Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If I don't have the correct markings for my 1:72 F/A-18F from March 19, 2007 - not March 20th, dammit - down to the tiniest detail, then I won't be able to shut down an apocalyptic nuclear device placed in the National Capitol Region.

AV144-2.jpg

Mark's released some great subjects that no one else has over the years and I for one appreciate it.

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

We have had a pleasant chat with Mark about this issue, and it is for the best that this issue die.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mark,

Glad to see new stuff in 1/72. I have to agree with what everyone else posted here... Those VFA-103 titles are slanted. If you don't want to listen to a group of generous, friendly and willing people on here then that's your business but don't be surprised when you're sheet comes out and people question the accuracy. You may have superior computers and skills but you may be overworking this problem.

As for doing your 'homework' and not being swayed, well... If you want to do your homework, call VFA-103 CC shop and in a 30 second conversation you'll get the following info: VFA- portion is in Amarillo font with modified corners. 103 is modified Long Beach Navy. Modex is LBN also with modified corners. Both are slanted aft as the NAVAIR painting instructions indicate. For 103, both are at a 7.5 degree slant.

While you're at it, you may want to do a little more homework on your profile. As what already pointed out, the paint demarcation line needs work. The Modex placement should be adjusted. It's hard to tell if you have the national insignia in medium or 36081 gray but it should be 36081. You're intake chevrons appear to large and wide. They don't come to the intake lip and the lower one doesn't angle to the corner. You also may want to remove the second upper spine antenna. That is only on the EA-18G. Check your fuel tank skull placement. The stencil data is in 35237 but all squadron markings, names, major data is in 36081 dark gray.

I'd be happy to send you our placement guide instruction sheet for this jet if you would like to help use that as a reference for placement.

Anything else I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. I'm happy to help. Looking forward to seeing what else is on the sheet!

thanks,

brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

glad you got to talk Mike and Mark

Tony,,,,guess what?,,,,,for some models,,,having it right for Tuesday is just as important as having it right for Wednesday

building Showtime 100 marked and dated as the day after Cunningham and Driscoll's famous flight "might" not exactly be a "market success" idea

ironic,,,,the Whiffers are asking for input, seeking some support in their build efforts,,,,,,and "Tony" shows up in an accuracy thread, trying to belittle the "accuracy builders"

one would think there wasn't room in the hobby for both types of models or something

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I have ever used ANY decalsheet, from ANY manufacturer that doesn't have some sort of error on it, big or small.

But, I accept it, and if I feel like it, I might correct it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

slanted or not i couldnt give a rats a** personally. some of you might care and thats fine. i would just like to have these decals so i can build that plane! hopefully some of you can agree with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a perfect example of why I build for fun. Your approval of my models is not required. :rolleyes:

AMEN! I wonder how many models could have been built in the time that was spent reading and discussing this issue on the computer.

Perhaps the markings in question were painted vertically and became slanted due to repeated flights at high speeds... ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the last couple of posters forget that if it wasn't for those who strive to make models better and more accurate, we'd all still just be building box scale planes molded in red and blue plastic. It's fine that some of you don't care about accuracy, but don't knock on those that do, because you still benefit from the work of those that do care.

Edited by Rank11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents:

I did my homework and the engineering analaysis supports it. Being a professional I won't get into a pissing match over this but I will say that unless Brian can provide a certified drawing from VFA-103 then I won't be swayed.

Mark S.

Nothing like a picture of the real deal and same Modex number to see who is right. The VFA-103 logo is as slanted as the aircraft number- plus everything else that Brian has suggested in Post #2. This is not a case of a "slightly curved surface and parallax error". You have made a small error sir and you really should admit it, rather than claiming that engineering expertise trumps what our own eyes can plainly see.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Boeing-F-A-18F-Super/1132290/L/&sid=c3a0fb0696221a32c8ec494d115c0bb8

Here's another couple of F/A-18F's from the same VFA-103 squadron...

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Boeing-F-A-18F-Super/1293858/L/&sid=8c54aff361d2424fdc8f9b147c116df9

......including other CAG jets to prove that the logo is still slanted for this version....

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Boeing-F-A-18F-Super/1924726/L/&sid=c76238acdd0a2de574c02cbc6b8dece8

http://www.airfighters.com/photo/91607/M/USA-Navy/Boeing-F-A-18F-Super-Hornet/166621/

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

slanted or not i couldnt give a rats a** personally. some of you might care and thats fine. i would just like to have these decals so i can build that plane! hopefully some of you can agree with me.

I agree. There is an ongoing thread on "What-If's" on the general forum. If you have no issue with building something that is not 100% accurate, no one else should judge you. Go with those decals and post the results as a "What-If". Paint your aircraft purple at the same time. At the end of the day, if a modeler is happy with his work, despite having some known accuracy issues, that is all that matters.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. There is an ongoing thread on "What-If's" on the general forum. If you have no issue with building something that is not 100% accurate, no one else should judge you. Go with those decals and post the results as a "What-If". Paint your aircraft purple at the same time. At the end of the day, if a modeler is happy with his work, despite having some known accuracy issues, that is all that matters.

That's all fine when your building models, but the case at hand is a decal manufacturer who has the opportunity before releasing said product to make it accurate (or not, depending on your slanted opinion). The situation here is that there are several very knowledgeable people, some of them being decal makers who are simply passing along their knowledge to help out. Unfortunately, sometimes it's a case of deadhorse1.gif.

Will he still sell decals with an error on them, sure. Will I be one of those customers knowing the sheet has errors? No, not when there are more accurate options out there.

Building a model with inaccuracies is entirely different than creating a product for the masses with errors in it when you were told your design was wrong before ever manufacturing sheet 1.

Edited by blunce
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. There is an ongoing thread on "What-If's" on the general forum. If you have no issue with building something that is not 100% accurate, no one else should judge you. Go with those decals and post the results as a "What-If". Paint your aircraft purple at the same time. At the end of the day, if a modeler is happy with his work, despite having some known accuracy issues, that is all that matters.

The problem is, this is not a "What-If" thread and many of us not only appreciate accuracy, we demand it. The VFA-103 lettering is clearly slanted aft, it has been pointed out to him politely and he still says stuff like, "when you import them into engineering software and account for the slightly curved surface and the parallax error the angles especially evident on 0 read 90 degrees. It's an easy mistake to make". Now that's just not right.

Now if a modeler posted his completely work using incorrect decals and people were trashing him for it, that's not right either, but that's not the case here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck

just a heads up, and certainly NOT intended as a slam

but, "having the same Modex number",,,,,,,or having the same Modex and BuNo,,,,,,,is NO guarantee of accuracy when it comes to Naval markings

details can change rapidly compared to having the "wing code and serial number" on a USAF fighter tail

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck

just a heads up, and certainly NOT intended as a slam

but, "having the same Modex number",,,,,,,or having the same Modex and BuNo,,,,,,,is NO guarantee of accuracy when it comes to Naval markings

details can change rapidly compared to having the "wing code and serial number" on a USAF fighter tail

Are you saying that having "210" on the nose, VFA-103 on the spine and BuNo 166618 under the tail could be on two different jets? Those are the pics that Brian posted earlier in Post #7 and I posted in my first Airliners.net pic. I get having the first two on different jets, but not all three.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, sure didn't say that at all

I am saying that any given BuNo can have different "nose Numbers" (Modex) on any given day,,,,,,and could change more than once on a cruise

that is different than the Air Force,,,,they have the serial number on the tail,,,,,and the letter code on the tail changes to match the Wing or Base or whatever,,,,,,they don't have a "modex party" to change numbers when the squadron gets 2 new birds,,,it is,,,or at least it was,,,,,,a very common thing in NavAir

the newest/best bird goes to the CAG number, the CO gets the next bestest, then the XO, etc,,,,,"bumping the numbers" all down the ranks on down to Ensign Ooopsie

you don't have to believe me,,,,,just ask for the BuNo of the World Famous Supersonic Can Opener CAG of VF-51,,,,,,it is just one random example,,,,,,but, it illustrates the deal perfectly

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked from those photos and when you import them into engineering software and account for the slightly curved surface and the parallax error the angles especially evident on 0 read 90 degrees.

What engineering software are you using?

Edited by Maker
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all fine when your building models, but the case at hand is a decal manufacturer who has the opportunity before releasing said product to make it accurate (or not, depending on your slanted opinion). The situation here is that there are several very knowledgeable people, some of them being decal makers who are simply passing along their knowledge to help out. Unfortunately, sometimes it's a case of deadhorse1.gif.

Will he still sell decals with an error on them, sure. Will I be one of those customers knowing the sheet has errors? No, not when there are more accurate options out there.

Building a model with inaccuracies is entirely different than creating a product for the masses with errors in it when you were told your design was wrong before ever manufacturing sheet 1.

Sorry, my response was a bit tongue in cheek. I was trying to make the case that if you opt for these decals, it appears that you technically are no longer modeling an actual aircraft. Therefore, the project by default would fall into the "What-If" category since it is not representative of an actual F/A-18.

I feel for Mark S, as it sounds like he has some pretty good products. However, sometimes you need to just admit that you are wrong rather then slagging your critics (who might also be your customers).

Marketing 101 - Your customers are always right!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many of us not only appreciate accuracy, we demand it.

True, and thus it follows that many of us do not "demand" accuracy (at least not 100 percent accuracy). As I mentioned in an earlier post, I appreciate the quest for it, but I'd rather have decals that are 95 percent accurate than none at all.

Look at all the great 1/48 scale decals we've gotten from Afterburner, Fightertown, Furball, etc. I'd take any of them in 1/72 scale even if their accuracy were compromised somewhat. Imagine the excitement many of us would feel if we had Afterburner's Double Ugly, Jamin' Jihad, or Test Vipers markings in 1/72! Or Fightertown's Wolfpack or Booming Intruders. Or Furball's lo-viz Rhinos. It would give us a reason to wake up in the morning! LOL

Sometime something is better than nothing, especially when it's 95 percent there.

I love this hobby!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the last couple of posters forget that if it wasn't for those who strive to make models better and more accurate, we'd all still just be building box scale planes molded in red and blue plastic. It's fine that some of you don't care about accuracy, but don't knock on those that do, because you still benefit from the work of those that do care.

Exactly!! And those who profess not to care about accuracy are the same ones who jump at the chance to buy the best (and yes, the most accurate) aftermarket stuff available for a project. You know, if you don't care about some level of accuracy, why not just paint a VFA-103 jet pink and slap on some Hello Kitty stickers on it and call it a day!

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...