• 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

25,272 profile views
  1. Thanks Hans! PM sent. Yes it will include both the 230 gal. and 150 gal. center-line tanks as well as some other goodies.
  2. I agree... The sponsons are going to be separate parts, but they will fit into pockets on the fuselage. I suppose on future releases we might include parts to cover the pockets for a sponsonless version, but that won't happen on this release so you would need to fill and rescribe that area.
  3. Back on target...After a 'slight' delay (sorry about that!)
  4. Sad to hear. I had no idea what I was doing when I wanted to make my first etch products and he was there to help and encourage me. I recall getting frustrated one time when my etch wasn't ready until I found out he couldn't get it done because he was busy helping a neighbor repair his roof during a huge snow-storm. He was a good guy. The no sprue method is really nice but I understand it took lots of extra effort on his part to ensure alignment of the two side being etched, with lots of rejects. I guess that's why we don't see other manufacturers using this method. It sure is/was nice though. No damaging fragile little parts trying to file away the sprue connection. No tiny parts flying across the room. Maybe somebody will apply some modern technology and this will make a come-back. *
  5. Let's not forget the F-22 Raptor. I know, it's boring and gray and has dull repetitive markings, but it's kinda shiny. Seriously though, it's been in service for 14 years and we don't have a kit of what is likely the best fighter in the world.
  6. I'd say quite the opposite. I saw no "petty nit picking" of the kit, only excitement about the kit and calm, rational analysis. The only negative in my view was wanting to shut down the conversation. Modelers discussed the model (on a modeling discussion forum) and discovered a few problems. The manufacturer listened and is making corrections.
  7. Have you seen my detail set? It includes detailed exhausts, seats, centerline pylon and an AN/ALQ-131 ECM pod as used on the F-15DJ.
  8. You have no idea how anxious I am to HAVE the plastic sprues!!! I want to build it!
  9. I saw the sheet metal hump that covers the gun barrel which is 'squarish' and thought "that looks wrong. It should be roundish and follow the shape of the barrel": I was wrong (I am not a Flanker expert!). It actually is squarish: Yes, the 'plastic' looks thick in the CAD, but it can be easily thinned. Good deal. One less minor detail to fix!
  10. Sorry I didn't comment on the 'joke'. I did crack a smile but then the rivet-counter in me kicked in and I started scouring the pics to see for myself. It does appear that they actually made it scalene! Good on them. But then I started looking at the pic and noticed the softness of the v-stab scoop and wondered "did they make them different sizes?". I couldn't find any side-by-side but it does appear that they are the same size, though the port does include the horizontal splitter. Then I noticed the overly bulky air-brake arms, the squarish gun port...Time to stop looking. Again, I'm hoping this is still a work-in-progress and will end up a wonderful OOB kit. It's been 7 years since I've found time to build a model and this has really sparked my interest. I'm hoping to not have to spend a lot of time fixing things.
  11. No, it's not silly at all to compare photos to the CAD and Berkut is more qualified to do so than most others. My post and illustration was meant more to show those not experienced in analyzing how photos can be deceptive. Some might compare the photo to the CAD and think that what might actually be subtle is huge. This is compounded because the CAD is modestly shadowed and has no panel lines or details in the questionable areas. Knowing what is happening with photos, one can compensate and essentially reverse engineer to make comparisons. Of course this is guestimating and not fool-proof. If you compare enough photos from slightly different views though, you can pretty much draw conclusions about shapes. It helps, but you don't need "plastic in hand" to analyze and make comparisons. I did not take the time myself to check. That is why I concluded with "I'm not saying the kit is right or wrong". What will chopping up a good kit get you? Yes, you will be able to determine the cross sections of the kit but unless you have accurate drawings you have nothing to compare to. Most published drawings (of any aircraft) are not accurate enough to make 100% accurate comparisons, especially cross sections unless they are factory drawings (and even then...). And no, sorry, I don't have any Su drawings to share that haven't already been published. P.S. If you are Uncle Uncool, thank you for dropping the ANNOYING pirate talk. I didn't even bother reading your previous posts. P.P.S. If you were previously banned, how are you getting away with using a new name? True. I'm hoping that they continue to refine the shapes but because they have already added all the details it may be too time/cost prohibitive to change things. General shapes are best dealt with during early development.
  12. It looks like the IRST still needs some work: (Lots of nice Su-33 pictures here: I'm hoping they plan to continue development and these aren't the final CADs.
  13. I just noticed another little issue I hope they can fix. The intake pylon stubs shown on the CADs are Su-27 type. The Su-33 stubs are a lower profile single piece part. I would assume that Sukhoi raised the missiles as far as possible for carrier landings(?).
  14. They might want to re-check this area. (from Vladimir Nazarovs excellent walkaround: (Larger image can be found here: Edit: As long as they're re-checking things, the seat could use a little love. That headrest is pretty square looking.