Jump to content

Laurent

Members
  • Content Count

    4,573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Laurent

  1. Your overlay actually gives weight to the assumption that the canopy is too short and you did this without using the Grumman drawings but the photo of an actual aircraft. Materialize the rear edge of the canopy and see for yourself.
  2. Because the CAD model was based on these plans perhaps ?
  3. Well he'd be completely stupid to do so. He won't modify anything now that the tooling is finished and it wouldn't serve any positive purpose to him.
  4. Simple. It depends on each individual's knowledge on the subject.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. I wouldn't show testshot photos because a number of people would pinpoint inaccuracies that cannot be corrected anymore.
  8. "Oooo this is good sh*t man !"
  9. Wingman seat headrest is not as high as the others.
  10. How about https://wingmanmodels.com/wm/Pulsar/en_US.Store.display.88./wmf48002 ?
  11. Given that the kit is to be released in a month, I'm not sure it's quite necessary.
  12. The renders were probably of the AA Su-33 2.0 CAD.
  13. 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
  14. In 2020 perhaps ? I may have missed something but I didn't see anything about the GWH project for a long time.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Or not... AFAIK there has been no recent communication about the GWH 1/72 or 1/48 F-14s.
  18. Neither ? Hasegawa's front frame looks too vertical while Academy's looks too swept. Now ZM looks good to me in this area... (source: https://yhnjum.blogspot.com/?view=snapshot)
  19. The sweep of the centre section's front frame in Academy looks too big. This impacts the front canopy of course.
  20. I don't own neither kits yet. I didn't read anything bad about the Zvezda kit (which doesn't me it doesn't mean there are no problems) but the KH seems to have several bugs: - fit isn't stellar - the seats aren't accurate (standard "heavy" K-36 while the Yak-130 uses the lighter K-36L) - decal designer borked the no-steps zones decals... two left instead of left+right
  21. These are the 1/72 Academy kits I'm talking about: https://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/aca/kit_aca_12554.shtml https://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/aca/kit_aca_12550.shtml
  22. Would it be possible for you to make a top+side view comparison of your GWH B/D and of another built model to see if there are difference in the front fuselage ?
  23. I disagree. According to Scalemates, the 1/48 Academy F-15C/D tooling appeared in 1989 while the 1/72 F-15K appeared in 2017. 28 years have passed, the F-15K probably has been made from scratch based on new reference material (I'm not sure Academy used CAD in 1989). The situation is different for GWH as the 1/48 F-15I was released in 2016 while the 1/72 F-15E/I was released in 2017 so here the 1/48 CAD and 1/72 CAD are most likely to be related.
×
×
  • Create New...