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

AMK 1/48 F-14!!!

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, FlyAndFight said:

This thread has become the Kramer painting of ARC...


“It is a loathsome, offensive thread. Yet I can’t look away.”
 

1675559828_AMKKramer.jpg.40228045d3ce4e1ccbd83e984ec4a53f.jpg

 

You WIN!

Share this post


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

 

airdwg55.jpg


The 3 Grumman F-14A drawings shown above (each over 10,000 X 4,000 pixels) can be purchased ($3.00) and downloaded here:
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/

 

Here is one of the best side profile pics I've found of the nose section of an F-14D:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Navy/Grumman-F-14D-Tomcat/842204/L

 

The drawings are a very close match to the photo.

The rear canopy on the photo is slightly taller (more blown) than the drawing, but I seem to recall reading that the D did have a taller rear canopy than the A (can any knowledgable Tomcat fans confirm?).

 

I haven't had time to do any analysis since photos of the completed build were released.
Areas that caught my eye were the nose, canopy and wing gloves.
I'm also curious as to why there is a big gap between the slat and glove. Do the separate slats actually match up to the wing? Do they match the slats on the wings that have them molded closed?

 

I'm waiting to see a build with the wings swept to see how the wing position will impact fixing the rear section.

 

:cheers:

 

 

Thanks...

 

There picture over AMK model. Looks spot on even though AMK model actually has an angle. It would actually fit even better if the model was pictured better:

 

55.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


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

A factory drawing is not a blue print! Blueprints are accurate in shape and layout. Drawings are just a work aid, and not anything more. 

Gary

Word.

Share this post


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

 

I wonder who has contributed more to this thread? Those who actually discuss the model and the potential issues or its features, or those that complain about the thread? :whistle:

 

Or we can spin this to e.g. 'I wonder who has contributed less to this thread? Those who complain about the way this particular model accuracy is discussed in the thread or those who complain about the former'.

 

Complaining about complaining seems to take a big chunk of the posts, including your good buddy there.

 

This self-indulging us vs them attitude is only going to produce more and more clutter (this post included).

Edited by ijozic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ijozic said:

 

Or we can spin this to e.g. 'I wonder who has contributed less to this thread? Those who complain about the way this particular model accuracy is discussed in the thread or those who complain about the former'.

 

Complaining about complaining seems to take a big chunk of the posts, including your good buddy there.

 

This self-indulging us vs them attitude is only going to produce more and more clutter (this post included).

 

Yes, you're right. I apologize for the post. I thought it would be a humorous idea, but it only contributed to the negativity. I was wrong.

Share this post


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

There picture over AMK model. Looks spot on even though AMK model actually has an angle. It would actually fit even better if the model was pictured better:

 

55.jpg

 

Your overlay actually gives weight to the assumption that the canopy is too short and you did this without using the Grumman drawings but the photo of an actual aircraft. Materialize the rear edge of the canopy and see for yourself.

Share this post


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

 

 

Thanks...

 

There picture over AMK model. Looks spot on even though AMK model actually has an angle. It would actually fit even better if the model was pictured better:

 

55.jpg

 

 

 

 

The AMK kits looks pretty darn close in this pic. Thanks Mulder (Everyone on the show called him Mulder :thumbsup:). The only question I have is about the rear cockpit. The seat position doesn't appear to be lining up. One comparison pic is not conclusive, of course, but that areas bears closer scrutiny. Otherwise the shapes look real good. Like you inferred, the angle of the photo of the model may be effecting things. We need a straight on side shot.

Share this post


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

 

 

Thanks...

 

There picture over AMK model. Looks spot on even though AMK model actually has an angle. It would actually fit even better if the model was pictured better:

 

55.jpg

 

 

 

I don’t have the kit photo to do it myself, so this is just a 2 minutes work, the only point is that your overlay is not transparent enough to review any potential issue, see the noticeably different distance between the seats in my side by side picture, despite the fact that the pictures are roughly the same length. I'm surprised that you didn't notice it while doing the overlay yourself.

 

Vwxio1R.jpg

Edited by delide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

A factory drawing is not a blue print! Blueprints are accurate in shape and layout. Drawings are just a work aid, and not anything more. 

Gary

What a factory drawing or blue print is or does, I don't think that matter here, a drawing might be based on the blue print, who knows? So in the end it might just as well match closely with the blue print/real thing. Anyway, I don’t think anyone is drawing conclusion here, but the fact that Zactoman used the drawing of A to reveal the difference in the rear canopies , which not many seems to know about, shows that the drawing is probably quite accurate and useful. 

Edited by delide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just received email from HobbyEasy about postage costs for F-14D, but they clarify that they still don't have kit, but will reach it soon. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Laurent said:

 

Your overlay actually gives weight to the assumption that the canopy is too short and you did this without using the Grumman drawings but the photo of an actual aircraft. Materialize the rear edge of the canopy and see for yourself.

I see, you're right, the overlay does suggest that the canopy of the kit is too short, it ends at about where the plexiglass of the real thing ends.

Share this post


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

I have just received email from HobbyEasy about postage costs for F-14D, but they clarify that they still don't have kit, but will reach it soon. 🙂

Me too…
The TOMCAT is NEAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, delide said:

What a factory drawing or blue print is or does, I don't think that matter here, a drawing might be based on the blue print, who knows? So in the end it might just as well match closely with the blue print/real thing. Anyway, I don’t think anyone is drawing conclusion here, but the fact that Zactoman used the drawing of A to reveal the difference in the rear canopies , which not many seems to know about, shows that the drawing is probably quite accurate and useful. 

Oh, but it dose! A drawing just gives you numbers and where they reside. True shapes come from blue prints, and not drawings. Ask an engineer

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ChesshireCat said:

True shapes come from blue prints, and not drawings.

As delide has suggested, some drawings are based on blueprints.

The YF-23 drawings available through that website happen to be very accurate with a bunch of cross sections that all happen to fit within the envelope of the whole and match the various views provided in the drawings. With a typical drawing this is almost never the case.

I've only done a brief check on these F-14 drawings, but they do seem to be pretty accurate. Close enough for government work (or plastic modelers) and better than any of the published drawings that I've found on the internet or in books. They certainly aren't complete though, with many external details omitted and lots of internal components included that most of us won't utilize. The general outlines and external components that are included seem to be accurate in shape and location so I'd imagine the internal components are as well.

I guess we'll have to wait for @gtypecanare to provide us with those loft-llines to confirm! :woot.gif:

 

:cheers:

 

Share this post


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

Oh, but it dose! A drawing just gives you numbers and where they reside. True shapes come from blue prints, and not drawings. Ask an engineer

 

Ok, I am a degreed engineer with many years of experience in creating both drawings and blueprints.  I have one question for you. 

 

Where do you think blueprints come from?

 

Drawings made on either mylar or tracing paper are analogous to photographic negatives (or slides) used to make photographic prints. In this analogy the prints are blueprints made from drawings. . 

 

Now in this day and age CAD systems and large plotter printers have pretty much made mechanical drafting and the resulting real blueprints extinct, but the same truth holds - prints of any kind come from drawings. It’s not a “ chicken or egg” kind of scenario. 

 

I must say though I do not miss the smell of ammonia.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, habu2 said:

 

Ok, I am a degreed engineer with many years of experience in creating both drawings and blueprints.  I have one question for you. 

 

Where do you think blueprints come from?

 

Drawings made on either mylar or tracing paper are analogous to photographic negatives (or slides) used to make photographic prints. In this analogy the prints are blueprints made from drawings. . 

 

Now in this day and age CAD systems and large plotter printers have pretty much made mechanical drafting and the resulting real blueprints extinct, but the same truth holds - prints of any kind come from drawings. It’s not a “ chicken or egg” kind of scenario. 

 

I must say though I do not miss the smell of ammonia.....

 

 

Not an engineer, but wouldn't it make more sense if drawings came from blueprints and not the other way around? I mean, how accurate can be a drawing to drive the creation of a blueprint. And how many times can anyone draw something accurately the same at all times? Honestly asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, most published drawings aren't based on factory blueprints, they are drawn by outsiders (for example, a graphic artist at an aviation mag, or just a fanatical enthusiast). People working with incomplete and often contradictory data. Acquiring accurate factory drawings is a lottery win. Even then, there is a lot going on in the 90 degrees between those orthogonal planes, and judgment, experience and talent come into play.

 

Not an engineer, but I am a CAD pro, and for years now I've been modeling one particular airplane for my own amusement. Even with good drawings, excellent documentary publications and thousands upon thousands of walkaround photos, this stuff is really hard. It's not just math and geometry, it's art.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DIO said:

Not an engineer, but wouldn't it make more sense if drawings came from blueprints and not the other way around? 

 

No.

 

Rather than re-write facts, this is copied from the wikipedia page for "blueprint"

 

Quote

A blueprint is a reproduction of a technical drawing using a contact print process on light-sensitive sheets. Introduced by Sir John Herschel in 1842,[1] the process allowed rapid, and accurate, production of an unlimited number of copies. It was widely used for over a century for the reproduction of specification drawings used in construction and industry. The blueprint process was characterised by white lines on a blue background, a negative of the original. 

 

Read here :  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint   for the blueprinting process and the various chemicals involved.  It's not that different than the more recent "Xerox" copier.

 

You work from blueprints so that the original drawing remains unmolested.  If there was ever a question on the blueprint (copy) you always refer back to the drawing (original).  Only the engineer (or draftsman) can change the original drawing, and he notes any changes in the revision box with dates and initials to track the change(s).  New blueprint copies are then made from the updated original for the fabricators to work from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me this tread is helpfull to find what I need to correct or improve, when the kit arrives.


Ejections seats
Wheels
Hips shape
Fuel probe bay
GPS
TARP pod

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, some things may be lost/modified in the "sausage-making" between official blueprint and drawings which may have other purposes/customers. Then, too, times have changed and there are proprietary and other reasons a company might not provide accurate, detailed factory plans for a high-performance weapon that millions were spent to spec, design and test.

 

Edited by Space Tiger Hobbes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, habu2 said:

You work from blueprints so that the original drawing remains unmolested.  If there was ever a question on the blueprint (copy) you always refer back to the drawing (original).  Only the engineer (or draftsman) can change the original drawing, and he notes any changes in the revision box with dates and initials to track the change(s).  New blueprint copies are then made from the updated original for the fabricators to work from.

 

I know this is all straying a bit off topic (well more than a bit), but the idea of version control is interesting to me. In software development (if the company is smart), they institute a strict process of version control, where all changes to software are documented and copies of the software at its various states are saved. Did companies like Grumman keep copies of the plans at various states like they do with software these days? I'm talking about back in the day of physical paper plans and blueprints. I'm sure that using CAD software a similar system of version control can be maintained fairly easily. Just wondering if somewhere in dusty old Grumman vaults (that is whoever owns Grumman these days) there are reams of plans documenting the evolution of an aircraft like the F-14.

Share this post


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

Did companies like Grumman keep copies of the plans at various states like they do with software these days? I'm talking about back in the day of physical paper plans and blueprints. 

 

I didn’t work at Grumman, but yes, copies were kept.  The originals, usually pencil on paper or ink on mylar, were copied at each revision level. These copies were called sepias, made in a manner similar to blueprint copies, except the sepia paper was translucent (like paper or mylar) and could also be used as a source for blueprint copies. Originals and sepias, usually E sized (30” x 42”) were stored in large filing cabinets (some horizontal, some vertical). 

 

Good info here:   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shop_drawing

 

Each drawing was assigned a specific number. The architectural projects I was on used a three part numbering convention where the first group identified the building/project, second was the drawing type (structural, electrical, plumbing etc) and the third was a sequential number. This, with the revision process, was a form of configuration control. Later in my career I was a software configuration control manager and my experience on shop drawings made it easy to treat software in much the same way.  

 

I guess the point of this topic digression is that blueprints are valuable references, but they are dimensionally and geometrically accurate copies of a specific revision level of the original drawing(s).

 

.

Edited by habu2
late night typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a company such as Grumman sub-contract airframe parts to other manufacturers?  If so,  how tight were the tolerances on actual shape? Does the possibility exist of there being subtle shape differences from airframe to airframe due to different manufacturers?  That would really suck if it did- so i certainly hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, although I love AMK F-14, is easier to accept that there are some minor issues with the kit instead to try and figure out under which circumstances would the blueprints or drawings be wrong!

 

Same issues like with any other kit I guess. Pretty sure that the other "perfect kit" has some of those too...

 

Will soon be comparing the two and honestly, I can't wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subcontracting is definitely the norm. The F/A-18 is probably the best example at a high level. Northrop manufactures the mid & aft fuselage and McAir - Now  Boeing - manufactures the nose and wings. LTV built a large part of the Rockwell B-1B fuselage, LTV also built the fuselage of the Lockheed S-3.  There are many more examples. 

 

Any manufactured part has manufacturing tolerances, they are called out in the drawings. The tolerances depend on the specific part and application. Aircraft tolerances might be in the order of hundredths of inches, buildings might be +/- an inch or so. There is also the concept of stack tolerances, the accumulation of all the individual part tolerances in the assembled part. 

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...