Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Laurent

  1. The article doesn't talk about the nose shape. It just says that Azur and Matchbox fuselages are both to short compared to the scale drawings (*) especially the Azur one. It's said that the end of the fuselage is worst on the Azur kit. The nose profile of neither kits look good to me. Matchbox nose is purely conical. There might be a slight curvature on the intake side of Azur nose. The issue might be that the angle of the cone is too big on Azur and Matchbox and that the intake area profile isn't curved. Ref: *: Yeah but are the scale drawings actually accurate ? Scal
  2. I'm no Mystère IVA expert but I see no solution. The Matchbox nose looks weird to me. It looks conical to me.
  3. The Scaleworx Mirage F-1AZ conversion set incudes a whole new front fuselage and a vacuformed canopy. The wide windshield of the Esci/Italeri kit is corrected. http://spring-air.com/scaleworx/home/8-148-mirage-f1az-conversion-italeriesci.html There's also a conversion for the Kittyhawk kit but I don't know its content. http://spring-air.com/scaleworx/home/11-148-mirage-f-1az-kitty-hawk.html
  4. The sketches are to the instructions what a storyboard is to a movie.
  5. Google "mirror edm". The hits will be roughly in two groups: mold maker claims and research papers.
  6. Nope to "you need to go Hasegawa or Fujimi". GWH.
  7. Hey those rails in that nice artwork look actually accurate. Scroll down: https://www.academia.edu/12111956/Il_G.91_con_i_Sidewinder_sveliamo_la_storia_che_non_fu
  8. I've only found a painting no photo. I've never seen missile rails like these.
  9. The 1/48 Tamiya also matches well those drawings.
  10. Perhaps you're thinking about my pictorial digression ?
  11. "Aviation Art" (I put quotes because AFAIK it's just a label not an actual company name) as a lot of mainstream producers do not make their toolings.
  12. Yes to the second point no to the first. Kitty Hawk doesn't had a QC process during design phase. For example the cannon fairing parts are not in the Etendard IV kit while they are present in the Super-Etendard kit. These kits are three years old.
  13. I didn't look at the kits myself but I think I remember reading that the location of the wings on the fuselage is better on HB than on BM. BM wings set too high apparently.
  14. EDM can achieve mirror-like surfaces nowadays and High-Speed Machining reduces or eliminates polishing.
  15. According to the CAD renders they carried the nose fix done on the IIIEA/EBR. Good ! I hope the landing gear will be weighted this time.
  16. You're an engineer so you know that a toolshop capabilities depend on the capabilities and availabilities of the equipements. For example surface details at the base of an anode are difficult if not impossible to make using a 3-axis CNC machine. 4 or 5-axis CNC is required.
  17. My interpretation: - 2nd photo is the final core of the mold - 4th photo is the anode for to produce the port slider I expect the middle-rear fuselage part mold to be composed of a core part and two cavity sliding parts. It's likely to me the part won't be attached to a (cold) runner. Similar mold breakdown to the GWH MiG-29 top part mold.
  18. I (and many people here I believe) would love to read it ! What publication and what issues ?
  19. Not "in contact" but "in close proximity". The idea is to maintain a voltage difference between the anode and the cathode so that sparks erode the cathode in the shape of the anode. If anode and cathode were in contact, no sparks but a short-circuit. Well this is how high-pressure plastic injection molds have been made for 40 years. What impresses me is the amount of ressources (machines, raw materials, man-days, etc) necessary to produce toolings. Retooling molds is something that's to be avoided at all cost so everything must be done to ensure that the CAD model has no breakdown and
  • Create New...