Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, dylan said:

hows this?

 

 

 

Great photos for comparison. Thanks. I still see the same problems I have spoken about previously.

We still need new input and photos from AMK. Nothing is conclusive with the photos we have.

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

even though that an AMK F-14D exists over there

 

Doppelgänger, do you mean that someone over there actually has one of the AMK kits, or just that they have an AMK F-14D thread? If the former, could you provide a link? If the latter, which is what I think you meant, then I already know about that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys were interested in buying only pics of the kit I could understand your concern.

 

Until you have a kit in your hands it's all just a bunch of individual interpretations of a bunch of pics.

 

B*tch less, build more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is missing the simple truth...the girl has some nice curves! 😁 Keeping the wings swept will help, but as others have said, it seems there's too much curving area around the horizontal stab. That will still be evident with the wings swept. Just from looking at it, a quick (well, maybe inexpensive is a better term) fix would be to sand down the area by the horizontal stabs to flatten the rear fuselage out a bit. You'll need to then sand out the curve to a flatter shape on the horizontal stab itself. That shouldn't be too difficult, as it would just be towards the ends. The attachment point should stay the same. It still looks to be a pretty nice kit. I'm wondering if the GWH kit is being made in conjunction with AMK. The parts breakdown looked an awful lot like the AMK kit. If it is, I wonder if it, too, will have the same rear shape. I just know I get to build more Tomcats!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

It is surprising that AMK has not reported back to the forum. It there is bad news, it is better than no news.

I am still keeping my pre-orders though. I might be a conformist, but I still think the kit price is a very reasonable for what you get.

 

Come on AMK, let us know what's going on.

 

jsolo

 

 

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

Doppelgänger, do you mean that someone over there actually has one of the AMK kits, or just that they have an AMK F-14D thread? If the former, could you provide a link? If the latter, which is what I think you meant, then I already know about that one.

 

Oh, no, no; my bad. I meant that an AMK F-14D thread exists on Britmodeller. I really don't know whether Mike has a review sample, but I highly doubt that he wouldn't have shared it with his modelling peers if he did have one. Ever since I read about the shape issue on the rear flanks on here, I use to go over on BM to check if they're discussing about it there, but no.

 

36 minutes ago, habu2 said:

If you guys were interested in buying only pics of the kit I could understand your concern.

 

If I could purchase pictures of the finished AMK kit I would certainly purchase them all, indeed! Here just one single pic has shown a shape issue before the kit was purchased.

I wouldn't care to buy the AMK kit with that flaw aft there; all the more so when there are other options available.

 

36 minutes ago, habu2 said:

Until you have a kit in your hands it's all just a bunch of individual interpretations of a bunch of pics.

 

A bunch of pictures you say? Where? It's quite smart - at least to me - to judge the kit by the available pics before taking the decisión to buying it or not, which is one of the key functions a modelling forum serves.

 

36 minutes ago, habu2 said:

B*tch less, build more.

 

Careful there, habu2. There's no need to be unrespectful to members who are respectful to you, please.

Cheers,

 

Onigiri

Edited by Doppelgänger
Typo, again.
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, IAGeezer said:

Looking at the pictures, it seems the Tamiya has the un-inflated bladders, and the AMK has inflated... See how they line up with the strakes? That throws the eye off a bit.

I think you are absolutely correct. I think that the AMK may have a very, very slight amount of a Kardashian rear end going on, but I think the amount is greatly exaggerated by the difference in wing bladders, inflated vs deflated. Deflated wing bladders would significantly 'straighten' the curve in that particular view

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Darren Roberts said:

Everyone is missing the simple truth...the girl has some nice curves! 😁 Keeping the wings swept will help, but as others have said, it seems there's too much curving area around the horizontal stab. That will still be evident with the wings swept. Just from looking at it, a quick (well, maybe inexpensive is a better term) fix would be to sand down the area by the horizontal stabs to flatten the rear fuselage out a bit. You'll need to then sand out the curve to a flatter shape on the horizontal stab itself. That shouldn't be too difficult, as it would just be towards the ends. The attachment point should stay the same. It still looks to be a pretty nice kit. I'm wondering if the GWH kit is being made in conjunction with AMK. The parts breakdown looked an awful lot like the AMK kit. If it is, I wonder if it, too, will have the same rear shape. I just know I get to build more Tomcats!

Haha, yes, but it's a Tomcat 😉  so it's even more wrong to have nice curves :-) 

 

Surely sanding a curvature can make it flat, but the problem is that the 2 straight sections are not parallel to each other nor to the vertical tails, there are angles between them that is going to be difficult to determine. I know that it's really tiny things, so I'm probably making others feel sick again, but I think it would be nice for those to have the same amount of tolerance toward others as they have towards a kit's shape errors, what may seem totally insufficient to one person can be sufficient to others, I mean why not??

 

Personally, a correct shape is very important to me,  but I understand that many think that details is everything, so they would rate ZM's Phantom very highly for example. But I do hope that more people would take the shape more seriously, because come on, that is basically the only thing that can be true on a model, area ruled shape or whatever, it's possible to have exactly the same shape, that's why they develop the real thing like F-35 using models(wind tunnel models that is). I love details too, but the truth is, they are never true: rivets are never tiny holes, panels line are never that wide... Or even a cockpit as detailed as resin, it can not reproduce all of the buttons and switches of a real thing, those are probably insufficient again, would be too tiny to see as shape errors to some. But anyway, a little more tolerance, not just towards shape errors, would be nice.       
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how some might read this. But, for the others on here,,,,,,,,,,ummm, isn't the shape of an aircraft why we buy a model in the first place?

 

If shapes aren't important enough to discuss,,,,,,,,then I could have just bought a bunch of TF-15s and applied Tomcat decals to them. Or, even cheaper, a bunch of Talons. (two engines, two seats,,,,,,,"close enough." )

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

hows this?

 

bFh0Jcu-L.jpg

 

DSC_0335-L.jpg

Good enough to demonstrate that Tamiya handled it better, in that one detail anyway. Ironically, Tamiya's kit is maximized for wings-swept display, whereas AMK's bountiful details are better suited to wings-forward/launching display, which would only make the flaw more visible. I really don't understand people who have this "wait to get the kit and see" mindset. You can get very accurate comparisons by comparing photos to photos, especially when the angle is almost identical. I've done it countless times, and even scratchbuilt large-scale models with barely a millimeter's discrepancy just by studying and plotting from photos.

 

So AMK has a boo-boo; it's still way better than Hasegawa's kit, which so many modelers venerated as THE definitive Tomcat back in the day, and MILES better than that 1/32 Trumpeter abomination... Now THOSE guys should seriously hang their heads in shame! Third-world design at first-world prices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rex said:

I know how some might read this. But, for the others on here,,,,,,,,,,ummm, isn't the shape of an aircraft why we buy a model in the first place?

 

If shapes aren't important enough to discuss,,,,,,,,then I could have just bought a bunch of TF-15s and applied Tomcat decals to them. Or, even cheaper, a bunch of Talons. (two engines, two seats,,,,,,,"close enough." )

You mean like how I built a Mig-28 and painted it like a Mig-29 because it was just one number off and therefore close enough? 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only second what the two guys in front of me said...the general shape and measurements are key, details are very nice but can also be added by the modeller to a certain extend. Speaking of the ZM Phantom...now that Hypersonic has a fuselage fixing set it will be a very nice bird once completed...

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

hows this?

 

bFh0Jcu-L.jpg

 

DSC_0335-L.jpg

 

2 hours ago, Doppelgänger said:

 

That's a whole lot better; thanks! :thumbsup: 

There really is a shape issue on the AMK kit, indeed... 

 

2 hours ago, Mstor said:

 

Great photos for comparison. Thanks. I still see the same problems I have spoken about previously.

We still need new input and photos from AMK. Nothing is conclusive with the photos we have.

 

 

Again, it has been stated by Martin that the top photo is an EARLY TEST SHOT that has since been corrected. Why do you all continue to base your claims of a 'flaw' on that one photo!?

 

"Nothing is conclusive with the photos we have" - This statement above cracked me up. Yes, nothing is conclusive, but here you all are with the same unproven claims, using the same photo......over, and over, and over again. Perhaps you should all go back to page 112.

 

This has become an absolute embarrassment.........and I'm not speaking about AMK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it, Dave.

 

If your photo is of AMK parts after a newer test shot,,,,,,,,it looks just like the Tamiya parts in that same area. It even looks like it has that "upturned hump" thing going on that was missing before.

 

If that is right,,,,,,,,then it is now time to argue about relief tube lengths. (and no, for the illogical among us, "longer is NOT better." )

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GunsightOne said:

That's AMK.

Then I declare this a non-issue... to me. Looks fine to me. Ship it! (PS: showing the aft end of the Tamiya kit is proof of nothing. In fact, now that I eyeball it, the Tamiya curves look a little anemic to me compared to the real thing in my post on pg. 124. Guess I'll have to jettison my Tamiya kits when AMK's arrives.) 😏 

Edited by Space Tiger Hobbes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave thank you so much for that. This issue, which for me wasn't really an issue, is now put to bed. And well done AMK for fixing it if indeed it actually needed a fix. At first glance the panel lines on the AMK kit also look nice, crisp and not too deep. This was a common criticism of some of their previous kits. 

Edited by dryguy
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...