MiG31 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 It's worth noting that there are a pair of skin panels above the main wheel wells that appear on the dorsal wing root. Have a look at this photo. Note the dashed marks around the panels, which are abaft the dorsal airbrake. Trumpeter got it wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) No they did not, and your link doesn't work. It does if you remove the &sid.... part. And the photo hardly shows anything. Thanks for the pics Berkut but frankly I'll wait to see how those supposedly inaccurate (and partially hidden) wheel bays look like in a built model... well no I'll probably buy the model anyway: - the detail level looks good (nozzles... even the K-36 looks pretty good for an injected plastic model) - I care more about canopy or nose shape issues: I don't usually leave my models upside down on the shelf and admire the wheel wells Edited October 24, 2011 by Laurent Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mdlchiw Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 here is the review thread by one of our members Link test shots was sent to our group. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Model-Junkie Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Thanks for the link mdlchiw, I did not realize that Trumpeter were planning to release 3 variants Looks like I can get rid of my Hasegawa & Airfix kits! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 It does if you remove the &sid.... part. And the photo hardly shows anything. Thanks for the pics Berkut but frankly I'll wait to see how those supposedly inaccurate (and partially hidden) wheel bays look like in a built model... well no I'll probably buy the model anyway: - the detail level looks good (nozzles... even the K-36 looks pretty good for an injected plastic model) - I care more about canopy or nose shape issues: I don't usually leave my models upside down on the shelf and admire the wheel wells Well, good luck hoping it will be without canopy and nose issues... ;) Not so sure about either of them judging from build up early in the thread. And any way you turn it, the wheelbay error is pretty stupid one. And i disagree about detail, looks rather basic. Hasegawa's Su-33 is much better in these terms. Will i get one? Yes, i probably will, out of interest and compare it with airfix flankers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niki4703 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 And any way you turn it, the wheelbay error is pretty stupid one. It doesn't actually matter much to me, but I was wondering where this error originates since, besides Trumpeter, we find the same "angled" approach also in Academy kits? http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff482/Adriano_Souza/Academy%20Sukhoi%20Su-27UB/SAM_1878.jpg Besides those couple of pictures you posted - which unfortunately aren't quite relevant - do you have some other proof in support of your statement? (Mind you, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm sure many would be interested in some "insider" facts.) Cheers! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 It doesn't actually matter much to me, but I was wondering where this error originates since, besides Trumpeter, we find the same "angled" approach also in Academy kits? http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff482/Adriano_Souza/Academy%20Sukhoi%20Su-27UB/SAM_1878.jpg Besides those couple of pictures you posted - which unfortunately aren't quite relevant - do you have some other proof in support of your statement? (Mind you, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm sure many would be interested in some "insider" facts.) Cheers! I am not entirely sure why you dont find my earlier pictures as "relevant". I think they show rather clearly how the wheelbays look. Here is three more pictures, but after that it is up to you really to find proof either way. ;) I don't think i will be very annoyed by this issue when the plane sits on the ground, but i still think it is a stupid mistake to make. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niki4703 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) I am not entirely sure why you dont find my earlier pictures as "relevant". I think they show rather clearly how the wheelbays look. Here is three more pictures, but after that it is up to you really to find proof either way. ;) Well, it might have had something to do with the red lines you marked on them :) And no, it's not really up to me to find proof since I'm not the one saying they are wrong (nor correct, for that matter). Anyway, let's all enjoy a long awaited plastic subject! Cheers! P.S.: a couple o more pictures to go along with those posted by Berkut to get us all in the mood for modeling! http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27-(Su-27S)/1901333/L/&sid=343c0ee3dc3c654c51ae3281bcfa50a3 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27-(Su-27S)/1470425/L/&sid=343c0ee3dc3c654c51ae3281bcfa50a3 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27-(Su-27S)/1875573/L/&sid=343c0ee3dc3c654c51ae3281bcfa50a3 Edited October 25, 2011 by niki4703 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sebastijan Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Berk, are you sure? The above picture lets me believe they are indeed angled - the angle to the intake is 90deg but overall looking they seem to be canted inward towards the aircraft axis... hard to see on other pics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Berk, are you sure? The above picture lets me believe they are indeed angled - the angle to the intake is 90deg but overall looking they seem to be canted inward towards the aircraft axis... hard to see on other pics. That's because you are looking backwards at them - the eyeline is ahead of the bay, so they appear to be sloping. The clincher is to look at the shape of the door - the rear edges are completely vertical when viewed from the side. But it is something I can live with. Another very minor point - early Su-27's had a three-hole nosewheel mudguard....... Later single-seaters standardised on the one-hole nosewheel - as used on the Su-27UB. Easy to swap with the (incorrect for a later Su-27) Airfix nosewheel. From what I have seen so far, I am getting quite excited - so I'm going to lie down in a darkened room.... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27-(Su-27S)/1470425/L/&sid=343c0ee3dc3c654c51ae3281bcfa50a3 Very good picture. If one looks at the wheelbay doors, they are angled. However, that doesn't mean the *bays* themself are angled. If one takes a look at Hasegawa Su-33 kit, and Airfix Su-33, one will see that the areas into where the wheelbay doors goes into, are angled. The bay themselves are not. PS: Last one, without red lines. ;) Judge yourselfs: Edited October 25, 2011 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 FWIW, I've zoomed in on a few pics....... I am in agreement with Berkut on this one..... (but I don't consider it to be a disaster).... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Honestly, i am actually even more amazed at Airfix now. Awful kit fitwise, but they did some of the details (details shapewise) really well. Considering it was done in 1989 or so. Trumpeter have J-11 to look at in their own backyard, and obviously was too lazy for that... Oh well. Other that this in big picture insignificant error, i hope the rest of the kit will be correct. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Besides those couple of pictures you posted - which unfortunately aren't quite relevant - do you have some other proof in support of your statement? I've already suggested that the top skin wing root panels are an indicator of the bays' orientation in this post. Edited October 25, 2011 by MiG31 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mair Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Firstly, I cant wait to get my hand on a few of these kits, I'm so excited just thinking about them, going to get at least 3 so i can build all 3 versions. And secondly, the bays don't bother me at all, like Laurent said most of the wheel bay is hidden by the intake, in fact they do look a bit angled to me. Here is my observation of the kits contents: - 6 tails for 3 different versions - 4 elevator/horizontal tails (one for j-11 and one for Su-27) - 2 nose cones/radomes (one for j-11 and one for Su-27) - 2 different instrument panels (one for j-11 and one for Su-27) - 2 sets of wing tips (one for j-11 and one for Su-27) - 2 sets of exausts/burner cans (WS-10a and Al-31fn) - 2 sets of weapons and pylons (Chinese and Russian) - 2 ejection seats Seams almost like two kits in one , great stuff Trumpeter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Firstly, I cant wait to get my hand on a few of these kits, I'm so excited just thinking about them, going to get at least 3 so i can build all 3 versions. And secondly, the bays don't bother me at all, like Laurent said most of the wheel bay is hidden by the intake, in fact they do look a bit angled to me. Here is my observation of the kits contents: - 6 tails for 3 different versions - 4 elevator/horizontal tails (one for j-11 and one for Su-27) - 2 nose cones/radomes (one for j-11 and one for Su-27) - 2 different instrument panels (one for j-11 and one for Su-27) - 2 sets of wing tips (one for j-11 and one for Su-27) - 2 sets of exausts/burner cans (WS-10a and Al-31fn) - 2 sets of weapons and pylons (Chinese and Russian) - 2 ejection seats Seams almost like two kits in one , great stuff Trumpeter Hold your horses, don't get your hopes up. The review link by mdlchiw are actually what seems to be testshots of the whole set of various sprues, but that doesn't mean they'll give you all of them in a box. Most of the trumpeter previews in IPMS Philipines site are of preproduction testshots, which are sent in a bag, no manual or decals. Another example is their Hobbyboss (same parent company as trumepter if you didn't know already) Yak-38 Forger Review, where they got the testshot sprues, with both single seater and twinseater forward fuselage sprues. http://www.ipmsphilippines.com/site/thread/hobby-boss-1-48-yakovlev-yak-38m-forger/104 You can see the whole clear sprue with single and twin in the same arrangement, easy to open/close gate to mold either according to boxing. I repeat those are reviews of the testshots. In the end Hobbyboss has separate boxings for single seater and twin seater of the Yak-38. Companies make their molds to be modular with gates, so they can mold the whole sprue or part of it. The link provided by chinazou of the J-11 boxing is what you'll get in the box of the single seater J-11B. http://www.scalesky.com/review/model-kit/098-trumpeter-1-72-chinese-j-11b.html You can see they only included the chinese half of the pylons sprue, no Russian half. Also notice that the decals only has the single seater instrument panels. I bet they'll later release other boxings for the Su-30MKK and Su-27. Edited October 26, 2011 by Inquisitor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 And secondly, the bays don't bother me at all, like Laurent said most of the wheel bay is hidden by the intake, in fact they do look a bit angled to me. They might be mostly hidden once the model's assembled, but the bays are not supposed to be angled. See the various photos that Berkut, Flankerman and I have posted. That said, I might try to correct them depending on how the kit goes together. It might be one of those things I have to live with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tomcat Trebor Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 If this is the same as the 1/32 version I am surprised it was picked up earlier on said model. Will still buy a few though. Robert Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niki4703 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) I've already suggested that the top skin wing root panels are an indicator of the bays' orientation in this post. Sorry, MiG! One of the disadvantages of not being an English native speaker: Wasn't quite sure what you meant in your initial post. I understand your point now. Guys, buying we shall have to do all boxings! Specific sprue pieces get sometimes mixed up and we might end up with a J-11 and the Russian missiles or the double seater and the one piece front wheel... Just kidding! We shall buy all boxings because it's such a nice airplane and we want Trumpeter to get all the profit they can so they can keep pleasantly surprise us in the future :) Edited October 26, 2011 by niki4703 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Hold your horses, don't get your hopes up. Party pooper :P :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 They might be mostly hidden once the model's assembled, but the bays are not supposed to be angled. See the various photos that Berkut, Flankerman and I have posted. That said, I might try to correct them depending on how the kit goes together. It might be one of those things I have to live with. To my eyes, all the pictures here show a little bit of angle. I never paid attention to this until this discussion but yeah, I think they have at least the same angle with the intakes have according to main body axes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjc2278304 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 To my eyes, all the pictures here show a little bit of angle. I never paid attention to this until this discussion but yeah, I think they have at least the same angle with the intakes have according to main body axes. I also believe there to be a slight slant to the wheel wells. The wheel wells seem to be strait against the intakes with the intakes themselves being pinched closer together toward the center of the fusalage. I think trumpeter may have over exagerated this effect. We'll all have to look at the assabled model and see how noticable it is.Berkut those photos you have presented are great. Im not sure we'll find any better photos from directly below the aircraft are available, only perfectly below shots I think can put this issue to bed. I understand Kens argument about the line of sight making the wells seem slanted but the way they look canted in comparison to the rest of the aircract features doesn't make sense, namely wings and intake. The door covers also arnt the same shape as the wells as I think their larger slightly and themselves angles. With all due respect to the flanker master mr. Duffey. As others have pointed out this angled wells issue is aslo on the acedemy kit. Wondering if they saw something in their measurements we didn't. I love the flanker and just hope it builds good and looks great when done. This may be our last hope at the su-27 for quite a long long time. Brett, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 To my eyes, all the pictures here show a little bit of angle. I never paid attention to this until this discussion but yeah, I think they have at least the same angle with the intakes have according to main body axes. It is like i am trying to convince people to switch religion or something. :D I give up. Also, people are still ignoring MiG-31's point. I guess Hasegawa got it wrong on theirs Su-27. Then on their new Su-33. Airfix also got it wrong. Yet Trumpeter, the model company in the world that has least mistakes per kit, managed to get it right. ^_^ As others have pointed out this angled wells issue is aslo on the acedemy kit. Wondering if they saw something in their measurements we didn't. Brett, I am sorry, "measurements"? :huh: Considering Su-27 Academy faults, lets just say i really really doubt they measured anything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) :P Edited October 26, 2011 by foxmulder_ms Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Just looked at your image and you can notice that the outboard edge is toed-in like you marked, but you missed that the aft wall of the wheelbay is clearly perpendicular to that wingroot panel. Also I edited the AiV drawings, in blue the wheel well and red the door, purple where they overlap. Edited October 26, 2011 by Inquisitor 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.