Jump to content


  • 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 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?
  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 h
  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
  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...