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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mfezi

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Pretoria, South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

4,976 profile views
  1. These walkarounds may be useful: http://scalemodels.ru/modules/photo/viewcat_cid_474.html (5 pages of photos) http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/avia/after_1950/Mig-29SMT_2012/ (23 pages of photos) http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/avia/after_1950/Mig-29smt/ (7 pages of photos) For the last two links, you can find the numbers to navigate through the pages on the bottom left.
  2. I also enjoy this thread - I'm surprised it hasn't been more active. So, my contribution: Genre: 1) 1/48th WWII fighters: I prefer building aircraft from the larger or main combatants (US, Germany, UK, Italy, USSR, Japan, France) or, alternatively, South Africa, being South African myself. I tend to cycle through the countries. 2) 1/48th cold war and modern fighters, all sides. Manufacturer: I tend to pick subject first, then try to find the best kit of the type. I do like the usual ones: Tamiya, Hasegawa, Eduard for their great engineering. But for an excellent combination of subject selection, good research and good engineering I would say my favourites are Zvezda for 1/48th WWII and GWH for modern military. ICM has also done really well in both genres over the last few years. Zvezda is really difficult to beat for value (cost vs quality) and I'm extremely excited that they also now started dabbling in 1/48th modern jets. Favourite kit: Whatever I built last - if I'm satisfied with the results. In fact, I like kits that are accurate and of good quality, but perhaps with a slight challenge along the way. My most recent "favourite": 1/48th Zvezda La-5FN with Vector resin. One of those kits that require careful attention to detail, but that comes out absolutely looking the part when done.
  3. If you open the aperture, you reduce the depth of field, so how will the images be clearer with a wider aperture? If there is one thing which, in my opinion, make models look like models in a photograph it is a shallow depth of field that cause wingtips and other extremities to be slightly out of focus. You are right that the shutter has to stay open longer for a smaller aperture (everything else being equal), but that you can deal with by using a good steady tripod, a timer or remote trigger, good lighting and increasing the ISO (within reason). With most DSLR's you barely see the difference between ISO ranges of 100 to 400, unlike on traditional film where the difference between ISO 100 and 400 was very noticeable.
  4. Your source also says 387 had been delivered. So where did you get 2700?
  5. Are you still referring to the 737 MAX? Just checking, since Airbus also came up in the thread. I'm not sure where you get 2700. The MCAS that resulted in the two accidents (Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines) was only introduced in the MAX model, which has been operational since 2017 and only 393 had been built in total (of which 387 had been delivered). The particular problem would only manifest itself after a specific sequence of events and failures, so it is not at all surprising that the first accident happened only about 1.5 years after the MAX started service. Two accidents to the same cause after less than 2 years of operational service of the aircraft and out of a fleet of less than 400 is completely unacceptable for a modern airliner. Of course each accident had additional cause factors - that is the nature of all aircraft accidents. Training, familiarity with the systems, experience, etc. are always relevant factors. But in this case there was a common root cause which was clearly aircraft related.
  6. Wow! The 1/48th news is fantastic - all three!
  7. Just to add, since Mr Mark Softer was mentioned further up: I recently built the Academy 1/72nd P-47D: Actually a very nice kit and the decals look very good on the sheet. However, as others mentioned, the decals appear impervious to setting solutions. I tried Microset/Microsol and Mr Mark Setter/Softer with very disappointing results in both cases. I eventually got sort-of an acceptable result on relatively flat surfaces, but I ended up masking and painting the invasion stripes, nose chequer pattern, etc. I remember having similar troubles on older Academy kits, but since this kit was newer (in the relative sense - it was released in 2001) I expected better results - nope. Some newer Academy kits come with Cartograf decals (it is usually indicated on the box). These are excellent and react well with most setting solutions. For older kits I will definitely use after market decals in future.
  8. No problem. I hope it helps and you go ahead and build it. This is a very good choice from my point of view: It has some interesting and colorful markings, it is a little weathered but not worn out like some Su-27s and it has a bit of notoriety, making for an interesting discussion piece.
  9. There are quite a number of pictures of that aircraft on the internet. Its registration is RF-33749:
  10. For those here familiar with the Fighter Pilot Podcast, here is Vincent Aiello's take on the trailer:
  11. Yes it is working now, and what fantastic photographs those are! Thank you. I'm jealous - wish I could have gone myself.
  12. For some reason, I can't see the pictures. If I right click on the text to view the image, it takes me to a site that says: "Vous ne pouvez pas télécharger cette pièce jointe" (you can not download this attachment). Maybe it is just me or my browser, but perhaps someone else can just confirm whether the pictures are indeed visible? I'd love to see them: I've been to MAKS but never to Kubinka.
  13. Hi Gabor I hear what you are saying and in principle I don't disagree with anything, except for my opinion of what constitutes a mature (once again, not "final") design. Historically, and in all the real-world projects that I have been vaguely involved with (I worked in flight test), there were significant changes going from the last prototype to the first production aircraft (or aircraft store). Changes continue as the aircraft further matures, but if I was a model kit manufacturer, I would have preferred to see that first official production aircraft with my own eyes before finalizing the moulds. It is a simple distinction of where I draw my personal line, and this is to avoid what we have seen historically with model kit manufacturers basing their kits on a prototype and then having difficulty to catch up with operational configurations - the Hasegawa 1/72nd scale F-15E is a good example. If it changes further after the first production run, so be it. In most cases it would be easier to keep up with those changes compared to the case where you started your moulds with a pre-production prototype. I bought the old 1/72nd scale Zvezda T-50 right after it came out. I haven't built it yet, not only because of its known shortcomings, but also because I simply prefer to build an aircraft from an operational squadron rather than a prototype. If I was to replace it with this new 1/72nd scale kit, I would probably wait to see if I can indeed build an operational aircraft from it. As you said initially, this discussion is moot: There is no 1/48th scale Su-57 on Zvezda's near-term horizon. If they eventually decide to do one, the first production aircraft would almost certainly have reached operational squadrons anyway, so one can expect them to incorporate all the latest changes into such a hypothetical kit. From that point of view, and considering that I prefer 1/48th scale, I'm actually quite happy that they are re-doing the 1/72nd scale model first.
  14. I think we all understand that. In fact, until the release of the Yak-130, my expectation was for no 1/48th scale jets from them at all - at least it has now become a possibility since they have released at least one (very good) 1/48th scale kit. That is why I was quite specific by saying that I would prefer to wait until the first production aircraft has rolled off the production line, rather than saying we should wait for a "final version". In fact, I was quite careful to avoid the word "final": being an aerospace engineer, I have often been personally involved in changes to operational aircraft during their lifetime. I have no illusion about the existence of some static final configuration that remains frozen in every detail. Nevertheless, it is quite common to see major changes going from prototype to production aircraft versions, while those changes usually become smaller as the production versions evolve. I prefer that, if it happens that the moulds represent a specific moment in the evolution of an aircraft type, it is representative of a version that ended up in an operational squadron, rather than being representative of an early once-off prototype. But, as I also stated, it is only my personal opinion.
  • Create New...