GunsightOne

Probably a polyurethane elastomer. I've used it for flexible parts many times with great results. Some of the oldest parts I have (14+ years) are still as good and flexible as the day they came out of the mold.

Thanks for sharing, AV O. Despite a few flaws here and there, I have to admit that it's still a very nice model. The airbrakes, wings, exhaust nozzles and wheel wells are nicer than on the Tamiya kit. AMK also did a great job with the assembly structure and how a lot of parts interlock. Most accurate 1/48 Tomcat? Maybe not, but certainly the most detailed.

No, it's not a matter of removing material from the bladder, the entire outer ledge on the rear flanks is too low: you'd have to actually add material (polyester putty, modeling board, etc.) and gradually re-sculpt the surface from the vertical tail outward. The bladder "floor" would also have to be raised to correspond with the higher outer ledge, and the bladder itself scratchbuilt... And that's a best-case scenario, because we don't know what else may be off and how that will affect the fitment of the kit wings. Gotta remember than an aircraft is a complex puzzle of interacting shapes: you

If you have the kit, why don't you just photograph it at the same angle as the photo of the real aircraft?

In fairness to AMK, I think they did actually adjust the tooling from when the 3/4 "wide hips" sample pic was seen, but there's so much wrong with the outer aft section that short of retooling it completely, it would be a band-aid on a gunshot wound. If you look at the pics below, you'll see that compared to the genuine (top) the kit bladder literally twists in the aft section and is much thicker, particularly at the front compared to the actual plane. The AMK kit is certainly cheaper, but it looks like they winged-it in a lot of areas. Tamiya's kit is more expe

Right, but of course there are degrees of error too. Every kit has flaws, but some are more subtle and require more work to detect, whereas others just jump out. Some people aren't concerned about little details, which is fine. For me, something like the incorrect addition of sawtooth panel lines on the Phoenix pylons, which are located under the plane and mostly buried between the intake trunks, is far less of an issue than the gun vents. I was just admiring the pictures of the sprues and that jumped out at me. Just like with those Latina hips, you look at the kit and and can't help notice th

Thank you for taking the time to post those pics! I hate to be the bearer of even more bad news, but AMK f*cked-up the gun gas purge vents (the same as on the 1/32 Trumpeter and 1/72GWH offerings. https://public.fotki.com/tsumner/scale-modeling/jet-airplane-models/amk-f-14d-sprue-shots/dsc-0054.html#media If you look at image 43, you'll notice that the 2 front NACA ducts on the kit end at the same imaginary vertical line, whereas on the actual aircraft, the bottom duct is actually offset more foreward. I suspect that the companies above all worked from the same/similar b

That panel is wrong too. -The bottom forward NACA duct should be positioned more forward than the top one and have a slightly different shape than the top duct. -The front part of the aft bulge should be slightly lower -Rear NACA duct is too long (front/rear) and should be positioned slightly lower. Points 2 and 3 are nitpicky in 1/72, but the assymetrical positioning of the NACA ducts is a staple of the later Tomcats.

It's almost a shame to put those masterfully crafted resin parts on that sorry plastic kit. Trumpeter should at least try to redeem themselves by fixing the port-side forward fuselage. Anyway, I don't want to detract from the topic at hand. For anyone hesitating to purchase--don't! Based on the F-14 intake parts I have, the casting quality is excellent, and I say this as someone who does a lot of molding and casting.

Since there's an established relationship and the 1/48 model has shown itself to be a home-run, perhaps Tamiya will consider revisiting the 1/32 model. It would be a shame not to.

The crow I was told I would eat is starting to taste like I TOLD YOU SO.

That's AMK.

You mean like how I built a Mig-28 and painted it like a Mig-29 because it was just one number off and therefore close enough? 🤣

Good enough to demonstrate that Tamiya handled it better, in that one detail anyway. Ironically, Tamiya's kit is maximized for wings-swept display, whereas AMK's bountiful details are better suited to wings-forward/launching display, which would only make the flaw more visible. I really don't understand people who have this "wait to get the kit and see" mindset. You can get very accurate comparisons by comparing photos to photos, especially when the angle is almost identical. I've done it countless times, and even scratchbuilt large-scale models with barely a millimeter's discrepancy just by s

For what it's worth, all the Tomcat kits I have handle this particularly area differently. I suppose it really depends on what reference material (or lack thereof) was used. Most kits look decent in plan view, but unless someone has access to actual cross-sections to map-out the exact curvatures, some variations are to be expected.