Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DIO said:

Maybe a Master's degree is required to have an opinion for the AMK F-14?


If so then there must be a LOT of highly educated people posting opinions in this thread. 
 

I feel so inadequate with my lowly undergraduate degree....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, habu2 said:


If so then there must be a LOT of highly educated people posting opinions in this thread. 
 

I feel so inadequate with my lowly undergraduate degree....

 

It is never too late 😜😂😂😂

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

Today I've had an opportunity to get Tomcat for €55, but for the same price AMK MiG-31 was far better choice 🙂

 

..so you bought the both? 😜😂😂😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DIO said:

 

Sure you do, and of course there are issues! Missing panel lines, non consistent panel lines, missing details, the line on the hood are definitely issues.

 

 

Mold lines are present in every single part of every kit: when possible they are placed where they cannot be seen, on round pieces like landing gear they are always present and visible, in a standard two piece mold canopy you have them mostrli placed on the bottom (not always, many kits have a mold line running in the middle) but the canopy itself cannot bear any undercut, so no omega shape is possible; otherwise with sliding molds you can have a beautiful omega shape with consistent thickness but at the cost of having two seam lines so this is not an "issue" but something that you have to deal with present in many kits: require just a couple of minutes with a polishing stick and a dip in future, please consider that photos are taken under strong lights to spot any "scatches" and way bigger than the original part.

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

 

Mold lines are present in every single part of every kit: when possible they are placed where they cannot be seen, on round pieces like landing gear they are always present and visible, in a standard two piece mold canopy you have them mostrli placed on the bottom (not always, many kits have a mold line running in the middle) but the canopy itself cannot bear any undercut, so no omega shape is possible; otherwise with sliding molds you can have a beautiful omega shape with consistent thickness but at the cost of having two seam lines so this is not an "issue" but something that you have to deal with present in many kits: require just a couple of minutes with a polishing stick and a dip in future, please consider that photos are taken under strong lights to spot any "scatches" and way bigger than the original part.

 

I cannot agree. The canopy is one of the most delicate parts of the kit. Even advanced modelers are hesitant to proceed with the process.

 

Furthermore I have seen a lot of kits with a single line but in this case there are two which makes it even more difficult to cope with.

 

As I said before we have to be fair. When there is an issue, there is an issue.

Edited by DIO
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Andrea Bolla said:

 

Mold lines are present in every single part of every kit: when possible they are placed where they cannot be seen, on round pieces like landing gear they are always present and visible, in a standard two piece mold canopy you have them mostrli placed on the bottom (not always, many kits have a mold line running in the middle) but the canopy itself cannot bear any undercut, so no omega shape is possible; otherwise with sliding molds you can have a beautiful omega shape with consistent thickness but at the cost of having two seam lines so this is not an "issue" but something that you have to deal with present in many kits: require just a couple of minutes with a polishing stick and a dip in future, please consider that photos are taken under strong lights to spot any "scatches" and way bigger than the original part.

 

What you describe is called parting lines.

 

Yes, they're inevitable, but they are largely manageable in the design phase and during the production, in both size and location.

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

I slept at a Holiday Inn once........

I hope you liberated the bible, you are going to need it in this thread.

 

Can the mould line on the canopy not be polished out?

As a modeller I consider such things as a challenge myself, I prefer such problems, it is what makes the build so satisfying when its built.

 

I decided to take the plunge on the AMK kit, the Tamiya kit was in a local shop but at a 28% increase in price over the AMK kit

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 11bee said:

Great explanation.   That “final checker” is inches away from the engine exhausts.    No way I’d want that job.   I’ll take my cold, wet (and quiet) foxhole anytime!  

 

And that is why I have tinnitus 24/7 in both ears, and "significant" (according to the VA audiologist I saw) high frequency hearing loss. The noise isn't too bad in that picture, both engines are at idle. It will get louder...

 

What I used to hate was being the outboard final checker and have one of those damn Prowlers roll up behind you on Cat 4. Those things would rattle the fillings right out of your teeth when they'd  go into tension. 😳

 

Great write up GW, brings back some old memories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very long and complete non sponsored review of the kit by a Tomcat fan: https://www.modelingtime.com/review-tomcat-amk-1-48/

 

He points out the usual and now known issues and some not discussed here, like the wrong size of all wheels, the too short NLG, etc.

 

More, he provides pics of the kit and references to point out some other issues, like the windshield's one:

 

kit:

 

foto-34-1068x652.jpg

 

foto-33-1068x801.jpg

 

reference:

 

foto-35-1068x712.jpg

 

 

 

One interesting detail: he measured the kit and used Grumman blueprints as reference and compared:

- all missiles are too short, in particular the AIM-7

- all wheels are too small, front ones are 10.2mm instead of 11.5mm,  rear ones are 19.08mm instead of 19.38mm

- NLG is too short by 0.8mm

 

and worst, by comparing Grumman blueprints at the location the rear fuselage is wider (station 7025), he found:

 

 

 

foto-49-1068x776.jpg

 

 

 

foto-51-1068x801.jpg

 

foto-50-1068x1213.jpg

 

bonus:

 

foto-53-1068x801.jpg

 

and new year bonus, the one which explains a lot:

 

foto-52-1068x801.jpg 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly a mistake by the builder in his measurements.. ..It's a non-issue. :cheers:

 

Seriously, it is good to see others providing feedback. That's what is great about the modeling community. People willing to take the time to make measurements and put together detailed analysis. It has nothing to do with bashing anything or anyone. It's simply posting what they find. EVERYONE knows that no kit is perfect. Nobody claims that kits will be, can be or are. But there is no harm in posting what those imperfections are.  

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

Uh-oh.. now you've done it. Taking precise measurements and comparing them to blueprints/drawings. Whats wrong with you ? ( sarcasm)

 

He's just trying  to admit that TAMIYA has got it all wrong also !!🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, shion said:

A very long and complete non sponsored review of the kit by a Tomcat fan: https://www.modelingtime.com/review-tomcat-amk-1-48/

 

He points out the usual and now known issues and some not discussed here, like the wrong size of all wheels, the too short NLG, etc.

 

More, he provides pics of the kit and references to point out some other issues, like the windshield's one:

 

kit:

 

foto-34-1068x652.jpg

 

foto-33-1068x801.jpg

 

reference:

 

foto-35-1068x712.jpg

 

 

 

One interesting detail: he measured the kit and used Grumman blueprints as reference and compared:

- all missiles are too short, in particular the AIM-7

- all wheels are too small, front ones are 10.2mm instead of 11.5mm,  rear ones are 19.08mm instead of 19.38mm

- NLG is too short by 0.8mm

 

and worst, by comparing Grumman blueprints at the location the rear fuselage is wider (station 7025), he found:

 

 

 

foto-49-1068x776.jpg

 

 

 

foto-51-1068x801.jpg

 

foto-50-1068x1213.jpg

 

bonus:

 

foto-53-1068x801.jpg

 

and new year bonus, the one which explains a lot:

 

foto-52-1068x801.jpg 

So AMK's aft section is wider but closer to the blueprint compared to the Tamiya's if we are to base solely on the measurements given, could we now say that AMK is more accurate with regards to that aspect alone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you got mixed up here. AMK is closer to the drawings in the DACO book, NOT the Grumman blue print, and it is a general understanding, that the DACO drawings may be very nice but are in no way without flaw or should be regarded as correct. There is a lot missing or wrong in these DACO drawings.

 

What that Italien review implies is actually quite the opposite as to how you understand it. i.e.:

 

Tamiya is closer to the original Grumman blueprint.

AMK is closer to the DACO drawings (which is no surprise as it seems to be an understanding that they apparently based their work on these DACO drawings)

Edited by bushande
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I also think that the current critisicm is a tad to anal. To each his own and I also say that every criticism in the kit should not be understood as bashing AMK as a company. However, I also do think that some nitpicking might go a little too far. i have not seen this level with any other kit so far.

 

Anyways, as has been stated, what is there is there and it should be allowed and fair to state these apparent and obvios flaws.

 

I for one have stepped back from buying the kit. I even cancelled my preorders as I confess. The misshaped back is just a killer for me that destroys the look of the F-14 for me once once becomes aware of the flaw. As long as I can't figure a way out, how to rectify this error with reasonable effort, it sadly stays a nogo for me. If I want to o a dirty wing dio, I still have Hasegawa and the shape issues of these kits are at least manageable. I for one value shape accuracy paramount over all other aspects in a kit. For me it is easier to add detail or scratch open panels, flaps, slats, spoilers or what not that correcting a wrong shape, esspecially if one has to do it twice and the other way around.

 

But again: EACH AS HE/SHE PLEASES!

 

I just shot two Tamiya Alphas for 55 Euros each plus 12 S/H and the AMK is currently at around 70 - 80 Euros over here. As it is at the moment, it#s a nobrainer for me I confess. I sure wish AMK nothing but the best and as soon as there is a way to correct the rear end and the price settles I would gladly commit to at least one.

 

Well let's see what GWH will deliver?!

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

I think you got mixed up here. AMK is closer to the drawings in the DACO book, NOT the Grumman blue print, and it is a general understanding, that the DACO drawings may be very nice but are in no way without flaw or should be regarded as correct. There is a lot missing or wrong in these DACO drawings.

 

What that Italien review implies is actually quite the opposite as to how you understand it. i.e.:

 

Tamiya is closer to the original Grumman blueprint.

AMK is closer to the DACO drawings (which is no surprise as it seems to be an understanding that they apparently based their work on these DACO drawings)

Oh that was just the daco  drawing and not the Grumman blueprint. My mistake. 😅

Link to post
Share on other sites

The nose gear is too short (by only .8 mm - how do you measure that?)  and the wheels are too small? Hm. I was considering swapping in Tamiya parts for the undercarriage anyway - I want to show the gear extended in flight, and it may be easier to extend the oleos on the Tamiya parts.

 

Decision made!

Edited by andrew.deboer
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

I hope you liberated the bible, you are going to need it in this thread.

 

A couple things:

 

1) Why?

2) I've been a part of this thread in some capacity for 2 years (?), and still happily trodding along.

3) Leave the Bible, i.e. Religion, out of this.

4)  I'm glad I am not very religious nor a member of a different religion as I could have been severely butthurt.

 

Last of all:

Image result for lighten up francis

 

 

 

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...