Gene K

I haven't seen much on ARC about this new kit, so thought I'd repeat my Britmodeller post to get some comments from the ARC folks: I finally received my two Airfix FG.1 Phantoms yesterday from Hannants, and anxiously opened one of them to start a preliminary fit. I was impressed with the engineering and the many options in the kit, but was just a little disappointed in the molding – the panel lines are soft, and the fit of a few parts required a little more fiddling than I anticipated (enjoyable modeling). Of course I again had to shake my head in disbelief at the lack

Gee whiz -- celebrate this outstanding kit instead of bemoaning it. Gene K

I don't need a set, but I'm in line since it's a Hypersonicmodels product! Gene K

Nice. So what are your production plans???? Gene K

Sorry you feel that way. Of course I think that this side discussion is appropriate considering potential malware problems posed by Colin's image hosting site. Thanks for the advice on Ublock Origin - works great on postimage popups, but I'll avoid that site ... even while having its cookies blocked. I agree to not comment further. Gene K

Thanks! Definite difference. So the Academy kit is the most correct according to "other evidence", I gather. If ZM acknowledges and alters this fuselage section, then good. If not, I'll continue to get the rest of the line above any others out there. Thanks again. Gene K

Yes ... I use the best - AdblockPlus on Chrome. Which magic extension are you using to block the ads on postimage? (I'll have to check to see if postimage is on the friendly allowed list.) Gene K

Thanks, Ben, nice rundown ... as usual. Can you provide a link to the Plane Talking discussion, please? Since I don't frequent there, it's hard for me to search the site with their thread setup. And as concerns the ZM rear fuselage "problem", has anyone there laid out cross sections against the supposedly correct Academy fuselage? Gene K

NIce tip, thanks. As an aside, can't you post your small pictures so that clicking on them takes one directly to the larger picture instead of to the postimage hosting site that is filled with questionable ads to Chinese, Ukranian, Asian, Slavic, etc "Babes"? I'll do a malware scan after after viewing your links above. Gene K

Same here. EDIT: but your experience and eyes will be totally discounted by the photo gazers. Gene K

Absolutely not. Post count?? Everyone starts "low". Gene K

Great to know, thanks. I really appreciate your workmanship! Gene K

Yes, but Uwe continues with his tireless and obsessive beating of this dead horse. Seems he's found his special purpose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymucqmjJs20 Gene K

And you and Michael did great tutorials. Thanks, Gene K

Thanks, GW -- good stuff. Gene K

Very cheap shot from someone whose opinion I generally respect. Gene K

Deleted - wrong forum.

Don't feed Uwe - he's been stuck in a never ending snide about the ZM Phantom rear fuselage "problem" . (yes, my remark will set him off ... again) Gene K

Great explanation, Gary, thanks. So why should/does EDM produce a rough(er) surface as has been impugned? Gene K

Thanks, Mark. My assumption would be that the same one-off aircraft in the same camo was the one tested "during the Vietnam War" -- assuming that the camo complemented the lights. I assumed Thailand because that's where most of the air-to-air missions originated. Would be great is you dug up some real info (vice my assumptions). Gene K

Mark, Interesting Phantom with the Yehudi lights -- know of any source for the light assemblies ... or diagrams? I had to look up "Yehudi" (DUH) and learned that: Is the airplane you researched the same one that was tested ... with a different camo pattern? Probably Thailand based ? Gene K

The link works fine, Don - thanks. Regarding AMK response that "All of our kits are with this EDM finished surfaces" -- have no idea what EDM means or what the implication is as regards associated surface quality. Further, it's not clear if this a new process for them -- or whether all their previous "acceptable" kits used this process. Personally, I don't think the sky is falling. Gene K

Hello Don, Could you point me to where and why AMK stated that, please? Did they state why and what the results would be? The over-reaction (!!) by some to pictures purporting to show rough texture on the new Kfir is a shame since it's apparently dissuading some to get that kit. Yes, it's there in a small area (and it shouldn't be!), but a few swipes of a fine sanding stick will smooth it to match the rest of the kit. Gene K

Rick, Since you don't have the kit and I do, let me give you my impression. The "rough texture all along the upper fuselage" to which PlasticWeapons alludes is overstated. It's pretty darn hard to spot visually, but a finger will confirm that there's a thin patch on the top right fuselage along the spine. It literally took me one whole minute with a fine and extra fine sanding stick to eliminate it. No panel lines were hurt during this operation. -- at all! If this small texture "issue" is the reason for your not getting the kit, you're unnecessarily denying yourself.

Ditto. But I think he can make "it" public, right? Gene K