jmel Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I have asked it before; But is there a way to see difference between a "vanilla" F-15C and AESA equipped one? Just a small vent. The weapons aren't different. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Just a small vent. The weapons aren't different. Ah, i misunderstood and thought the AIM-120D and AIM-9X were not used on older C's, just on the AESA ones. Where is that small vent? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Does that mean we still have to wait for a GWH F-15A in 48 scale? Brad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
swimmer25k Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Does that mean we still have to wait for a GWH F-15A in 48 scale? Brad Can an A be built from this kit? In general, what would need to be done (that can't be addressed by AM parts)? Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I don't know, that's why I asked my question. Brad Can an A be built from this kit? In general, what would need to be done (that can't be addressed by AM parts)? Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Wonder if this kit will be a "Late" F-15C with current weapons and the AESA radar or if the kit will also include earlier weapons (sparrow, AIM-9L) and the mechanically scanned radar? Funny to see that "The List" was re-posted on HS within minutes Brett's article going online. At least he made "some progress" on the list. Now he no longer list "NO PILOTS" as an unfixable and major mistake in the kit :rolleyes:/>/> But still he list other stuff that's been fixed with the retooled parts, and he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. As for people in HS asking him how he can back up his claims, he answered with: However, the list on the GWH F-15B/D posted earlier is the result of several hundreds of posts I carefully read on at least four different forums.I checked one by one all these issues, comparing the GWH to the other 1/48 available kits. :rolleyes:/> Any one find fault in the logic there? Edited May 28, 2014 by Inquisitor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share Posted May 28, 2014 Can an A be built from this kit? In general, what would need to be done (that can't be addressed by AM parts)? Chris Depends on the timeframe of your A. You might need the early style exhaust nozzles, otherwise I think it's mostly small stuff like antennas. The A's went through a good many upgrades / modifications over the years. I thought the thread on the GWH F-15B had a list of all the mods (if you don't mind going through all the BS posts to find it). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 At least he made "some progress" on the list. Now he no longer list "NO PILOTS" as an unfixable and major mistake in the kit :rolleyes:/>/>/> But still he list other stuff that's been fixed with the retooled parts, and he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. As for people in HS asking him how he can back up his claims, he answered with: :rolleyes:/>/> Any one find fault in the logic there? [/size][/font][/size][/font] Hi, After reading your post I think that some explanations from me are very much needed. I am in this hobby since forty years now. Scale accuracy for me is very important. The "list" is an attempt to summarize all the accuracy issues affecting the GWH F-15B/B, according to several hundreds of posts. Given that I am the happy owner of some Hasegawa, Academy, Monogram, Tamiya, and Revell 1/48 Eagle, I had the possibility to double check the issues before posting. The reason why I complained about the lack of pilots is because pilots are included both in the Hasegawa 1/48 and in the Tamiya 1/32 Eagle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Actually, it's not sure, its the un-inflated autopilot... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 It already happened on Hyperscale...and people were buying it. Annoying part was when it was explained what had happened here they got elitist about visiting other sites. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Hi, After reading your post I think that some explanations from me are very much needed. I am in this hobby since forty years now. Scale accuracy for me is very important. The "list" is an attempt to summarize all the accuracy issues affecting the GWH F-15B/B, according to several hundreds of posts. Given that I am the happy owner of some Hasegawa, Academy, Monogram, Tamiya, and Revell 1/48 Eagle, I had the possibility to double check the issues before posting. The reason why I complained about the lack of pilots is because pilots are included both in the Hasegawa 1/48 and in the Tamiya 1/32 Eagle. So you don't own a GWH F-15 ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viperbite Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Does that mean we still have to wait for a GWH F-15A in 48 scale? Brad Not long time, but you'll have the correct aft-speed-brake-fairing in the Alpha box Cheers Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Thanks Viperbite. Brad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 So you don't own a GWH F-15 ? Yes I do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Not sure if this was already posted here but over on HS they have some preliminary CAD illustrations of the upcoming Charlie-model. Detail looks nice (but I'm sure the experts will find flaws),you get a full range of modern AAM's and an AESA radar so you can build one of the latest USAF versions. http://www.hyperscale.com/2014/reviews/kits/gwh4817previewbg_1.htm here we go again!!!!! gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vodnik Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I was under the impression that the speed brake well was supposed to be corrected (eliminated) before the single seater release?... The CAD images still show it :( Also the fins on those missiles - particularly AIM-120A - look way too small (in span). Looks like someone once again took dimensions from drawings with fins projected at 45 degrees... I'm not sure about the span of AIM-9X and AIM-120C fins, but tail fins are clearly wrong shape. Hopefully they will correct it, otherwise those missiles will go straight to the trash bin. Edited May 30, 2014 by Vodnik Quote Link to post Share on other sites
metroman Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I was under the impression that the speed brake well was supposed to be corrected (eliminated) before the single seater release?... The CAD images still show it :(/>/> Also the fins on those missiles - particularly AIM-120A - look way too small (in span). Looks like someone once again took dimensions from drawings with fins projected at 45 degrees... I'm not sure about the span of AIM-9X and AIM-120C fins, but tail fins are clearly wrong shape. Hopefully they will correct it, otherwise those missiles will go straight to the trash bin. Ahwww... did they ruin your day? Edited May 30, 2014 by metroman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dmanton300 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I was under the impression that the speed brake well was supposed to be corrected (eliminated) before the single seater release?... The CAD images still show it :(/> I thought this had been covered? They have IMPROVED the speed brake well, but tooling limitations make it impossible to eliminate and still leave the option of a closed speed brake. In order to achieve that the speed brake would have to feather away to basically a razor edge at the sides, which leads to all sorts of issues with tooling like flash and the longevity of the mould - an edge tapering to razor sharp (as it would need to in 1/48th) would begin breaking down VERY quickly indeed, even with a hard steel mould. So what we have is a compromise that allows the speed brake to be reproduced in a way that will allow it to be run for thousands (likely tens of thousands over time) of kits, and still be acceptable. Something has to give, even in this day and age, so in this instance you have a well and a slightly overthick brake skin. So it goes. Frankly if the model came with no seperate speed brake at all I'd be happier! Like seperate outer wing panels on folding wing types, seperate airbrakes are the bane of my life! But I'll happily accept such compromises knowing there are sound engineering reasons for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vodnik Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I thought this had been covered? They have IMPROVED the speed brake well, but tooling limitations make it impossible to eliminate and still leave the option of a closed speed brake. Yet somehow Monogram managed to do it reasonably well like what... 35 years ago? Don't tell me it's impossible - For the last ten years I've been assisting several model kit manufacturers in various projects and I know that almost everything is possible today with just a little creative thinking (like a separate insert that would be installed in the open well flush with surrounding fuselage surface and omitted when installing brake shut. Just one additional part. Practically no extra tooling cost - just a bit of creative design needed...). Edited May 30, 2014 by Vodnik Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vodnik Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Ahwww... did they ruin your day? Not much, but considering how beautifully tooled and molded the GWH missiles are (in MiG-29 and F-15D), it would be a real shame if the ones in this kit were not accurate :( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dmanton300 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Yet somehow Monogram managed to do it reasonably well like what... 35 years ago? Don't tell me it's impossible - For the last ten years I've been assisting several model kit manufacturers in various projects and I know that almost everything is possible today with just a little creative thinking (like a separate insert that would be installed in the open well flush with surrounding fuselage surface and omitted when installing brake shut. Just one additional part. Practically no extra tooling cost - just a bit of creative design needed...). Monogram indeed did do an accurate well on their original f-15a kit. The trade off? Try doing the airbrake in the closed position. It looks like a cast iron drain cover sitting on the spine. So you still have work to do. Interesting that the much later finer strike eagle kit has a full (inaccurate) Bay. As I said, it's a compromise. So Monogram did the bay right and the brake wrong on one, and both brake and Bay wrong on the other. The correct Bay leaves a thick brake, noticeable in either position. The incorrect Bay AND brake leaves it looking wrong open but much better closed. And preserves tool life (BTW dont assume that others among us don't assist companies too - I do and I'm a precision machinist by trade, I'm not inventing issues, I'm talking from experience). I don't believe the airbrake edge can be realistically thin and survive tens of thousands of shots within the loo ikea budgets these companies are working with. Nor do I think it's essential. Nice, nor essential, I'm being realistic, that's all. Although I do like the inserts idea. Let's make the weenies who want an open airbrake do as much work as I'll have to to do a closed brake! Edited May 30, 2014 by Dmanton300 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vodnik Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Although I do like the inserts idea. Let's make the weenies who want an open airbrake do as much work as I'll have to to do a closed brake! GWH already torture us with those open avionics bays, so one more insert shouldn't make much difference. And doing a detailed speedbrake bottom without making a better effort in providing an accurate representation of the well is a waste of time and money on my opinion. They would be better indeed molding the brake shut, if the appearance of the closed one had higher priority. Anyway, I can forgive the incorrect brake well, but they just HAVE TO correct those missiles! I really hope someone can inform them that they need to correct them before they cut any tools for them... Edited May 30, 2014 by Vodnik Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 GWH already torture us with those open avionics bays, so one more insert shouldn't make much difference. And doing a detailed speedbrake bottom without making a better effort in providing an accurate representation of the well is a waste of time and money on my opinion. They would be better indeed molding the brake shut, if the appearance of the closed one had higher priority. Agreed. Scrap the open bays, deployed speed brakes, exposed radars, engines, etc. A) it will keep costs down and B ) it will make for a more realistic model and C ) 90% of the modelers are going to simply build their jets with everything sealed up anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a4s4eva Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I was under the impression that the speed brake well was supposed to be corrected (eliminated) before the single seater release?... The CAD images still show it :(/> \ I'd rather they simply moulded it closed (and depicted it with panel lines). Thats how it is most of the time Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dmanton300 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Agreed. Scrap the open bays, deployed speed brakes, exposed radars, engines, etc. A) it will keep costs down and B ) it will make for a more realistic model and C ) 90% of the modelers are going to simply build their jets with everything sealed up anyway. Amen! I'd rather they simply moulded it closed (and depicted it with panel lines). Thats how it is most of the time Amen X2! 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.