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

AMK 1/48 F-14!!!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mstor said:

Oh, I'm not referring to AMK and its F-14. What done is done with that kit. I just talking about model companies in general. This is the kind of service that they should be taking advantage of. Accurate scans of the actual aircraft. I would think that would be a good starting point for the manufacture of an accurate scale model. Of course, there is still the translation of these scans into 3D models (which this company appears to do) and then into the injection molds used to make the parts. Many places where compromises might be required due to the limitations of injection molding technologies which may lead to inaccuracies. One interesting feature of some new models is the inclusion of cast resin parts. Usually cockpits, ejections seats, or jet exhausts. We may see the inclusion of more cast resin or even 3D printed parts in the future as a way around injection molding limitations. It is, after all, "scale modeling", where we are trying to make models look as much like the real thing as possible. It is the force that has driven the many improvements in scale models over the years. Now we can take a laser and capture all the subtle lines and curves of any airframe. Wow! Welcome to the future! :thumbsup2:

 

Yep, there is great potential out there. And the more detail we get, the more we will be adding on top... Great times are coming!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fairly certain that Airfix/Hornby is doing 3D scans already (of at least some subjects) or at least that's what I remember reading. Although I could just as easily be mistaken?

Edited by madmanrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 5:06 PM, Zactoman said:

 

👽👽👽Let's not forget the upcoming Area 51 raid! 👽👽👽


There's still a chance that if we successfully capture one of them aliens we can get it to roll back the clock so that everybody had a kit under the Christmas tree several years ago. :santa:

:smiley-transport006:
There's also a chance that we could convince the aliens to go back in time to fix the tooling and maybe even include pilot figures (un-buildable without!).

 

Here's the countdown clock: https://timeanddate.com/s/3zbs

I'm providing the clock with Las Vegas time since most of our team will be partying there before and after the raid. :beer4:
For those not participating in the raid, wish us luck (I think we'll need it!)!!! :smiley-transport023:

 

:cheers:

 

 

It's warmer here in Vegas than I was expecting!
Most of the team is here, the rest showing up any time now. Vegas is partying tonight! Seems we weren't the only ones planning to see them aliens! :banana:
Fortunately we found a shuttle bus that will drop us 1/4 mile from the front gate so the beers are flowing. :cheers:
Wish us luck...
We might need it:

BNL_51_zpsrlqqvmsm.jpg

 

:hmmm: :dontknow: :pray:

Share this post


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

 

It's warmer here in Vegas than I was expecting!
Most of the team is here, the rest showing up any time now. Vegas is partying tonight! Seems we weren't the only ones planning to see them aliens! :banana:
Fortunately we found a shuttle bus that will drop us 1/4 mile from the front gate so the beers are flowing. :cheers:
Wish us luck...
We might need it:

BNL_51_zpsrlqqvmsm.jpg

 

:hmmm: :dontknow: :pray:

 

 

Take pictures!!!! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zacto you really went! I thought you were kidding.  Hope you could give us a play by play : )  I'm a big fan of Bob Lazar but not so sure if he would"ve approved of this haha.

Share this post


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

 

It's warmer here in Vegas than I was expecting!
Most of the team is here, the rest showing up any time now. Vegas is partying tonight! Seems we weren't the only ones planning to see them aliens! :banana:
Fortunately we found a shuttle bus that will drop us 1/4 mile from the front gate so the beers are flowing. :cheers:
Wish us luck...
We might need it:

BNL_51_zpsrlqqvmsm.jpg

 

:hmmm: :dontknow: :pray:

 

The future of humanity rests on your shoulders now. Our hopes and prayers are with you. 

Go git 'em! :smiley-transport023::salute:  :gr_eek2:

Share this post


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

 

 

Just one more digression to hopefully clear up this confusion. As I understand it now, blueprints are documents that are created from the original plans (drawings). I think what ChesshireCat is referring to are drawings such as the ones Zactoman posted, that probably did come after any blueprints (and original plans/drawings) were created. A confusion of semantics?

 

Now back to the F-14....

 

 

If there were one close to me, I'd would love to do just that. Unfortunately, health problems keep me pretty close to home most of the time. In any case, I am sure there are a number of F-14s on display around the USA. How easy it would be to get close enough for useful pics or scanning is something others may be more familiar with. I will say this though, the F-14 has been photographed extensively. I don't know that more photos would prove that useful. Scanning, on the other hand, would be extremely useful (IMHO). Just my two bits worth.

I did work for TACOM for 13 years till I finally found an open door. Keep in mind that if the Fed invests a dollar in the project, it's theirs. They constantly revise blue prints, but do little with drawings used on the work floor. With that in mind you find yourself in the print room daily. What your looking for is the latest revision, and at times they still are not up to date. It takes a serious clearence to access many of them. Just the nature of the beast that controlls everything. They are never committed to DVD, and you can go strait to Leavenworth. Computers have no hard drives in most cases ( mine did).  Even then they often took a peek when I was home asleep. Hard drives are often removable with a lock and key. I had around fifteen hard drives I worked off of. The pass words were a nightmare!  I've had visits from the FBI more than I like. 

       In a factory doing military work, everything belongs to the Fed most of the time. A lot of stuff they don't monitor closely. My big PC was replaced in the middle of the night. It had a hard drive in it, and it was funny watching EDS dumpster diving with the FBI standing over them. The others, they had no interest in as they had no hard drives. I soon learned that the 2400 prints on file belonged to Uncle Sam! That is the only time I ever saw prints on a DVD, and even then they took the master. 

       The above seemed excessive to me, but I wasn't gonna argue with them. They even retained tooling prints and machine part prints! This is why I've learned to distrust drawings. Only one company since the Korean War has retained ownership of all the blue prints, and it's not who you think it is.

Gary

Share this post


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

I did work for TACOM for 13 years till I finally found an open door. Keep in mind that if the Fed invests a dollar in the project, it's theirs. They constantly revise blue prints, but do little with drawings used on the work floor. With that in mind you find yourself in the print room daily. What your looking for is the latest revision, and at times they still are not up to date. It takes a serious clearence to access many of them. Just the nature of the beast that controlls everything. They are never committed to DVD, and you can go strait to Leavenworth. Computers have no hard drives in most cases ( mine did).  Even then they often took a peek when I was home asleep. Hard drives are often removable with a lock and key. I had around fifteen hard drives I worked off of. The pass words were a nightmare!  I've had visits from the FBI more than I like. 

       In a factory doing military work, everything belongs to the Fed most of the time. A lot of stuff they don't monitor closely. My big PC was replaced in the middle of the night. It had a hard drive in it, and it was funny watching EDS dumpster diving with the FBI standing over them. The others, they had no interest in as they had no hard drives. I soon learned that the 2400 prints on file belonged to Uncle Sam! That is the only time I ever saw prints on a DVD, and even then they took the master. 

       The above seemed excessive to me, but I wasn't gonna argue with them. They even retained tooling prints and machine part prints! This is why I've learned to distrust drawings. Only one company since the Korean War has retained ownership of all the blue prints, and it's not who you think it is.

Gary

 

Fascinating. Thanks for that info. I've been learning a lot today :hmmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I am here for the Area 51 raid so will not have too many opportunities for commenting. . .

 

But have to say that Yes,  Airfix is using some 3D scanning for kit developments. They do make a full scan, but it is only used as an aid in CAD designing. The actual CAD is generated from Zero in a very “manual” way and the 3D scan is ONLY used as a reference and even then not followed down to the line. It is very sad! A classic way of how not to use the 3D scan was the design by Tom at Airfix of the new MiG-17 kit in 72nd scale with some hilarious mistakes. This Tom person had his own ideas as to how the aircraft should look. :bandhead2:   :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:   In the end the 3D scan was ignored, so the fact that a company is using 3D scan of the real subject is not a guaranty for a perfect kit!!!!!!!

OK, Artistic license one could say but in the case of Airfix MiG-17 the end result is a pile of s. . . . :wmsmiley-poop-hits-the-fan:

 

We are going in soon so have to stop now.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May the force be with you 😜😜😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ya-gabor said:

OK, Artistic license one could say but in the case of Airfix MiG-17 the end result is a pile of s. . . . :wmsmiley-poop-hits-the-fan:

 

Lets be pragmatic. What's the best turd: DML or Airfix ?

Share this post


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

I did work for TACOM for 13 years till I finally found an open door. Keep in mind that if the Fed invests a dollar in the project, it's theirs. They constantly revise blue prints, but do little with drawings used on the work floor. With that in mind you find yourself in the print room daily. What your looking for is the latest revision, and at times they still are not up to date. It takes a serious clearence to access many of them. Just the nature of the beast that controlls everything. They are never committed to DVD, and you can go strait to Leavenworth. Computers have no hard drives in most cases ( mine did).  Even then they often took a peek when I was home asleep. Hard drives are often removable with a lock and key. I had around fifteen hard drives I worked off of. The pass words were a nightmare!  I've had visits from the FBI more than I like. 

       In a factory doing military work, everything belongs to the Fed most of the time. A lot of stuff they don't monitor closely. My big PC was replaced in the middle of the night. It had a hard drive in it, and it was funny watching EDS dumpster diving with the FBI standing over them. The others, they had no interest in as they had no hard drives. I soon learned that the 2400 prints on file belonged to Uncle Sam! That is the only time I ever saw prints on a DVD, and even then they took the master. 

       The above seemed excessive to me, but I wasn't gonna argue with them. They even retained tooling prints and machine part prints! This is why I've learned to distrust drawings. Only one company since the Korean War has retained ownership of all the blue prints, and it's not who you think it is.

Gary

Not to make this a big issue, but the process to physically revise a blueprint is much more complicated than it is to revised the original drawing and remake a new set of revised blueprints. I've done it but it was many many years ago. If I recall you have to make a sepia transfer back onto paper that can be exposed to create a new blue print. Then "white-out" the lines you want to change. Then you have to re-expose the sepia to make a new blueprint in the ammonia solution. You COULD just white-out the blue print and revise it but the problem with that is if anyone makes a new blueprint from the original you then have a set of prints that are not the latest revision, and it looks really bad. There may be other techniques that I'm not aware of. Plus it's not like you're drawing with a white pencil/pen on blue paper. When you see a blueprint, what's happening is the black lines that are created on the original drawing is blocking the exposure light from passing through the paper and what's not blocked gets exposed. The ammonia solution changes the color of everything that was exposed to blue thus leaving the lines white. I wasn't in the field when actual blueprints were used but rather we did blue line drawings which is essentially the same but opposite. That's why drafters use blue lead to make sketches before you finalize everything in lead or ink. The blue lead doesn't show up on a blue line or blue print. I still think what you're referring to is the difference between construction prints and simple line drawings. There is a difference. But you typically would not do any drawing on a blue print. Not saying it didn't happen but it wouldn't be very practical. Sorry for the digression just wanted to explain how blueprints are made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

They do make a full scan, but it is only used as an aid in CAD designing. The actual CAD is generated from Zero in a very “manual” way and the 3D scan is ONLY used as a reference and even then not followed down to the line.

Well, the OTHER issue with using 3D scans is that one needs to be certain that they are scanning an accurate subject. In other words, if scanning a museum aircraft, you would need to be careful that the restoration was spot on. There have been some notorious museum fails over the years. Not all are as meticulous and that should at least be a consideration. It is also true that the fails do come more often than not with inaccurate paint work, but sadly, it isn't confined solely to paint in some museums. 

Share this post


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

Well, the OTHER issue with using 3D scans is that one needs to be certain that they are scanning an accurate subject. In other words, if scanning a museum aircraft, you would need to be careful that the restoration was spot on. There have been some notorious museum fails over the years. Not all are as meticulous and that should at least be a consideration. It is also true that the fails do come more often than not with inaccurate paint work, but sadly, it isn't confined solely to paint in some museums. 

 

Can you give us some examples Rick? As you stated there's paint jobs, which is the only thing I'm able to think of about this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an inaccurate paint job can change the contours of an aircraft and factory blueprints/drawings are notoriously inaccurate, that's funny stuff right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be completely fair, there are cases where weld plates and brackets etc...were mistakenly added to models because they were on museum examples. Sure this isn't necessarily going to change the general contours of an aircraft, but it does sometimes lead to inaccurate models when they follow some museum restorations. So he's not completely wrong there. But to get an accurate shape on an aircraft I could see starting with a 3d scan and then compare with photos to ensure the details are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Whiskey said:

 

Can you give us some examples Rick? As you stated there's paint jobs, which is the only thing I'm able to think of about this subject.

 

Let's just say "nun's hat" 🙂

 

Examples of non-3D scanned errors due to copying of non-standard detail: Tamiya 1:32 F-4 (battle damage patches), Czech Model F3D (ex-Raytheon test bird with added ducting etc.)...

 

I don't think that a 1:1 translation of 3D scan data into a CAD model is a sensible method for creating a scale model. A 3D scan will give you and unbelievable amount of surface data, too much and too "noisy" to work with. You need to clean it all up and create workable shapes. Even cross sections from a 3D scan contain too much data - clean cross sections with a vastly reduced point count need to be created in order to create something usable and that's best done from scratch. The 3D scan (plus drawings, measurement data and photos) will work as a constant reference object, not just for shape check, but also for detail creation and location.

 

Jeffrey

Share this post


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

No hay descripción de la foto disponible. Green dots…
:whistle:

WTF is that suppose to be?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

WTF is that suppose to be?!?

Looks like an Illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator

Share this post


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

Looks like an Illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator

 

Close, but not quite. Here's the Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator (also know as the P.U. 36 Space Modulator)

 

The_Uranium_PU-36_Explosive_Space_Modulator.jpg.be47d74dd49b040d159e8ed5df82cf61.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mstor said:

 

Close, but not quite. Here's the Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator (also know as the P.U. 36 Space Modulator)

 

The_Uranium_PU-36_Explosive_Space_Modulator.jpg.be47d74dd49b040d159e8ed5df82cf61.jpg

Ah yes, quite right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

Sorry, I am here for the Area 51 raid so will not have too many opportunities for commenting. . .

 

But have to say that Yes,  Airfix is using some 3D scanning for kit developments. They do make a full scan, but it is only used as an aid in CAD designing. The actual CAD is generated from Zero in a very “manual” way and the 3D scan is ONLY used as a reference and even then not followed down to the line. It is very sad! A classic way of how not to use the 3D scan was the design by Tom at Airfix of the new MiG-17 kit in 72nd scale with some hilarious mistakes. This Tom person had his own ideas as to how the aircraft should look. :bandhead2:   :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:   In the end the 3D scan was ignored, so the fact that a company is using 3D scan of the real subject is not a guaranty for a perfect kit!!!!!!!

OK, Artistic license one could say but in the case of Airfix MiG-17 the end result is a pile of s. . . . :wmsmiley-poop-hits-the-fan:

 

We are going in soon so have to stop now.

 

Best regards

Gabor

I never knew or heard of area fifty one back in the seventies. Stopped on the side of the road to take a break while heading to Virginia City. I lit a cigar while leaning against my motorcycle, and instantly found myself surrounded by folks I didn't know. Stay away from there!

Glt

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...