Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

There's still a difference, but from the top the curve isn't as pronounced. The difference I'm seeing is the amount of surface area. If you cover up the rest of the AMK picture and just compare from where the vent is out to where the horizontal stab should be, the AMK seems to be wider in this area. It's not much, but it does seem to be there. Is it enough to get your panties in a knicker? I guess that's up to individual modeler. Now, let's get this thread to 130 pages!

 

The best idea of the proper line can be seen on those pictures:

45700287841_d65a502938_b.jpg

 

Znalezione obrazy dla zapytania f-14 top view

Edited by Tapchan
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mstor said:

 

Maybe he meant Hobbyeasy?  But I just checked and Hobbyeasy shows 2018-12-15. So if it was Hobbyeasy, its been pushed out yet again. As Johnathan_Lotton stated, it gets pushed out to keep the pre-order open. It has nothing to do with any release date from AMK.

 

 

Yes I meant HobbyEasy

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doppelgänger said:

Everyone's able to clearly see that there's quite a difference in the shape of both kits; take a good look at how abruptly the curve ends, toward the bottom of the picture on the AMK kit compared to the Tamiya one - I mean, that's the source of the issue to me, and it's accentuated even more when the adjacent piece (engine shroud), is attached following it.

Also, there's no bump on the aileron pivot area on the AMK kit.

 

 

Darren's got a bet; how many pages will this thread reach to when the AMK kit is released on 2018/11/18?

Cheers,

 

Onigiri

 

P.S: Did Martin chime in yet? 

 

 

err. there seems to be an updated part from AMK. do you think the part in the AMK vs Tamiya comparison picture identical to previous one people referring to? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

There's still a difference, but from the top the curve isn't as pronounced. The difference I'm seeing is the amount of surface area. If you cover up the rest of the AMK picture and just compare from where the vent is out to where the horizontal stab should be, the AMK seems to be wider in this area. It's not much, but it does seem to be there. Is it enough to get your panties in a knicker? I guess that's up to individual modeler. Now, let's get this thread to 130 pages!

 

There's a couple other oddities. The apparent length of the air bags is different between the two, Tamiya's being longer. Also the outer strake on the wing glove appears to be longer or that whole section of the wing glove appears to be longer. At first I would have said the pics are not lined up exactly, but the panel lines in the area we were originally discussing are lined up perfectly. The size of the pics appear to be very close, but the Tamiya one may be a little larger. Hard to say if it is large enough to account for the differences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mstor said:

 

There's a couple other oddities. The apparent length of the air bags is different between the two, Tamiya's being longer. Also the outer strake on the wing glove appears to be longer or that whole section of the wing glove appears to be longer. At first I would have said the pics are not lined up exactly, but the panel lines in the area we were originally discussing are lined up perfectly. The size of the pics appear to be very close, but the Tamiya one may be a little larger. Hard to say if it is large enough to account for the differences.

 

The only thing I did was rotate the image of the AMK fuselage until it closely matched the angle of the Tamiya image. I did enlarge it just a bit, but not much. My focus was to show the contours pretty much matched. Bottom line is don't compare the size of the fuselage's as one image (Tamiya/bottom) is slightly larger than the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Dave Roof said:

 

The only thing I did was rotate the image of the AMK fuselage until it closely matched the angle of the Tamiya image. I did enlarge it just a bit, but not much. My focus was to show the contours pretty much matched. Bottom line is don't compare the size of the fuselage's as one image (Tamiya/bottom) is slightly larger than the other.

 

OK, thanks. You right of course. The illusion that they were essentially the same size pics at the same angle threw me off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan_Lotton said:

  

 Why? Because I incorrectly named a vendor which was corrected?

  

  Save your self righteous corrections for someone who gives a shoot 

 

I am afraid you are mistaken.

 

You drag Luckymodel here just to please yourself in those wonderful wording. Luckymodel has nothing to do with that constantly changed date. You did not even say sorry to Raymond. 

 

Sorry for a bit off topic. 

 

 

Edited by Teeradej
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Teeradej said:

 

 

I am afraid you are mistaken.

 

You drag Luckymodel here just to please yourself in those wonderful wording. Luckymodel has nothing to do with that constantly changed date. You did not even say sorry to Raymond. 

 

Sorry for a bit off topic. 

 

 

 

No need to say sorry. Just easy to forget the company, look at the bright side, the ARCers will turn to us whenever made in Asia. 

 

One of the reason we drop off the brand because of our "provision" on product delivery. So, we should not be claimed or complained especially asking prepayment without the foreseeable date.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2018 at 12:43 PM, Darren Roberts said:

I think he means Tamiya used Grumman design specs, if I'm reading correctly. Whether that's scanning a real Tomcat or using line drawings/blueprints, I don't know. George would have to clarify that. Either way they did a nice job. BTW, he knows because he's the Tamiya rep.

Thanks! I didn’t know that Tamiya had a rep, or that they even needed one, I mean it’s all like “shut up and take my money!” for their new kits anyway :-)  It’s cool to be able get some insight then. I guess the price we paid, that indeed includes some professional reseach job done.

That said, the details in recent Tamiya kits are indeed meh… I can’t find really inspiring details in Tamiya kits any more. Not like in 2000 or so, for example the molded engine fan grid of their Leopard 2 was finer and more detailed than PE. Now the others have caught up and overtaken Tamiya, Flyhawk is showing the way now regarding what is possible, the details on the thier 1/72 M1A2 and 1/700 Bismarck are shockingly fine. But I guess you can’t have everything, I’m OK if the more budget is spending on reseach. However, why return to decal seatbelts for the 1/20 SF70h?!

 

Edited by delide
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dylan said:

new pics on Facebook

link

 

 

 

The problem is certainly still there, maybe it’s the same old test shot. But I think that there seems to be a bit too much of a slope/inclination in that area on the test shot, so the curve is not only outwards but also downwards , that's why the curve looks better when viewed directly from above, like in the shot Dave Roof posted, but no so much in other angles.

 

Unbenannt.jpg

Edited by delide
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, delide said:

 

The problem is certainly still there, maybe it’s the same old test shot.

 

 

test shot or not, that shape is literally carved in steel.  Martin said that there were some pictures of low quality test shots. ANY refinement of the molds will not be able to fix those shapes. and if you believe that they can fix that shape without completely retooling the rear of the fuselage pieces then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dylan said:

test shot or not, that shape is literally carved in steel.  Martin said that there were some pictures of low quality test shots. ANY refinement of the molds will not be able to fix those shapes. and if you believe that they can fix that shape without completely retooling the rear of the fuselage pieces then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

 

 

What?? I don't need a bridge :-) Dave Roof said earlier and I quote "it has been stated by Martin that the top photo is an EARLY TEST SHOT that has since been corrected".  Personally I don't know what Martin has said, but yes, but I'd be indeed supprised if they retool them, however the fact is that they did have retooled the fuselage of their 1/48 Kfir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, delide said:

What?? I don't need a bridge 🙂 Dave Roof said earlier and I quote "it has been stated by Martin that the top photo is an EARLY TEST SHOT that has since been corrected".  Personally I don't know what Martin has said, but yes, but I'd be indeed supprised if they retool them, however the fact is that they did have retooled the fuselage of their 1/48 Kfir.

well the latest shots were taken in Shenzen over the weekend.

Martin from AMK is required as part of his job as Pr for AMK to say things like that. it would not surprise me if they did retool the pieces in the future, but the most recent pictures are not showing that anything has been done. with the rate this project is progressing we are in for another 6 month wait.

just looking at the sprue shots from an earlier post, they will need to correct the upper fuselage, the lower fuselage , the horizontal stabs, the airbags, and the engine shrouds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, delide said:

What?? I don't need a bridge 🙂 Dave Roof said earlier and I quote "it has been stated by Martin that the top photo is an EARLY TEST SHOT that has since been corrected".  Personally I don't know what Martin has said, but yes, but I'd be indeed supprised if they retool them, however the fact is that they did have retooled the fuselage of their 1/48 Kfir.

 

 

To be perfectly clear, I really have no dog in this fight. I couldn't care less about the F-14 or scale models of it. Will I build one? Probably.....maybe. Do I really, really care if it is accurate or not? No, not really. For this particular aircraft, I'm a TLAR modeler (that looks about right). 

 

None of the photos I've posted are mine either. I've simply re-posted images that others have. I'm just making an attempt at being a voice of reason in this endless sea of negative complaints. It's actually quite sad to see AMK being verbally treated the way they are by a bunch of scale modelers who have a ridiculous sense of entitlement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, delide said:

The problem is certainly still there, maybe it’s the same old test shot. But I think that there seems to be a bit too much of a slope/inclination in that area on the test shot, so the curve is not only outwards but also downwards , that's why the curve looks better when viewed directly from above, like in the shot Dave Roof posted, but no so much in other angles.

 

Unbenannt.jpg

 

I think the sharp edge where "horizontal" plane meets the vertical plane on the fuselage side, because it's so sharp is effecting the way we see the curve.  If it was softened it would be more representative of the real area. 

 

#stillKeepingMyPreorder

 

 

this thread is like the "I'm not quite dead yet" scene....

Edited by zerosystem
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 305swag said:

Omg that curve is awful! Thank god I didn't pre-pay for one!

 

I'm doing my part to get this thread to 131 pages. This is the kind of hyperbole that creates rifts between modelers. I'm a Tomcat guy. I love the Tomcat. I've built over 200 Tomcat models in various scales. If anyone could make a hyperbolic statement, I think I'd get the nod. But it doesn't serve any constructive purpose. Let's go this direction. It seems the issues in the rear fuselage are still there. I'm still going to pick you one up to see how it goes together and enjoy the build for what it is. I'll see how much the rear fuselage effects the overall look of the model once I get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zerosystem said:

 

I think the sharp edge where "horizontal" plane meets the vertical plane on the fuselage side, because it's so sharp is effecting the way we see the curve.  If it was softened it would be more representative of the real area. 

 

#stillKeepingMyPreorder

 


<div class="tenor-gif-embed" data-postid="4929427" data-share-method="host" data-width="100%" data-aspect-ratio="1.8721804511278197"><a href="https://tenor.com/view/holy-grail-montypython-notdeadyet-gif-4929427">Holy Grail GIF</a> from <a href="https://tenor.com/search/holy-gifs">Holy GIFs</a></div><script type="text/javascript" async src="https://tenor.com/embed.js"></script>

 

That's a good thought. 5 minutes with a sanding stick may help out.

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...