Zactoman

It's good to hear that at least some businesses are doing good. Zactomodels, not so much. Twelve years ago we made the choice to leave the big city (L.A.) and move to a small farm town in Idaho. While we do feel safer from the virus being relatively isolated, I am starting to worry about surviving financially and the future of Zactomodels. If anybody had plans to buy Zactomodels goodies, ordering soon would be appreciated. During the past few weeks sales have dropped to almost nothing. My wife works part time at a supermarket deli. They have cut her hours and are consider

I don't think there's any way to truly fix the rear. As I mentioned this exercise was merely a band-aid and a solution that an average skilled modeler might want to undertake. To attempt to truly fix the rear would involve changing the v-stabs, the v-stab intersection and the top of the rear nacelles. And even then there would be other problems with the fuselage thickness and lower nacelle parts as previously mentioned. What I've done was also quick-and-dirty, for the purpose of doing a tutorial, and could be definitely be improved upon. In that previous pic I hadn't moved the

Buy and build the kit. You'll find lots of problems...

Not defending the kit, but with a little work (more than should be necessary for a modern kit) the parts can be adjusted to fit to an acceptable level. Granted, I don't have anything glued together and the internal parts aren't installed, but if you make sure those internal parts don't interfere (i.e. cockpit/nose gear well fit) then the actual assembly should match what I'm showing here. There is still an annoying gap that will need to be dealt with. Had the nose been molded in two halves this could have been molded like traditio

I don't think it's time to stop. I thought I had stated that the lines I had drawn were approximate (close enough for government work), but apparently didn't make that point exactly clear. So here, "these lines are approximate" (Red = AMK; Blue = Tamiya = Grumman):

It seems they screwed up the instruction sheet. Forward antenna should be part U 34. Both copies of my part O 10 are molded properly (with a bit of flash and slight texture on one side) which is surprising considering how many other mold problems my copy has.

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 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.

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

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.

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 f

What some might consider non-existent or insignificant others might find obvious and glaring. It's all a matter of perspective.

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

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

Thank you, I think... Happy New Year everybody! Let the putty flow!

Go easy on him guys. It can be difficult for those not having English as their first language.

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.

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

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

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 i

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

I thought the packaging great. My only damaged parts were the two separate rear canopy pieces that had flexed at the attachment sprue to the point that stress fractures appeared on the part. This unfortunately means that those parts can't be used. I previously mentioned this and posted pics of the flawed windscreen here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2980597 After reading several comments saying that it was difficult putting the parts back in the box, when I first unboxed my kit I labeled the bags with

Can you elaborate on this? Terry (and the HazMAT team) developed the Bronco but what design of yours was sold and to who? AFAIK these were developed entirely by HazMAT for the Bronco kit. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/296183-148-ov-10a-bronco/&do=findComment&comment=2859169 My involvement was in research and CAD validation. I received the initial CAD drawings and suggested some improvements that were made. Did AMK get permission from HazMAT to use these parts in your ordinance set? I have assumed that Terry gave you p

Sorry for my absence, I've been crazy busy lately and my 12 year old Windows Vista model shop confuser decided to release its smoke, which didn't help matters. The good news is that I am building a new machine that will be 1000 times better. Looks like lots has been happening here and I've got some catching up to do. After watching the videos and reading comments about how difficult it is getting the nose to properly mate I decided to have a look. The nose didn't fit great when empty, but not nearly as bad as when stuffed. The single cockpit part seemed to slide in nicely by i

Note the timeline: