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

Mfezi

Members
  • Content Count

    292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mfezi

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pretoria, South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

5,040 profile views
  1. I don't know about "particularly outstanding", but I thought the HobbyBoss MiG-17 is generally considered acceptable? http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/features/mig1748dwa_1.htm
  2. You are so right. This is also not a toy: Neither is this: And this is DEFINITELY not a toy:
  3. Look, I love this hobby and have been making model aircraft since I was 6 years old - so for more than 40 years. It has had a big impact on my life and, if I have to be honest, I took it even more seriously as I got older. Nevertheless, in most countries around the world you can buy plastic model kits in toy shops. Many of the models in my stash were indeed bought in toy shops - it is difficult to argue that something sold in toy shops around the world is not a toy. It doesn't change my passion for the hobby. About the age argument: Many Lego sets say 14+ on the box. Are those not toys either, even though they are (once again) sold virtually exclusively in toy shops? By the way, I just had a look: Kits made in the EU seem to generally have the 14+ sign, but my Hasegawa and Tamiya kits say nothing on the box, while my Zvezda kits just have a "no ages 0-3" sign. Looking inside on Tamiya instructions, the warnings I see are "A supervising adult should also read the instructions if a child assembled the model"; "Modeling skills helpful if under 10 years of age" and "Keep out of reach of small children". The same warnings appear in the instructions of many toys - something I can attest to as I have two fairly small children.
  4. In short, yes. And certainly much more so than Flanker, Fulcrum, Foxbat, Foxhound, Fullback, Fencer, etc.
  5. Concur. I know NATO code names are not designed to be flattering, but there appears to be something a little childish about that particular one. Just my personal opinion - maybe others like it. Good find. Did I hear correctly in the video that the guy said a contract was signed for 72 aircraft? I thought the official order was for 76. Maybe I heard wrong.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Your source also says 387 had been delivered. So where did you get 2700?
  10. 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.
  11. What were you responding to?
  12. Wow! The 1/48th news is fantastic - all three!
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. There are quite a number of pictures of that aircraft on the internet. Its registration is RF-33749:
×
×
  • Create New...