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

AMK 1/48 F-14!!!

Recommended Posts

it's a shame really. There is a lot of really good ideas with this kit. I think even some that other larger companies should take a good look at and incorporate in to their aircraft models. The glass and frame set-up of the canopy is GREAT idea. I was wondering what was keeping other companies from trying something like that. The one-piece fuse nose, another great idea. A lot of really good slide mold choices in design. If ONLY they would have gotten just <that> much more of the shapes correct it would be at the least a double hit if not a triple. As it LOOKS (can't say for certain still), it's merely a close call single with a controversial call to get them on base. They'll likely get picked off stealing second. (sorry, can you tell it's baseball season right now? LOL) I still may buy one if I see it at a show and for a good price. Don't think I'd order one from what I'm seeing. MAYBE if a review comes along that shows it in better light and we're proven to be wrong. But so far....meh.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the clear deception that AMK has put on the community and continued lies..

I cancelled my pre-order. 

I won't give them my money 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, niart17 said:

it's a shame really. There is a lot of really good ideas with this kit. I think even some that other larger companies should take a good look at and incorporate in to their aircraft models. The glass and frame set-up of the canopy is GREAT idea. I was wondering what was keeping other companies from trying something like that. The one-piece fuse nose, another great idea. A lot of really good slide mold choices in design. If ONLY they would have gotten just <that> much more of the shapes correct it would be at the least a double hit if not a triple. As it LOOKS (can't say for certain still), it's merely a close call single with a controversial call to get them on base. They'll likely get picked off stealing second. (sorry, can you tell it's baseball season right now? LOL) I still may buy one if I see it at a show and for a good price. Don't think I'd order one from what I'm seeing. MAYBE if a review comes along that shows it in better light and we're proven to be wrong. But so far....meh.

 

Bill

 

 

It's what we call here "Marketing wonderful ideas, engineering worst nightmares".

The multipart canopy was a "interesting" marketing idea, kind of idea which every engineer or modelist would erase first of the list.

It looks nice on CAD, but in real you have this:

 

65604215_2401055096627536_87073391980734

 

65526507_2401055193294193_20948219329972

 

A big no no.

 

Same thing with the one-part nose fuselage, it looks nice on CAD - in fact everything looks nice in CAD-,

in the real life, it's very expensive and with this kind of budget management and engineering choices,

it's really not surprising the project stalled so many times, took so long, and in the end they fixed litteraly nothing.

 

Edited by shion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manuel, not only that area needs to be corrected. Also the fat butt, among other things. What is the idea of buying a kit that comes bad with other options that are good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, shion said:

No.

GE F110 are special and their use of the tomcat too.

 

In idle/off mode, GE F110 are full open, like on the first group of pics I posted.

In Mil Thrust, the exhaust is closed and it reopen later in full AB, but not full.

 

What no? You said that in the afterburner, the nozzles are closed as you provided a photo showing closed nozzles. And I said it's not the afterburner mode as they should be open there (so the petals don't get damaged).

 

Quote

And the AB mode exhausts aren't better:

 

65243582_205068380457807_108355114705197

 

Edited by ijozic

Share this post


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

All of this wouldn't be so bad if AMK hadn't hyped themselves to the point where they claimed that their Tomcat would be the most accurate Tomcat ever. 

Now it's likely not even going to rise to the level of the Hobby Boss Tomcat. 

It's sad..if there's one thing they should have known is that the Tomcat is *NOT* the plane you want to swing and miss on. 

This right here. ^^^^^^^^

Share this post


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

 

 

It's what we call here "Marketing wonderful ideas, engineering worst nightmares".

The multipart canopy was a "interesting" marketing idea, kind of idea which every engineer or modelist would erase first of the list.

It looks nice on CAD, but in real you have this:

 

65604215_2401055096627536_87073391980734

 

65526507_2401055193294193_20948219329972

 

A big no no.

 

Same thing with the one-part nose fuselage, it looks nice on CAD - in fact everything looks nice in CAD-,

in the real life, it's very expensive and with this kind of budget management and engineering choices,

it's really not surprising the project stalled so many times, took so long, and in the end they fixed litteraly nothing.

 

I understand that somewhat, and as a mechanical designer somewhat agree. But I think that's more than just marketing idea, it's a builder's dream to have this type of set-up work. I think with the right design team working with the right machinists and molders, achieviing a 2 (or in this case 3) piece frame/glass canopy is very doable. I think it just hasn't been looked at enough by the right people. Hopefully a company like Tamiya might take notice and see if they can take on such a task. it only makes sense that the frame and the glass be separate from not only a painting perspective but from a detail perspective. Imagine the rail detail that could be achieved. Someone, someday will pull it off and I for one would welcome it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sticking with my Monograms and Tamiyas. Nothing will change my mind on that. For a long time I debated on whether or not I would pick up a Hasegawa (so many beautiful examples) but I honestly do not want to deal with hassle. HobbyBoss is pretty much under the same category to me, I've seen really nice ones built but I just can't live with the panel lines. So yeah, my inventory of Monograms and Tamiyas will continue to grow.

 

This just ain't worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, interesting. Since I don't really see any showstoppers and I like the extra detail, I'll get one and sell off the Hasegawa. If anything, AMK will be more detailed and easier to build. 

Share this post


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

 

IIRC, during the normal shutdown procedure, the left nozzle would end up closed and the right one opened, but they could be open or closed up by the maintenance crew so different combinations are possible as well.

That was only for the F-14A (TF-30 engines), for the F-14B/D (F110-GE-400 engines) the nozzles would be fully open at shut down.

Share this post


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

 

 

It's what we call here "Marketing wonderful ideas, engineering worst nightmares".

The multipart canopy was a "interesting" marketing idea, kind of idea which every engineer or modelist would erase first of the list.

It looks nice on CAD, but in real you have this:

 

65604215_2401055096627536_87073391980734

 

65526507_2401055193294193_20948219329972

 

A big no no.

 

Same thing with the one-part nose fuselage, it looks nice on CAD - in fact everything looks nice in CAD-,

in the real life, it's very expensive and with this kind of budget management and engineering choices,

it's really not surprising the project stalled so many times, took so long, and in the end they fixed litteraly nothing.

 

 

shion, not sure what you saying is wrong with the multi-part canopy shown in the pics. It looks pretty good to me, at least as far as cross section. COuld you point out what I am missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, joscasle said:

Manuel, not only that area needs to be corrected. Also the fat butt, among other things. What is the idea of buying a kit that comes bad with other options that are good?

Yes, indeed, AMK should pay more attention to some details and forms ...
I hope that correcting is not so difficult.

The Kit has high points, it will be necessary to analyze them in the assembly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's because the edges of the clear pieces tend to reflect light at certain angles. In the lower photo the outline of the glass seems to be illuminated unnaturally --- something you wouldn't see in single piece canopies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Manuel J. Armas S. said:

Yes, indeed, AMK should pay more attention to some details and forms ...
I hope that correcting is not so difficult.

The Kit has high points, it will be necessary to analyze them in the assembly.

 

I am sure AMK is way beyond being able to make any further corrections. If, after all the current delays, they did not make those corrections, they are not going to do it now. To do so would delay the release for many months and would be extremely expensive. I'm afraid it is a case of what you see is what your going to get.

 

Share this post


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

I think it's because the edges of the clear pieces tend to reflect light at certain angles. In the lower photo the outline of the glass seems to be illuminated unnaturally --- something you wouldn't see in single piece canopies. 

 

Ahhh, I see what you mean. You can see the edge of the clear part where butts up against the frame. Oh my, that is a problem. Oh well. shion, I understand now. You're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, who else is looking forward to the Great Wall 1/48 F-14D kit?  I know I am.  AMK has really shot themselves in the foot (and the leg, and the thigh, and...).  All that, and it’s only four years late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sleepy said:

So, who else is looking forward to the Great Wall 1/48 F-14D kit?  I know I am.  AMK has really shot themselves in the foot (and the leg, and the thigh, and...).  All that, and it’s only four years late.

+1

Share this post


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

So, who else is looking forward to the Great Wall 1/48 F-14D kit?  

 

After their errors with the F-15 and T-33, I'd be looking forward to the F-14 with some wariness.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, jonbryon said:

 

After their errors with the F-15 and T-33, I'd be looking forward to the F-14 with some wariness.

 

Jon

GWH 1/72 F-14 looks great ... Maybe AMK fix their Tomcat, as they did with the Kfir...

Edited by Manuel J. Armas S.
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, ijozic said:

 

What no? You said that in the afterburner, the nozzles are closed as you provided a photo showing closed nozzles. And I said it's not the afterburner mode as they should be open there (so the petals don't get damaged).

 

Yes, my mistake, not AB mode but mil mode.

 

 

13 hours ago, niart17 said:

I understand that somewhat, and as a mechanical designer somewhat agree. But I think that's more than just marketing idea, it's a builder's dream to have this type of set-up work. I think with the right design team working with the right machinists and molders, achieviing a 2 (or in this case 3) piece frame/glass canopy is very doable. I think it just hasn't been looked at enough by the right people. Hopefully a company like Tamiya might take notice and see if they can take on such a task. it only makes sense that the frame and the glass be separate from not only a painting perspective but from a detail perspective. Imagine the rail detail that could be achieved. Someone, someday will pull it off and I for one would welcome it!

 

 

I think it's doable with ultra thin transparent parts.

But ultra thin transparent parts are a pain to 1/inject 2/separate from the sprue 3/to glue.

Reason why Tamiya didn't go this way.

In fact, Tamiya took the exact opposite, maximise the transparent parts (see the transparent windscreen+front canopy) to help modelers with this kind of tricky assemblies.

 

And IMHO, I don't see the point, it's a bad idea. It's nice on the sprue but it will be a pain to deal with, like pre-formed transparencies in vac-form kits.

Long live the frame+glass solution, where you can use the frame zone to glue.

 

6 hours ago, Mstor said:

 

shion, not sure what you saying is wrong with the multi-part canopy shown in the pics. It looks pretty good to me, at least as far as cross section. COuld you point out what I am missing?

 

All photos are cliquable and high res.

IMHO, this kind of assemblies is good for toys, not for model kits.

It reminds me how Hasbro GIE Joe, MASK and Transformers parts were designed and assembled.

 

Not only it's a pain to assemble but you've got this result which amplifies transparencies' thickness, highlights edges and cie.

And worst: how can a modeler paint this?

If you assemble then paint, you must use masks.

if you paint then assemble, you've got to deal with all prementionned problems + the wonderful problem "glueing on  painted parts".

In the end, no gain, only pain.

Edited by shion

Share this post


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

 

After their errors with the F-15 and T-33, I'd be looking forward to the F-14 with some wariness.

 

Jon

 

Their F-15s are the best. 

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...