Hubbie Marsten

Hi Mark, Well, he's already backed out in luring the modellers into fundraising by promising such a definitive F-14 kit that it'd be capable to take off from a catapult just by itself... Heh! I'm 35 and I doubt I will be ever able to put together all of the kits I've got in the stash as well. The kits, the aftermarkets, the decals, the tools, the paints and reference material. My wife once suggested I start fashion a list with update prices of everything there is to sell in the event that I go cactus... If I'm the one hitting the 300-page mark

This (the picture below is of the 1/72nd GWH Tomcat kit - NOT the 1/48 AMK one). And there (the picture below is of the 1/72nd GWH Tomcat kit - NOT the 1/48 AMK one). I guess it's your fault as a husband if your wife throws awful, long winded, useless retorts to you. I'm much more intelligent than you are, obviously. I will never dub a "long winded, useless retort" to anything a lady says to me, whether she's my wife or ex. I pity the ladies who've got to suffer you.

Rickie two-faces!

Yes, I know about that, Darren. Chris Wilson showed what the problem was with the rear end in the AMK kit. Today I was watching a build thread of the GWH 1/72 F-14 kit and saw how well they nailed both the position of the IFR probe panel and the rear end. The best feature in the AMK kit is the dirty wings, with spoilers. It'd be a shame for me to have to build that kit with wings swept back in order to conceal its dirty secret, stuff. Strange that a manufacturer would reward anyone with two kits for just having been the one hitting the 300 page first, especiall

Yes, they do. I wonder whether the modeller who bought the AMK kit on the crowd funding had committed all the same had they known that the rear end of the kit would be like it is today... Perhaps? In your world, buddy. Not mine. So what did they buy? A kit which was LIGHT YEARS FAR from being as advertised/promised - or whatever AMK did so that modellers would commit? Likewise, if that's the idea you've got about me, I could easily think exactly the opposite regarding your defending AMK. But do you know what? I simply don't care what you

Okay, it's quite good to know, Curt. Pictures I posted are from the assembled Kitty Hawk (above) and Hobby Boss (below) 1/48 Su-17 kits. Not various photos of different models whatsoever. Just the Kitty Hawk vs Hobby Boss 1/48 Su-17 kits. The Kitty Hawk kit photo is turned just so that the forward fuselages on both kits were pointing the same way, as to demonstrate how different the shape on both kits are. I'm bothering to post every picture directly on the thread, how could you do the same? I don't have a Facebook account, as might be the case

Yes, they do. Again, not me, but those who've committed. Yes, there was. I'll find those words for you. You'll only have to wait until we leave on a three-week's holidays after New Year's Eve day so that I've got plenty of time to review this whole thread. I'm sure my wife will agree.

Not at all; it's like day and night! This is what I find so odd from someone who affirms to have worked the aircraft. The Sukhoi 17/22 is such a beautiful bird, where the whole forward fuselage slope/windshield stance is THE feature which is so distinctive between one kit and the other. Take a look at the Kitty Hawk kit picture on top and compare the whole forward fuselage and the way the windshield "stands" over it. The Hobby Boss kit below carries over exactly the nightmare the old KoPro kit was. I mean, you've got to be blind not to see the difference on one and the

I'm sorry, Curt. That was not my intention. I'll lay down the posting if it's affecting you. It's just I don't think I'm being able to be sure whether Harvy is going on about mould issues and wrong detailing in the Kitty Hawk kit, and I don't think he's following I'm referring to the shape issues in the Hobby Boss kit. I'm not into the flamming, sincerely.

Harvy is talking about mould manufacturing issues ("Strange oval holes on engine covers, holes instead of external power unit covers. And other surface stupidity. Absolutely wrong injection into the mold. Large depressions, for example the pylon; mold in three parts") and I'm talking about shape issues which would be impossible to repair ("wrong forward fuselage shape, wrong slope of the nose, winshield shape and wrong stance on the forward fuselage transition" ). If the stabilators were wrong in the Kitty Hawk kit - I'm yet to see how wrong they are, that'd be a hell of a lot more easier

Rickie, dear; Zoukey Mura have admitted that the aft fuselage shape was wrong in the short-nosed range of Phantoms. Now that they're working on the long-nosed versions, they are modifying the aft fuselage shape, a thing I wish AMK would do if they ever were to release a different version of the F-14. Highly doubt it, but still I wish.

Look, this picture of the real deal was taken from a different angle, and yet, the shape of the fuselage depicts the round one on the Kitty Hawk kit, not the half-round-and-squarish disaster as in the Hobby Boss nightmare. Also, take a good look at the rounded shape on the base of the windshield. It's not straight, as shown in the Hobby Boss kit. Shrewd! I worked five years at the UK retailer of the Japanese Yamaha NS1000 range of speakers and damn if I know what sort of booster, mid range and tweeter parts are needed to replace the damaged ones.

Really...???

Has anything come in from our friend, Ran = SuperTomcat21, as of late, Nino? As if this "SuperTomcat" kit from AMK hadn't caused enough grief already... Patience is growing thinner and thinner with each passing day.

Yes, Rickie is still out from the fact that Zoukey Mura is working on the long-nosed versions of Phantoms... Most convenient, Rickie... Still the fat hinds are there to stay.

Certainly not, Solo. I suffer the square suckers in the Super Hornet, as well as those rounded LERXs

Well, Davie; I don't and won't own the AMK Tomcat kit because I realised early in its developing process what the awful shape of the rear hinds looked like. This was a hundred pages back, I think, but after the fat end was pointed out to AMK by several modellers, I hoped that AMK would fix this issue, eventually. They didn't; they dismissed the issue as an optical illusion and then said that those pictures were from quite a different life in the AMK Tomcat developing process: different iteration, older-pictures, previous-moulds, different-shows, and Godzilla-had-eaten-the-tools-we-need-to-use-

Take a good look at how the fuselage in the real aircraft looks like, I mean; can't Harvy tell the difference after having manned them personally? It's exactly as those defending the awful shape on the AMK Tomcat kit's rear hinds!

No, my problem with the Hobby Boss kit is not only the bad shape of the windshield, it's also the wrong way it sits on the forward fuselage. That, and the wrong shape of the whole forward fuselage (it doesn't slope down as in the real deal, and also, as the picture shows above, the cross section is of a strange round-squarish mix; awful - it really strikes me as very odd that someone who has worked on the aircraft wouldn't see the difference). I didn't work on the aircraft, but I'm still quite able to perceive that the Kitty Hawk kit looks the closest to photos I've seen of the real aircr

Curt, I couldn't believe my eyes either after having watched Matt's comparison review on YouTube. He reviews three different metalisers on this video. If you want, just skip to 12:40 - it's worth watching the effect these Gaianotes paints achieve, and then the effect gets even better after buffing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfLlmmu_rDg I've ordered one bottle just to try it on my NMF kits, and found out the effect is even better when thinned down. It's unbelivable until you experiment it.

Good thing about the Molotow markers is that, once empty, you can disassemble the cap and refill them with the Gaianotes Premium Mirror Chrome series of paints. If you dilute this paint with lacquer thinner you'll get a shine which eats the Molotow for breakfast!

I'm afraid I'm with Laurent in this one, Harvy. Having once struggled with the KoPro 1/48 Su-22 kit, I think the whole forward fuselage in the Hobby Boss kit looks exactly as the former kit looked like, windshield wrong shape and stance and all. It's quite different with the Kitty Hawk kit that, in spite of all of the aftermarket needed, it still looks like the Sukhoi beauty from every point of view. There was a good comparison picture of how both kits fuselages look like when viewed from the front that I couldn't find, so I did a side-by-side comparison with what I was able to find

Dear Lord! I wonder how you knew... It's not really necessary for me to have the kit in order to learn how it is, Davie. I'm sure you are able to think of at least three or four ways that someone who doesn't have the kit could still learn about it. Let me help you with one hint: I use to go to the hobby shops.

If I only did Facebook. I meant a place where I could meet with him face to face.

You know very well how it is, Martin. It's what shop owners all yap about; when you devise the size of the box not to protect the content but so that size stays below shipping fares, then it's like stuffing a pound of ground meat into a small size of skin. As a consequence, sprues are stuffed in so tight that it'll be impossible to put them in back together after you've taken them all out for inspection. This is how contents are crushed/parts damaged or warped because of the pallet load/stuck up limit while in transit. Proof are those warped and cracked parts pictured above.