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

29,386 profile views
  1. I don't create flaws, I fix them. I am not currently planning any aftermarket for this kit or I would start a new thread in the Zactomodels sub-forum. I have been working on a fix for the hip problem, but a resin correction would involve replacing most of the rear of the plane which would cost more than most modelers would be willing to pay. So I am going to put together a photo tutorial to show the modelers how they can fix the hips for themselves. As for the good things about this kit. I have already mentioned that I liked the packaging. The decals look very nice. I agree that it has some great small detail, especially in the cockpit and gear wells. I have said that the weapons are more detailed than Tamiyas, though 3 of the 4 Phoenix included in my kit have molding problems. The single piece forward fuselage is nicely molded, but I would prefer it be in halves. I really think the F-104 would be better molded in halves. While slide-molded parts are "cool" and novel, they do have drawbacks both in the detail that can be molded as well as paint, assembly and extra detailing for the modeler. I'd stick with slide molds for weapons and small details but go more traditional on the larger parts. This is not only better for the modeler but cheaper to tool which means a cheaper kit for the customer. Regarding the Bronco, industrial espionage and Terry. The crowd has stated that this is not the place to discuss it. I will send you a private message. I know I was lied to in the past and would like to know the truth about why the Bronco project died.
  2. I have test shots of the Bronco parts. The pics of the AMK parts look identical. Dave Roof pointed out an error in the length of the AMK LAU-68 parts: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2983951 The Bronco parts have the same error: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2984376 I'm pretty certain they are the same parts.
  3. And while you're at it Sio, please answer the questions I asked after you posted this: I replied here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2983930 But you ignored my post and left the accusation hanging out there. Are you accusing me of something or are you accusing Terry (HazMAT Models owner)? What design of yours was stolen/sold? Who was it sold to? Did AMK receive permission from Terry to use the HazMAT LAU-3 and LAU-68 parts in your weapon set? Respected? Though I don't think everybody here agrees, thank you sir. For the record, I have personally had no interactions with AMK other than the banter on this thread. I did work with HazMAT Models who hired AMK to tool the failed Bronco project. I quit HazMAT before finding out that they had given up on AMK finishing the Bronco tooling. I no longer work for any other company other than Zactomodels. And no, Zactomodels is not a competitor of AMK.
  4. The review says that the AIM-7 length should be 75.84mm. Not sure where he got this number. He said the missile is .44mm/.017" too short. By the numbers I've got, the The AIM-7M (short nose) is about .8mm/.03" too long and the AIM-7F (long nose) is about .2mm/.008" too long. Published dimensions for the AIM-9M in 1/48 range from 59.375 to 59.83mm. The larger number is more often cited. Reviewer went with the smaller number and measured the part at 59.2mm or .17mm/.007" too short. I'm going with the larger number and measured the kit part at 59.11mm or .72mm/.028" short. Phoenix is only a few thousandths short so close enough. Too bad my fins were all goofed up. Has anybody else had fin problems? It seems they are using slide mold technology as a marketing tool in some ways. It has its place and is appropriate in some cases but the whole one-piece fuselage thing seems gimmicky to me. I would personally prefer the forward fuselage to be molded in 2 halves rather than one piece. Filling two seams is no big deal but having access to the insides when installing and detailing the cockpit is. I think they might be shooting themselves in the foot with their plans to do the F-104 fuselage as a slide mold part(s). I haven't studied it in depth but would guess they will have to compromise on some shapes and details to do so. But hey, woo-hoo! Slide mold technology! The highest of highs and the lowest of lows...
  5. On canopies...My previous post sharing my thoughts and pics: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2980597 I didn't even bother mentioning the two mold lines because most modelers expect and know how to sand them out and polish or Future the canopy. I didn't bother to mention the missing frame and rivet detail on the left windscreen because it's not very difficult to fix that. My big problems with the AMK canopy are the distortions on the left windscreen which are due to varying thickness of the plastic and difficult to fix and the fact that the canopy is just too wide and shaped wrong, something that can't be fixed. I applaud the guy for doing such a thorough review but have to point out some mistakes he made. I will double check the missiles but IIRC my initial quick look revealed that the AMK missiles were pretty close in dimension to the actual ones. I don't know where he got his actual dimensions but the one listed for the AIM-7 doesn't match what I have or what's listed on Wikipedia. As for his use of the Grumman drawing... Assuming he got the drawing from here: http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/catalog/drawndoc.htm or is using the same scan of the blueprint that that website is offering (looks like it), there is some distortion and stretching present on that drawing, particularly near the edges. Some things to keep in mind when using existing printed drawings: 1. Not all scanners accurately reproduce drawings/photos. X and Y dimensions should be validated on the scanner by scanning a ruler then measuring the digital scan (using something like Photoshop). Generally each axis will be stretched or shrunk proportionately, but some scanners may stretch/shrink just certain portions (usually near the edge). 2. Printers can distort. Many (most?) printers don't produce XY dimensions exactly. Your average $30 home printer is likely off a bit and probably doesn't have the ability to fine tune the calibration. Perhaps newer models can be calibrated by the user, I don't know as I'm using a dinosaur. You can check both X and Y by printing that ruler scan you made. If you know the percentage of error you can make adjustments in Photoshop and print something closer. 3. Blueprints, or more commonly as in this case, whiteprints, can be off, especially those made on older machines. I took the drawing into Photoshop and made some adjustments to remove some of the distortion. That wasn't possible near the edge of the drawing (right hip area) so I focused on the left half from the centerline. I then mirrored the left half and adjusted for published length and width (previous pic): (Note again the size and shape of the AMK stab. More on that soon...) My printed version is off a bit, I didn't bother to fully adjust the drawing for my printer as described above. Close enough for government work. That being said... At the station he referenced, station 7025, my drawing measures 96.38mm (his was 94.31). My Tamiya kit measures 96.1mm at that location. He shows 94.69 but he made the mistake of measuring the upper part when the lower part is actually wider. Here is my Tamiya part sitting on the drawing: With a measured difference of .011"/.28mm, we're talking about a line width or well within a reasonable margin of error. He measured the AMK kit at 97.79mm which is .055"/1.41mm wider than my printed drawing. I can't measure my AMK to check him because I've already modified the parts. Sorry I'm taking so long to show what I've done. I've been busier than ever lately and family and paying work comes first. I have been working on a quick and dirty hip correction demonstration between things, when I have time. I have been taking loads of (crappy) cell phone pics of each step. I need to pick the few most meaningful of the 200+ pics and edit/resize them. Hopefully I didn't miss anything important. Rather than spread it out over tens of pages in this thread, I'm holding off until I finish the demo, get some final (better) pics and compose an explanation of what I've done. I am getting close.
  6. What some might consider non-existent or insignificant others might find obvious and glaring. It's all a matter of perspective.
  7. While I appreciate the contributions others made in developing the kit, I do think that you are giving yourself just a bit more credit than is due. If you recall, a relatively finished CAD model was what was first unveiled. At that point we were making some minor corrections and changes. We had already created the model using the "over 1,000 pictures found on the internet, every book and magazine article we could find and referenced all the published drawings we could find". Yes, your excellent Su-33 walkaround was included among those pictures, but were we seriously supposed to praise each and every person who posted (1,000+) pictures on the internet? After showing the CAD, I created an account on Scalemodels.ru where I was enthusiastically welcomed and received input from you and several other members (mostly from Sasha - Skylark710). As a result we made some small (but worthy) changes to the CAD and I did thank all of the members there (which included you): http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_p_928879.html#928879 Had the project not been abruptly terminated, there were plans to modify the tooling to improve construction as well as make some additional corrections. Despite the tooling not being changed, the as-is kit released by Kinetic is still a great kit (with some frustrating minor problems easily overcome by most modelers). Had the project not been terminated, I would have likely given another round of thanks to those who had contributed. I really do appreciate that you and others post such great pics for all of us modelers and aviation enthusiasts. Thank you. Vladimir posted a higher rez pic here (click and zoom for even higher rez external link): http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/310225-kinetic-su-33-bort-80/&do=findComment&comment=2979174 Note that the inboard wing slat has been replaced with one from another plane and the paint on that slat doesn't match the existing camo. Also note that that slat has the small white triangular (dielectric panel?) at the inboard corner (as seen on Bort 80) that Bort 68 didn't sport. So yes, between the fading/weathering and a mismatched slat, this would be an excellent subject to model. Original post: For those still interested, I currently have the Kinetic kit listed at $42! I will be keeping the kit at that price for about 2 more weeks after which the price will go up and I will be listing them on Ebay.
  8. When I helped develop the kit for Aviation Art (that was later released by Kinetic), we used over 1,000 pictures found on the internet, every book and magazine article we could find and referenced all the published drawings we could find. Before I published the CAD images I was not allowed to share the project except with a few people that I knew who mostly helped answer questions or validated the CAD drawings, but did provide some references. I did thank them in the old Su-33 thread. If they received those references from you, I was not aware. The majority of the references we used were found on the internet or in books. The development project stretched out for over 2 years and I did crash a hard-drive on my computer during that time. I don't recall receiving any pictures or info from you personally, but if I did, I apologize for not mentioning you in the old Su-33 thread. Please PM me and let me know who you provided "all the information on the plane" that then shared that with me, because I honestly don't know what you are talking about. If you are referring to the color paint charts and not the kit, then yes I did use the photos you posted (as well as a few others I found on the internet) to make the chart for Bort 80. I do thank you for posting those. The references used in making the charts for Bort 68 and 86 came from a variety of pictures, none of which had you watermark on them. You do understand that I made these charts as a personal project and released them to the public for free, correct? It's been a rough week...
  9. Thank you, I think... Happy New Year everybody! Let the putty flow!
  10. Go easy on him guys. It can be difficult for those not having English as their first language.
  11. I'm a modeller first (though I never have time to build anymore ) and prefer accurate kits, without errors requiring lots of extra work. If an error is something I don't feel is worthy of aftermarket, I'm happy to share how I'd fix it (time permitting). As an aftermarket guy there are lots of correction parts I can still make, the list is long, but I'd prefer to be making detail parts and conversions.
  12. No, I don't have a vendetta against AMK. In fact I've tried to keep my comments as much about the model as possible and not about AMK. If I had a vendetta there have been many instances where they were being trashed upon that I could have easily piled on. 💩 Thank you to those that stepped up in my defense during my absence. If anything, I have a vendetta against those in denial when problems are pointed out with kits (be they CADs, test shots, pre-production or released kits) and those that try to shut down the conversation when problems are being discussed. I try not to attack the people but rather to prove that the problems exist. If I can clearly see a problem and I'm told it's just an illusion, I consider that a challenge. I'm more interested in illustrating to those that are interested but have trouble clearly seeing or understanding the problems, and when possible suggesting or showing how to fix the problems.
  13. Photobucket () is back up. For those who may have missed my previous post, I included links to various posts highlighting many of the problems discovered with the kit: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2984863 Despite the problems with the kit, it can be built up to be a very nice looking model as Paulo has shown. It seems that everything is 1mm for you. I'd recommend asking Santa for a new pair of calipers . It doesn't take much for certain shapes to look wrong and 1mm can make a huge difference in certain circumstances. In the case of the fwd fuselage I only took a few dimensions and it was as much as .085"/2.16mm wide. It is .061"/1.55mm over in height at the radome and even thicker further back. So yes, for those familiar with the Tomcat it may well look fat. Side-by-side with other kits it will look fat even to those not familiar with the Tomcat. ________________________________________ Sorry for my absence of late. Building a new computer has proven to be more challenging than I expected . I should stick to models... Cheers and Merry Christmas to all of you!
  14. Agree... No... For someone willing to re-scribe and add a little detail, Monogram belongs near the top of that list. (Note that as I post this Photobucket is offline so pictures in the links I'm providing don't show. Try back later)(Yes, I'm still using Photobucket. Not by choice ) Previously you asked what was wrong with the kit. Darren mentioned two of the big issues, the odd shape of the rear/hips and the refueling probe being at the wrong angle. There is much more wrong with the kit, some big and some small issues. The biggest issue he didn't mention (IMHO) is that the AMK is thicker/bigger overall (see these 2 posts for pics). http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2980597 http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2981680 This is most obvious on the nose section because it is more exposed than the rear fuselage center section. Those not familiar with the Tomcat might not notice but it becomes much more obvious if the AMK kit is sitting next to another brand kit. I mentioned that the AMK canopy is wider, but the sides are also curved and not almost parallel like they should be. This will be most obvious on builds with the canopy open on all grey builds with the black cockpit sill next to the gray fuselage sides, more so when sitting next to another brand kit. As for the hips it is much more than just the slope of the area next to the v-stab. Time permitting I still plan to properly illustrate (possibly in plastic and putty) what is wrong and how to fix it. Until then here are some red/blue lines that give a hint: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2983301 The fix will have to be a band-aid because accurately fixing it would be almost impossible without replacing the whole rear of the kit. He mentioned surface detail being asymmetrical. Here are a few examples: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2979427 http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2980153 Other issues that have been mentioned include the Sidewinders being in the wrong locations (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2984376), the extended slats being mounted wrong, something that the modeler can fix (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2980152), the wing gloves/shoulders being thick (it's more the radius which can be sanded to a better shape), etc. (missing bump on the main gear door, missing strut lock hole/mechanism on the side of the intakes, missing access panels on the upper/inner wing, and more that others can add). I've only pieced some of the kit together, but there seem to be a lot of annoying fit issues (I showed the cockpit/gear well fit here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2983929. I hope to show more and fixes for them in time. HTH
  15. I sent pictures, drawings and text data that I found on the interwebs to HazMAT for the Bronco weapons as well as many more weapons systems for other projects. As for the LAU-68, I mostly contributed to warhead info and assisted AOA decals with stencil data. The change I recommended was moving the holed (is that a word? or is it holy?) disc closer to the opening. If you compare the CAD images to the plastic (or real pics) you can see that they did this. As for the dimensions, as I said, I provided them, but it appears that something got lost in translation. Comparing the pics of the AMK parts to the Bronco test shots, they look identical. I wasn't aware until you pointed this out and I measured the Bronco plastic which is also short. The weapons included in the Tomcat kit are nice and in many ways superior to those included in the Tamiya kit. They include more detail, though a bit soft, including much more detailed exhaust sections thanks to slide-molding and/or separate exhaust parts. They do have the disadvantage of having 4 tooling seams to deal with vs 2 for conventional molding. I did discover that 3 of the 4 Phoenix included had flawed fins making them unusable without extensive work. The front corners have short-shots and the edges of one of the fins is mangled. All this weapons talk reminds me that the posts about the Sparrows being in the wrong location were deleted when ARC suffered a database loss. Here is the pic I had previously posted: And then there's this:
  • Create New...