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. As seen today at Osaka Hobby Fest (at the Doyusha stand). Please feel free to discuss and compare: Cheers, Jeffrey
  2. 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
  3. A voice of reason and sanity, skilfully bending out all the "noise" (other descriptions may apply 🙂 ) in between. Thank you J
  4. Sold! Now waiting for a K (but Bobcat was doing one as well, weren't they?). J
  5. "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
  6. Let's just say "nun's hat" 🙂 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
  7. 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
  8. Here: http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin3/f-104g_fx-47/images/f-104g_fx-47_08_of_39.jpg Cheers J
  9. Ditto, saw it too and took a few pics, very impressive model indeed! J
  10. Good points John, I always thought the avionics A/C intake was already changed over to the ramp style by the time the C was introduced.... But I just checked a bunch of pics and indeed they all had the NACA type intake. Btw, the DACO set includes an NACA intake. Just the intake, not the whole panel as in the CE set. Weird though as some late A models seem to have been updated with the newer panel with rectangular ramp. J
  11. The main work would be to re-shape and re-scribe the vertical stabiliser and rudder from the large area G to the smaller area C, including the fairing over the exhaust nozzle. Not sure if that is really less work than fill some rivets on a Hasegawa C? It looks like the early wheels are included in the Kinetic kit, but the oleos are the beefier G type ones. The C model used slimmer ones (on the other hand, Hasegawa only ever included the slimmer oleos in all their kits, incorrect for the G and S models, but I don't think I've ever seen a model where the builder addressed that issue). Early exhaust nozzle, non-bulged MLG doors and C-2 seat are included as well. If you use underwing pylons, they need to be mounted perpendicular to the wing though, as opposed to the G which had them perpendicular to the ground. Cheers Jeffrey
  12. The J (as well as the CF-104) used narrow wheels, but the hubs were the spoked hubs as on the G. The dish type hub was only used on the A thru D models. So for a J and G in one box it needs both narrow and wide tyres, both on the same spoked type hub. Looking forward to seeing my kit! J
  13. Well, actually, I only found this problem to occur only about 2-3 years ago. I used to use a UK brand clear resin that was relatively easy to use, but then it was discontinued/reformulated and the problems started. I then went for a US brand (Polytek), which worked (but not nearly as well), then onto a French brand (Axson) which behaved similarly and now use a Japanese brand which is slightly better. The problem is with viscosity - basically, clear resins without Mercury are too viscous to flow nicely into those small, narrow cavities for canopies. So the resin needs to be pre-heated to lower the viscosity (which works), but heating sets off the curing of the resin much earlier than the advertised working time. It is still possible to cast nice canopies with today's material, but it's very labour intensive and you have to be prepared to have a high failure rate. This dictates the sales price. Jeffrey
  • Create New...