Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, foxmulder_ms said:

You deserve this more ūüôā

 

 

ūüėõ

 

uOUhonN.png

 

 

Seriously dude, please... Not same angle, not same lens/distance, it is even missing *huge* part. Get real. 

 

Pictures I saw last 2 days erased all the question marks in my mind. This kit is looking gorgeous. 

Nice selection of color, I will use them for my drawings :-) Seriously, you love the kit, I got it long time ago, good for you then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dave Roof said:

 

 

Yeah, I got a good laugh out of that as well. That comparison simply proved either the kit, or the drawings are wrong. One portion of the kit lines up, while another is completely off. Sadly, the guy behind Fishbone didn't do any favors for AMK with that one.

 

All in all though, I think the kit looks pretty good and is proportionately correct.

 

I doubt it is.

 

I will explain.

Yesterday I tried several times to do the same set with the Tamiya and the Hasegawa kits¬†and the 1/48 drawings from Model Art profile N¬į6 F-14 Tomcat.

This book:

 

modelart_profile-6-f14_boxart_t.jpg

 

I put the fuselage top part (for the HAS kit) and both fuselage top parts (aft and front for the TAM one) precisely on the top drawing and took a look from above to see if profiles match, especially the now famous aft curves.

Both kits match with the drawings.

 

I tried a second experiment, recreate the exact same angle than the photo I post before.

It confirmed what I thought: with this (slight) angle, if drawings and kit part match, it's impossible to see the drawing at the opposite side, because the plastic part hides it.

 

The first thing that struck me seeing this photo was the weird left strake placement, which doesn't match with the perspective. 

That only translates the fact plastic part and drawing don't match.

Second thing that struck me was the fact you can see part of the aera above the wing seals on the right side, which is impossible if drawings and plastic parts match.

If you can see this part of the drawings, it means either the plastic part is too narrow  or the drawings are too wide.

 

Problem is both differences, concern big parts and are in two different axis.

If the kit were longer and wider than drawings, it could possibly be proportionnaly correct.

Here, it seems to be longer in one axis and narrower in another  one, so  the kit has few chances of being proportionnaly correct.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Terrysumner If it's not too much to ask, would you be able to stick on some vertical zebra stripes from the airbag area towards the back?    Maybe with some cut up strips of tamiya tape or such.  And then take a similar photo?   Just wanted to see the shape better or how difficult it would be to correct.  Thanks!

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

@Terrysumner If it's not too much to ask, would you be able to stick on some vertical zebra stripes from the airbag area towards the back?    Maybe with some cut up strips of tamiya tape or such.  And then take a similar photo?   Just wanted to see the shape better or how difficult it would be to correct.  Thanks!

You gotta be kidding me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry if it sounded too complex.  Or maybe it is then don't worry.   I was trying to look for it earlier and just found it now -- it's a Zoukei Mura Phantom curvature comparison in a thread and Laurent posted this pic below.  I was just thinking of something similar.

academyF4J.jpg

Edited by crackerjazz
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

Just an FYI, the picture of the kit is missing the sealing bag. The gap won't be near that open with the part in place. 

 

It does look like the horizontal stab is a bit too low. On the kit, it lines up with the bottom edge of the fuselage side. On the actual airframe, it's a bit above that. 

 

I meant in the parked/fully swept position, the slope of that rear edge of the sealing bag doesn't need to be made that steep to accommodate the wing, I also guessed that less slope would be desirable, so that the sealing bag could be blown up less to seal the wing in other forward positions, but that my guess indeed... What might really matter is the shape of that area, I think one could compare the shape(slope at the rear, thickness) of the sealing bags with Tamiya ones, as the slope of sealing bag directly affect the slope of the forward section of the fairings, to some of us it looks too steep and therefore this area looks weird.

 

image00A.jpg

 

I think the horizontal stab should be OK, it seems to be too low, because the stab of the kit is not the same scaled diameter/is thicker than the real one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how people can determine the shape of the rear is correct by pictures but those who think the shape is off must wait to have the kit in hand because none of the pictures are of the same angle, lens/distance, etc.

 

Edited by GW8345
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the pics Terry.

It looks as though they might have the windscreen corners correct but it's hard to tell from the pics of the unpainted plastic. How does it look to you when viewing the actual model?

 

My schedule is pretty busy but I'll try to make some time later to play with my crayons.
I'm seeing multiple small (and some bigger) problems that when combined add up to a goofed up rear end. I think the major problem when viewed from most angles is the entire upper surface between the stab and v-stab is too angled and has the wrong contours which makes that surface appear larger than it should be in most angles (as others have noted). As Delide pointed out, the angle problem is very apparent starting at the bladder intersection (green lines are just approximate):

Bag_edge_1_zpsopnb7ysk.jpg

Bag_edge_2_zpswfsdd35t.jpg

 

As I pointed out here the kit is completely missing the kink at the bladder intersection edge, a feature that is very apparent on Tomcats once you know to look for it.
Unfortunately simply building up the surface to raise the corner will result in other problems, such as the wing colliding with the bladder when swept. Which takes me back to my previous thought that there is some overall geometry problem with the layout and not just a few small problems with the rear section.

 

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that looks odd to me is what I'd call a "thumb pinch" just fore of the tail surface pivot that just looks too pronounced. It's possible that's just a surface reflection that makes it look too bold in that last pic, but in most of the other shots it looks like there's a concave surface that's over done. Not sure if I'm explaining that very well.

 

Edit, I believe what I'm seeing is a result of what Zacto is saying (If I understand his post) the angle is too steep so in order to get the transition to the flattened side panel, they had to make a curved dip. It looks more like a smooth transition on the pics of the real plane. That also explains why the vent up close to the tails isn't in the right projected plane. it's angled too much as well. On the real plane it's more "on top" of the surface.

 

Edited by niart17
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GW8345 said:

I'm not basing my conclusion on pictures, I'm basing it on 15 years of working on the actual aircraft.

Please continue to share your thoughts and opinions with us. Personally I very much appreciate hearing  what folks who have actual hands on experience with the real aircraft have to say. Odds are good if folks like you see something missing or off...then it probably is.

 

Thanks for sharing and happy modeling!

Link to post
Share on other sites

After all that debate and comments that raise the modelers' required abilities to a height of a different dimension, I am expecting to see your models guys.

 

Should be amazing, almost perfect, belonging to another universe ūü§£ūü§£ūü§£

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys.

 

Quick real world F-14D question.  At the moment of carrier trap touchdown and catching the hook, I am assuming that-

  1. spoilers and speedbrakes will still be out ?
  2. Tail surfaces pretty neutral?  Or leading edge down ?
  3. Weight shifting forward onto nose gear (launch bar up).
  4. Exhaust cans in open position with full thrust still applied in case of a bolter?
  5. Crew leaning forward against their straps.

Would that be a good way to make the most of all the features of the upcoming AMK kit?

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

To end all debate someone please post comparisons to the official Grumman loft line or outer mold line drawings....PLEASE.

 

Hi,

 

I don't know if you know but someone here , a very well informed and clever guy, told us that Tamiya paid Grumman " a licence" to have access to their files...

 

Mr Tamiya send his team to bring back a whole case of documents.

 

So If I were you I would write a very very kind letter (with some bucks inside)  to Mr. Tamiya and ask him if he would be kind enough to publish them here...

 

So that it would end this debate once for all.

 

I am very serious of course.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Madcop.¬†ūüėČ

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bag_edge_2_zpswfsdd35t.jpg

 

1 hour ago, skuki said:

Nooooo..... really? not the greeeeens

thank god that the comparison pictures are perfect

I gather from the tone of this remark that you disagree with my conclusion.
I mentioned in my post that I was busy today (casting correction sets for various kits), so I just grabbed the first pic I saw to show the area in question.
I'll try to find time tomorrow to look through my Tomcat folder for pics showing that the green line is more correct.
In the mean time can you please post one pic showing the red line is correct?  :tumble:

 

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zactoman said:

 

 

I gather from the tone of this remark that you disagree with my conclusion.
.....
In the mean time can you please post one pic showing the red line is correct?  :tumble:

:cheers:

 

No, but close.

 

I would do such a thing (post a picture) if I had F-14 D in my backyard and AMK kit in my hand.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, skuki said:

No, but close.

I would do such a thing (post a picture) if I had F-14 D in my backyard and AMK kit in my hand.

Having both would make it easier to diagnose the underlying reason that these problems exist, but not necessary to see and identify the problems themselves.

 

:cheers:

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...