Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zactoman

  • Rank
    100 billion rivets!!!
  • Birthday 04/02/1964

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Home of Napoleon Dynamite!
  • Interests
    Zactowoman and counting rivets!

Recent Profile Visitors

26,356 profile views
  1. 1/48 OV-10A Bronco

    Yeah... I guess nobody cared for the box art... Waiting for the tooling and test shots. Still no news on price or estimated release date. I'll post as soon as I get anything.
  2. If you can get em, I'd love some shots of the inside of the exhausts showing the pivot areas (looking up top, down at bottom and sides). I've not seen any clear pics of this. Hope you're having a great time!!!
  3. Trumpeter 1/32 Mig-29A

    As for buildablilty I'd guess it is great. From my initial test fitting it seems that the major parts fit well with some modest adjustments. Trumpeter has been improving with every kit on buildability. Unfortunately their track-record on accuracy continues to falter. As for builds, I am not aware of any out-of-box types but Martin's "extreme" build will give you an idea of the shortcomings of the kit. http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=34338&page=3 It's a bit early for aftermarket, though I doubt here will be much other than the CWS cockpit previously mentioned and my Zactomodels goodies. Most of the big problems with the kit will have to be dealt with by the modeler. Canopy - Top view is too wide at windscreen arch, too tear-drop shaped. Widest part of frame and glass should be about 1/3 back from windscreen. Windscreen arch is too shallow/flat. Rear arch is way too shallow. Side profile too flat towards rear. Side-view curve of rear canopy and frame should end where frame ends then spine starts at a slightly different angle. As Martin pointed out with this pic http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=34338&p=937072 , the cut in canopy frame should extend behind canopy on fuselage side. Also note that bumps on sides of fuselage behind cockpit are a little too high. Spine is not round enough. Should be more circular profile from behind cockpit all the way to the rear, rather than cone shaped. LERX - As Martin has pointed out it should end further forward and be more defined (sharper) towards the front. Though the LERX transition to fuselage is an improvement over the Revell kit it is still not vertical enough beside the cockpit as Martin has corrected with his cuts. Intakes have some small angular problems, lack exterior detail and have fictitious panel lines. Rear engine tunnels on bottom flare outward too much. They should flare inwards some and a little less on the outer sides. Area between intakes is almost a straight line where it should go from narrow to wide to narrow. Exhausts are a step down from their MiG-29M kit which was to date the most accurate 1/32 exhaust. Transition between tunnels and exhausts is awful (see Martin's build). I will be addressing this with my exhaust correction. Upper fuselage engine area - Engine humps are anemic. They should get wider just before the exhausts then narrow at the exhausts. Instead they modeled them too narrow and a constant curve to the exhausts. In making the engine humps too narrow they made the air-brake too wide. This is just my initial analysis after looking at the kit. There are likely more problems. Overall I'd say that it is an improvement over the Revell kit but a disappointment for Mig-29 fans. The biggest issues for me are the canopy shape, the spine shape and the exhaust transition and detail. I will be addressing the exhaust and its' transition issues. My wheels, pylons and missiles will add detail not included in the kit. Since you are already building 1/48 kits of the Su-33, I'd recommend buying one of the Great Wall Hobby kits of the MiG-29 in 1/48. They are (pretty much) much more accurate than the Trump 1/32 kit and from what I've read are a pleasure to build. (I'd have included red-line pics but am lacking the time prepare them. If there are any specific details that aren't apparent after comparing the kit to real aircraft photos, let me know and I'll try to illustrate them for you)
  4. Trumpeter 1/32 Mig-29A

    Mine arrived today and I've just started looking it over. Are you asking about accuracy issues or buildability?
  5. photobucket sucks

    I've had a Photobucket account since 2006 and posted over 1200 pics on the forums. Despite not being close to my 2GB limit I got a paid "Pro" account in 2010 to support them. They just lost my support! I agree with the assessment that they are essentially holding our pictures hostage. They had to know that this move would render many forums and blogs useless, there-by pissing off a good portion of the previous users as well as viewers that didn't use PB (who now never will!). Stupid move! I think they should have allowed previously posted images to continue being hosted by 3rd parties and offered a reasonably priced plan ($25-40 per year) for new images. If they were insistent on not allowing previous pics to be hosted they should have given advanced warning (1-3 months) so people could find alternatives if they chose not to pay. $400??? Just ridiculous. I guess they only want to cater to big business. But then why would a big business even bother when they have so many cheaper, better alternatives or can just host their images on their own websites? I really think they shot themselves in the foot with this move. My "Pro" account is still showing the pictures I've linked and I am already paid through July next year (they don't offer refunds). Otherwise I would just cancel my account now. I have downloaded all of my folders and will be posting them on my own website. I'm not deleting my PB pics (but won't be adding more) in hopes that they come to their senses, reverse this decision and restore our pics.
  6. Is Zactoman Going To be at IPMS Nationals?

    Sorry, but no I won't be attending this year. I wish I could at least stop in to see the models but it's just not in my budget. Still digging out of the hole...
  7. Thanks for that Brad... Keep in mind that our first release would have been the Su-33, a Russian subject. The passion is there and rest assured we'll be doing some in the future.
  8. (Quoted this post but directed to everybody) It's been said many times on the forums: "drawings of aircraft are not necessarily accurate, including factory drawings". Consider that non-factory drawings are made by people, like you or me, that use the info we have to draw them. This is usually just a few published dimensions, (approximate) drawings and photos. It helps if you have lots of experience in drafting. Even if you have access to the real plane it is difficult to get meaningful measurements that will allow you to generate an accurate cross section (unless you have scanning equipment). The cross sections in most drawings are made after making three-view drawings, assigning where to have cross sections and then mapping the 3 views and studying photos to try to get the sections relatively accurate. If you were to try to scratch-build a model or generate a 3D model from drawings like this you'd realize that most of the time the different views don't match one another and the cross-sections are even less reliable. In some cases cross sections should be discarded completely and new ones should be made while developing the model. Yes, some drawings are better than others and some can be very good, but for the most part be skeptical.
  9. IIRC we had a dimension for the Su-27 nosecone diameter and based the Su-33 diameter on that. The plastic matched the CAD so there was no creep apparent. The Su-35 should have a larger diameter nosecone so if it's smaller than the Su-33 kit, it's too small. As for the Su-33 canopy, it was based on published drawings, a few scattered dimensions and studying lots and lots of pictures. I think it's pretty close.
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIL49dVcndQ The three minute mark shows a good close-up of the engine humps which confirms my previous concern that they are too wide (and wrong shaped). You can see that the portion that would be painted bare metal doesn't extend onto the fuselage but ends on the side of the hump. Unfortunately on the finished build (http://www.moxdao.com/thread-27229-1-1.html) (from the link Berkut shared) the guy didn't paint the bare metal sections on the upper rear fuselage. If he had the problem would be very apparent. Can you please post a pic matching this angle (pic previously shared by Berkut):
  11. Trumpeter MiG-29A (9-12) 1/32 with Zacto resin

    I'm happy to hear you like the parts. I have to give a big shout-out to Alexander (Eastern) . He made the exhausts for his build and sent them to me to use as a product. They were so nice they inspired me to do the whole correction set! I am responsible for the photo-etch though. As for the intakes, Alexander sent me the front section and I grafted it to the Revell center section. I can't recall if I did all the scribing or just the center section. Have you actually tried fitting the intake and engine tunnel parts? They were designed to fit the Revell kit so I'd doubt they would fit the new Trump kit without heavy modification. The exhausts were based on the Trump MiG-29M kit (and I sell them separately for that kit). Do they fit the new MiG-29A kit? I might just have to pick up the kit and see if there's anything I can offer to improve it.
  12. Welcome back to ARC! Sharla is doing great. Thanks for thinking of her! The reconstructive surgery went well and she recently had a check-up that showed her being cancer-free!
  13. Restock Of The A-7 Set?

    The seamless intake was a difficult to cast, high-reject, low-profit (huge expensive mold) part. Sold by itself it's just not worth the trouble to me. Sold with the other parts it was a bonus to the modelers (and extra work for me, though it did reduce the profit margin). My initial tests all failed and then I got interrupted and side-tracked with other stuff. I'm going to get my original vac patterns back and give it one last try. I'll update when I have news...
  14. I'm anxious to see a completed build-up of this kit so I can get a better look at the shapes. I'm suspicious of the upper rear section. I can see that the forward engine humps are too wide, too rounded and don't blend enough at the front. This is very apparent if you look at the forward engine access panels. http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/297722/07-red-russia-air-force-sukhoi-su-35/ http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/300660/07-lithuania-air-force-sukhoi-su-35/ Same size scoops on the v-stabs? Is the Su-33 kit the only one that has gotten this right? Question about the Su-35 as I've not researched it. Did they eliminate the FOD doors?
  15. ARC is one of the few websites where you can discuss the good and the bad issues of a kit. Please don't try to shut that down.