Jump to content

1/32 Su-25 frogfoot from china


Recommended Posts

yes indeed.but at the end where is the fun in buildng a perfect kit?if you have perfect kits than you have no fun nor challange in the build itself.

That's funny :huh:

Ask anybody who has built the new Tamiya Spitfire if they had fun!

I love when a kit falls together with no headaches and I can enjoy building and painting without nasty putty or hacking the kit or spending extra on fixes.

Edit: Typo

Edited by Maker
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can enjoy building and painting without nasty putty or hacking the kit or spending extra on fixes.

Me too.

I have no special modeling room covered in dust, paint and bits of styrene from sanding, spraying and grinding. I build models in our bedroom.

What's more important, I have a small daughter which means I have no time for complicated projects. Am I still having fun? You bet I am!

Times change. There's plenty of information available on every Soviet plane ever flown. Quality of detailing and manufacturing processes has also gone up since the days of the Cold War. It all should be visible on a modern plastic kit and if Tamiya has already shown it on their F-16 and Spirfire kits (western planes for sure, but it doesn't matter), there is *NO* excuse for Trumpeter making such drastic mistakes on their new kits.

I'm a consumer and I don't owe any automatic gratitude to any manufacturer for their half-arsed attempts on a making a "quality" kit for a contemporary and often quite demanding modeler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, you guys are spoiled.

Here we have what is still the best frogfoot kit ever, which has not even been released yet, and you are tearing it apart already.

Where were you guys in the early '90's when I was building Soviet stuff and couldn't even find reference material for most things. If you found it, you had to pay for it, and the kits themselves were usually terrible, completely inaccurate and poorly molded.

I would happily buy and build that kit now if I could. (I'm not going to, it's too big for my place.) If Trumpeter did more smaller scale stuff, and was cheaper , I would buy more of it.

When I think of some of the kits I built, some of which you couldn't even glue together, because of their cheap Russian "plastic", and compare it to these beautiful kits we have now, I wince.

Be more appreciative guys, seriously.

Huh? :woot.gif: That makes no sense...The funny part is that:

1: You are saying it is the best Su-25 kit ever, then you say it is not released yet...So, how could you know? Besides, what are the criteria to be "the best kit"?

2: Couldn't find references in early 90's? That is combination of things.

3: You say that kits in early 90's were inaccurate, terrible, yada yada...Funny thing is that KOPRO kits of Su-22, -25 and -7 is still considered to be the most accurate of those planes in any scale. And iirc they were made in mid 90's, or maybe earlier. Monogram kit of Su-25, although old and presents T-8 (easy fix) is STILL more accurate than Trumpeters offering.

Just to put some perspective.

Be more appreciative guys, seriously.

I agree on that. I myself will probably get it, if the price is right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
<...> Can anyone do a better job at that price? If so, why don't they? <...>

They can and they do. Revell. Their Eurofighter costs half the price (not the same, but half) and aside from the missing engine trunking and weak-ish cockpit, they blow the Trumpeter kit out of the water.

Title says it all, guys: "Su-25 frogfoot from China". So no use comparing it to pictures of a Su-25 frogfoot from Russia!

Bwahahaha! Man, that was funnneeeeee! :woot.gif: Very good! Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have noticed on every forum i have ever visited that there are two types of modellers,the ones that actualy build something and the ones that don't but at the same time know everything about everything and must have all the kits in the world and must have 100% accurate kits no matter what.that is sad.i don't wan't to offend someone but this thing is killing my enthusiasm every day.i see that this su-25 kit is not the most accurate of all time but from what i could see in those pics it looks like a su-25.so why don't we wait for this kit to come out and than talk.maybe this is only a version 1.0 of this kit.maybe they will correct the errors.and don't talk of tamiya and hasegawa becouse i don't see su-25 in their catalougs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
<...> it looks like a su-25. <...>

Looking at a Starfix Spitfire, it's quite obvious that it's supposed to be a Spitfire. But that doesn't mean it's a good scale representation. May be a crass example, but it illustrates the point.

Trumpeter is more or less peerless when it gets to "obscure" aircraft in 1/32, so why don't they take the time to go the extra mile to get it as correct as possible? "Any job worth doing is worth doing it right!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

Last week Trumpeter sent me a test shot of their new SU-25K Frogfoot kit. They were particularly interested to see if the overall dimensions were correct. I dug into my references and came up with a variety of sources from the RUSJET web site: http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw.html These drawings show the Su-25K and Su-25UB along with a scale in meters.

Measuring the length of the SU-25K from the tip of the nose (not including the air data sensors) to the aft part of the drag chute housing (not including the ECM antenna) I came up with 14.25 meters (1425 cm). I also measured the engine nacelle from the most forward edge of the inlet to the most aft edge of the exhaust and came up with 6.1 (610 cm) meters.

I then went to the scale conversion web site: http://www.wwmodelclub.org/extra/sd_scalecalc2.htm and converted these values into 1/32nd scale. I came up with 17.53 inches for the fuselage length and 7.5 inches for the engine nacelle length.

Turning to the model I measured the fuselage length to be 17.4 inches long and the engine nacelle at exactly 7.48 inches long. So yes you ARC modelers are correct. The Trumpeter kit is .13 inches too short. I used this same methodology and found the wings to be .05 inches too short.

I have notified Trumpeter of this defect. Their response was that the mold (which is made of metal) is exactly correct but when the plastic cools after it is injected into the mold it shrinks just a little bit hence the .13 difference. They said that no one ever measured the cooling shrinkage factor before so they had no empirical data to go by. Now that this study has been done they can scale up the master mold so that when the completed product shrinks it will be perfectly in scale.

I would like to thank all of you here ar ARC for bringing this defect to Trumpeters attention. Along with all your other comments. Please keep them comming. It helps us make better model kits.

Dave Mason

IPMS Philippines-Bert Anido Chapter

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to the above, it's not a great difference from the correct dimensions, just the photo is playing tricks to us. So my apology to Trumpeter for criticize the kit too early, I will leave my judgement when the kit comes out. And, good job for Trumpeter :monkeydance: for making subjects that are not the most popular for the general audience.

Anyways, most modellers can live with few millimeters discrepancy from the correct dimensions, especially this model is of 1:32 size. I hope they posted another side profile with minimum lens distortion.

Edited by Jeff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone , i think that you can not leap to a conclusion just by a photo ,right? why can`t you try to find more photo to your compare work ? i know the shape is the life of a model. so i post the kit in here looking for attitude. so let you comments objectively, ok?

follow is my compare(All the picture from Airliners), can you tell me the dissimilitude?

11.jpg

12.jpg

3.jpg

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s351/an...20compare/4.jpg

================================

and i change the Mig-23 intake shape

DSC_2620.jpg

Edited by Albert Moore
Airliners.net copyright infringement
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do manufacturers use aluminum molds for just for test shots versus steel which I would think is more costly,

or is that a step that is just a time waster?

Manufacturers in general (not sure about manufacturers of scale models) used only one mold due to cost concern. The mold uses special steel (not remember any longer about the specific type of steel) and not aluminium. I think the mold needs to withstand temperature of over 220 Celsius.

Additional information (very general stuff): When you have a CAD drawing, it will be read by a CAM software such as MasterCAM to provide drilling instructions on the mold. (I think the CAM software also provides a simulation on the specific steps to drill on the mold if the shape of the product is very complicated)

However, the CAM file must be converted via NCConverter for the specific CNC or EDM (Electric discharge machining) machine, since different model of computerized drilling machine has different instruction set on how to drill on the mold. Once the mold is drilled, you go through the iterative process of the test mold phrase, where you need to calibrate your injection molding machine, such as the injection pressure and temperature, to get the desire result (it is here where you want to minimize ‘shrinkage’). For the mold itself, you may want to make it smaller to accommodate additional changes, since you can’t really go back once you enlarge the mold cavity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Song,

You're very unique on these forums because you actually want to make the best product possible. But many of us do not know, when you ask for opinions, if you are showing us a final product or one that can be changed before they become final.

From your last post, it appears that you've been listening and making changes at the request of the readers/posters on this board. That is highly commendable!!!!

We also don't know what drawings you work from and how you get to the final shape of the model. If we knew that, maybe the comments here wouldn't be so harsh. Everyone who comments has the same goal which is to have the best Su-25 kit (or any kit) they are willing to spend their money on. And it seems that you have a lot of patience to listen to us gripe and fuss about things.

But thank you for doing your best and trying to make a kit we can all enjoy!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everyone , i think that you can not leap to a conclusion just by a photo ,right? why can`t you try to find more photo to your compare work ? i know the shape is the life of a model. so i post the kit in here looking for attitude. so let you comments objectively, ok?

follow is my compare(All the picture from Airliners), can you tell me the dissimilitude?

11.jpg

12.jpg

I find it helpful when using Photoshop for overlays to eliminate the background color (of the line drawing) rather than changing the opacity.

Changing the opacity can be deceiving as it hides what is actually happening along the edges of the subject.

For PS users, here are the steps I use:

First with the line drawing-

1. using brightness/contrast adjust the contrast so the lines become darker

2. using select color range (fuzziness 200), select the background (white).

3. Copy the original layer and cut the selected background away.

4. To make the lines red so they are easier to see, select the outlines (ctrl click the layer) and fill with red.

5. Ctrl click copy the red lines.

Now on the photo image, paste the red lines.

In this case the drawing was of the right side so I flipped it.

Use 'transform' to rotate and size the lines to match the photo but be sure to hold the shift key when resizing so you maintain the proportions.

In both of the following cases I scaled it from the tip of the nose to the diagonal line on the parabrake housing then lined up the top of the fuselage rather than splitting the difference (this makes a much more obvious difference on the second photo).

There are other manipulations that should be done to compensate for different focal lengths and angles but these give a general idea of what's going on.

If I were relying on photos to develop an accurate drawing or pattern I would go to much further lengths than this.

Here are the results I got using the same pictures:

Overlay1.jpg

overlay2.jpg

My findings concur with those already posted by Tom in that the fuselage is too deep.

I'd still encourage Mr. Song to post new pictures of the model taken from similar angles and focal lengths as available published photos for a better comparison.

Shrinkage?
I hate when that happens... :)

Whenever possible I make my original patterns slightly larger to compensate.

This makes the job of aftermarket pattern making and resin casting that much more difficult as the shrinkage is dynamic and will vary with the size and thickness of the pattern and can be influenced by added on details and even the casting block not to mention the particular resin and RTV you are using. Oh, and the weather as well... :wacko:

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
and i change the Mig-23 intake shape

DSC_2620.jpg

This looks much better, thanks a lot.

I don't want to sound ungrateful, but, as long as you're fixing them, would it be possible to tweak the top part of the intake some more - it should be symmetrical to the bottom part (the top line should be parallel to the bottom one which would then make the upper curve as large as the bottom one as it should be)?

Also, can you please give us some photos of the Su-25 model taken from the front? From the given photos, one gets the impression that the intakes are circle-shaped and are missing the vertical elongation which (IMHO) would be the single most obvious problem with the kit and shouldn't be too hard to fix (like maybe the fuselage or engine nacelles depth). Perhaps you are already working on it?

Edited by ijozic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for zacto comments, i`m busy in my secret project now, i will post Su-25 new photo later. and i think that, you hardly to find a picture which tally with line... because the photo will distortion. :banana:

Edited by song
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for zacto comments, i`m busy in my secret project now, i will post Su-25 new photo later. and i think that, you hardly to find a picture which tally with line... because the photo will distortion. :banana:

Maybe you can measure the model's height of the fuselage and the engine nacelles? Those could then be compared with the real data and proportions and it would make it clear if the discrepancies are due to the possible camera lens distortion.

Edited by ijozic
Link to post
Share on other sites
:banana: for taking modelers opinions and modifying the molds!!!!

it is a big credit to trumpeter and their staff to be able to give feedback and have it heard :yahoo:

Indeed!

Great to hear something is happening with the Flogger intakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for zacto comments, i`m busy in my secret project now, i will post Su-25 new photo later. and i think that, you hardly to find a picture which tally with line... because the photo will distortion. :banana:

The MirXX ? :yahoo:

Thanks a lot for the improved MiG-23 intakes ! :yahoo: I'll wait for a scaledown from you or HB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

overlay2.jpg

Well, the above pictures pretty sums up why it looks fat and sits low when looking at the side profile of the kit. It would be more helpful if we have more pictures looking at the side of the kit.

Edited by Jeff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...