Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MiG31

  • Rank
    Full Blown Model Geek
  • Birthday 12/23/1981

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wichita, KS

Recent Profile Visitors

7,495 profile views
  1. Many of the external fittings look incorrect or fictitious to me, which isn't surprising. The lack of a LM is annoying, unless you plan to build Apollo 4 through 8. For that matter, there will be detail changes (like the number of ullage motors on the S-IC/S-II interstage) between flights, so those would have to be addressed. That aside, Cunumdrum, do you have any Saturn V drawings with which to compare the kit? I'm eager to find out how it measures up, dimensionally. And I'm not just talking lengths and diameters. I'd like to know if intertank sections are of the correct length.
  2. I posted a topic in the Sci-Fi forum in March, before I got the kit. It's typical Anigrand: low-pressure yellow resin, some recessed panel detail, and generally accurate except for a number of annoyances. It's not very big, either, being about the size of a 1:72 F-15: Work on this beast started in July, and it's been a fairly slow process for various reasons, not the least of which is modeling fatigue. At this point I've only concentrated on the forward fuselage and cockpit section, trying to hone the nose faceting and cockpit details. The Anigrand kit is a bear if you want an accura
  3. It's been a known subject for a year now. There are now 1:72 and 1:144 kits available, too.
  4. I'd forgotten about Mini Hobby, and isn't Kiddy Land another affiliate? I thought they had also copied the Italeri F-5E. So apart from those three, what other examples are there? What I was getting at is that Academy is at least as guilty as Trumpeter where copying others' kits is concerned.
  5. Academy has copied other manufacturers' kits in the past, but where has Trumpeter done so?
  6. You're welcome to wait for someone else. Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for the release of more 1:72 (and 1:144) Flanker family members.
  7. I'm thinking the opposite direction: if it were 1:144 I would buy it in a heartbeat, as that is my standard scale for larger aircraft and other subjects. Mind you, Bismarck would be one of the biggest things I'd build in 1:144. It would also compliment Lindberg's announced USS Arizona.
  8. The 1:144 Flanker is a pleasant surprise, and I could get that 1:200 Bismarck, even though it's not one of my standard scales. (It would encourage me to buy their 1:200 Arizona, though.)
  9. It would be accurate, plus it would create more than a few "what the..." reactions at club meetings and contests.
  10. Not bad work so far. Don't forget the blister that appeared on the Apollo SPS exhaust bell.
  11. Poor phrasing on my part. What I meant was that it isn't "SU" in the manner that we use a designation like "FB" for "FB-111", but taking the first two letters of the name "Sukhoi".
  12. Their "stealth" Black Hawk is a conjectural design, anyway, since there exist no photos of the aircraft apart from those of the wreck's tail section. And "Su" isn't a two-letter designation. It's short for "Sukhoi".
  13. Seconded. Provided the single-seat canopy sells well, a UB equivalent would be great. Bonus points to both if the IRSTs are tooled for center-mount or off-set installations.
  14. It appears to be nothing more than their old Su-27 kit with the recent Su-27M canard tooling. I'd avoid it. For a more accurate 1:144 Flanker you're better off finding the J-Wings Su-37 pre-paint and converting it.
  15. This is the third thread you've started on this exact subject; the other posts being in June and last month. Have you tried any of the advice you've been given so far? Did you contact any of the folks at Starship Modeler?
  • Create New...