Jump to content

Poncho 6231

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Poncho 6231

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. And what part is that if I may ask?
  2. The attention to surface details visible in released CADs is truly incredible, in 1:48 I'm not sure I've seen anything like it. However I have a small nitpick. It's the boarding steps on left side of the fuselage, see image. This is present on only one series aircraft, bort 88. My humble suggestion is to have them removed. They are incorrect for all series Su-33 and all T-10K prototypes, except for one aircraft! If not possible, no problem, will fill them with CA glue. On the abovementioned bort 88 aircraft in the same area on the underside of the LERX there is present
  3. ^^^ That is definitely good enough! I suspected the fuselage was too flat (or not bulged enough) in the area between cockpit and beginning of airbrake, but couldn't tell for sure from the CAD drawings posted. That's clearly not the case. I like what I see
  4. To Flankerman's great description of fuselage curvature in cross section I want to describe something that perhaps developers of this kit haven't noticed. At radome attachment frame the fuselage section is circular. The upper central part of the fuselage is actually circular in shape EVERYWHERE, from radome up to the tail sting! See attached Su-33 drawing from Aviatsiya i Vremya magazine. The drawing is not perfect, but the author of this drawing obviously understood the shape of the aircraft, something not all kit makers did. I overimposed the circles on cross sections, perfect ma
  5. There's a growing belief these days that AMK is somehow "the new Tamiya". I find this very amusing. The image below explains better what I mean. My suggestion to the "in AMK we believe" people is to do a similar comparison with pictures of the real thing for any kit made by Tamiya in the last 15 years. AMK needs to raise its game considerably regarding panel lines size AND ACCURACY. If they don't, when compared side by side with Tamiya their F-14 kit will look ridiculous. Also about AMK MiG-31. One engine is a mirror image of the other one. This is incredibly silly. They really believe ther
  6. Yes, I understand that it's too late, modifying that part would probably require changes to other parts directly related. As you said, the error is not that big anyway and detail-wise the part looks excellent. But how about skin panel lines and access panels, are they willing to make some corrections? Please study the examples below.
  7. Hi Berkut, I think you are right about the rear canopy frame, it is correct. I looked more carefully at the other CAD drawings posted, in the side profile drawing I used in my previous post the coloured "edge" is not actually the boundary between metal and transparency, and this is well visible in the close-up drawing with the canopy, so that's what fooled me. Continuing with the critique: The fact that the nose gear leg wheels are too wide is visible with the naked eye, no measurement demonstration required. Because of that, if you try to "retract" the nose gear, the wheel will actually coll
  8. Hi everybody, my first post here. I have been reading this great forum for several years, and decided to register. This looks like a pretty promising project of a beautiful subject. But after analyzing the CAD images posted I think there are some mistakes. The mistake that I think it's the most important to be corrected is the lack of slope for the weapons pylons. In the CAD drawings posted there appears to be no slope at all or the slope is close to negligible, it's hard for me to determine for certain from such small images. On the real plane ALL weapon pylons are sloped downwards 2 deg f
×
×
  • Create New...