Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Jennings

AMK 1/48 F-14!!!

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, GW8345 said:

I wouldn't believe everything you read in that link, I read a few things in that link and there are numerous errors.

 

For one, the F-14 never carried the "Smokewinder" and the only time it carried Mk 81's was in the early 70's during testing. The Tomcat also never carried the Mk 82AIR, the F-14B could only carry 4 Mk 20 Rockeye's, not 10 (which they are claiming), nor could did it carry Zuni's (and you would NEVER put a rocket pod on the belly, that's a sure fire way to get a compressor stall!), we also didn't carry the BDU-33 (we carried Mk 76's)

 

It also stated that the wing station Phoenix's had their own cooling system, this is wrong, the wing Phoenix's were dependent on the cooling system in the right hand Phoenix Fairing. The gun held 678 rounds and (as I just stated) the Phoenix cooling system (for the F-14A and B) was contained in the right hand Phoenix Faring, the left hand Faring was for aerodynamic purposes only.

 

Also, their weapons loading diagram is a farce!!!!

 

May I direct you to the appropriate forum to highlight these issues?

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=395

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never say never. Never. 

Edited by habu2

Share this post


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

Thank you from someone not on Facebook. :thumbsup:

Seems silly to exclude the majority of the modeling community and potential customers from updates of a kit that they got everybody hyped about.

 

 

:cheers:

well Sio booted me off the facebook group for sharing those, so these might be the last of em. I tried to take a couple of quick shots similar to the amk photos for you. I might re shoot them later this week when I have more time

 

DSC_0348-L.jpg

 

51538385_10218548129843148_6531442666373

 

DSC_0349-L.jpg

 

51623594_10218548128963126_4597810847404

 

AMK have lost a lot of customers here, and there was many comments attacking them on their facebook page before they finally decided to speak up and ask us not to discuss the kit. I can see that they are being managed by someone who has no real experience with this type of thing. first there was many delays and then when we finally saw plastic we pointed out flaws so  they tried to cover them up by not replying or by stating that they were early molds/3d printed copies. even saying that there was an optical illusion.

most of us that are unhappy with the way this is being handled are so because Sio thinks we are fools and that we will believe his outright lies. to top it all off he has the audacity to suggest that we shouldn't discuss the kit on model forums. and then threatens to remove us from the group if we do. I STRONGLY DISAGREE with that.

 

having said all that, I suggest that we try to keep the discussion to the kit and the associated details. AMK seem quite capable of falling on their faces without our help.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I wouldn't believe everything you read in that link, I read a few things in that link and there are numerous errors.

 

For one, the F-14 never carried the "Smokewinder" and the only time it carried Mk 81's was in the early 70's during testing. The Tomcat also never carried the Mk 82AIR, the F-14B could only carry 4 Mk 20 Rockeye's, not 10 (which they are claiming), nor could did it carry Zuni's (and you would NEVER put a rocket pod on the belly, that's a sure fire way to get a compressor stall!), we also didn't carry the BDU-33 (we carried Mk 76's)

 

It also stated that the wing station Phoenix's had their own cooling system, this is wrong, the wing Phoenix's were dependent on the cooling system in the right hand Phoenix Fairing. The gun held 678 rounds and (as I just stated) the Phoenix cooling system (for the F-14A and B) was contained in the right hand Phoenix Faring, the left hand Faring was for aerodynamic purposes only.

 

Also, their weapons loading diagram is a farce!!!!


Well, it´s for the forthcoming DCS module of the Tomcat, so it won´t reflect actual Tomcat service. But it should be based off NATOPS and other documentation as well as some input from Tomcat people. I am in touch with the guy who wrote the manual through Twitter, so I´ll forward your comments.

As for the smokewinder, that is probably just for fun and game..

Share this post


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

I wouldn't believe everything you read in that link, I read a few things in that link and there are numerous errors.

 

For one, the F-14 never carried the "Smokewinder" and the only time it carried Mk 81's was in the early 70's during testing. The Tomcat also never carried the Mk 82AIR, the F-14B could only carry 4 Mk 20 Rockeye's, not 10 (which they are claiming), nor could did it carry Zuni's (and you would NEVER put a rocket pod on the belly, that's a sure fire way to get a compressor stall!), we also didn't carry the BDU-33 (we carried Mk 76's)

 

It also stated that the wing station Phoenix's had their own cooling system, this is wrong, the wing Phoenix's were dependent on the cooling system in the right hand Phoenix Fairing. The gun held 678 rounds and (as I just stated) the Phoenix cooling system (for the F-14A and B) was contained in the right hand Phoenix Faring, the left hand Faring was for aerodynamic purposes only.

 

Also, their weapons loading diagram is a farce!!!!

 

I think they were relying on the original NATOPS, like e.g.:

 

RRXF7Hz.png

 

They have a few former pilots and RIO's supporting them so they are aware that the Bombcats didn't actually use most of these or that the numbers carried of some types were reduced operationally due to separation issues or what not, but it's a flight simulation game, not a documentary, so extra weapon options are provided as a bonus (as long as they're in the manual).

 

This particular manual for the upcoming Tomcat module just got posted a day or two ago so there are errors in it naturally, but they're welcoming any feedback and are working on it.

 

Sorry for the OT, but in the absence of news from AMK..

Edited by ijozic

Share this post


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

I tried to take a couple of quick shots similar to the amk photos for you. I might re shoot them later this week when I have more time

 

Thank you for the photos.

 

I'm no Tomcat expert, is the side view "sponson" thickness the issue? Or the the inflatable bag end angle at cross section?

 

I was under the impression the big deal was the top view too curvy contours leading to what a booty.

Share this post


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

I agree that it is still off. I hoped to put together some illustrations accompanied with photos to show the problems that I see, but I've been too busy.

The way I see it in order to truly fix the problems they would need to re-tool both upper and lower fuselage halves, the stabs and the rear exhaust cover pieces as the fairing on those parts is the wrong profile.

This would be expensive and time consuming so they seem to have decided to just add the bump (which I question the shape of).

In the end it looks like we'll get a kit that with some elbow grease, sandpaper and putty, could be fixed if the modeler cares enough.

 

Thank you from someone not on Facebook. :thumbsup:

Seems silly to exclude the majority of the modeling community and potential customers from updates of a kit that they got everybody hyped about.

 

Looking forward to the comparison. It's unfortunate that the rear exhaust cover pieces weren't included on the updated photos.

 

As in "Learn to code"? :coolio:

 

This is the most replied to subject on the ARC jet modeling forum as well as the second most viewed. It has been the most hyped kit release for what seems like years.

The thread was unlocked so we could discuss the kit development and related issues. Yes, some tend to get a little overly emotional (to whom I suggest watching the "Stay on target" video posted above...), but they are still discussing related issues. Nobody is forcing you to read their comments.

 

:cheers:

... the most viewed, the most hyped, and yet the most unseen styrene ever.....

Share this post


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

well Sio booted me off the facebook group for sharing those, so these might be the last of em. I tried to take a couple of quick shots similar to the amk photos for you. I might re shoot them later this week when I have more time

 

DSC_0348-L.jpg

 

51538385_10218548129843148_6531442666373

 

DSC_0349-L.jpg

 

51623594_10218548128963126_4597810847404

 

AMK have lost a lot of customers here, and there was many comments attacking them on their facebook page before they finally decided to speak up and ask us not to discuss the kit. I can see that they are being managed by someone who has no real experience with this type of thing. first there was many delays and then when we finally saw plastic we pointed out flaws so  they tried to cover them up by not replying or by stating that they were early molds/3d printed copies. even saying that there was an optical illusion.

most of us that are unhappy with the way this is being handled are so because Sio thinks we are fools and that we will believe his outright lies. to top it all off he has the audacity to suggest that we shouldn't discuss the kit on model forums. and then threatens to remove us from the group if we do. I STRONGLY DISAGREE with that.

 

having said all that, I suggest that we try to keep the discussion to the kit and the associated details. AMK seem quite capable of falling on their faces without our help.

 

 

 

... first, wrong marketing/business strategy, followed by wrong customer/modeler treatment... what's next...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope they get their act together. It would be nice to finally see this kit on shelves. Guess I’ll have to secure a couple Tamiya kits instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zacto- i would appreciate your input on this- am i correct in saying that the major flaw of the "hip" area is more the cross section as opposed to the planform? It seems to me that said area slopes down too much, which then makes the whole thing look too curvy from certain angles. This is where i for one really appreciate the red lines drawn over the kit vs the real thing, so as to see if i can execute some sort of fix. I am thinking that perhaps some polyester resin followed by sanding to alter the shape would be a possible solution?  Obviously far from ideal but a possibility for those inclined to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread mystifies me.  163 pages and 4100 posts, all about a kit that isn’t even out yet.  At this point, does it even matter if the AMK kit ever comes out?  If the AMK kit ever does come out and people won’t buy because it’s rife with errors, who cares?  It’s AMK’s loss.  The Tamiya kit is out there for anyone looking for a new tool alternative to the old Hasegawa kits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... until AMK release the actual kit I believe that everything (and a lot more) really has been said in this thread by now.

 

(But yes I know, I could just stop following this thread...)

Share this post


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

well Sio booted me off the facebook group for sharing those, so these might be the last of em. I tried to take a couple of quick shots similar to the amk photos for you. I might re shoot them later this week when I have more time

 

DSC_0348-L.jpg

 

51538385_10218548129843148_6531442666373

 

DSC_0349-L.jpg

 

51623594_10218548128963126_4597810847404

 

 

 

 

Good photos, thanks Dylan. Looking at the first two, it would seem that the AMK kit still has an outward curve in the area ahead of the stab pivot, where on the Tamiya kit you can see that that area is straight and flat. Your Tamiya photo is not quite at the same angle as the AMK one and is further away. If you do retake the pics if you could move a little closer and come in from the rear a little more.

Here's a pic of the area in question on an F-14D:

f-14d_159600_christine_parts_112_of_354

Note how the area in front of the pivot and almost all the way to the "gas bag" is flat, not curved outward. Also how small the bump over the stab pivot is (yes I know, part is missing, but you can get the general idea of its shape from the panels).

As Zactoman has stated, we also need to see the engine fairing part attached to the rear as I believe there were problems with the profile there too. Finally, they may have actually exaggerated the bump over the pivot, but it is hard to tell.

Edited by Mstor

Share this post


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


f14-detail-zuni-01l.jpg

 

 

Cool pic. If I had those markings I probably would do a kit with that just to be different. I think GW was just trying to make the point that the Tomcat was not cleared for Zuni's. This is obviously a weapons test so more than likely they determined afterwards it wasn't viable.

Share this post


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

 

I think they were relying on the original NATOPS, like e.g.:

 

RRXF7Hz.png

 

They have a few former pilots and RIO's supporting them so they are aware that the Bombcats didn't actually use most of these or that the numbers carried of some types were reduced operationally due to separation issues or what not, but it's a flight simulation game, not a documentary, so extra weapon options are provided as a bonus (as long as they're in the manual).

 

This particular manual for the upcoming Tomcat module just got posted a day or two ago so there are errors in it naturally, but they're welcoming any feedback and are working on it.

 

Sorry for the OT, but in the absence of news from AMK..

 

8 hours ago, Jonathan_Lotton said:


f14-detail-zuni-01l.jpg

 

Folks,

 

Please bare with me for a moment, I don't meant to hijack this thread but I hate when mis-information is put out.

 

For the pub posted, that is not the NATOPS or TACMAN for the F-14, it is a the Standard Aircraft Characteristics which is basically the manufactures design specifications with a NAVAIR pub number. They are as accurate as Wikipedia and are not considered a reliable source of information in the Navy. In the Navy there is an order of precedence for publications, that publication falls under the cartoon in the ships newspaper.

 

Naval manuals often contradict other manuals and also contradict themselves, you have to know which takes precedence. If you want to see what I mean, read the F-18 NATIP, it's a contradiction within a contradiction.

 

The photo posted does show an F-14A carrying a LAU-10, but that was for a test on the RDT&E side of the house, I was talking about operationally. Please don't confuse the RDT&E side with the Operational side, they are two different worlds. I'm sure you could find photos of all kinds of stuff hanging off of a Tomcat but what matters is was it done operationally, in the fleet.

 

Now, if you want to prove me wrong, find that info in the NATOPs, TACMAN, Loading Manual, etc and not some stupid photo or pub you found on the internet.

Edited by GW8345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 12:17 PM, Jonathan_Lotton said:



Feel free to excuse yourself then. 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point

Share this post


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

For the pub posted, that is not the NATOPS or TACMAN for the F-14, it is a the Standard Aircraft Characteristics which is basically the manufactures design specifications with a NAVAIR pub number. They are as accurate as Wikipedia and are not considered a reliable source of information in the Navy. In the Navy there is an order of precedence for publications, that publication falls under the cartoon in the ships newspaper.

 

Naval manuals often contradict other manuals and also contradict themselves, you have to know which takes precedence. If you want to see what I mean, read the F-18 NATIP, it's a contradiction within a contradiction.

 

The photo posted does show an F-14A carrying a LAU-10, but that was for a test on the RDT&E side of the house, I was talking about operationally. Please don't confuse the RDT&E side with the Operational side, they are two different worlds. I'm sure you could find photos of all kinds of stuff hanging off of a Tomcat but what matters is was it done operationally, in the fleet.

 

Now, if you want to prove me wrong, find that info in the NATOPs, TACMAN, Loading Manual, etc and not some stupid photo or pub you found on the internet.

 

Nobody's trying to prove you wrong as it was clearly said that they are aware that these were not carried operationally (again, they have ex-pilots and RIO's working with the team on testing the systems functionality and fine tuning the flight model). I mistakenly mentioned NATOPS instead of NAVAIR as obviously those weapons won't be in any operational manuals as they were never introduced into operation.

 

The photo posted was an example indicating that an F-14A could in fact carry and fire those rocket launchers with no major modifications even if they had no later need to introduce them in the operational service (or if perhaps the tests showed potential issues operating them).

 

Again, they are making a module for a flight simulation *game*, not a documentary reference of what was operationally carried. But, since that manual is for the *game*, they can expand the ordnance options slightly for various what-if scenarios and fun purposes (but they are limiting themselves to those that *could* have technically been used by the mid-90's F-14B as they will add the LTS pod, but no PTID as they have no -1A documents describing it in full as they're classified).

 

Besides, if the Navy Tomcat community was a bit more open-minded towards the A2G role, they could have focused on using the built-in Tomcat A2G functionality much earlier and change the image of the Tomcat being a one-trick-pony and thus make it harder for the F-14D program to get easily killed off by Cheney and replaced by Super Hornets. In which case, more of those weapons envisaged by that old NAVAIR publication might have been tested and cleared for use during the 80s.

Edited by ijozic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ijozic said:

 

 

If the Navy Tomcat community was a bit more open-minded towards the A2G role, they could have focused on using the built-in Tomcat A2G functionality much earlier and change the image of the Tomcat being a one-trick-pony and thus make it harder for the F-14D program to get easily killed off by Cheney and replaced by Super Hornets. In which case, more of those weapons envisaged by that old NAVAIR publication might have been tested and cleared for use.

 

Hard to pass up a gun run on this comment, but will. 

 

Collin

Share this post


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

Hard to pass up a gun run on this comment, but will. 

 

Yeah, it's probably wishful thinking since they couldn't even be bothered to get their engines replaced for so long, but if they could have diverted funds intended for AMRAAM integration to developing and integrating the LTS pod on their own initiative (which gave them a decade of smart-weapon capability and prolonged the service life or a relatively small fleet) when the funding was scarcer, it's hard not to wonder if they could have done more during the more opulent times of the Reagan administration, as it was becoming more and more clear that multi-role platforms are the future.

 

At the very least, they could have pushed for making the F-14D program multi-role rather than just beefing up its A2A role which made it an obvious choice for axing when the Cold War was ending and the budgets were getting cut down. But, I guess the Navy chiefs were still living in dreamland of having their A-12 and NATF programs coming up back then.

 

Sorry for the OT, I will bow out.

Edited by ijozic

Share this post


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

 

Nobody's trying to prove you wrong as it was clearly said that they are aware that these were not carried operationally (again, they have ex-pilots and RIO's working with the team on testing the systems functionality and fine tuning the flight model). I mistakenly mentioned NATOPS instead of NAVAIR as obviously those weapons won't be in any operational manuals as they were never introduced into operation.

 

The photo posted was an example indicating that an F-14A could in fact carry and fire those rocket launchers with no major modifications even if they had no later need to introduce them in the operational service (or if perhaps the tests showed potential issues operating them).

 

Again, they are making a module for a flight simulation *game*, not a documentary reference of what was operationally carried. But, since that manual is for the *game*, they can expand the ordnance options slightly for various what-if scenarios and fun purposes (but they are limiting themselves to those that *could* have technically been used by the mid-90's F-14B as they will add the LTS pod, but no PTID as they have no -1A documents describing it in full as they're classified).

 

Besides, if the Navy Tomcat community was a bit more open-minded towards the A2G role, they could have focused on using the built-in Tomcat A2G functionality much earlier and change the image of the Tomcat being a one-trick-pony and thus make it harder for the F-14D program to get easily killed off by Cheney and replaced by Super Hornets. In which case, more of those weapons envisaged by that old NAVAIR publication might have been tested and cleared for use during the 80s.

 

20 minutes ago, ijozic said:

 

Yeah, it's probably wishful thinking since they couldn't even be bothered to get their engines replaced for so long, but if they could have diverted funds intended for AMRAAM integration to developing and integrating the LTS pod on their own initiative (which gave them a decade of smart-weapon capability and prolonged the service life or a relatively small fleet) when the funding was scarcer, it's hard not to wonder if they could have done more during the more opulent times of the Reagan administration, as it was becoming more and more clear that multi-role platforms are the future.

 

At the very least, they could have pushed for making the F-14D program multi-role rather than just beefing up its A2A role which made it an obvious choice for axing when the Cold War was ending and the budgets were getting cut down. But, I guess the Navy chiefs were still living in dreamland of having their A-12 and NATF programs coming up back then.

 

Sorry for the OT, I will bow out.

Um.....yea......

 

I'll just say that you have no idea of what you are talking about and leave it at that since we've already skewed way across the line of hijacking this thread.

 

In order to get back on target, IMO, from the pictures posted the AMK F-14D does have some shape issues. As stated earlier, the stab pack panel is off and (to me) that throws off the lines of the rear end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I prefer the thread to be 'skewed' away from its usual direction.............. or just re-locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 7:42 PM, jester292 said:

Your anger is epic. 

 

That's ever since I learnt the singer in Arch Enemy was actually a gorgeous-looking girl going by the name of Angela Gossow. :worship:

 

[youtube]

 

 

I'm SO hopelessly in love with her!

Cheers,

 

Onigiri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Doppelgänger said:

 

That's ever since I learnt the singer in Arch Enemy was actually a gorgeous-looking girl going by the name of Angela Gossow. :worship:

 

 

I'm SO hopelessly in love with her!

Cheers,

 

Onigiri

 

I just listen to that. I lost too many brain cells. You like that "music" (using that term loosely) :hmmm:😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×