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

AMK 1/48 F-14!!!

Recommended Posts

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
1 hour ago, Mstor said:

 

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

 

I had to laugh because that is basically what my mum said her mum said when she first heard the beatles :)

 

This kind of metal is interesting to me. Fascinating actually. When I first listened to Amon Amarth for example, I could not understand a thing, it just sounded like, well, screaming.

But listening to it while reading the lyrics changed it dramatically. Understanding the words changed my entire perception of it, it suddenly became very melodic. Not because of the content of

the lyrics, it's more like I could not really hear the melody before. I enjoy this type of music much in the same way I enjoy Bach or Mozart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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

Was, she was replacedin 2014 by Alissa White-Gluz, who is singing on that video.

Share this post


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

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

 

:woot.gif: Sounds like my dad. Death, Doom, Black Metal is all I listen to. Sometimes I'm even into some Gothic. Perhaps you'd like some of Epica's first album, Mark? Or After Forever? Therion? Edenbridge? Within Temptation? Nightwish? Theatre Of Tragedy? The 3rd and the Mortal? Opeth?

 

24 minutes ago, Shadrik said:

When I first listened to Amon Amarth for example, I could not understand a thing, it just sounded like, well, screaming.

But listening to it while reading the lyrics changed it dramatically. Understanding the words changed my entire perception of it, it suddenly became very melodic. Not because of the content of the lyrics, it's more like I could not really hear the melody before. I enjoy this type of music much in the same way I enjoy Bach or Mozart.

 

Amon Amarth! That's my mate!  :punk: Another outstanding band. Sure you've listened to Dimmu Borgir, Tristania, Children Of Bodom, Lacrimosa or Craddle Of Filth? Too bad any of the girls I dated so far seemed to be able to put up with this kind of music.

 

33 minutes ago, Dmanton300 said:

Was, she was replacedin 2014 by Alissa White-Gluz, who is singing on that video.

 

Oh? Thought Angela had recorded the album War Eternal. 

Cheers,

 

Onigiri

Share this post


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

had to laugh because that is basically what my mum said her mum said when she first heard the beatles 🙂

 

Yea, I know. I'm a Hendrix guy myself. Ex-hippie wannabe (caught it all at the tail end 1970, '71). My parents were cool though. They liked the Beatles and bought Sergeant Pepper and the White Album. If you don't know what those are or who Hendrix is, you are missing out on a big part of the roots of the rock and roll movement. 

 

Now back to the AMK F-14D. Dylan, you been able to take a few more pics so we can pick at this thing some more :naughty:.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 9:58 AM, Mstor said:

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.

 

  Just to clarify, the side of the hip does have a slight curve when viewed from directly above or below. When viewed from above and inboard that area is straight, but you are just seeing the edge which has a variable radius.

Hip_details_zpsunahpljp.jpg

  Looking at pics of the AMK stabs they appear to have exaggerated the curvature which means the sides of the hips are also too curved. The sides could be sanded and material added to the stabs. The variable radius could be filed and sanded having the radius get larger towards the rear.
  However, looking at pics, the edge radius drops lower behind the stab pivot/bump, gets even larger and fades out on the (missing) engine fairing part. AMK has this radius continue to curve up and intersect the upper corner of the fairing as seen in the first pic of this post:

  While more sanding and shaping could improve this, it also appears as if the fairing area is too thick meaning you would have to remove material all the way from the front to the rear of the hip, which goes back to the original diagnosis of Steatopygia.
  The actual bump above the stab pivot might be easier to add after sanding than trying to preserve and shape while doing the other fixes. The bump should be more defined than I'm seeing in the updated tooling ( http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle_f-14d/f-14d_159600_christine_parts/images/f-14d_159600_christine_parts_300_of_354.jpg ).
  And then of course re-scribe and re-rivet the lost detail.

 

  Lots more great pics of F-14D "Christine" here: http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle_f-14d/f-14d_159600_christine_parts/view

 

 

On 2/12/2019 at 7:36 AM, dryguy said:

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?

 

  Both I would say, and then some. There are a few related areas that also seem a bit off.


  Note the kink between the bladder and the straight edge of the hip (also noted in the red-lined pic above):
Kink_zpsjrhal4jj.jpg
  From the pics I've seen this doesn't seem to be present on the kit.

 

  Another interesting thing is the relationship of the bladder to the top edge of the hip. Drawing a line along the lower edge of the bladder cavity you can see that it intersects the top edge just forward of the stab bump (yes I realize this pic is at an odd angle but this seems to hold true in pics at other angles). Also note that the panel forward of the stab bump extends onto the radiused edge.

Bladder_line_zps2kvfy1zo.jpg
  I can't be certain from the odd-angled and cropped pics that AMK has shared, but it looks like they carry that line well below where it should be meaning either the bladder cavity is located wrong or the surface above the hip needs to be lowered. Lowering the upper surface starting at the (missing) kink might help, but this would introduce other problems.
  Which brings me to your question about said area:

On 2/12/2019 at 7:36 AM, dryguy said:

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?

  Yes, it does look to me like this area slopes down too much. The vent next to the v-stab shows this well when comparing to either Dylans Tamiya pic or pics of the real plane. Fixing this area would be a real pain, particularly with that vent there. Adding material to reduce the downward slope would exaggerate the problem I mentioned above. I think I'd opt for just reducing the hip and modifying the edge radii and hope that's enough to make things look OK.

  As for what filler, I'm a fan of Tamiya light curing putty for modifying surfaces.

 

  So, presented with the issues above I'm not sure what is really wrong. Without true-views of the CAD, better pics of the plastic or plastic in-hand it's tough to determine why the  problems exist or which could be fixed.

 

9 hours ago, Mstor said:

Now back to the AMK F-14D. Dylan, you been able to take a few more pics so we can pick at this thing some more

  I browsed through the builds in "The Display Case" sub-forum (some really nice ones there! :thumbsup:). From what I could tell they nailed all of the details I mentioned above. I'm tempted to pick one up despite never having time to build anything.

 

13 hours 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.

I'm SO hopelessly in love with her!

Yeah, I wouldn't have associated that voice with a female. :woot.gif:

I had a similar reaction to Chocolate Rain (though I didn't fall hopelessly in love or get terribly angry!).

 

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks Zactoman. You have clarified and corrected what I have been trying to say. I brought up the issue about the engine fairing months ago and I posted a pic of the area forward of the pivot with the same curve lines, albeit much more crude, too. I was wrong in that, as you have pointed out, there is still some curve in the area that I though pretty much flat. But, as you said, AMK still has too much curve in that area.

Again, thanks for the detailed and well thought out description of the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the latest from our friendly honest folks over at the AMK facebook page

"different pictures showing different shapes. I don’t think anyone can tell exactly the shape of the curved surface. Don’t stuck on this".

 

32152566597_a1b1981299_o-L.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same angle, other side, than here:

 

14114964_661830010648496_777298063465364

 

 

 

 

Always with the orthographic projection, the worst one to provide information in no-close ups.

It was impossible to see the aft problem when these image was provided (in 2016),

it is still impossible to see changes now.

 

wait...if they only provide a 3D view, they aren't able to show plastic parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ortho view surely doesn't help here, but I do see a glimmer of hope. I think it has been reworked quite a bit (not as curvy anymore). The bag looks a little odd, but perhaps do indeed look that way when fully inflated.

Share this post


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

It's the same angle, other side, than here:

 

14114964_661830010648496_777298063465364

 

 

 

 

Always with the orthographic projection, the worst one to provide information in no-close ups.

It was impossible to see the aft problem when these image was provided (in 2016),

it is still impossible to see changes now.

 

wait...if they only provide a 3D view, they aren't able to show plastic parts?

Is that an older CAD? I don't see the bump over the stab pivot or its is extremely slight. And the exhaust petals don't look as smooth in their curves, though it may just look different because of the added colors.

Never mind, I see you stated it is from 2016. I think the one posted by Dylan is newer.

Edited by Mstor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an FYI...  if anyone is a member of the AMK Facebook group and wants to share their photos without the risk of getting banned, PM me.  I'd be happy to upload them so that everyone else can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, GW8345 said:

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.

 

Well, I'm dumb. Saw the AIR, didn't realize it was an 83 instead of an 82. Good catch GW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MoFo said:

Just an FYI...  if anyone is a member of the AMK Facebook group and wants to share their photos without the risk of getting banned, PM me.  I'd be happy to upload them so that everyone else can see.

 

Nice idea, MoFo, although I think it won't be long until the mods on this forum start deleting any pictures posted on AMK's private club on Facebook, as it began happening over at Britmodeller and Z5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some people here believe they have a right to republish photos from someone’s private Facebook page, exactly why again?

Share this post


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...