Jump to content

Nino_Belov

Banned Members
  • Content Count

    352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nino_Belov

  1. OK brothers,as I promised.

     

     I just finished skype video call with my friend,where he measured section B with help of his colegue,and the canopy was on the ground,removed from the aircraft,where I have seen with my own eyes that the B is 1000-1001mm,and A is 821mm.So there was no trust on words,I have seen it,there was no errors.So GWH-35 canopy is almost as perfect.

    Then it goes in 1/48:

    B=20,85mm

    A=17,2mm

    This thread is finished for me.

    All the best to you all,

    Goodbye.

  2. You told that:

    Snimak-ekrana-447.png

    I have done matematics according to your's data, that 709mm in frontal section will be something that you are trying to achive,and it is also wrong,because you are telling that it is not just glass section.Since that is the side where your measures are going,linear constant with three check points,and to reasonable end point.Understandable?

    Look bro,you have made excelent Su-35 and his cockpit is great.I just want to tell you that you reecheck your measures before you put to production your Su-27 single seater.And since GWH is not sending any replacement parts and they never answer on emails,I dont want people who are strong enthusiasts like me try to cut their model kits and then to throw them to trash.Ok?

  3. 26 minutes ago, haneto said:

    OK I apologize that seems the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page:

    Dimension 508mm refers to the circular area outside, not the width between the frames beneath.

    So we are talking dimension on different area, sorry for the confusion.

    And since "the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page",and the glass section is 508mm,it means that everything else is correct?Is there any chance that you have made some other "WRONG's"?

    So it goes like this:

    Since glass area is 508mm,how it can be 709mm in front,I am talking only about glass area,without frame,is in it a little bit bigger?/Please explain,and let me have a reason to tell all those people who took measures that they are wrong.Thank you.

    P.S.And no...I don't trust in Yefim Gordon's books.And his datas.

  4. Just now, haneto said:

    OK I apologize that seems the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page:

    Dimension 504mm refers to the circular area outside, not the width between the frames beneath.

    So we are talking dimension on different area, sorry for the confusion.

    Not a problem,people make mistakes.But in modeling those mistakes are crucial.

    So here is a little bit of the look of section D on your Su-35:

    0-02-0a-c4e7d7b3e89c8d8f9b32199c7e474b3f

     

    And Kinetic's Su-33

    0-02-0a-aba6d66503648130688fb2ce47dd73ab

  5. 4 minutes ago, haneto said:

    I have said that if you spend some time measuring ANY 1/48 Flanker kit, none of them has the width of that area over 15mm.

    You can also cut a plastic card as of 15mm, put it on ANY 1/48 Flanker kit you will find it does not match fuselage at all.

    Try it, I'm sure you will understand.

    Will you be kind to measure section D,which you have shown here?And to show as all,with ANY of 15mm comparison size element or object.At least any measuring instrument.ANY...

    hhreher.png

  6. 2 hours ago, haneto said:

    So regarding the Su-27 canopy data we disclosed, all data was from actual measurement.

    It first came from our Russian friend's resource, and I compared with my data measured in China, they did fit with each other.

     

    I can tell you more that:

    The inner diameter of the Su-27 canopy opening is 705mm, frame thickness is 47mm, so over all diameter is 799mm which we round up to 800mm.

     

    I have no idea why the above data is so different than ours, but if you calculate the difference 246mm by 1/48 scale, it will be over 5mm.

    And if you compare it with ANY 1/48 Flanker kit, you will find the data as of 754mm, is apparently wrong. 

     

    That is all I can tell from my reference.

    Plus considering the plastic part shrinkage during injection, it does not really worth concerning so much about these data.

    Or in other words, such data is just used as some kind of guidance for CAD drawing, but not the definition links to final part size.

    After all, it is the overall looking of a model matters most importantly.

     

    Just my 2 cents.

    Ok,so lets say that I am wrong,and all those mechanics and airmans. It is always a chance that we all made mistake,and that none of us took measurements correctly.

    Please measure section D on our model kit?And just show us here?If is just a little bit smaller than 15mm,you got it all wrong.

  7. 19 minutes ago, delide said:

    Sorry about that, but I think you should be able to fix it up.

     

    I'm still not 100% sure, I tend to believe that the cross section on Su-33 would remain truly circular, so it must become wider as it becomes higher. However the difference is not that big, it's just puzzling, and how GWH now comes to their new data ...

    Please delete also your posts where I put measure of V.2.0 where I put wrong numbers,that we not confuse people without reason.Thank you.

  8. 5 minutes ago, delide said:

    Sorry about that, but I think you should be able to fix it up.

     

    I'm still not 100% sure, I tend to believe that the cross section on Su-33 would remain truly circular, so it must become wider as it becomes higher. However the difference is not that big, it's just puzzling, and how GWH now comes to their new data ...

    I cant fix my kit bro, I cut it to much already,and when I tried to match it up with Kinetics part of fuselage,it just didnt falow the conture.I dont know I will try to fix back part of Su-35,and we will see.I am just angry for making myself a so much extra job on this kit without any need.And I owe apology to GWH...their Su-35 is great kit...and correct kit.There is a micro glithes here and there,but this is modeling,so we need to use our modeling skills at least a little bit.

  9. People have V.2.0 in their hands apready,basicly the test samples,and it is so much work put in this model kit.And ou boy she is fine....realy fine.IF God gave us,you will all see it soon on the shelfs,i can not say when,I dont have right to do that,but...one thing for sure is,you people will love it.

  10. Yes, that was wrong,it is not correct,it is hard to handle so much infos at the short time and with deferent people in all parts of the world.It is not 929mm,it is around 843mm.Yes we have measured real thing.And all that infos had gone to the team.So I waited long time to see product,the first batch was wrong measured and backscaled in 1/1,and we on first samples have seen something else.In finalized products ,measure is 17,5/17,58mm,so it goes near 843 from the first point.

  11. Yes,now you see that front view of A of GWH is correct because it is practicly same as on Su-33,the real deference is only about 2mm on real thing.Canopy of Su-33 is only higher than on Su-27/35.And on lower level when you look on botom edge on both V.2.0 and GWH there is no deference.Everything just there as it should be.Fuselage on GWH Su-35 is correct,and if they made smaller canopy in those 5% it will be much much more noticable than it is when you look upper photo.

  12. 5 minutes ago, delide said:

    You mean photo with a ruler or something on the real thing as a prove?

     

    I did read on baidu that they took measurement of the real thing, the D as I understand it's not edge to edge but the outer width of the glass portion(or rear frame for the glass portion), as they stated "at the end Out Diameter (D)"  Until GWH could share some light on their measurement of the A, I'm returning to my puzzled state. Anyway, I still do not like the canopy of their Su-35 also because the omega shape is not as pronounced as it should be, which probably contributed to the problem with B too.

     

    trust me,when you grind down that narrow inside area,you will get it correct.My sources told me the live measures.I dont need anything else.And take a closer look what they have marked as D area...

    hhreher.png

  13. 8 minutes ago, delide said:

    I thought you were trying to correct the B, have your friend not been able to measure it too?? Shame that the 800mm of A appears to be wrong. I have spent some time comparing photos of the Su-35/27, including some telezoom front view to compare with their Su-35's CAD, of course it's very difficult to draw conclusion this way, but the canopy did look a bit too wide to me. Since there is no way to prove it, it's a puzzle ever since, till GWH released the 800mm measurement, it matches your 16.67mm measurement of the Kinetic perfectly, it's hard to believe that it's a coincidence(the 940mm of B should match well too). A pity that there is no further information form GWH so far

     

    But yes, I'm quite certain that GWH made it narrower on their new kit, first it's noticeable on the photo of the mold, then later they released a front view of the CAD, I have compared it with the old CAD for their Su-35(both with parallel projection, scaled to the same size). The thing with their Su-35 is also that the cross section at the opening is not truly circular/slightly squashed, their CAD of the Su-27 shows more circular shape and does look better to me both in shape and also in width in relation to the surround fuselage. 843mm or 800mm, the difference is at least not that big.

    I dont know why he didnt take photo of B,but A is enough for me.And,yes on GWH SU-35 there is narrow edge inside canopy,but this can be solved with tamiya polishing paste.I have done this before on model kits.It's easy pisy.

  14. 12 minutes ago, Alex Matvey said:

    Not so perfect. The Su-35 engine nacelles and root sections of the nozzles are bigger in diameter, than should be, seems due to "rotating" option. I can not find another explanation for this.

    No,I measured that area.You see the inner cross section is 0.95m on real aircraft,so that engine can be put inside,and engine AL-41F-1S is 93,4cm in cross section in widest area,not exhaust,only engine,and on model kit cross section is 19,8,near 20mm.The joint of system for trust vector is videst for 22mm in whole,so... So truth to say,maybe I got wrong data,but for me it is correct...Yes there is 0,2mm that section for rotation of exhaust is wider,but if you put aftermarket...everything is just perfect.

    1-aq-TIHf-Trt-Mk-D3-CNlq-Hxp-Hw.jpg

    sdsf.png

    1526467127-003.jpg

     

×
×
  • Create New...