• 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

26,169 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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 ( (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):
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. 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...
  6. 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. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. I didn't really want to get involved, but I want to defend discussing models on a model discussion forum... Pointing out an omission, that happens to be one of the major features differentiating this Flanker variant from the rest of the Flanker family, seems a perfectly valid and important talking point. Why would any of you defend this obvious error? I'd hope, for a feature this important, it was poor research and not a conscious decision to just ignore it. Berkut described the problem in detail and included a great picture illustrating the problem with the kit as released. What more could be asked for? If someone discounts an omission or error as glaring as this they are asking to be challenged.
  9. On this Memorial Day, Remember the Fallen, Honor their Service and Sacrifice, and Rejoice in your Freedom. LTJG Joel Alexis Sandberg, USN, and CAPT Carl Edwin Long, USMC lost on December 20, 1969...
  10. Thanks for answering and providing the link. The part I'm not sure about is what the latch attaches to to hold the door open. Is it the ring in this pic? Fascinating stuff. Might make for an interesting diorama! How many men does it take to lift the nose? How many to sit on the rope if that method is used?
  11. Thanks Berkut. I wasn't directly involved in creating the CAD work so I feel it's OK for me to brag. They did an outstanding job . My understanding about the tooling source is no, it is a different tooling factory. Laurent is absolutely correct in his explanation of CAD vs tooling/plastic. Though saying that "CAD renderings must be taken with a pinch of salt" could be misinterpreted unless you read everything else he wrote to defend that statement. The CAD will match the size and shape of the resulting kit. The tooling and plastic will only be as good as the tooling/molding company is capable of producing. Which brings me to Berkuts comments: Berkut is referring to something that often happens on modeling discussion forums that is very frustrating and has often lead to arguments and even name-calling (flame-wars). People will look at CAD drawings or renders (drawings are the initial blue background pics I posted where renders are the more polished pics I posted later) and find a flaw, maybe the nose is the wrong shape, the panel lines don't match the real plane, etc. (These people are often called "rivet-counters". I wear that badge proudly!) They point out the flaw hoping the company will fix it and for some reason some people get angry and defensive basically telling them to shut up and just accept it the way it is. They seem to think by pointing these things out that you are somehow insulting the company rather than trying to help. The same thing happens with test-shots (first plastic parts made from new molds to evaluate the tooling). If flaws are pointed out the "good enoughs" ("That looks good enough to me. Quit complaining and just accept that we finally have a new tool Bronco!") will jump down their throats and try to shut down the conversation (in a "model discussion forum" of all places! ). Generally, molds will not be changed (very expensive!) so test shots pretty much always represent the final product. Identifying problems with the CADs is the best time to make corrections. Having said that and now being part of a development team, I dread the thought that somebody might find problems and point them out for the whole world to see (It's embarrassing, especially if it's a stupid mistake). Some have suggested e-mailing the company about the flaws rather than making it public. I am mixed about this because somebody noticing a small flaw might lead somebody else to finding a related bigger/fatal flaw that might have otherwise been fixed. When flaws are pointed out the company will then decide if the problem is important enough to justify the cost of fixing. Fixing a problem on the CAD can be simple or very difficult and time consuming (expensive) depending on what it is. Fixing a problem once the tools have been cut can be very expensive, even for small things (fixing a tool often requires welding the cavity and re-machining). Being a new company (with no income from previously released kits), we are striving to get everything correct the first time so that no fixes are necessary. If any of you do see problems with our work, I welcome you to e-mail me (Zactoman at Zactomodels dot com) the details (or post them if you'd prefer). I don't think this Bronco thread is the right place to post examples of other companies successes or failures in CAD modeling and their results in plastic. I will say that this kit will match the CAD in size and shape. Hopefully the tooling will be great and the details will be crisp and clean. So now we wait, fingers crossed...
  12. The pedals in the observer's compartment are in the correct location. Perhaps one of the Bronco guys can fill us in on why they are located there. I'm also curious about the fact that the rear flight controls (flap handle, control stick and pedals) are listed in the NAVAIR manual as "optional". Where they ever not installed? I was curious as to why they are opposite. Thanks for the explanation! So many nagging Bronco questions the more I study the plane... Do you happen to know if I got the latch and ring answer correct in this post? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. If it is in regards to the rivets/fasteners, we are limited by molding technology so have minimum sizes that can be molded. The flush rivets have to be molded as engraved details. A finely engraved flush circle done to scale isn't really possible and would disappear under the thinnest coat of paint. The detail will be as petite as our tooling will allow. I didn't realize how prominent the fastener detail was before starting this project: Good question. Something I hadn't even considered. Rear filler cap? Or is they some fancy hydraulic system to jack the nose up that I'm not aware of? Park it uphill when fueling?
  13. Since nobody complained ( ):
  14. Pavlov? Pavlov who? No. Pavlov is not a very common Chinese name... Happy to hear that you like what you've seen so far. Sorry, but the background of the choice is not exciting. The Bronco is just what the boss wanted to do first (well, Su-33 was first but that went South...).
  15. I hope I'm not overdoing it and posting too many pics. I plan to post more tomorrow.