Jump to content

Berkut

Members
  • Content Count

    6,501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Berkut

  1. This is a start i guess; https://russianplanes.net/regs/RF-95867
  2. Looks like b/n 56 to me, and that certainly exists as a SM3 frame. Now whether it was based in Syria i am not 100% certain.
  3. There is, however, a rumor of a rumor.
  4. Can't help you much with the questions beyond that googling on both english and russian it is indeed correct that the IP's are black. In fact, the cockpit appears to be mostly black overall. But, i didnt realize the kit was already out. What is your impressions of it?
  5. Pre Modernization 74 had a different bort number and scheme. It is hard to tell due to resolution but it seems to me the IRST is centered and i dont see RWR's on slats. So to me it seems the artist just saw some pictures of Su-27SM's and used them as a template for scheme/colors but the frame remained to be vanilla Su-27.
  6. Su-35S and Su-27 share very little in common beyond OML. I doubt ScaleMates has any actual insight into design of this kit and it is far more likely it was just someone who thought Su-35S is just a variant of Su-27 and that is that. Unless KH plans to screw it up spectacularly, this kit would need to be completely new tool.
  7. Welcome. ๐Ÿ™‚ There is a own subsection for selling/trading kits way on the bottom.
  8. J-20 doesn't use serrated nozzles. And the engine has so far been some sort of Salut Al-31FM3 modification while they are developing WS-15. EDIT: Actually i now remember there is atleast one frame testing WS-10 on J-20, with serrated nozzles, but the currently operational ones do not use that engine or the nozzle.
  9. WS-10 on J-20? That doesnt sound right. And to be honest the cobra maneuver looked very unimpressive even compared to vanilla Su-27.
  10. And the other 2/3 are asinine political threads i assume.
  11. If Zvezda has any sense (and they seem to be pretty sensible) they wont be making T-10M. It is not a Su-27 with canards on, it would basically need to be designed and tooled from scratch.
  12. I have been quietly following your thread all those years Jan and it has been a pleasure to see the progress. Congrats on finishing the beast! Now, unto 1/72 Tu-160? ๐Ÿ˜› (i have one, no idea why, reasons, i guess)
  13. Whoosh. And they show what, exactly? This is fundamentally wrong. There is no "in between". CAD's is tooling, tooling is CAD's.
  14. And did you actually check the CAD's?
  15. Print it out and read it like a bible before fondling the kit.
  16. I like the thread idea Whiskey, but it would be more fitting in Research Corner.
  17. Brilliant work as always Yufei, thanks a lot putting this together.
  18. I cant really comment on any other potential issues in that area as i am focusing on the original "issue" brought up by GunsightOne. Anything beyond that i dont know anything about and cant/dont comment on anyway.
  19. Exactly. ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘ No. You are basing it on one (1) picture taken in terrible light conditions and literally ignoring every other sprue shot or CAD's. Unless you think that magically CAD changed for worse in that one area pretty much overnight right before tooling, the only logical answer would otherwise be bad lightning and you jumping the gun.
  20. Regarding the curve itself, check the sprues on the previous page. As to blending with the exhaust, the CAD above...
  21. This doc is a few years old now, but what is funny is the mention about new missile at 7 min mark. IE the one that is able to strike targets in space. (ASAT) Back then we didnt know anything about that and the consensus was that he was broadly speaking about R-37M (RVV-BD). Well, as of a week ago or so...
  22. That looks like absolutely beautiful and high quality work. If i werent so morbidly afraid of resin kits i would very seriously consider this. Hoping to see some good builds of it though.๐Ÿ‘
  23. Come on Martin, that is a knee-jerk reaction to a discussion that is very knee-jerk to start with. There is absolutely nothing to stop people from literally scroll up on the same page to see the outline of that section. Or check the previous pictures on the previous pages. Or check vs the CAD previously shared, like this for example; And yet they don't. I am not an F-14 expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it is pretty clear that the section looks fine and there is some serious shadow trickery going on in the build picture due to low light. But saying that the
×
×
  • Create New...