AMK 1/48 F-14!!!

[ytsejam87]

I find this thread fascinating.  I have been exposed to more 'inside baseball" about the scale plastic modeling industry than in most years combined by this one thread (thanks goes to all of of the ARC community for this).

 

Sure there are some a$$-hat comments, of which one or two could be attributable to me, but overall, it has been quite educational.  I do understand when things get political, the thread (deservedly so) gets a "go sit in the corner" moment. And I  fully support when a 'industry parter" asks, that the thread is re-opened.  Hopefully it will stay that way until the kit is released. 

 

Indeed, it is just a plastic kit, but when we see the promise that was delivered with the MiG-31, a number of us that had put faith (and hard earned cash, into unscrupulous online hobby stores) into AMK's word of the "best ever", it had a level of authenticity to it. All while blindly ignoring both their SuE and Kfir "issue".  As an aside, this is reminiscent of the original lily drone, (which one of my friends did invest in).

 

I still hope AMK knocks the ball out of the park on this.  But, even though I was "in for three" with victory models (given AMK's price point), i suspect that I will be putting cash in GWH's hands, when all is said and done.  

 

[GW8345]

17 hours ago, erik_g said:

You guys might not be losing sleep over the Tomcat, but I sure did, when this was published last night.. 
http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/index.html
 

Why oh why did I stay up reading about AWG-9 in the middle of the night.. dead tired now.. 

It´s the OTHER Tomcat I have pre-ordered.... 😄

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!!!!

Edited February 12, 2019 by GW8345

[SpiritZeroThree]

1 hour 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!!!!

 

 

If there is one thing i learned in this hobby, it's NEVER say never.

 

[GW8345]

39 minutes ago, SpiritZeroThree said:

 

 

If there is one thing i learned in this hobby, it's NEVER say never.

 

That is not a Mk 82AIR, that is a Mk 83 Mod 4 with a BSU-85/B. The Mk 82AIR is a 500 lb bomb, the above is a 1,000 lb bomb.

 

The USN/USMC has not used the Mk 82AIR in 40+ years, it is only used by the USAF in America.

 

V/R

A retired Tomcat Ordie.

Edited February 12, 2019 by GW8345

[Whiskey]

GW knows his stuff for sure! Great picture btw!

Edited February 12, 2019 by Whiskey

[gb_madcat_sl]

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

[habu2]

I never say never. Never. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by habu2

[dylan]

5 hours ago, Zactoman said:

Thank you from someone not on Facebook.

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[erik_g]

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..

[ijozic]

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.:

 

 

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 February 12, 2019 by ijozic

[Silver Seraph]

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.

[flybywire]

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.

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"?

 

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.

 

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

[flybywire]

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

 

 

 

 

 

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...

[jester292]

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. 

[dryguy]

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?

[Jonathan_Lotton]

14 hours ago, GW8345 said:

nor could did it carry Zuni's

 

[Dave Williams]

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.  

[Anders_Isaksson]

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...)

[Mstor]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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:

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 February 12, 2019 by Mstor

[Whiskey]

4 hours ago, Jonathan_Lotton said:

 

 

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.

[Jonathan_Lotton]

I think VF-14 and 41 evaluated them during the FAC-A concept program? 

[GW8345]

17 hours ago, ijozic said:

 

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

 

 

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:

 

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 February 13, 2019 by GW8345

[Sonoran]

On 2/11/2019 at 12:17 PM, Jonathan_Lotton said:

Feel free to excuse yourself then. 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point

[ijozic]

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 February 13, 2019 by ijozic

[Collin]

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