Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, bushande said:

 i have not seen this level with any other kit so far.

 

 

well sir, I would like to direct you to this thread. 

 

Granted, that thread isn't really nitpicking a kit and more a pure work of engineering art, but there are others out there that really do take such exacting tolerances to heart as their hobby. I can't recall anything as thorough and detailed as Manfred's masterpiece being built...but there are people out in this world like him. And I for one LOVE the fact they exist.

Edited by niart17
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not big on religion either but, when I found out my worthless nephew was tearing pages out of the family bible and using them for rolling papers, I kicked his worthless arse to within an inch of my going to jail. It would have been worth it too.  
 

Yeah I know off topic but I had to vent.....  :soapbox:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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.

 

No, it's simply not true that you need 2 seams lines on the canopy to have the omega shape, like AMK did. You only need a 3 part slide mould, there is one seam /mating surface on the bottom of the canopy(just like standard 2 part mould as you said), and one additional seam that run across the middle of the canopy.

 

The 2 instead of one additional seams lines on the AMK's kit is a 4 part slide mould, it's the only kit I know with 2 seam lines on the canopy(but it's by far not the only kit with omega shape, with reason stated above). 4 part instead of the 3 part slide mould is chosen,  most likely because they want to have the omega shaped windshield too, but do not want to have the seam run across the middle of the windshield too, because the windshield of the F-14 has an oval shape middle frame, it would be difficult to remove the seam and preserve the frame's detail. On the windshield the 2 additional seam lines are hidden along the middle frame's edges, so basically there is no work to be done there, the downside is that there is more work to be done on the main canopy. In fact, Tamiya used 4 part slide mould on their windshield too, you can see the 2 seams hidden by the frames if you look carefully(or on the moulded-on nose/fuselage portion of the windshield), yet they switched to 3 part slide mould on the sprue side for the main canopy, so the main canopy still has omega shape with the normal one seam line only. AMK missed the trick or didn't want to do the same due to cost, complexity, or whatever reason.

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

 

A Masters Degree?

Am I supposed to be impressed?

11 hours ago, CJ Martin said:

 

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.

Yea, I get tinnitus every so often but thank God it's not 24/7, I do however have 50% hearing loss in one ear and 40% in the other.

 

Prowler's and Intruders were the worst but having your head up in the engine bay while it was at zone 5 afterburner in order to look for leaks was just as bad. Even with a cranial and ear plugs the sound was deafening.

 

The worst thing though was working CAG Arm on Cat 4 when an F-14A goes into burner on Cat 3, talk about getting roasted alive!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn! I checked on this thread yesterday and it hadn't moved up. I thought about posting something to get it going again, but then thought, "Naw, let's let it die." It seems I was mistaken! Maybe this should have a song for it. "This is the thread that never dies. It just goes on and on and on...." Wait, I think that one's already been taken. 😁

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

Darn! I checked on this thread yesterday and it hadn't moved up. I thought about posting something to get it going again, but then thought, "Naw, let's let it die." It seems I was mistaken! Maybe this should have a song for it. "This is the thread that never dies. It just goes on and on and on...." Wait, I think that one's already been taken. 😁

That's because 300 had been reached or breached .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

On canopies...My previous post sharing my thoughts and pics: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2980597
I didn't even bother mentioning the two mold lines because most modelers expect and know how to sand them out and polish or Future the canopy.
I didn't bother to mention the missing frame and rivet detail on the left windscreen because it's not very difficult to fix that.
My big problems with the AMK canopy are the distortions on the left windscreen which are due to varying thickness of the plastic and difficult to fix and the fact that the canopy is just too wide and shaped wrong, something that can't be fixed.

 

11 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/

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

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

foto-51-1068x801.jpg

I applaud the guy for doing such a thorough review but have to point out some mistakes he made.

 

I will double check the missiles but IIRC my initial quick look revealed that the AMK missiles were pretty close in dimension to the actual ones.
I don't know where he got his actual dimensions but the one listed for the AIM-7 doesn't match what I have or what's listed on Wikipedia.

 

As for his use of the Grumman drawing...
Assuming he got the drawing from here: http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/catalog/drawndoc.htm or is using the same scan of the blueprint that that website is offering (looks like it), there is some distortion and stretching present on that drawing, particularly near the edges.

 

Some things to keep in mind when using existing printed drawings:
1. Not all scanners accurately reproduce drawings/photos. X and Y dimensions should be validated on the scanner by scanning a ruler then measuring the digital scan (using something like Photoshop). Generally each axis will be stretched or shrunk proportionately, but some scanners may stretch/shrink just certain portions (usually near the edge).
2. Printers can distort. Many (most?) printers don't produce XY dimensions exactly. Your average $30 home printer is likely off a bit and probably doesn't have the ability to fine tune the calibration. Perhaps newer models can be calibrated by the user, I don't know as I'm using a dinosaur. You can check both X and Y by printing that ruler scan you made. If you know the percentage of error you can make adjustments in Photoshop and print something closer.
3. Blueprints, or more commonly as in this case, whiteprints, can be off, especially those made on older machines.   

 

I took the drawing into Photoshop and made some adjustments to remove some of the distortion. That wasn't possible near the edge of the drawing (right hip area) so I focused on the left half from the centerline. I then mirrored the left half and adjusted for published length and width (previous pic):

Stab1_zpslsrg360t.jpg

(Note again the size and shape of the AMK stab. More on that soon...)


My printed version is off a bit, I didn't bother to fully adjust the drawing for my printer as described above. Close enough for government work.
That being said...

 

At the station he referenced, station 7025, my drawing measures 96.38mm (his was 94.31).

My Tamiya kit measures 96.1mm at that location. He shows 94.69 but he made the mistake of measuring the upper part when the lower part is actually wider.
Here is my Tamiya part sitting on the drawing:

Tamiya_7025_zpskwa4uwvc.jpg
With a measured difference of .011"/.28mm, we're talking about a line width or well within a reasonable margin of error.


He measured the AMK kit at 97.79mm which is .055"/1.41mm wider than my printed drawing. I can't measure my AMK to check him because I've already modified the parts.
 

21 hours ago, Mstor said:

Indeed and for those of us that do see that there is something amiss, we'd like to understand the causes and any potential fixes.

Sorry I'm taking so long to show what I've done. I've been busier than ever lately and family and paying work comes first.
I have been working on a quick and dirty hip correction demonstration between things, when I have time.

I have been taking loads of (crappy) cell phone pics of each step. I need to pick the few most meaningful of the 200+ pics and edit/resize them. Hopefully I didn't miss anything important.

Rather than spread it out over tens of pages in this thread, I'm holding off until I finish the demo, get some final (better) pics and compose an explanation of what I've done.

I am getting close.

 

:cheers:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, habu2 said:

I’m not big on religion either but, when I found out my worthless nephew was tearing pages out of the family bible and using them for rolling papers,

Gives a whole new meaning to "Smokin' O.P.'s" 😎

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

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Yea, I get tinnitus every so often but thank God it's not 24/7, I do however have 50% hearing loss in one ear and 40% in the other.

 

Prowler's and Intruders were the worst but having your head up in the engine bay while it was at zone 5 afterburner in order to look for leaks was just as bad. Even with a cranial and ear plugs the sound was deafening.

 

The worst thing though was working CAG Arm on Cat 4 when an F-14A goes into burner on Cat 3, talk about getting roasted alive!

 You Squids sure talk funny! 🤣🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Whiskey said:

 

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:

 

 

 

 

 

It was a joke son. What you getting all upset for!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Zactoman said:

My big problems with the AMK canopy are the distortions on the left windscreen which are due to varying thickness of the plastic and difficult to fix and the fact that the canopy is just too wide and shaped wrong, something that can't be fixed.

 

AMK went one-notch ahead by using 4-part slide mould process instead of 3-part as mentioned by delide, and still got the shape wrong. Something must be terribly wrong with their QC/procedure.

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

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

The review says that the AIM-7 length should be 75.84mm. Not sure where he got this number. He said the missile is .44mm/.017" too short.
By the numbers I've got, the The AIM-7M (short nose) is about .8mm/.03" too long and the AIM-7F (long nose) is about .2mm/.008" too long.

 

Published dimensions for the AIM-9M in 1/48 range from 59.375 to 59.83mm. The larger number is more often cited.
Reviewer went with the smaller number and measured the part at 59.2mm or .17mm/.007" too short.
I'm going with the larger number and measured the kit part at 59.11mm or .72mm/.028" short.

 

Phoenix is only a few thousandths short so close enough. Too bad my fins were all goofed up. Has anybody else had fin problems?

 

1 hour ago, flybywire said:

AMK went one-notch ahead by using 4-part slide mould process instead of 3-part as mentioned by delide, and still got the shape wrong. Something must be terribly wrong with their QC/procedure.

It seems they are using slide mold technology as a marketing tool in some ways.

It has its place and is appropriate in some cases but the whole one-piece fuselage thing seems gimmicky to me. I would personally prefer the forward fuselage to be molded in 2 halves rather than one piece. Filling two seams is no big deal but having access to the insides when installing and detailing the cockpit is.

I think they might be shooting themselves in the foot with their plans to do the F-104 fuselage as a slide mold part(s). I haven't studied it in depth but would guess they will have to compromise on some shapes and details to do so. But hey, woo-hoo! Slide mold technology!

 

5 hours ago, habu2 said:

I was thinking unholy rollers.

That kid just ain’t right.....

The highest of highs and the lowest of lows...

 

:cheers:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 2:11 PM, shion said:

still following this build on modelforum.cz: https://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=129855&hilit=amk&start=210

 

It's the very first build I saw with the multipart canopy.

But as soon as the builder try to complete the said multipart canopy:

 

file.php?id=1553685

 

file.php?id=1553684

 

 

 

Did you had the same problem with your kit? I just tried a quick dry fit on mine and I don't have that large air gap on top; still not sure if the look of the multi-part one is better than the single piece.

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

 

Did you had the same problem with your kit? I just tried a quick dry fit on mine and I don't have that large air gap on top; still not sure if the look of the multi-part one is better than the single piece.

Shion won’t go near the kit, just likes diving down into different builds to find dirt to post about here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 3:32 AM, GW8345 said:

Here's what's going in this pic;

 

The Tomcat is taxing up to Cat 3 and has just spread it's wings and dropped it's flaps/slats. The pilot is ensuring that all four spoilers will deploy, hence the reason for the spoilers are up.

 

Thanks for your kind reply!

 

So we can see a "full dirty" wing just for seconds during spoiler checkup and in that precise spot on the deck, is this correct?

 

On 1/10/2020 at 3:32 AM, GW8345 said:

Here's what's going in this pic;

 

The green shirt by the nose gear is the catapult hook up guy, he is telling the Cat 3 director to take the aircraft forward.

 

The hold back bar has already been attached but has not entered the "zipper".

 

Hold back bar is attached by the same guy?

 

And a last general question,  watching a few youtube videos about deck operations saw sometimes jacket/shirt color mismatch like a yellow jacket on a green shirt or brown on a white one: is this common or just an excepion.

 

Thanks in advance for you patience...

Edited by Andrea Bolla
typo fix
Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I’m pretty happy with my AMK Tomcat. It’s not the shake and bake experience of the Tamiya kit, but the detail is a little more extensive.


- My Phoenixes look great - no deformation of fins, which are really thin! I don’t care if its length varies from reality by a fraction of a millimeter...

 

- Multipart canopy turned out good. It took a lot of fitting and trimming, but it glued together well. Unfortunately, gluing it together before painting the frame defeats the purpose of having the separate glass. The windscreen fits very well.

 

- The cockpit tub slides into the front fuselage easily. I wonder if some modelers put the tabs on the tub above the rails inside the fuselage instead of below it. Also, I fitted the radome and its bulkhead into the nose as well as the cockpit tub, and the assembly went together great. (I did have to do mold flash cleanup on the radome where it met the fuselage)
 

- The biggest issue I have so far is the ejector pin marks, mold parting lines and flash. Nearly every part has needed cleaning up with a knife, sanding stick or filler. If a company needs to use ejector pins on visible surfaces of parts (I get this), I wish the marks would be raised from the surface instead of being recessed.

 

So far I do like the model, but I wouldn’t pick it over the Tamiya unless I was looking for extended flaps, slats and speed brakes.

Edited by andrew.deboer
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, andrew.deboer said:

So far I’m pretty happy with my AMK Tomcat. It’s not the shake and bake experience of the Tamiya kit, but the detail is a little more extensive.


- My Phoenixes look great - no deformation of fins, which are really thin! I don’t care if its length varies from reality by a fraction of a millimeter...

 

- Multipart canopy turned out good. It took a lot of fitting and trimming, but it glued together well. Unfortunately, gluing it together before painting the frame defeats the purpose of having the separate glass. The windscreen fits very well.

 

- The cockpit tub slides into the front fuselage easily. I wonder if some modelers put the tabs on the tub above the rails inside the fuselage instead of below it. Also, I fitted the radome and its bulkhead into the nose as well as the cockpit tub, and the assembly went together great. (I did have to do mold flash cleanup on the radome where it met the fuselage)
 

- The biggest issue I have so far is the ejector pin marks, mold parting lines and flash. Nearly every part has needed cleaning up with a knife, sanding stick or filler. If a company needs to use ejector puns on visible surfaces of parts (I get this), I wish the marks would be raised from the surface instead of being recessed.

 

So far I do like the model, but I wouldn’t pick it over the Tamiya unless I was looking for extended flaps, slats and speed brakes.

 

That's just about the exact experience I've had with it so far. I agree completely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no Tomcat expert by any means as I defer to others much more knowledgeable for that but do keep plenty of reference resources. And I don't have the kit in hand to examine it myself.

 

My question is, and I posted this a while back but don't think I read an answer to it, what is the deal with the large panel (?) or seam (?) line that wraps around the radome? I don't believe I've ever seen such a pronounced line on the real thing or any other model kit either. In my eyes it just looks way more exaggerated than it actually is and takes away from the overall look of the kit. The few builds I've glanced at I can't seem to veer away from that line on the radome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

My question is, and I posted this a while back but don't think I read an answer to it, what is the deal with the large panel (?) or seam (?) line that wraps around the radome?


The only line on the radome is the mold seam that runs down the middle of it. Are you talking about the seam between the radome and the rest of the fuselage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

I'm no Tomcat expert by any means as I defer to others much more knowledgeable for that but do keep plenty of reference resources. And I don't have the kit in hand to examine it myself.

 

My question is, and I posted this a while back but don't think I read an answer to it, what is the deal with the large panel (?) or seam (?) line that wraps around the radome? I don't believe I've ever seen such a pronounced line on the real thing or any other model kit either. In my eyes it just looks way more exaggerated than it actually is and takes away from the overall look of the kit. The few builds I've glanced at I can't seem to veer away from that line on the radome.

 

you mean the radar cover?

 

To undertand why, take a look at this sequence: 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 9:44 PM, niart17 said:

well sir, I would like to direct you to this thread. 

 

Granted, that thread isn't really nitpicking a kit and more a pure work of engineering art, but there are others out there that really do take such exacting tolerances to heart as their hobby. I can't recall anything as thorough and detailed as Manfred's masterpiece being built...but there are people out in this world like him. And I for one LOVE the fact they exist.

Totally misunderstood me. I know the thread and I am not argueing about the level of detail afinity. I'm a nitpicker myself on my models and take great joy in finding and adding even the slightest detail to models if I'm able to. I do mean the tone and my impression using minor flaws and use them as means of picking on a kit and it's manufacturer (Please don't get this wrong; I don't want to call names and I don't mean explicitly you. It is my general observation in this thread and I'm by no means someone who has not expressed critiscism of the kit in this thread as well!). Please try to make that small but important difference between stating flaws, be they as minimal as can be, and using these flaws to do some needless bickering. Having said that I think I already should withdraw from the thread again. Thank you.

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

 

you mean the radar cover?

 

To undertand why, take a look at this sequence: 

 

 

What do you mean? Do you think is the inner part (U2) that cause the gap? That part is absolutely unnecessary, it may have been designed to help to align the nose cone but it fits perfectly without it.

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...