Jump to content

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Jonathan_Lotton said:

It is what it is...but it doesn't appear the shape issue aft was fixed. 

I'll still carry through with my two that I committed to buying years ago...but I can't help but feel a bit ...off. 

You're right, same ol' fat arse.....There is just no spark upon looking at the pictures/model, so I'm not buyin'.

Edited by flybywire
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have compared shapes of model (top view) with F-14 photo, looks like arse and hips are a bit fat, worst thing is that top of the jet intakes is way too long, which makes the front fuselage look short and bulky. Front fuselage itself also look a bit too thick.

Edited by Tapchan
Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not correct the IFR probe placement. Oh well. There are some things that are very nice about the kit though. There IS a lot of detail. The three piece canopy looks very nice and appears to have the correct cross section, something that has been lacking in most models of aircraft with "blown" canopies.  Considering what AMK has shown that can be done with the advances in molding technologies and innovative design, I am looking forward to seeing what GWH comes up with. Would be nice if they could match the innovations in molding with a more overall accurate kit.

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

The three piece canopy looks very nice and appears to have the correct cross section

I'm still curious to see a clear picture (without glare) of the windscreen showing the framing and how the front corner panes look.

After the Trumpeter/HB releases I'm also curious to see the Phoenix pallets and how the front section looks, especially mounted on the fuselage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, B.Sin said:

On the clean wing   option, I notice that the spoilers don't sit in the same position as on the Tamya kit.

 I remember reading Tamiya received praise for getting this detail right. 

 

Wow, you're right. Missed that. Good catch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting all these years, and still, very noticeable mistakes. The refueling bay position is the most noticeable.😟  Even Hobbyboss got that one right!  I'm more then a little disappointed.  I assume the long delay was because AMK was retooling to  correct those errors, yet the  engineering of this kit look's great. Well, their's 

always GWH's F-14.

Edited by B.Sin
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more noticeable mistakes.

 

See here: all pics are cliquable.

 

65300573_2400719269994452_66370516129194

 

Relative position of the intake lips /fuselage, take the reinforcement plate as reference.

 

On a real F-14:

 

021211-N-1761L-503.jpg

 

So either intakes are too long, either cockpit part is too short.

 

And maybe more noticeable,  exhausts fans:

 

65160186_205068607124451_127798961653153

 

 

 

This is how it supposed to look in idle/off mode:

 

f110-ge-100_f-16_13_of_17.jpg

 

723px-F110-IHI-129_01.jpg

 

And the AB mode exhausts aren't better:

 

65243582_205068380457807_108355114705197

 

file.php?id=74&t=1

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, shion said:

There are more noticeable mistakes.

 

See here: all pics are cliquable.

 

65300573_2400719269994452_66370516129194

 

Relative position of the intake lips /fuselage, take the reinforcement plate as reference.

 

On a real F-14:

 

021211-N-1761L-503.jpg

 

So either intakes are too long, either cockpit part is too short.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c9VbWIFJnTH73NYJRP55QolDuk2TYj7O/view?usp=sharing

 

If you have photoshop then get to top layer and play with switching opacity. You'll see the differences. However I compared it with F-14A, but as far as I know there should be no major differences except engine nozzles and beaver tail shape. The photo with model is a bit angled thus right side of plane is not comparable.

 

PS. Pay attention on the distance between v-stab fairing tips and wing fairing on the back. 

Edited by Tapchan
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2019 at 3:55 PM, Mstor said:

They did not correct the IFR probe placement. Oh well. There are some things that are very nice about the kit though. There IS a lot of detail. The three piece canopy looks very nice and appears to have the correct cross section, something that has been lacking in most models of aircraft with "blown" canopies.  Considering what AMK has shown that can be done with the advances in molding technologies and innovative design, I am looking forward to seeing what GWH comes up with. Would be nice if they could match the innovations in molding with a more overall accurate kit.

Word !

Edited by B.Sin
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, shion said:

So either intakes are too long, either cockpit part is too short.

 

And maybe more noticeable,  exhausts fans:

 

I really can't see what is wrong with this exhaust nozzle and intakes… For me they looks just like those on the pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Solo said:

 

I really can't see what is wrong with this exhaust nozzle and intakes… For me they looks just like those on the pictures.

 

Yeah, I guess those sort of cut areas in each petal (where the other petal slides in in closed position) should be slightly more pronounced, but I guess it will look OK when painted and washed.

 

But, the closed position shown on the F-16's is not the AB position as mentioned in the post. In afterburner, the nozzles would be opened up (depending on the stage), not closed down.

 

IIRC, during the normal shutdown procedure, the left nozzle would end up closed and the right one opened, but they could be open or closed up by the maintenance crew so different combinations are possible as well.

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

 

Yeah, I guess those sort of cut areas in each petal (where the other petal slides in in closed position) should be slightly more pronounced, but I guess it will look OK when painted and washed.

 

But, the closed position shown on the F-16's is not the AB position as mentioned in the post. In afterburner, the nozzles would be opened up (depending on the stage), not closed down.

 

IIRC, during the normal shutdown procedure, the left nozzle would end up closed and the right one opened, but they could be open or closed up by the maintenance crew so different combinations are possible as well.

 

No.

GE F110 are special and their use of the tomcat too.

 

In idle/off mode, GE F110 are full open, like on the first group of pics I posted.

In Mil Thrust, the exhaust is closed and it reopen later in full AB, but not full.

 

See here: 

 

 

F-14D pilots must not use AB mode on the carrier, if I remember right, the AB mode exhaust plume is way too hot for the JBD.

No, in fact, the AB thrust is so huge, the a/c would outspeed the shuttle.

So F-14D were catapulted in Mil mode.

 

And to 

1 hour ago, Solo said:

 

I really can't see what is wrong with this exhaust nozzle and intakes… For me they looks just like those on the pictures.

 

Check the real exhaust profile.

GE F110 exhauts got a noticeable bulge, they are not straight (profile), you can see it in idle mode and in MIL mode.

You can check it with the different F-16 boxing of Block 30/40/50/60 (Kinetic, Tamiya, Hasegawa etc).

And it's not a kept secret, drawings of the engine are litteraly available on the net:

 

file.php?id=576&t=1

 

file.php?id=491&t=1&sid=0f196ece041467da

 

 

And for the intakes lips, look at the position of the lips/ the step reinforcement plate on the real plane pic I provided.

Look tamiya renditions of the same area with a close photo POV:

 

915f5643f18d2d86c553a9ae68582651.jpg

 

d4237bb9c7a647938713c1ffd753128b.jpg

 

Now look at the pics of the AMK kit provided.

Edited by shion
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, Tapchan said:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c9VbWIFJnTH73NYJRP55QolDuk2TYj7O/view?usp=sharing

 

If you have photoshop then get to top layer and play with switching opacity. You'll see the differences. However I compared it with F-14A, but as far as I know there should be no major differences except engine nozzles and beaver tail shape. The photo with model is a bit angled thus right side of plane is not comparable.

 

PS. Pay attention on the distance between v-stab fairing tips and wing fairing on the back. 

 

Good job.

 

You're right, if the general dimensions match in length, some proportions are off,

and if some panels lines match, some major details are completely not in the right place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Solo said:

I dont have photoshop.

 

48170560726_069dfe1db2_o.png

 

Red lines for real thing, yellow ones for AMK kit (my bad :D). From the left: Air inlet top edge, air outlet front edge, end of the fin(?), end of cushion. That explains air inlet being too close to the step.

 

BTW. You can open the file in GIMP too, it's free.

Edited by Tapchan
Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this wouldn't be so bad if AMK hadn't hyped themselves to the point where they claimed that their Tomcat would be the most accurate Tomcat ever. 

Now it's likely not even going to rise to the level of the Hobby Boss Tomcat. 

It's sad..if there's one thing they should have known is that the Tomcat is *NOT* the plane you want to swing and miss on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm by no means a Tomcat expert but looking at Tapchan's picture with the lines it looks to long in the middle and to fat in the butt. The detail on the AB cans is just not as crisp as other kits plus some of the other noticable errors like the refueling probe location but I'll say the decal sheet looks good. The overall look of the kit might look better if the front fuselage was 1/4" longer to make up for the middle.

 

I think I'll keep my 5 Tamiya kits and pass on this one. I have they're Kfir C2/C7 kit which in my opinion looks good.

 

All I can say is I like the decal sheet because of the VF-31 markings.

 

Don

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a shame really. There is a lot of really good ideas with this kit. I think even some that other larger companies should take a good look at and incorporate in to their aircraft models. The glass and frame set-up of the canopy is GREAT idea. I was wondering what was keeping other companies from trying something like that. The one-piece fuse nose, another great idea. A lot of really good slide mold choices in design. If ONLY they would have gotten just <that> much more of the shapes correct it would be at the least a double hit if not a triple. As it LOOKS (can't say for certain still), it's merely a close call single with a controversial call to get them on base. They'll likely get picked off stealing second. (sorry, can you tell it's baseball season right now? LOL) I still may buy one if I see it at a show and for a good price. Don't think I'd order one from what I'm seeing. MAYBE if a review comes along that shows it in better light and we're proven to be wrong. But so far....meh.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, niart17 said:

it's a shame really. There is a lot of really good ideas with this kit. I think even some that other larger companies should take a good look at and incorporate in to their aircraft models. The glass and frame set-up of the canopy is GREAT idea. I was wondering what was keeping other companies from trying something like that. The one-piece fuse nose, another great idea. A lot of really good slide mold choices in design. If ONLY they would have gotten just <that> much more of the shapes correct it would be at the least a double hit if not a triple. As it LOOKS (can't say for certain still), it's merely a close call single with a controversial call to get them on base. They'll likely get picked off stealing second. (sorry, can you tell it's baseball season right now? LOL) I still may buy one if I see it at a show and for a good price. Don't think I'd order one from what I'm seeing. MAYBE if a review comes along that shows it in better light and we're proven to be wrong. But so far....meh.

 

Bill

 

 

It's what we call here "Marketing wonderful ideas, engineering worst nightmares".

The multipart canopy was a "interesting" marketing idea, kind of idea which every engineer or modelist would erase first of the list.

It looks nice on CAD, but in real you have this:

 

65604215_2401055096627536_87073391980734

 

65526507_2401055193294193_20948219329972

 

A big no no.

 

Same thing with the one-part nose fuselage, it looks nice on CAD - in fact everything looks nice in CAD-,

in the real life, it's very expensive and with this kind of budget management and engineering choices,

it's really not surprising the project stalled so many times, took so long, and in the end they fixed litteraly nothing.

 

Edited by shion
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...