Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Laurent

  • Rank
    Life Member (Mon-Key Handler)
  • Birthday 05/15/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Saint-Leu-la-ForĂȘt (France)

Recent Profile Visitors

19,834 profile views
  1. Simple. It depends on each individual's knowledge on the subject.
  2. How much ? It's easy to measure some things like the dimensions of landing gear struts or doors, intakes and some other things but many measurements are not convient at all to make especially when you need to climb on the aircraft to make them. It's dangerous and if the airframe is in a museum, the museum is unlikey to allow access. Take the thickness of a wing glove... how do you measure it without the risk of damaging the airframe ? One can scan some areas of the aircraft but as suggested in my previous post it doesn't guarantee the actual CAD will be accurate. In any case the CAD (not just top/bottom/front/side snapshots of it) would need to be peer-reviewed to correct errors.
  3. Not at all because the CAD model has to be made from scratch so human error can creep in. An example is the Airfix 1/72 MiG-17: designer did not replicate the wing airfoils accurately while the info was in the scan. Making a scan requires sending some guys to a museum/airbase with expensive optical equipments perhaps mounted on a drone (to capture the top of the airframe). How much would that cost ? Would the kit's ROI be high enough to justify such expenditures ? Would a kit producer accept to pay dunno 5000USD just for a set of laser scan capture STL files when he'd still have to do the CAD from scratch ? I'm not quite sure.
  4. I wouldn't show testshot photos because a number of people would pinpoint inaccuracies that cannot be corrected anymore.
  5. "Oooo this is good sh*t man !"
  6. Wingman seat headrest is not as high as the others.
  7. How about https://wingmanmodels.com/wm/Pulsar/en_US.Store.display.88./wmf48002 ?
  8. Given that the kit is to be released in a month, I'm not sure it's quite necessary.
  9. The renders were probably of the AA Su-33 2.0 CAD.
  10. It is but in engineering there are always pros and cons. Slide-mold pros: - surface detailing is more consistent between the side and top of the part - reduced parts count Slide-mold cons: - injection is more complex and more expensive - slight misalignment between mold parts will introduce steps in the parts - kit box needs to be deeper and packing the sprues in the box is like playing a 3D Tetris game https://imgur.com/4NajrK0 https://imgur.com/pLZoy0c
  11. In 2020 perhaps ? I may have missed something but I didn't see anything about the GWH project for a long time.
  12. Well: - design and tooling are quick to do - tooling is cheap (only two toolings required or even just one if they add cavities to the QT F-35 transparent sprue tooling) - Japan and probably some other Asian countries loves QT products - low production cost, low retail price Perhaps it's more important to GWH as it may be more profitable than a Su-27.
  13. I think the issue is the CAM (Computer Assisted Machining) phase when each object of the CAD model is used to generate a file that controls the CNC machine that cuts the steel or copper (for EDM electrodes) to produce the cavity for the part. I understand it's not just a matter of pressing a button.
  14. Or not... AFAIK there has been no recent communication about the GWH 1/72 or 1/48 F-14s.
  • Create New...