AMK 1/48 F-14!!!

[Whiskey]

36 minutes ago, Andrea Bolla said:

 

Considering that this thread is about the kit and not about fancy reviews I'm not moving the goalpost at all: I have the kit, courtesy of my wallet, so I can check the real thing before spamming whatever BS found over the net.

 

Surface detail is exactly like any other top quality kit (after my post I also looked at a KH Su-34 through the same micro and it has a slightly larger panel lines with a better surface finish, I have not added those pictures to my post because I changed the micro setup a bit so to be correct I should have re-took all the snapshots again), parting lines are present but, apart causing a little mismatch in a couple of panel lines as noted by italian review you posted above, they are much smaller than they look in those photos (those on my canopy took just a couple of minutes of a polishing nail soft stick to be removed) and flowmarks are not common at all, maybe present only in an early batch.

 

Now that's an opinion I can gladly read. So based upon your observations with the kit in hand, you're saying that some of the panel depth/width/ etc. issues are exaggerated by photography? Just want to make sure I am interpreting that correctly is all.

[shion]

1 hour ago, Andrea Bolla said:

 

Considering that this thread is about the kit and not about fancy reviews I'm not moving the goalpost at all: I have the kit, courtesy of my wallet, so I can check the real thing before spamming whatever BS found over the net.

 

Your words or more precisely your choice of words contradict your message.

These are not "fancy reviews", these are reviews of people who actually build the kit for one and analyse the kit and compare it with Grumman blueprints for the other.

So it is not fiction, fantasy or BS like you write, it's real.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Surface detail is exactly like any other top quality kit (after my post I also looked at a KH Su-34 through the same micro and it has a slightly larger panel lines with a better surface finish, I have not added those pictures to my post because I changed the micro setup a bit so to be correct I should have re-took all the snapshots again), parting lines are present but, apart causing a little mismatch in a couple of panel lines as noted by italian review you posted above, they are much smaller than they look in those photos (those on my canopy took just a couple of minutes of a polishing nail soft stick to be removed) and flowmarks are not common at all, maybe present only in an early batch.

 

Nope.

I never saw this kind of rough surface finish on a Hasegawa or a Tamiya kit or Revell, so no these surface finish is not exactly like any other quality kit. Period.

 

And the flowmarks and others surface blemishes are present on the kit of the italian reviewer too, kit bought  "in a shop in Rome".

 

 

And about the size of the panel lines, we already saw a pertinent comparaison:

Source:https://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=129855&hilit=amk&start=120

 

 

 

Dark grey is AMK kit (obviously) and light grey is Tamiya.

Edited January 14, 2020 by shion

[Sio]

13 hours ago, Zactoman said:

 

 

 

 

And while you're at it Sio, please answer the questions I asked after you posted this: 

 

I replied here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/285277-amk-148-f-14/&do=findComment&comment=2983930

But you ignored my post and left the accusation hanging out there.

 

Are you accusing me of something or are you accusing Terry (HazMAT Models owner)?
What design of yours was stolen/sold? Who was it sold to?
Did AMK receive permission from Terry to use the HazMAT LAU-3 and LAU-68 parts in your weapon set?

 

 

Respected?   Though I don't think everybody here agrees, thank you sir.
For the record, I have personally had no interactions with AMK other than the banter on this thread.
I did work with HazMAT Models who hired AMK to tool the failed Bronco project. I quit HazMAT before finding out that they had given up on AMK finishing the Bronco tooling. I no longer work for any other company other than Zactomodels. And no, Zactomodels is not a competitor of AMK.

 

 

Zactoman,

 

Are you calling me? Really! I don't know you!

 

Be honest, you are free to talk as a modeler for what ever you want to talk about a kit. I will accept every opinion from modelers. I can tell, all of our design different to other manufacturers, are all opinions from modelers, even some may like it, while some may not.

 

If you are working for other manufacturer talking anything bad about AMK kits, I will certainly fight back! As your last sentence saying, I believe, you are not working with AMK Tomcat 3D design now.

 

As a resin part producer, if you want to create flaws for your resin business, I think it is better you create you own thread. Can I ask you a question also? Does AMK kits are that bad as you were mentioning? Nothing is good? Modelers are not blind!

 

What you quoted here is not everything about you! You can say I am accusing you, as what said in this thread is nothing good about AMK kit, but I don't think most of the modelers think so. As long as you were working with Terry (It is ok to mention the name here, as he is a Chinese and he can change his English all the time.), and he is the one stole our Tomcat design, and sold it to another manufacturer. I don't need to name it, as most of the modelers may see, how come the design is so similar.

 

For using LAU-3 and LAU-68 parts, I don't need permission of anyone. I made all the molds whiteout being paid with any cent neither any picture. They are my molds, and now AMK's.

 

You DID help for the design of Bronco! Did you check the shape of the aircraft and building of parts? Do you know why it was not coming out? THIS IS REALLY FUNNY! And now, you are challenging AMK Tomcat design and plastics without anything good?

 

Shion is not the same group as you! I will talk as necessary!

 

So everyone please do what ever you want to do, enjoy modeling, enjoy your life, be happy here! If I am happy too, I will send 3 Tomcats to the first one reach 400 pages. This is just want to have some funs with you guys.

[shion]

5 minutes ago, Sio said:

 

...and he is the one stole our Tomcat design, and sold it to another manufacturer. I don't need to name it, as most of the modelers may see, how come the design is so similar.

 

For using LAU-3 and LAU-68 parts, I don't need permission of anyone. I made all the molds whiteout being paid with any cent neither any picture. They are my molds, and now AMK's.

 

 

[Andrea Bolla]

23 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

 

Now that's an opinion I can gladly read. So based upon your observations with the kit in hand, you're saying that some of the panel depth/width/ etc. issues are exaggerated by photography? Just want to make sure I am interpreting that correctly is all.

 

All the well known shape issues are there (hips, IFR, tailerons, MLG oleo compression), up to you if consider them a deal breaker or not.

 

IMHO the most annoying one is the IFR because it's so emphasized by the paint line running nearby; to my eyes the most offending problem in the hips area is the wrong cross section of outer engine nacelle extending to the inflatable bags, the extra width being negligible; for the taileron shape I doubt I can spot the difference on a built model so again it's up to your personal knowledge of the subject; I'm used to replace LG oleos with polished metal rods whenever possible so this one is not a grat problem for me.

 

Panel lines width, as wrote in a previous post, is a matter of personal taste: this kit has the very same panel width as the GWH Su-35 while KH Su-34 have them slightly larger (10% more or less) with same depth; someone may find them too big, someone consider HB even bigger, someone rescribes both a Tamiya and a HB...

 

Size apart some of the surface detail is missing as well documented.

 

Speaking about molds and production quality my kit has none of the defects noted by Dave or Zacto nor it has any broken or scratched part as noted by italian reviewer so maybe those problems are just restricted to an early batch; parting lines are present but they are much exaggerated by photography than they are in real life (both my canopy lines took a fraction of the time I needed to clean the only one seam on a Hase F-15J) but they are not all the same size (again in my canopy the area on the rear right was worse than the area on the front) and it's true that some panel lines running across them needs some fix; there are also a lot of ejector pin marks, quite annoying but not more than in similar kits.

[Andrea Bolla]

25 minutes ago, shion said:

Your words or more precisely your choice of words contradict your message.

These are not "fancy reviews", these are reviews of people who actually build the kit for one and analyse the kit and compare it with Grumman blueprints for the other.

So it is not fiction, fantasy or BS like you write, it's real.

 

English is not my first language, so maybe my choice of words is not always perfect.

 

The "fancy review" I was talking about is the one you quoted in bold and it's quite obvious that it's much more a promo than a review.

 

I never denied that there are differences between the kit and Grumman blueprints and never said the shape of this kit is perfect too.

 

For sure they are fantasy or BS both the "machining marks" and all the "problems" around infamous part U2 in the japanese video.

 

For panel lines width up to your taste... maybe we could ask Janissary why he dared to desecrate the holy Tamiya rescribing it.

 

[shion]

The machinemarks are not bullshit, there are here, on the cockpit side and on the intake walls.

It all depends on the type of paint you used and the way you airbrushed your kit. With some kind of airbrush work, like the one of the author of Tom Models Kits, these machinemarks will "rise up". Reason why he sanded the whole kit and put coats of surfacer/check/sand/re-surfacer. Others will not use surfacer (and don't know what it is).

 

The problem with part U2 is here too. Reason why there are so many kits with this singular seam between the main fuselage and the radar cover.

Otherwise, why did AMK had to hide this area on the the promo shots ? 

 

And, I saw Janissary  very good WIP months ago.

He hasn't widden, but deepen the panel lines, just in case (as he said) they would disappear during the paint job.

And he said himself having see others builds of this kit with non-deepen panel lines still there.

So no, there's per se no problem with the size of the Tamiya kit, it's just the precaution one modeller took.

 

 

[Whiskey]

Well this turned into a real "manure" show. Imma go drink a beer and leave it alone for a while. Somebody call me when there is something worthwhile to discuss again.

[Mstor]

8 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

Well this turned into a real "manure" show. Imma go drink a beer and leave it alone for a while. Somebody call me when there is something worthwhile to discuss again.

 

I'm with you, though I don't drink anymore, so I think I'll have a Snickers bar. (just imagine one of those little smileys toasting with a candy bar instead of a mug of frosty cold goodness. I do miss my beer, sigh).

[GW8345]

17 hours ago, bushande said:

Just in order to return to examining the kit and poitning out things one could address rather than picking on each other .... the panel lines around the position lights on the LEX zone on the wing glove should be rescribed. This should be a rather easy fix for any builder and no reason to hit on the kit and AMK for that. Just stating my observation. The pos. light openings do have another form. Later on, many birds received a partial cover resulting in the shape AMK tried to depict but the actual opening remained the same. Sometimes the cover would be painted, sometimes not. GW8345 among others could certainly further elaborate on this, I suppose.

The shape of these pos. lights is not quite right in general. I would suggest that serious modellers fill in the openings and panel lines and rescribe / correct the openings. That is what I at least would do, if I had the kit.

 

My opinion is that the wing glove lights do look a little "off" but I don't think it's a big deal, just fill them in and re-scribe them since there were variations due to who the lens was masked when the aircraft was painted.

 

I will say that there are some panel lines that are off but I don't think it's an issue I need to point out because 99.999% of people will never see them so why "dog pile" on the kit when there are other issues that just jump out at anyone familiar with the F-14.

11 hours ago, andrew.deboer said:

And here’s my nose section with a shot of Tamiya primer straight from the can (not my preferred method); radome seam looks OK. For those of you wondering about the rivet pattern on the panel above the gun, that’s what the real thing looks like. Also, I know the three vents need to be removed from the top of the nose - not found on the D.

Just a technical correction.

The three rain removal nozzles are accurate for a F-14D(R). A F-14D(R) is a F-14A re-manufactured to F-14D standards. You can identify a F-14D(R) if the BUNO starts with 159xxx (originally Block 85) or 161xxx (originally Block 110).

 

If you are doing a F-14D with a BUNO that starts with 163xxx or 164xxx, then it would have the "straight bar" rain removal nozzle. If you are going an F-14D with a BUNO that starts with 159xxx or 161xxx, then you are fine with the three nozzles.

Edited January 15, 2020 by GW8345

[Whiskey]

18 minutes ago, Mstor said:

 

I'm with you, though I don't drink anymore, so I think I'll have a Snickers bar. (just imagine one of those little smileys toasting with a candy bar instead of a mug of frosty cold goodness. I do miss my beer, sigh).

 

Craft Root Beer my friend, craft root beer!

[Laurent]

14 hours ago, Sio said:

... and he is the one stole our Tomcat design, and sold it to another manufacturer. I don't need to name it, as most of the modelers may see, how come the design is so similar.

A way to determine if a kit/design is based on a copy of another kit/design is to look for errors that would have been replicated. If the original has an error that the so-called copy doesn't, the claim of copy is shoddy.

[bushande]

Just another observation and that again is by no means intented as bashing, merely as a notification for any modellers:

The AMK F-14D features the bracing around the step for the RIO. That is absolutely o.k. and no flaw! Just for those who want to build the Vandy-1 iteration. That particular serial did not have that brace! Some Deltas had it, some didn't. I know to many this is not new information. I just thought it might be noteworthy for some modellers nonetheless, since other manufacturers went the other way around, i.e. no bracing on the kit and the modeller would have to see to it to add the bracing via aftermarket or scratch approach depending on the envisioned serial.

 

I want to emphasize, this is no bashing on the kit and it is nothing wrong!!! Regarding those bracings and other details regarding later blocks and versions, there's just no way to do it right. Do you leave them off, the inclined modeller will have to look, whether to add them. Are they featured on the kit, the modeller has to do the research whether to delete them.

 

Just trying to make modellers aware regarding this particular provided decal option, is all.

 

There seems to be a general understanding that all newly built Deltas had that bracing around the step. This is obviously a misconception.

[Sio]

35 minutes ago, Laurent said:

A way to determine if a kit/design is based on a copy of another kit/design is to look for errors that would have been replicated. If the original has an error that the so-called copy doesn't, the claim of copy is shoddy.

 

Just like the ever beginning, you proposed to me to help for design of Mirage 2000, but the ONLY condition is to send you the 3D for checking. So that, you can send the 3D to another manufacturer?

 

Sorry for refused to accept your proposal!

[Sio]

14 minutes ago, bushande said:

Just another observation and that again is by no means intented as bashing, merely as a notification for any modellers:

The AMK F-14D features the bracing around the step for the RIO. That is absolutely o.k. and no flaw! Just for those who want to build the Vandy-1 iteration. That particular serial did not have that brace! Some Deltas had it, some didn't. I know to many this is not new information. I just thought it might be noteworthy for some modellers nonetheless, since other manufacturers went the other way around, i.e. no bracing on the kit and the modeller would have to see to it to add the bracing via aftermarket or scratch approach depending on the envisioned serial.

 

I want to emphasize, this is no bashing on the kit and it is nothing wrong!!! Regarding those bracings and other details regarding later blocks and versions, there's just no way to do it right. Do you leave them off, the inclined modeller will have to look, whether to add them. Are they featured on the kit, the modeller has to do the research whether to delete them.

 

Just trying to make modellers aware regarding this particular provided decal option, is all.

 

There seems to be a general understanding that all newly built Deltas had that bracing around the step. This is obviously a misconception.

 

No no. This is not bahing!

 

I would be appreciated with this kind of comments, as well as those by Darren Roberts.

[bushande]

15 hours ago, Sio said:

 

 If I am happy too, I will send 3 Tomcats to the first one reach 400 pages. This is just want to have some funs with you guys.

 

Awww no, Sio. why did you do that?! This thread will never shut down now .... 🤣

 

Oh and thanks for a professional reply and your understanding.

Edited January 15, 2020 by bushande

[Sio]

2 minutes ago, bushande said:

 

Awww no, Sio. why did you do that?! This thread will never shut down now .... 🤣

 

Haha. I want every body happy, and I want to be happy too.

 

If so, we do it, if no, forget about it. OK?

[flybywire]

"...........As long as you were working with Terry (It is ok to mention the name here, as he is a Chinese and he can change his English all the time.), and he is the one stole our Tomcat design, and sold it to another manufacturer. I don't need to name it, as most of the modelers may see, how come the design is so similar."

 

Does anyone want to share whose design out there is similar to that of AMK's? Just out of curiosity.  I'm rally not aware of it. I'm not interested in the person/s, just want to know the brand of the kit.

Edited January 15, 2020 by flybywire

[shion]

9 minutes ago, flybywire said:

"...........As long as you were working with Terry (It is ok to mention the name here, as he is a Chinese and he can change his English all the time.), and he is the one stole our Tomcat design, and sold it to another manufacturer. I don't need to name it, as most of the modelers may see, how come the design is so similar."

 

Does anyone want to share whose design out there is similar to that of AMK's? Just out of curiosity.  I'm rally not aware of it. I'm not interested in the person/s, just want to know the brand of the kit.

 

The only 1/48 F-14 (known to be ) in preparation is the GWH's one.

The only F-14 made recently after or before the AMK, are the 1/72 GWH and Academy.

 

As stated above, a good way to see if a design is a copy of another is looking if the same errors are present.

GWH kit doesn't seem to have the numerous rendition problems of the AMK.

Academy kit either.

[Laurent]

2 hours ago, Sio said:

 

Just like the ever beginning, you proposed to me to help for design of Mirage 2000, but the ONLY condition is to send you the 3D for checking. So that, you can send the 3D to another manufacturer?

 

Sorry for refused to accept your proposal!

Er I don't recall anything about a Mirage 2000. And I'm no Wesley or Terry.

[Laurent]

4 hours ago, shion said:

The only 1/48 F-14 (known to be ) in preparation is the GWH's one.

The only F-14 made recently after or before the AMK, are the 1/72 GWH and Academy.

 

Zactoman noticed in this post about the stabilizer that Tamiya == Grumman while AMK != Grumman (== stands for "matches", != stands for "doesn't match").

Last night I overlayed the 1/72 GWH F-14D stabilizer with the Tamiya leaflet.

 

 

GWH == Tamiya (same angle between the stabilizer leading and trailing edges) so it implies that AMK !=GWH

 

I could eventually look at the new 1/72 Academy F-14A.

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Laurent

[Mstor]

11 hours ago, Whiskey said:

 

Craft Root Beer my friend, craft root beer!

 

Actually, here in beautiful (ack!) Milwaukee, we have a local brewery that makes a dynamite root beer, Sprecher Root Beer Thanks for reminding me. I should get some to have on hand for these rare, but oh so important moments.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Mstor

[TankerTweaker]

22 hours ago, Sio said:

... and he is the one stole our Tomcat design, and sold it to another manufacturer. I don't need to name it, as most of the modelers may see, how come the design is so similar....

 

7 hours ago, Laurent said:

A way to determine if a kit/design is based on a copy of another kit/design is to look for errors that would have been replicated. If the original has an error that the so-called copy doesn't, the claim of copy is shoddy.

Wait.... What?? The design was stolen?

 

 

 

 

[Laurent]

5 hours ago, Laurent said:

I could eventually look at the new 1/72 Academy F-14A.

 

 

Academy == Tamiya (same angle between the stabilizer leading and trailing edges) so it implies that AMK !=Academy

[Whiskey]

7 hours ago, Mstor said:

 

Actually, here in beautiful (ack!) Milwaukee, we have a local brewery that makes a dynamite root beer, Sprecher Root Beer Thanks for reminding me. I should get some to have on hand for these rare, but oh so important moments.

 

Send me one hahaha!