Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Zactoman said:

You're assuming they have the hole the same scale diameter as the shaft on the real plane, which may not be the case.

You're also assuming that they got the size and shape and vertical location of that fuselage section correct...

 

Their shaft part is a wide tab thingy, seen at the bottom of this pic, part 5 (pic borrowed from Terry), so kinda hard to say.

2v2EdUnwMx9trR.jpg

As for the second part of your comment, all I can say is :whistle::naughty:

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GW8345 said:

I could have swore that AMK said that their F-14D would be the most accurate F-14D model ever.

 

I don't remember Tamiya ever making that claim.

 

If you are going to claim to have the most accurate model of something, you might want to get some of the basic details correct.

 

And the rear is off, the proportions just aren't right.

Ok, so they claimed it was going to be THE most accurate Tomcat ever, that claim and $5 will buy you coffee at Starbucks! Let me guess, you believe every claim made on the interwebs as much as the Gospel as related to John? Claims are just that, it's like saying "he's the number one prospect in <insert sport here>," guess what?, he's ONLY a prospect and ain't nothing until he proves himself. Same thing with AMK's claims, they mean absolutely nothing until they are proven or not. When you have the plastic in hand you can prove or disprove them, but in the end this is still ONE manufacturer's interpretation of the Tomcat and it will have flaws because everyone interprets things differently. No two eyes looks at an issue the same way.

 

For example, I have looked at countless pics and redline mash-ups of the ZM F-4 and I STILL cannot really see the mistake they made in their kit. I am not disputing it's there or not, I just can't see it. If it hadn't been pointed out and corrections made for it, I would have blissfully built the kit while being none the wiser. To each their own. 

 

In regards to Tamiya, no they didn't make a claim. But, they also didn't announce the kit until shortly before release either. Guess what? Their kit is not perfect either, because and hopefully you guessed it, it is ONE manufacturer's interpretation of the Tomcat. If it's your holy grail, well more power to you. But, many grouse about the Tamiya cockpit, the wings and most importantly the price, etc. I voted with my wallet and I have two in the stash. Not the holy grail to me, but way better than Hobby Boo-Boo and Hasegawa, as it assembles much easier than either of those and is just a better engineered kit. For $100 give or take, it better damn well be better engineered!

Edited by madmanrick
added text
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, terrysumner said:

Ok this is my photo. I think it's the area some of you guys have been discussing?  Please remember, these parts are only taped together...and kind of loosely...

I don't know if this angle is sufficient...

 

2v2Ed3hJLx9trR.jpg

Hmmmmm .... it might be the angle (which I rather doubt ...) but if it is not the curve / size of the hips (still think it is that too) that cause the impression of a misshaped rear; in this photo it looks a lot like the angle the rear is falling off from the tail root towards the kink is by way far too steep. Might be the angle of the photo, as said, but at least on this shot it looks far far too steep. If that should really be the case and it should indeed be this "phenomenon" that causes the hips to look too wide then it will be rather hard to do a correction with sole scratchwork - at least for me and my meager abilities. Sanding off too broad hips and flatten them is one thing, correcting a too steep angle ..... oooouuuuch .. I sure hope it is just the optics and the image. I just have to see once the damn bird is on the table.

Edited by bushande
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mstor said:

 

Their shaft part is a wide tab thingy, seen at the bottom of this pic, part 5 (pic borrowed from Terry), so kinda hard to say.

2v2EdUnwMx9trR.jpg

As for the second part of your comment, all I can say is :whistle::naughty:

Cheers!

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQaukX1fr2CK8kwDk2-Hk4

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

Hmmmmm .... it might be the angle (which I rather doubt ...) but if it is not the curve / size of the hips (still think it is that too) that cause the impression of a misshaped rear; in this photo it looks a lot like the angle the rear is falling off from the tail root towards the kink is by way far too steep. Might be the angle of the photo, as said, but at least on this shot it looks far far too steep. If that should really be the case and it should indeed be this "phenomenon" that causes the hips to look too wide then it will be rather hard to do a correction with sole scratchwork - at least for me and my meager abilities. Sanding off too broad hips and flatten them is one thing, correcting a too steep angle ..... oooouuuuch .. I sure hope it is just the optics and the image. I just have to see once the damn bird is on the table.

 

Looking at that pic, I think you're right. Below, same area on real thing. Less slope.

f-14d_159600_christine_parts_069_of_354-2.jpg.4dd4b6ba040768d5c705ba02db010e9f.jpg

 

2v2Ed3hJLx9trR.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, madmanrick said:

Ok, so they claimed it was going to be THE most accurate Tomcat ever, that claim and $5 will buy you coffee at Starbucks! Let me guess, you believe every claim made on the interwebs as much as the Gospel as related to John? Claims are just that, it's like saying "he's the number one prospect in <insert sport here>," guess what?, he's ONLY a prospect and ain't nothing until he proves himself. Same thing with AMK's claims, they mean absolutely nothing until they are proven or not. When you have the plastic in hand you can prove or disprove them, but in the end this is still ONE manufacturer's interpretation of the Tomcat and it will have flaws because everyone interprets things differently. No two eyes looks at an issue the same way.

 

For example, I have looked at countless pics and redline mash-ups of the ZM F-4 and I STILL cannot really see the mistake they made in their kit. I am not disputing it's there or not, I just can't see it. If it hadn't been pointed out and corrections made for it, I would have blissfully built the kit while being none the wiser. To each their own. 

 

In regards to Tamiya, no they didn't make a claim. But, they also didn't announce the kit until shortly before release either. Guess what? Their kit is not perfect either, because and hopefully you guessed it, it is ONE manufacturer's interpretation of the Tomcat. If it's your holy grail, well more power to you. But, many grouse about the Tamiya cockpit, the wings and most importantly the price, etc. I voted with my wallet and I have two in the stash. Not the holy grail to me, but way better than Hobby Boo-Boo and Hasegawa, as it assembles much easier than either of those and is just a better engineered kit. For $100 give or take, it better damn well be better engineered!

Keep what you wrote in mind the next time you want to complain about not getting a service that you were promised or the quality/accuracy of an item you purchase is not what was advertised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bushande said:

Hmmmmm .... it might be the angle (which I rather doubt ...) but if it is not the curve / size of the hips (still think it is that too) that cause the impression of a misshaped rear; in this photo it looks a lot like the angle the rear is falling off from the tail root towards the kink is by way far too steep. Might be the angle of the photo, as said, but at least on this shot it looks far far too steep. If that should really be the case and it should indeed be this "phenomenon" that causes the hips to look too wide then it will be rather hard to do a correction with sole scratchwork - at least for me and my meager abilities. Sanding off too broad hips and flatten them is one thing, correcting a too steep angle ..... oooouuuuch .. I sure hope it is just the optics and the image. I just have to see once the damn bird is on the table.

I was trying to post pictures that i had drawn lines over in paint to show exactly what you describe- i am glad someone else is seeing what i see. You described perfectly what i think the main problem is- ie too steep of slope towards the edge in cross section. It looks great on plan view but not in cross section, essentially.

Granted that the pictures are at different angles, so i dont think the problem is a big one.

When all is said and done, i think this kit looks fantastic and i can't wait to buy/build it.

Edited by dryguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, shion said:

69995906_10220678762862976_5351565388670

 

When you see it...

 

69933190_10156675999118042_6314154365288

Oh my, that's interesting. Oh well. What did I say about drawings? Is it the drawing or is it the model? Inquiring minds want to know. :dontknow:

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

 

 

When you see it...

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I got a good laugh out of that as well. That comparison simply proved either the kit, or the drawings are wrong. One portion of the kit lines up, while another is completely off. Sadly, the guy behind Fishbone didn't do any favors for AMK with that one.

 

All in all though, I think the kit looks pretty good and is proportionately correct. What several modelers fail to release is that you CANNOT produce a scale replica/model to dimensionally match the real aircraft, it simply can't be done. Here a couple examples of what I mean :

 

In real life the SUU-63 wing pylon of the F/A-18 is 6 inches wide. In the 1/32 Academy kit, the pylons scale out to 5 inches wide. When I "corrected" one of my kit pylons width, it looked completely out of place on the model. While it was dimensionally correct, it no longer matched the proportions of the rest of the kit.

 

In real life, the SJU-17 NACES Ejection Seat is the same size, regardless of the aircraft it is installed in. In 1/48th scale, we have kits of the F-14D, F/A-18, T-45, etc. that all have SJU-17 seats that are different sizes. Why? Because they have to proportionately match the kit they are designed to fit. It's the same reason some pilot figures won't fit or don't look right in some kits, but look perfect in the one's they're included in. 

 

The AMK F-14D may look off in specific areas when they are looked at individually, but when the whole kit is put together and painted, those areas will blend into the rest of the air frame and everything will "look" correct. 

 

If you still don't believe me, the 1/48 Kinetic F/A-18 and Hasegawa 1/48 F/A-18 don't match up in several areas. Neither do they match up in several areas when compared to the real jet. However, they both "look" right because their overall (albeit different) designs are proportioned correctly.

 

F-14's are still stupid.................:) 

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

The AMK F-14D may look off in specific areas when they are looked at individually, but when the whole kit is put together and painted, those areas will blend into the rest of the air frame and everything will "look" correct. 

 

Or not. I don't think that holds for all cases. Look at ZM's F-4 fuselage. Its inaccurate and once you know where, you see it all the time. At least I do. I probably won't correct it on my kit because I don't think I could successfully do Jeff's fix. My skills have just declined too much over the years. But, I will still see the issue.

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

Oh my, that's interesting. Oh well. What did I say about drawings? Is it the drawing or is it the model? Inquiring minds want to know. :dontknow:

The model and the drawings are both perfect- it's the Grumman F14 that's off

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dryguy said:

The model and the drawings are both perfect- it's the Grumman F14 that's off

 

Finally, someone has solved all our problems. Well done Sir, we are forever in your debt. Yes indeed. :whistle:

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

Very nice engineering for the windshield fit. And i think the shape of the "face" loots pretty good. My excitement level for this kit has certainly returned. Thanks for posting the build pics👍

 

Yes indeed. I, like Zactoman, am interested to find out if AMK got the shape of the side panels of the windshield correct. Hasegawa fell down in that area. I think Tamiya got it right, or very close.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dryguy said:

The model and the drawings are both perfect- it's the Grumman F14 that's off

Now THAT is funny. I wouldn't doubt that becoming a genuine argument by some of the die hard defenders.

 

And Dave, I kind of agree with you about miniature sizes not being able to be accurate. But really I think that's more to do with thicknesses etc...I'm pretty sure a proportion is a proportion. Unless you're attempting a forced perspective of something, things should be proportionally accurate to the real thing. I guess you could argue that scale perspective is off because of the line of sight and distance between the eyes not being at scale etc...but that's a pretty big argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skuki said:

I bet that complainers are drooling over the pictures but don't want anybody to know

 

the kit will be best seller!!!

 

BTW Skuki, I never did get to posting this but your Tamiya F-14 build you have going on in the in progress section is AMAZING! I know you and I have some different opinions about this model etc... but dude, that's awesome what you've got going on there. Keep it up. 

 

Sorry guys, I know it's not the right thread I just had to say that.

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

 I know you and I have some different opinions about this model etc...

 

Maybe we don't 😅 I've just said that we can't tell yet, better to wait and then destroy it if it deserves 😆

 

Hey thanks, regarding my build! Not to make it completely offtopic I will repeat here that I need for that build AMK spread WINGS!! AMK included some details on the wing mechanism that are very useful for Kazan wing box detail set, and ofc, I have slats and flaps that will enhance the complexity of all that open panels....
 

I accept offers! 😄

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

Hmmmmm .... it might be the angle (which I rather doubt ...) but if it is not the curve / size of the hips (still think it is that too) that cause the impression of a misshaped rear; in this photo it looks a lot like the angle the rear is falling off from the tail root towards the kink is by way far too steep. Might be the angle of the photo, as said, but at least on this shot it looks far far too steep. If that should really be the case and it should indeed be this "phenomenon" that causes the hips to look too wide then it will be rather hard to do a correction with sole scratchwork - at least for me and my meager abilities. Sanding off too broad hips and flatten them is one thing, correcting a too steep angle ..... oooouuuuch .. I sure hope it is just the optics and the image. I just have to see once the damn bird is on the table.

Yes, it's a cross section issue. I think it's very common, when you try to make a 3D shape just from 3 view drawings. The angle may not be the same but if you look at the slope of that area near the air bag on the real thing, it's clearly designed to fit a thin wing profile of a fighter, when the wing sweeps back. The kit on the other hand, it looks like it's designed to fit the wing of a B-24 or worse, it's a face palm moment for me right there... what was Grumman even thinking! 😤

 

wing.jpg.48ff31070548cf109528db4323f93bc7.jpg

 

 

I kind of envy the guys who can't see the difference or don't mind. But I'm tired to see the argument that no kit is perfect over and over again, if we all make a drawing of ourself, our girl friend/wife or a movie character... none of us will get it perfect either, but I trust that some will come close, some very close, and some will make it looks more like a raw potato, right? Model kits are the similar, they are 3D instead of 2D interpretations of the real thing, while none is perfect, some will be very close to the real thing, from what I've seen, I would not chose AMK but Tamiya to draw a picture for me. Sure, it's not all about the look/shape, model kits have other aspects like engineering or whatever matters to you, so I get it that some will love the kit, but I think equally it shouldn't be that hard to understand that some will like the Tamiya's F-14 better.

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

Yes, it's a cross section issue. I think it's very common, when you try to make a 3D shape just from 3 view drawings. The angle may not be the same but if you look at the slope of that area near the air bag on the real thing, it's clearly designed to fit a thin wing profile of a fighter, when the wing sweeps back. The kit on the other hand, it looks like it's designed to fit the wing of a B-24 or worse, it's a face palm moment for me right there... what was Grumman even thinking! 😤

 

wing.jpg.48ff31070548cf109528db4323f93bc7.jpg

 

 

I kind of envy the guys who can't see the difference or don't mind. But I'm tired to see the argument that no kit is perfect over and over again, if we all make a drawing of ourself, our girl friend/wife or a movie character... none of us will get it perfect either, but I trust that some will come close, some very close, and some will make it looks more like a raw potato, right? Model kits are the similar, they are 3D instead of 2D interpretations of the real thing, while none is perfect, some will be very close to the real thing, from what I've seen, I would not chose AMK but Tamiya to draw a picture for me. Sure, it's not all about the look/shape, model kits have other aspects like engineering or whatever matters to you, so I get it that some will love the kit, but I think equally it shouldn't be that hard to understand that some will like the Tamiya's F-14 better.

 

Just an FYI, the picture of the kit is missing the sealing bag. The gap won't be near that open with the part in place. 

 

It does look like the horizontal stab is a bit too low. On the kit, it lines up with the bottom edge of the fuselage side. On the actual airframe, it's a bit above that. 

 

Edited by Darren Roberts
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

Just an FYI, the picture of the kit is missing the sealing bag. The gap won't be near that open with the part in place. 

No, I am not taking about gaps, I'm talking about the slop at the rear edge of the seal bag, the red lines are not gaps, but my imaginary wing profiles. 

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

Yes, it's a cross section issue. I think it's very common, when you try to make a 3D shape just from 3 view drawings. The angle may not be the same but if you look at the slope of that area near the air bag on the real thing, it's clearly designed to fit a thin wing profile of a fighter, when the wing sweeps back. The kit on the other hand, it looks like it's designed to fit the wing of a B-24 or worse, it's a face palm moment for me right there... what was Grumman even thinking! 😤

 

wing.jpg.48ff31070548cf109528db4323f93bc7.jpg

 

 

I kind of envy the guys who can't see the difference or don't mind. But I'm tired to see the argument that no kit is perfect over and over again, if we all make a drawing of ourself, our girl friend/wife or a movie character... none of us will get it perfect either, but I trust that some will come close, some very close, and some will make it looks more like a raw potato, right? Model kits are the similar, they are 3D instead of 2D interpretations of the real thing, while none is perfect, some will be very close to the real thing, from what I've seen, I would not chose AMK but Tamiya to draw a picture for me. Sure, it's not all about the look/shape, model kits have other aspects like engineering or whatever matters to you, so I get it that some will love the kit, but I think equally it shouldn't be that hard to understand that some will like the Tamiya's F-14 better.

You deserve this more 🙂

 

 

😛

 

uOUhonN.png

 

 

Seriously dude, please... Not same angle, not same lens/distance, it is even missing *huge* part. Get real. 

 

Pictures I saw last 2 days erased all the question marks in my mind. This kit is looking gorgeous. 

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...