.
  7. ...the weird thing is that the construction data (root chord, tip chord, span and 40° leading edge sweep) doesn't actually line up geometrically, unless the trailing edge is not totally perpendicular (90°) to the centreline (although all indications point to that being the case...), or the tip chord shorter or the root chord longer... J
  8. Thank you! That is of course on the premise that the kit ones are accurate 🙂 I already found differences between Tamiya and Kinetic there...slight variation in leading edge sweep angle and a very different anchor/pivot point position... J
  9. Where is this drawing from and is it reliable? I thought only the trailing edge was extended... J
  10. I was talking about the louvred vent panels on the nose sides, which is why I said "sides". Not the large vents adjacent to the nose wheel well. But I had another close look and indeed ZM utilised mould cavity insert pieces to facilitate the tooling of both the "E, early" and "G" kits from the same main tooling of the fuselage sprue. I had not noticed that before. But around the differing detail I had mentioned you can see a faint mould witness line giving away the interchangeable insert pieces. That makes me think that for their proposed "E late" release they probably won't provide mould
  11. No, the fuselage is not from the E kit. All G specific antenna mods are moulded on and they deleted the nose gun gas vents on the sides. The CAD is of course a common source but the tooling is new. J
  12. ...I had totally missed the fact that ZM didn't mould the slime lights onto the fuselage. Since they tooled an entirely new fuselage for the G kit that's inexplicable. Otherwise, I still prefer the ZM kit overall. There are too my small issues here and ther on the Meng kit. There certainly are some on the ZM kit as well but on the balance sheet ZM wins for me. But others' mileage may vary. J
  13. A number of upgrade sets for the kit are already on the way from DEF Model, including a corrected intake. (I hope this Facebook link will work...) https://www.facebook.com/defmodel/posts/pfbid02ZNcZXvBPMMFKXVVCNk773aCwPiZ8wvRj8VWW3zDjhkfP5EdurzbjV9XuKhC2A87Ml
  14. From the BM site. the top photo is from Academy's own promo. And a display model at a show looked pretty much the same. https://ibb.co/QFJMXmS J
  • Create New...