Tapchan Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 (edited) 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: Edited November 3, 2018 by Tapchan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jonathan_Lotton Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Roof Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Teeradej Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 9 hours ago, Jonathan_Lotton said: The LuckyHobby or LuckyModel or whatever Be careful. Do check before posting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jonathan_Lotton Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 5 hours ago, Teeradej said: Be careful. Do check before posting. Why? Because I incorrectly named a vendor which was corrected? Save your self righteous corrections for someone who gives a shoot Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Teeradej Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 (edited) 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 November 4, 2018 by Teeradej Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dylan Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 130 pages everyone!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tapchan Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 And we can expect another 130 until the final release of the kit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 Well one thing is certain,AMK guys are not making a living out of selling plastic kits... Btw: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1964415536979943&id=1447990145289154 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dylan Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 new pics on Facebook link Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 Looks like trouble with the curve. Lets hope GWH is better. No uber kit here... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
delide Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 (edited) 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 November 4, 2018 by delide Quote Link to post Share on other sites
delide Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 (edited) 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. Edited November 4, 2018 by delide Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dylan Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
305swag Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 Omg that curve is awful! Thank god I didn't pre-pay for one! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
delide Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dylan Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Roof Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 (edited) 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. 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 November 4, 2018 by zerosystem Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 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. 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.