Laurent

There seems to be two categories of kits in terms of profile of the front fuselage: 1) deep: distance between the fuselage bottom and top canopy is bigger than in the Grumman drawings. Hasegawa... Fine Molds... Since Fine Molds was founded by former Hasegawa employees AFAIK, similar reference material may have been used. 2): slim: canopy curve and bottom fuselage match the Grumman drawings. Academy... GWH... The match between the Grumman drawing and the GWH profile is particularly tight. Same thing in top vie

There would be too much optical distortion. I didn't post yet but given that the drawings of the painting instructions are probably standard views of the CAD model, I've overlayed these to the Grumman drawings. Too late to post.

Weird. These are just the names of the files. I'll host on Imgur. GWH Fine Molds Bonus... Academy

They got posted as I can see them on my phone also. Try copy-pasting the URL.

I've read in another forum that there's something off in the wingtips of the Fine Molds kit. I've overlayed a Grumman drawings with scans of the FM and GWH wing. <deleted pics>

A mold is made by cutting steel to obtain rough cavities for the big parts. For small parts, shallow areas and surface details, copper blocks are cut to be used in an EDM machine. What you see in the photo is the EDM process in progress: the steel block is bathing in oil, the copper electrode is at the surface. The EDM process has barely started here, the wing part has not been "EDMed" yet. I think it's too early to draw any conclusions on the airbrakes yet.

A close-up... Wingman does a earlier Stencel than the Pavla where the headbox is shorter as in the AV-8A. It seems a custom canopy breaker was added though. https://wingmanmodels.com/wm/Pulsar/en_US.Store.display.88./wmf48002

Derilict early PFS photos at Dolgoe Ledovo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nilsmosberg/6665974207/in/photostream/

GP-9 on an FL:

GP-9 pod that contained a GSh-23 cannon rather (low-case "h" as I think "Sh" is a letter in Russian) I think.

It reminds me of something: a quote from "Russians" song by Sting... There is no historical precedent To put the words in the mouth of the president

Model Art is japanese a scale modeling magazine. I guess you intended to say Aviation Art but the brand under which the Su-33 "V2.0" is to be sold is not publically known.

I've received it several days ago and it looks very nice indeed.

Go for it.

Academy == Tamiya (same angle between the stabilizer leading and trailing edges) so it implies that AMK !=Academy

Zactoman noticed in this post about the stabilizer that Tamiya == Grumman while AMK != Grumman (== stands for "matches", != stands for "doesn't match"). Last night I overlayed the 1/72 GWH F-14D stabilizer with the Tamiya leaflet. GWH == Tamiya (same angle between the stabilizer leading and trailing edges) so it implies that AMK !=GWH I could eventually look at the new 1/72 Academy F-14A.

Er I don't recall anything about a Mirage 2000. And I'm no Wesley or Terry.

A way to determine if a kit/design is based on a copy of another kit/design is to look for errors that would have been replicated. If the original has an error that the so-called copy doesn't, the claim of copy is shoddy.

Er he's talking about the Kinetic kit and its instructions right ?

Yay !

I'm not sure this can be called theft. To me unauthorized reproduction of photos in a document is theft. Using photos to design a 2D/3D CAD model is not theft as the CAD is created from scratch.

Yes my bad. I intented to say Esci.

No. I believe that Italeri will be rereleasing this one.

There a number of guys who give/gave feedback on CAD designs here. Chris is one of them (HazMat OV-10 and others), so is Haneto or I. Now the feedback needs to be properly argumented in order to convince the project manager of spending designer man-days on fixing this or that bug. Chris posts of this thread illustrate the kind of argumentation one can find in a CAD review report. Explanations can be found without going into conspiracy theories.

Facebook private groups can be the opposite: a tightly controlled marketing tool