Maker Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The humps look good in the picture, mind you it is a picture. Am I the only one who thinks they looked better before? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gb_madcat_sl Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Have to agree with mungo here. Great work on the changes. One question though. Will GWH be providing those who bought the initial B/D release with corrected parts such as the wheels? Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenshb Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I was hoping to see GWH retooling parts that were wrong, and I am glad to see they did not disappoint. By sticking to one variant in the box (e.g. F-15A OR F-15C) the options - and hence the price - can be kept down and the kit can accurately be built with what's in the box. Like the MiG-29 variants. At the moment, the F-15B/D is really neither fowl nor fish. Looking forward to see what other changes are making it to the single seater release. Jens Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Reading these last posts, I feel nostalgia for the time in which scale model airplanes were actually designed from real airplanes and not from drawings that, as all of us know, are very often wrong. However, the GWH F-15B/D tweak list follows. I hope it helps. --------------------------- GREAT WALL HOBBY 1/48 F-15B/D. Wrapping up all these hundreds and hundreds of posts. What we - so far - know about this kit. Update 02, changes and addition in Italics: ECM Cones: The ECM cone needed for an USAF F-15D is missing. Top Fuselage JSF Chimmey: The top fuselage JSF chimney is too long and narrow. Decals: USAF crew names misspelled. Missile Launchers: LAU-128 missile launchers not included. Cockpit: Side consoles way too low and, as a result, dashboards too long. Under Fuselage: Both drain pipes are missing, which is correct only for a F-15E but not for an early Eagle. Surface Detail: Heavy engraved panel lines and plenty of rivets, but rivets are invisible on the real plane and most of panel lines are barely visible. Exhaust Nozzles: Plastic actuators are way too thick, plastic petals are too long. Only one couple of nozzles included. As a result, building an early Eagle out of the box it is not possible. Engine Humps: Too much pronounced, bulging laterally too much. Horizontal Stabilizers: Heavy reinforcement strips but there are none of such strips on the F-15B/Ds. Trailing Edges: Wings, tails, and stabilizers trailing edges are very thick - way over scaled. Wing mobile surfaces: Both flaps and ailerons are separate parts but their fit is very poor. Air Intakes: Curved air intakes lips but they should be straight. Wheels: Early and late kind of wheels but both are wrong bulged so they are useless. Canopy fairing: Wrong shape: The canopy fairing slope is too shallow. Canopy: Wrong shape: Rear half too long and not enough bulged. Windshield: Not bulged and somewhat smaller than it should be. Seats: Two kinds of seat are included but both useless because too much tall. Pilots: No pilots included. Intake Trunks: Trunks are too long and ridiculously narrow in the middle. Radome: Way too fat at the tip. Forward Fuselage: Forward fuselage sides are just straight, not shaped as according to the area rule (Coke bottle). Airbrake Fairing: Only the late kind of airbrake fairing and that is wrong for an F-15B. Airbrake Underside: The airbrake underside is recessed but that not the case on the real thing. Engines: Both engines included but they look generic, very different from the real ones. Engine fans and inlets: Both kind included but fan bladed count is wrong: 14 instead of 21; and 20 instead of 38. Antennas: Antennas are typical of a late MSIP Eagle, not of an early F-15B/D. Weapons: Weapons loads are wrong for any of the two USAF decals options. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vodnik Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Am I the only one who thinks they looked better before? Maybe they looked better. But now they look more accurate ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gb_madcat_sl Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Surface Detail: Heavy engraved panel lines and plenty of rivets, but rivets are invisible on the real plane and most of panel lines are barely visible. I had the opportunity to view a couple of F-15s over the weekend and I can assure you that the rivets (actually fasteners) are most definitely NOT invisible. Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Reading these last posts, I feel nostalgia for the time in which scale model airplanes were actually designed from real airplanes and not from drawings that, as all of us know, are very often wrong. Where did you hear that? Drawings have always been used. Your nostalgia is misplaced. The difference today is that you have CAD people doing model kit design, not model kit design craftsmen. In the "old days" before CAD, when physical masters were made, the job was done by a true craftsman. But drawings have always been a part of that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pandabear Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) --- Edited June 26, 2014 by pandabear Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ol Crew Dog Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) I had the opportunity to view a couple of F-15s over the weekend and I can assure you that the rivets (actually fasteners) are most definitely NOT invisible. Mark I assure that if they were flush riveted they would be invisible on the 15 with a coat of paint. If they are loose then what happens is you will get streaking from dirt under the heads, this makes the rivets and hi-looks more visible. There are cherry max rivets used in certain areas, especially on the wingtip sand tail section, these would not be used all the time as it would depend on the panel repair or mod done. What I see in your pictures are hi torque fasteners(screws) and would be seen considering the are removable and If not painted after they are installed and not painted will show up as they are issued in bare metal. Rivets are not removable unless you drill them out and replaced with a rivet gun, these will also show up as bare metal if just replaced and not painted. Hope this helped. Dave Whalen Edited February 19, 2014 by Ol Crew Dog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I assure that if they were flush riveted they would be invisible on the 15 with a coat of paint. If they are loose then what happens is you will get streaking from dirt under the heads, this makes the rivets and hi-looks more visible. There are cherry max rivets used in certain areas, especially on the wingtip sand tail section, these would not be used all the time as it would depend on the panel repair or mod done. What I see in your pictures are hi torque fasteners(screws) and would be seen considering the are removable and If not painted after they are installed and not painted will show up as they are issued in bare metal. Rivets are not removable unless you drill them out and replaced with a rivet gun, these will also show up as bare metal if just replaced and not painted. Hope this helped. Dave Whalen Still you see "screws"... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Still you see "screws"... What would they look like in 1/48th scale? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ol Crew Dog Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 What would they look like in 1/48th scale? This is turning into the same ol argument about rivets or no rivets.......... Purist hate them, artists love them.... :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ol Crew Dog Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Still you see "screws"... Step back from the real jet say 50 ft and what you see is what should be on a 1/48 scale model.... Do you see rivets and fasteners? Maybe the streaking and dirt but not the actual rivet or fastener.... :) cheers Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) With that argument... half of the modelling goes down the drain. Well, at least for me. Edited February 19, 2014 by foxmulder_ms Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ol Crew Dog Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 With that argument... half of the modelling goes down the drain. Well, at least for me. I look at it as it's all up to the modellers taste, I prefer rivets not overdone but there for the artistic effect needed to catch the grime from the wash... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Step back from the real jet say 50 ft and what you see is what should be on a 1/48 scale model.... Do you see rivets and fasteners? Maybe the streaking and dirt but not the actual rivet or fastener.... cheers Good point there. I view said rivets/fasteners the same way I view panel lines: You're not going to see all the panel lines and fasteners all the time in most cases. A very well-worn F-4C or F-4J during Viet Nam? Absolutely. But generally; variations of less than very well-worn seems to be more appropriate most of the time. However; The bottom line in model-building should always prevail: It's your model. Build it and finish it the way YOU want to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ol Crew Dog Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I don't see huge dimension problem with IPs(Shape on sides maybe?), GWH's looks close to Revell and also consoles look as low as Revell ,Monogram and Aires resin for 1/32nd Tamiya. Only real mistake is they are flat, not correctly angled. Am I missing something??????? Clockwise; Revell,GWH,Academy,Hasegawa. (I apologize for ugly picture) Iggy You see no difference between the upper two and the lower two in size? That's all that matters is what you see and want, that's what modelling is.... Cheers Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pandabear Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) --- Edited July 1, 2014 by pandabear Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I'm sorry Sir , I badly expressed my thougth: I don't see a WAY BIG difference beetwen GWH and Revell (or Monogram,not in the picture),they have grossly a similar size. I posted a pic of all the front panels just for comparison,of course I see that the lower two are smaller and wrong. GWH's consoles look as low as Revell's so I don''t have clear how GWH's side consoles could be way too low and, as a result, dashboards too long. So I need an explanation of this mistake. I apologize for the misunderstanding,my bad./> Iggy /> For an explanation of this mistake check this link: Linky Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pandabear Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) --- Edited June 26, 2014 by pandabear Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SR10user Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 When I earlier posted on argument I was worried about Revell and Monogram parts being similar to GWH so possibly incorrect,I'm going to replace the whole GWH front fuselage with a Monogram spare thus I don't really care about GWH cockpit accuracy. That sounds interesting. If you don't mind could you take some pics and post them. I would be interested in seeing your results. Are you planning on using the old Monogram F-15C (raised panel lines) or the new tool Revell F-15E forward fuselage? Sincerely, Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pandabear Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) --- Edited July 1, 2014 by pandabear Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarcDuhon Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 @ galfa Yes You mentioned all these things but in return You ignore the weak points of the Hasegawa kit as well as the strong points (and there at least IMO many !) of this kit. To admit to again post this list that You already posted gives me the feeling as if You are indeed on a crusade against that kit. Not sure why and it even does not bother me but please let us all have our own opinion and at least try to be fair. Deino I totally agree,,,, I see this everytime a new model comes out... There are always going to be issues... in the end,,., these are produced for a profit... and certain issues cannot be solved due to maintaining profitability... thats business, I hear people hosing companies for that all the time... but these arent charities... they need to make money to stay in business..I know if they fixed everything and hiked the price to reflect then people would complain about that... Back in the day we had to scratchbuild EVERYTHING if we wanted accuracy.... These days the models are far better.. I say this cry me a river.... dont like the model..... dont buy it... or do what a model builder does and fix it... that is half the fun of things.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Back in the day we had to scratchbuild EVERYTHING if we wanted accuracy.... These days the models are far better.. I say this cry me a river.... dont like the model..... dont buy it... or do what a model builder does and fix it... that is half the fun of things.... Amen to scratch-building everything! I stopped model building in 1999 and then started back up last year. Holy smokes, have time changed! I remember my first scratch-built ejection seat from a 1/32nd scale Revell F-4J I built back in 1974-75. Now there are several companies that make them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ol Crew Dog Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Amen to scratch-building everything! I stopped model building in 1999 and then started back up last year. Holy smokes, have time changed! I remember my first scratch-built ejection seat from a 1/32nd scale Revell F-4J I built back in 1974-75. Now there are several companies that make them. Current modellers are coddled. I did the same thing on their J along with full cockpit and converted to a K model back in 76..... 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.