Jump to content

haneto

Members
  • Content Count

    1,773
  • Joined

6 Followers

About haneto

  • Rank
    Full Blown Model Geek
  • Birthday 08/01/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Shanghai,China

Recent Profile Visitors

30,239 profile views
  1. Domestic official retail price is RMB168.-(USD25.-) and now in "double eleven" campain the discounted price is RMB147.-(USD22.-)
  2. The kit is only being sold at The Military Museum of The Chinese People’s Revolution currently, as a collaboration products with the museum, but there is rumor that Bronco version will also be sold later as the normal edition. Cannot find sprue pics(saw them somewhere but cannot remember) currently but quite sure they will be exposed online very soon.
  3. There is rumor by Chinese modeler that this kit seems like the scale up version of the Eduard 1/72 kit, from the sprues showed online.
  4. 1. I only said the internal diameter is 705mm, not 709. 2. I have explained that plastic part deforms during injection, so you cannot back calculate the real thing data from plastic part. 3. So neither of us can convince each other about the data, it will be an endless conversation. And as I have said it is the overall looking of a model matters most importantly, I think I have done my part.
  5. Let me explain by this way: 508mm is the width of circular area on the end of canopy, including frame thickness(actually there is no glass any more). I'm confused where did the 709 came from?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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. Edit: 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.
  9. You have not replied my question: why don't you show your "study result" on other brand kits? Maybe you can also start with your national brand Zvezda which I found many flaws too. While you Russian could simply neglect those but keep on pitching on GWH. If it is not personal, what do you definite it then?? By the way it did not "bother me since 2017" after all, and I showed the evidence: I did not change the "kink" mentioned by you on the Su-27, just keep it same as Su-35. That is my reply to your "critiques": simply neglect. Do you still think it "bothere
  10. What I built is the test shots which means mold still under improvement. Mold factory will try their best to reduce such small issue when produce formal prodcuts.
  11. Oh by the way why not spend some of your time and spendid knowledge on other brands as well? Academy, Hasegawa, Kinetic, Hobbyboss, Kittyhawk, etc. they all have Flanker kits too. Why only pitching on GWH then? Is there any personal reason for this, just out of my curiosity??
  12. What do I think? I think I’m very reasonable and restrained compared with some of your Russian colleagues calling me “thief” “liar” “get out of the forum”. Gabor and I never said this kit or any other kit we are involved is “perfect”, but for some “mistake” which does not exist, we have the right to explain. Wrong? So if it makes you so happy when find some “mistake” as you call, keep on finding. I’m sure there will be and glad you will be happy, but so pathetic and miserable you are, only looking at negative side of everything. Or should I say, in your def
  13. I highly doubt that because: 1. CAD screen picture from ProE generally has not perspective effect, unlike real plane picture. 2. The angle of the photo and CAD picture is not exactly the same. 3. The comparison is ONLY to explain the described content, other details should not be compared as targets because of difference angle and perspective effect. 4. The author of that thread on Baidu is suspected to be a Trumpeter/Hobbyboss senior staff who is also one of the investors of Kittyhawk model by rumors. If the rumor is true then it is very easy to understand his ultimat
  14. Pictures say for themselves better than any word. "Kink" or "non-kink", "correct postion" or "incorrect position", now is extremely clear to make some Russian shut up.
  15. Model kit design is the process of compromise. "Find and correct mistakes" could last forever meanwhile as a commercial product, it has to strictly follow the schedule. For invisible details or so called "mistakes", they will be omitted by priority. I measured by a ruler that the angled surface IS there on the "correct" position, but you can barely find it. Why? 1. The angled between 2 surfaces is very small, maybe only 178 or 179 degrees. 2. There is one raised panel on that "kink" which leads to your visual illusion. And according to my expe
×
×
  • Create New...