Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MiG31

  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 accurate Firefox. The nose profile is fairly accurate per the full-scale mockup used in the movie, though Migmaker (William Babington) is busy working on a 1:48 resin kit based on the 63" flying miniatures used in the film. When viewed front-on, though, the center facet is too square when it should be tapered, with the bottom end wider than the top of the canopy. I'm ignoring this for the most part, as the effect isn't too bad. Instead I'll be more worried about the shape and build of the dorsal spine and upper nacelles. Anyway, the most recent work involved the instrument panel, made using Evergreen sheet and strip, plus brass bezels from a 1:72 Tornado p/e sheet: The ejection seat is a True Details 1:72 Escapac seat. The seat used for the airborne in-cockpit shots appeared to be some flavor of Escapac. The full mockup for the hangar and ice floe scenes, however, used a stripped-down MB Mk.7 seat. Either way, the seat I chose fits like a glove. The overall cockpit OoB is useless. It goes from this: to this: to this... Side walls are completely scratch built using Evergreen styrene plus green floral wire. The gun pack on the bottom of the fuselage also needs attention. The front end is too shallow, so I beefed it up using styrene strip: Once finished with this forward fuselage assembly I'll start work on the main wheel wells and inlet rebates. At this rate I might have a finished Firefox come late next year. I'm open to suggestions on how to tackle the canopy. The kit part not only has air bubbles, but it's unsuitable for my purposes because they neglected to notice that the center frame extends down and forward further than the side frames. I was thinking of building it from .015 clear styrene, but I think vacform would be optimal. Anyone interested?
  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?
  16. Other contenders would be planes like the Spiteful, Hornet, and P-47M. The B-29 wins if you're looking at speed over distance.
  17. Avoidable with the power of hindsight, yes. That said, sufficient lifeboats for all aboard would not have saved everyone that night. Consider that they were still preparing boats for launch as the boat deck was going awash. Life-saving kit training would have to have been addressed, as well. This is immaterial to the issue of taste with regard to diorama construction, though. I think time passed has more effect on that in some ways than how the tragedy took place. I, for one, would not really find a diorama of one of the WWII Jewish concentration camps to be in poor taste, depending on how it was carried out. Likewise for the Titanic, a model of the wreck, or even the sinking itself, if meant to convey an accurate depiction of the event or object, is fine. Something like this, however, is not. As for the relevant topic at hand, I had seen photos of the trashed F-2Bs within the days right after the earthquake/tsunami. I can't say diorama-building was foremost on my mind, but I don't see why it would be a problem at all. I've probably seen worse at model contests.
  18. With respect, where was the sarcasm in my comments?
  19. It was a disaster involving a force of nature, not too unlike the 2011 tsunami. Whether people would find it insensitive or not doesn't really matter to the person who's making the diorama. And I suspect, considering the point SBARC brought up, given a century it would not be considered insensitive to create dioramas referencing the September 11th attacks. For reference, the last Titanic survivor, Millvina Dean, died in 2009.
  20. And yet people make models depicting the wrecks of the Titanic and Bismarck. And there are many models of the Enola Gay, one of the most destructive aircraft in terms of loss of human life. Would you say such people are acting in poor taste?
  21. MiG31

    SR-71 nose

    Where did you read about the A-11/A-12 re-designation? I was under the impression that the A-12 was the 12th design study of the Archangel project. It differs considerably from the A-11 design, anyway. Personally I'm more fond of the A-10 configuration.
  22. MiG31

    SR-71 nose

    What's an A-11? Or do you mean Johnson's reference to the YF-12? Depending on what kits you've got you may face certain challenges in depicting the variants. Of the SR-71, there are four main versions: -SR-71A -SR-71A Big Tail (61-7959) -SR-71B (two-seat trainer; 61-7956/7957) -SR-71C (two-seat trainer built using SR-71B front end and YF-12 #934 rear end; 61-7981) For the A-12: -A-12 -TA-12 (two-seat trainer, known as the "Titanium Goose"; 60-6927) -M-21 (D-21 carrier; 60-6940/6941) And then there's the YF-12. This doesn't account for the various nose and antenna kits discussed earlier in this thread.
  23. Except that the Ye-8 (Ye being an English transliteration of the Russian letter "E") flew in 1962, twelve years before the first YF-16 flight. Tu-144 is a whole different matter.
  24. MiG31


    Monogram is generally the most accurate out of the 1:72 lot, though it leaves a few things to be desired. The cockpit and canopy are far too wide, for instance. Still, it's better than the issues you'll encounter with the Italeri, Hasegawa and Academy kits.
  25. As noted in prior posts the MPM kit is not the only FH-1 available. There are others available in 1:144' date=' 1:72 and 1:48. I do agree that the MPM kit needs some work. Supposedly the "upgraded" kit with resin bits is better, but I only had the basic kit from which to work. Here it is compared with the Academy F2H-3/4 "Big Banjo": [img']http://i42.tinypic.com/erwx2s.jpg[/img]
  • Create New...