janman Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Btw, i have read that there is difference between Su-27 and Su-27K canopy. How much, where, i don't know. And to be honest, the Hasegawa canopy does looks a tiny tiny bit overdone, but it isn't big deal imho. If you're talking about the Su-33's canopy, I agree. I can't understand the fuzz about it. Looks reasonably accurate for my eyes and if not, some sanding and it should be near perfect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
haneto Posted April 27, 2011 Author Share Posted April 27, 2011 Well, me too have that Flanker DVD and as far as I know, the windshield/canopy shape of Su-33 is exactly the same with normal Su-27s except the clear area due to the offset IRST. I just dry fit the Hasegawa Su-33 and yes, it's obviously too high and too pointy, no fuzz at all. I would suggest ya guys check the parts out after you actually get the kit. Well, if you choose to open the canopy, it would not be so obvious though. If you want some finished shots, here're some from several Japanese modelers: Just my 2 cents, Yufei Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Just what is it with the canopies on Russian subjects that so many manufacturers have a problem with getting them correct? :lol: In case of the Su-33, would using the canopies from an Airfix or Hasegawa Su-27 alleviate the problem at least a bit? I seem to recall that one of them wasn't without flaws either, though. Or will that vac-form canopy be available for sale one day? There's also the 1/72 Fulcrum canopy correction you were working on, Yufei. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 In case of the Su-33, would using the canopies from an Airfix or Hasegawa Su-27 alleviate the problem at least a bit? I seem to recall that one of them wasn't without flaws either, though. I can't speak for the Hasegawa (I, too, thought it was good?), but the Airfix canopy is to be avoided. It's way too small, and it produces a distorted view when looking through the transparency. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JackMan Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) I can't speak for the Hasegawa (I, too, thought it was good?), but the Airfix canopy is to be avoided. It's way too small, and it produces a distorted view when looking through the transparency. How about using the canopy from the Italeri Sea Flanker? I understand the kit itself is not a true SeaFlanker but maybe the canopy can be saved & used on the Hase Su-33? Edited May 10, 2011 by JackMan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 How about using the canopy from the Italeri Sea Flanker? I understand the kit itself is not a true SeaFlanker but maybe the canopy can be saved & used on the Hase Su-33? Maybe. I'm not sure. I seem to recall from an earlier discussion that the Italeri canopy is too big, but don't quote me on that. I used Pavla vac canopies on my Su-37 and Su-27P builds. Supposedly they're based on the Italeri canopy, but they looked fine on the model. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kfmut Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Hello! I guess many of us already have hasegawa kit, so I've small request to you guys ;-) I have some doubts about highlited areas they looks almost flat to my eye... So could someone draw some pencil lines like on this mig-29 and make few shots like this one Please! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thegoodsgt Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 It is interesting that many of the manufacturers struggle to get canopies correct. I suspect their complex shape is a challenge to reproduce in scale. FWIW, I display most of my models with the canopy open, which I hope minimizes the effect of any inaccuracies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deino Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Another difference ... the J-15 is using WS-10A Taihang (or a version of that) ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
konbini Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) I also got myself a sea flanker kit, just couldn't resist. About $33 in the LHS that I got it at. From Dream Model, PE exhausts, general upgrade, weapons (fins for the weapons), and a ladder for the su-27 are available (all PE). They are quick aren't they. The general update set includes PE for the cockpit, some panels for the outside, pitot tubes. You can find them on www.hobbyeasy.com, and general distributors of Dream Model. Just something I found while on the hunt for AM bits for the su-33. a Vacform canopy, those sets,good cockpit and seat, a towbar, mmmm Edited May 18, 2011 by konbini Quote Link to post Share on other sites
haneto Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 Found two more shots from a Japanese modeler's work to prove the wrong shaped canopy. This time I think it should be obvious enough? Here is the original work link: http://www.fg-site.net/products/123786 And here is one finished in Russian Navy camo scheme: http://www.fg-site.net/products/122639 Cheers, Yufei Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 So, when will that vac-form replacement canopy be ready? (and the one for the 1/72 Fulcrum....) The problem with Hase's Su-33 may not be too obvious when the canopy is open, but when it's closed, it sticks out like a sore thumb, totally throwing off the looks of the bird. So high and with the apex so far forward, it looks like a startled, strangled chicken with bulging eyes. :lol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JackMan Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Found two more shots from a Japanese modeler's work to prove the wrong shaped canopy. Now I know why they released the Idolmaster version first. With everyone's eyes diverted to the anime babe on the tail, they won't noticed the canopy :lol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kfmut Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 wrong canopy :-) lol, please check this pics ;-) looks like real thing has bit different and much more smooth transition from spine to wing root Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Sigh....... What is it with the shape of the Flanker ???? Why can't anyone get it right ???? I thought that maybe Hasegawa had nailed it - even though I thought their choice of version was wrong. But it seems they haven't. I'm getting on in life - can someone please produce an accurate, reasonably priced kit of any Flanker variant in 1:72 scale before I shuffle off this mortal coil ??? An accurate kit in any scale would be welcome.... Poor old Mikhail Simonov must be spinning in his grave..... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) Good work, kfmut! Looks like the spine also drops too soon (just aft of the aerial) and too straight on the Hase model. It almost looks sorta triangular on the model (with the aerial marking the "peak"), whereas the real deal has much more flowing lines. Here's a pic to illustrate that (I hope you don't mind me modifying your pic, kfmut ). Yellow lines (exaggerated) to show the spine, the green line to show the somewhat longer "crest" on the actual plane. Or am I seeing things? :unsure: Edited May 24, 2011 by ChernayaAkula Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) Looking at kfmut post, he has a point. The transition from the spine to the wings should be smoother, mainly the area around and behind the air brake. Hasegawa made the transition more pronounced. And that I can't deny! Now, there's another point I want to make and that's comparing photos from the model kit to the real plane, which sometimes is flawed. A slight variation in the perspective, focal point, etc how our eyes perceive things vs the lens and electronics of a camera, they'll add up and can throw off some of the curves or exaggerate them. The third photo from kfmut although they are pretty close in angle, the real photo was taken with a wide angle lens which pretty much distorts everything, also the lighting is different and might accentuate differences that aren't as pronounced in the first place. On ChernayaAkula's point, the problem is the angle of the photo. The kit was photographed from a higher angle, whereas the real one was taken from the ground and closer to a side profile. Looks like the angle accentuates the drop in the spine too much. I just took my kit and tried to match the angle and looks like the spine profile matches closer to the real photo and AIV line art than you'd think. The peak is really fore of the aerial and the curves flow better than that photograph would make you think. And no, not trying to say Kfmut isn't right, because I can see what kfmut points out. I think this recent thread has a few good comments would be a good read. http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=231164 In the end I think that even if the dream model kit company appeared and came up with molds made from the perfect downscale from X o Y aircraft CAD blueprints that were provided by the manufacturer, someone will come up with something to complain no matter what insignificant it is. I think Vince14 post about a model maker that works with wind tunnels, Zactoman's comments about CAD designer's and my comments about the AoFujiMiya GT-R proves that we'll never ever get an accurate Flanker. Edited May 25, 2011 by Inquisitor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kfmut Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Inquisitor, agree with you about perspective distortion on photos in my post, but on previous page I've made request about kit itself and no one answered, so it's was second ball ;-) And thanks for pointing out thread about kit manufacturers and accuracy, very interesting, especially Jennings comments, like he is reading my own thoughts about it :-D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dndieje Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I was thinking of getting this one but am starting to have second thoughts now. That spine / fuselage blend looks like a real boo-boo and have they forgotten those grilles either side of the air intakes again ? http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10144406 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I was thinking of getting this one but am starting to have second thoughts now. That spine / fuselage blend looks like a real boo-boo and have they forgotten those grilles either side of the air intakes again ? http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10144406 No they havent. Check Su-33 pictures. Su-33 intakes are not same as on Su-27. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dndieje Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) No they havent. Check Su-33 pictures. Su-33 intakes are not same as on Su-27. I know the intakes are different but the grilles (albeit in a slightly different location) are still there. http://s46.radikal.ru/i112/1105/f1/fdb9c2a7d02e.jpg Better picture: http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/chelomei/p/800/img/3m55_su.jpg Edited June 3, 2011 by Dndieje Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I know the intakes are different but the grilles (albeit in a slightly different location) are still there. http://s46.radikal.ru/i112/1105/f1/fdb9c2a7d02e.jpg Better picture: http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/chelomei/p/800/img/3m55_su.jpg http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=218196&view=findpost&p=2182575 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dndieje Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=218196&view=findpost&p=2182575 Yes, excellent fine thank you. I have seen the pictures of the real thing but are they included ? Have the Revell boxing of the Hasegawa Su-27 and had to get one of those Eduard sets for these. I know they are there, all I'm asking is if they are included in this kit ? Edit: After actually READING this section the question is answered Edited June 3, 2011 by Dndieje Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Picture of the folded wing set from wolfpack. http://scalemodels.ru/news/2984-novinka-ot-Wolfpack--1-72-Su-33-Sea-Flanker-Wing-Folded-set-for-Hasegawa.html I hoped it wouldn't be expensive, but i fear it will... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JackMan Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 The more I look at the built up pictures, the more the spine & pointy canopy irks me I keep fondling the plastic longingly & then putting it back in the box since I already know that if I build it, everytime I look at it, it'll only irk me more.... Has anyone tried grafting the Italeri Su-27 or Sea Flanker spine onto the Hase kit? According to Ken's Flanker Survey: http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/su27surv.htm the Italeri kit has a good spine shape (despite it's various other flaws). And although it's canopy is too big, I prefer a big but correctly shaped canopy to the Hase's pointy one <_< Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.