Laurent

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

I'm not sure what you mean by "customer protection".

For me yes and no. No because the "souris" (the movable shockcones) mask a lot of the intake faces, Yes because it's a 1/32 kit so the shortcut is less forgivable.

Smaller compared to what reference ? 4+ drawings ? I've overlayed the Modelsvit drawing to KH drawing. Geometrically the top views match pretty well. I've also overlayed the Modelsvit drawing to HB drawing. Look at the horizontal stabilizers. Chord for HB seems much bigger.

For me the narrow windscreen with almost straight line base is a big problem. No aftermarket can fix that and it gives the the Su-17M3 & later a Su-17/M/M2 look (poor downward visibility).

HB vs reality http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_67409_start_40.html

KP and HB front fuselages look the same. Windscreen and canopy are too narrow so the windscreen doesn't wrap around the nose enough. Only the 1/72 Modelsvit and 1/48 KH kits have "Su-17M3 and later"ish look.

I'm not sure GWH knows.

AFAIK this isn't a sensitive subject at all. Sales figures, profite margins, future projects are. I've bought just one IIIE but I'll buy the E/EBR boxing as I appreciate the fact they reworked the nose and separated the elevons.

Mmmh I rather think that Modelsvit uses two types of toolings. A short-run type ("red Limited Edition" boxings... galvanized resin tooling ?) for the "exotic" subjects (Soviet prototypes for example) and a mid-run type ("green Limited Edition"... aluminium tooling ?) for more mainstream subjects like the Mirage family. I'm not sure about the "yellow Limited Edition".

It may be related to the fact that Eduard produces the toolings in-house while Airfix mold making is outsourced to a Chinese company. Mold maker used by Airfix may want to avoid undercuts that may arise if the panel lines are too deep.

It's not a matter of being in a hurry. It's a matter of having a CAD peer review process or not.

Maybe critical thinking is not welcome ? Because some of the expertens do not have the kit in hand yet ?

They could be drawings made by Furball also.

I wouldn't be surprised if a factor of compressor/turbine stage design is avoiding some resonant vibration modes.

Interesting but are you sure about that ? I have verified this for KH, HB/Trumpy and GWH who make the decal designs themselves but in the case of AMK it's Furball that did the decal design so things could have been different. In other words I think you may have done a Tamiya vs Furball overlay.

Parcel dimensions restrictions perhaps ?

Is it supposed to be about the MODEL also Terry ? I like to check if a plastic model or CAD model ends up as an accurate representation of a real aircraft. Take the KH 1/32 OV-10 discussion here... ... yup was there bought the T-shirt. I've built a Special Hobby Mirage F1 test shot. I've provided them some material, checked some CAD snapshots for the Mirage III/5 and Super-Mystère B2. Recently I've looked at a HB 1/32 A-26C test build photo and I wondered if the engine cowlings aren't off: diameter decreasing continually from rear to front while I believe the rea

Lets be pragmatic. What's the best turd: DML or Airfix ?

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.

Because the CAD model was based on these plans perhaps ?