MiG31

Very impressive work. I just got the Airfix Saturn V stack, and now I'm inspired to do the same with its LM. What did you use to tack on the foil pieces? Foil application is the one part I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around. I keep picturing massive glue marks and rough, untucked edges.

I know the kit's long out of production, but I wanted to give this a try anyway. I'm willing to trade if necessary.

Something like half-round or strip would be a better bet. I don't know what size would be appropriate.

Found here, towards the bottom of the page. Previously they had released kits of the military variants of the Beech 200 and 350 King Airs. Now we get the smaller, conventional-tail version. Maybe down the road they'll issue an F90 kit, and save people the trouble of buying the 200/350 and 90 kits to mix parts?

There's been discussion about these kits on Starship Modeler. From what I can tell, the quality and level of detail are very good, with the foil texture for the descent stage molded into the plastic. The LM, at least, is not very accurate. The descent stage is far too shallow, and slightly narrow in diameter. This leads to issues with the legs, among other things. The ascent stage also has problems, from thick RCS deflector plates to undersized windows and poor antennae. I can't comment on the CSM, though.

The revised parts do look much better. I'm still worried about the thickness of the SSME bells, but it's not as much of an issue. If need be, one can sand the inner edge until it appears thinner. The only thing that sort of irks me is that the OMS RCS quads depict the blanket insulation. You'd have to modify them if you wanted to depict one of the earlier missions. The nose cap mod for STS-61C was called SEADS (Shuttle Entry Air Data System). Personally, I wouldn't have a problem modifying the kit part myself. The SILTS pod would be welcome, though.

I've got the Zvezda MLD kit, though I'm getting rid of it in hopes that the RV equivalent will be superior. I did note that there are some detail differences between the MF and MLD variants that are not covered by the variant-specific parts of the RV kit. I asked a few pages back if, since enough people have had the opportunity to assess the kit, the RV MLD kit is accurate enough to build without serious effort. Thanks for your patience, by the way.

Indeed, but does the kit reflect those drawings, or does it capture the shapes more accurately?

Then he shouldn't have posted photos of the products. People are going to pick them apart, especially if there are egregious issues of accuracy and/or quality. In this case, the accuracy of the parts is in question. And they are informed opinions using visual references of the real articles. If a scale reproduction doesn't match the 1:1 piece, it's going to be noticed. The thickness of the bells; the coarseness of the interior piping, etc. One lesson to be had from this is to ask for feedback while developing parts. There are many, many people willing to offer a helping hand to make t

So the RV Floggers have some noticeable shape issues. I was hoping to get either the MF or ML/MLD kit. What say you? Would you use the RV kit as a starting point, or pick something else?

You needed a ruler to figure out that six scale feet in 1:72 equals one inch? :P It doesn't amount to a whole lot, really, but for me it's one of those issues that, since I'm aware of it, really sticks out. It probably would make more sense to start from scratch (or build the 1:48 or 1:144 kits), but I do wonder if someone's actually succeeded in stretching this kit.

Regarding the length, my understanding is that it is six scale feet too short, which is significant. Adding plugs won't fix the wing chord or leading/trailing edge angles. I suspect this problem also means the nacelles are short. Supposedly someone had made the effort to lengthen the model, but I have not seen it myself. Personally I would like to know, because I have this kit in my collection, and I'd like to correct it as much as possible.

Already posted.

What point is that?

Then why did you phrase your statement the way you did? Emphasis mine: That doesn't sound like they're putting all the blame on the flight crew. So what do you think? Do you think pilot error was a factor in this crash or not? I understand you have experience on the matter, but do you think BEA's not drawing on extensive research and experience while investigating this case? Dndieje makes some great points, too.

No, the parts are far too thick. One would have to spend time sanding the interior and exterior of the rear end to get it to the correct thickness. And can you find a good photo showing the OMS nozzle? I don't put a lot of stock in drawings, and that one isn't really good.

That sounds like a clear case of taking steps to prevent a repeat of a problem with flight control equipment, not pilot error. You stated earlier: What you said is not the impression I get from this report, which suggests a combination of factors, human and equipment, led to the crash. Your remark paints the investigators as laying blame only on the pilots, and it strikes me as another example of using this tragedy to bash the French.

I think it looks cool. Think of it this way: at least it wasn't painted olive drab with "US ARMY" or "AIR FORCE" titles.

The point about "...fluke of cockpit automation" is important. It's been noted that icing on the pitot probes may have contributed to the crash. Hardly a case of the investigators laying blame solely on pilot error.

I'm afraid I have to echo those concerns. Both sets of bells don't look right. The photo of the real OMS nozzle you posted on the LSP thread shows that the rim thickness is too great on the resin part. The same applies to the SSME nozzles. Even if there's a skirt extension to the SSME nozzles, they still look way too thick. Consider this photo.

That's not what the article stated.

I tend to avoid movies that double as free lobotomies.

Squadron has the kit listed in stock.

Did anyone else note the aliens were using cylindrical pegs as projectiles, which embedded into the warship's hull? In seriousness?

From what I can tell Enterprise and Columbia always had the rounded fin tip t/e, while Challenger through Endeavour were delivered with the squared tip. It was something I think I recall reading about not too long ago, and only rediscovered it the other day when comparing photos of the orbiters. Seeing Atlantis with the square-tipped tail made me think, "I don't remember it looking like that". Do you know if it was removed to save weight, or was actually an aerodynamic refinement? Your post suggests it was the former.