Jump to content

A new molded Su-33 by Hasegawa?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

53426728201104272349111735877618385_001.jpg

53426728201104272349111735877618385_002.jpg

53426728201104272349111735877618385_000.jpg

Just my 2 cents,

Yufei

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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 by JackMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

469489e8b9cdt.jpg

they looks almost flat to my eye...

So could someone draw some pencil lines like on this mig-29

5a4acdc01cb4t.jpg

and make few shots like this one

876ee838c406t.jpg

Please! :worship:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by konbini
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, when will that vac-form replacement canopy be ready? :whistle: (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:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found two more shots from a Japanese modeler's work to prove the wrong shaped canopy.

53426728201105242056202768077212228_001.jpg

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh.......

What is it with the shape of the Flanker ????

Why can't anyone get it right ???? :bandhead2:

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 :pray: 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..... :crying2:

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work, kfmut! :thumbsup:

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 :thumbsup: ).

Yellow lines (exaggerated) to show the spine, the green line to show the somewhat longer "crest" on the actual plane.

2f6c135e24e1-mod.jpg

Or am I seeing things? :unsure:

Edited by ChernayaAkula
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Inquisitor
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Dndieje
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :rolleyes:

Edited by Dndieje
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

The more I look at the built up pictures, the more the spine & pointy canopy irks me :explode:

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 <_<

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...