Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Jennings

AMK 1/48 F-14!!!

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, F-16 said:

Speaking of reviews...

 

Take a read of the Detail and Scale review..... Interesting...

Detail and Scale AMK Tomcat review

 

Scott

CNJC-IPMS

 

 

I quickly went to the part regarding aft fuselage and I'd rather trust to my own senses and what Zactoman provides rather than "to me it looks better that Tamiya" (and even Grumman I guess). Then I've not seen a word about incorrect position of IFR doors or weird details on engine nacelles in drawbacks sections, then saw some praising as "best F-14 with no doubt".

And then quickly rewind to the bottom, most valuable part:

"Sincere thanks to Sio SeiHoi, Martin Wilson, and Vicky in the front office at AMK (along with help from the great Scott Bricker) for the review sample."

 

I simply give no trust to sponsored reviews, they are not honest.

Edited by Tapchan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tapchan said:

 

I quickly went to the part regarding aft fuselage and I'd rather trust to my own senses and what Zactoman provides rather than "to me it looks better that Tamiya" (and even Grumman I guess). Then I've not seen a word about incorrect position of IFR doors or weird details on engine nacelles in drawbacks sections, then saw some praising as "best F-14 with no doubt".

And then quickly rewind to the bottom, most valuable part:

"Sincere thanks to Sio SeiHoi, Martin Wilson, and Vicky in the front office at AMK (along with help from the great Scott Bricker) for the review sample."

 

I simply give no trust to sponsored reviews, they are not honest.

 

Saw it few weeks ago.

 

It seems to me more a caricature than a real and serious review, the last quote you made and the signed box are the cherry on the cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was always told the proverb "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

If they send me free review sample I am also going to say it's excellent and even better than Grumman's snot.

Edited by Tapchan

Share this post


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

Does the same go for access panels that might or might not be open on a model.

Dude, I'm not going to play your little gotcha game.

 

I was pointing out a technical thing about the real aircraft using a model posted as an example, which regularly happens on a modeling discussion board. Now, if you don't like me posting technical information while using someone's build as an example I recommend you utilize the ignore function this site offers, it will help prevent you from getting sand in certain places.

 

Now, to answer your question, yes, if a builder wants to open every panel I couldn't care less. But, I do reserve the right to point out technical aspects of said action, after-all, isn't that one of the major purposes of a model discussion board?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a review on this abomination on another website. Who in the hell decides to give modelers the wing positionable leading and trailing flaps with swept-forward option? Seriously an F-14 model that does not allow wing sweep?  

 

On the other hand I do like the concept of one piece missiles and forward fuselage. The canopy frame and glass seem remarkable too. Furball Aero decals look amazing as always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, weirich1 said:

I just read a review on this abomination on another website. Who in the hell decides to give modelers the wing positionable leading and trailing flaps with swept-forward option? Seriously an F-14 model that does not allow wing sweep?  

 

On the other hand I do like the concept of one piece missiles and forward fuselage. The canopy frame and glass seem remarkable too. Furball Aero decals look amazing as always.


You can build it with the wings swept if you like. But you have to choose for some reason.

Share this post


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

Not really sure why there's a whole page of people going back and forth about how to BUILD a model, as that's not what the discussion is about. It should not be commented upon that the line for the radome and nosecone is fixable by the modeller themselves, as that should be a given. Basically a "duh, no s***" moment. i have several F-14 kits by Hobby Boss, Tamiya, Hasegawa, and Monogram. There are imperfections on most, if not all of them, that need to be fixed or corrected by me, the modeller, if I choose to do so. To clarify further, if you have seen a build by anyone that doesn't have the line showing so prominent, then they have taken the necessary steps to fix it. I only want to discuss what it looks like OOB as that is really what this entire thread is supposed to be about. What the kit looks like without any modifications or corrections so that we, as modellers, can judge it for what it's actually worth and determine what DOES need to be done. 

 

I believe that the fact that I am having to explain all of this even further is slightly disconcerting.

:thumbsup2:

Share this post


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

 

Saw it few weeks ago.

 

It seems to me more a caricature than a real and serious review, the last quote you made and the signed box are the cherry on the cake.

 

I saw it too. It just made no sense what so ever. Made me think that either he's looking at some other kit, or he's got some sort of bias for some reason. Oh well :dontknow:

Share this post


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

 

I saw it too. It just made no sense what so ever. Made me think that either he's looking at some other kit, or he's got some sort of bias for some reason. Oh well :dontknow:

 

I don't read sponsored / promotional reviews in general, bc of this bias, the only useful contents of them being pics of the parts (when these pics aren't doctored/photoshoped).

And in fact, text reviews are remains of the past, you've got more info in video reviews, their best bonus being you can turn off the sound.

 

About this "review" in particular, the first time I readed it, some parts mesmerized me.

 

Quote

I test fit a few parts from the kit including the upper and lower fuselage halves.  The fit is perfect.  I’m talking airtight and seamless.  The plastic surfaces are as smooth as glass.  The majority of surface details (e.g., panel lines, fasteners) are delicately recessed and perfectly executed with a high degree of accuracy (but see below for a few observations).  They are not over-done or over-scaled.  In places where there are raised rivets on the aircraft, such as the inside of the speed brake wells, the kit has raised rivets.  There are also a lot of construction options here, but I would not characterize this as “over-engineered.”  It gets the job done.  Further and most importantly, there are also numerous features of the F-14, as described throughout the following, which no other kit manufacturer has ever correctly represented in Tomcat kits before, but it’s here in the AMK kit.

 

 

Quote

 The nozzles are very well done single-piece items, and four parts per open nozzle are provided for the inside petal surfaces. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GW8345 said:

Dude, I'm not going to play your little gotcha game.

 

I was pointing out a technical thing about the real aircraft using a model posted as an example, which regularly happens on a modeling discussion board. Now, if you don't like me posting technical information while using someone's build as an example I recommend you utilize the ignore function this site offers, it will help prevent you from getting sand in certain places.

 

Now, to answer your question, yes, if a builder wants to open every panel I couldn't care less. But, I do reserve the right to point out technical aspects of said action, after-all, isn't that one of the major purposes of a model discussion board?

I think you just did.

 

I know where you are coming from, Ive seen it often and been told the same thing.

I neither said nor implied you cant have nor did I say you cant voice an opinion. They are always welcome no matter what they are.

Share this post


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

I think you just did.

 

I know where you are coming from, Ive seen it often and been told the same thing.

I neither said nor implied you cant have nor did I say you cant voice an opinion. They are always welcome no matter what they are.

 

54e10d77e41c4.jpeg

Share this post


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

About this "review" in particular, the first time I readed it, some parts mesmerized me.

 

I test fit a few parts from the kit including the upper and lower fuselage halves.  The fit is perfect.  I’m talking airtight and seamless.  The plastic surfaces are as smooth as glass.  The majority of surface details (e.g., panel lines, fasteners) are delicately recessed and perfectly executed with a high degree of accuracy (but see below for a few observations).  They are not over-done or over-scaled.  In places where there are raised rivets on the aircraft, such as the inside of the speed brake wells, the kit has raised rivets.  There are also a lot of construction options here, but I would not characterize this as “over-engineered.”  It gets the job done.  Further and most importantly, there are also numerous features of the F-14, as described throughout the following, which no other kit manufacturer has ever correctly represented in Tomcat kits before, but it’s here in the AMK kit.

 

Of the statements you quoted in bold the only questionable one is about the accuracy and execution of surface detail, where it was clearly demonstrated that they are not nor accurate nor perfectly executed.

 

Fit of main fuselage parts is indeed quite perfect and plastic surfaces are as smooth as they any other top quality kit (the "machining" marks on the surface in the build you posted are just nonsense).

 

Panel line size/scale is just a matter of personal taste: even the worst maintained and battered A/C in quarter scale should be as smooth as silk with almost invisible surface detail considering a panel gap of 2mm would scale to 0.04mm or 0.001in; look into the "in progress" section and you will found someone re-scribing and deepening the "perfect" Tamiya kit, and you can bet it will turn out an amazing build.

 

Regarding the nose cone fit I checked on my kit and as supposed you can add part U2 to the cockpit tub before inserting the whole assembly into front fuselage; that part is not really needed to keep the nose cone in place so if you think it can be more a problem than a solution you can avoid to use it; even if you follow the instructions that part fit without any major issue in it's place without need of pliers or brute force shown in video from your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Andrea Bolla said:

 

Of the statements you quoted in bold the only questionable one is about the accuracy and execution of surface detail, where it was clearly demonstrated that they are not nor accurate nor perfectly executed.

 

Fit of main fuselage parts is indeed quite perfect and plastic surfaces are as smooth as they any other top quality kit (the "machining" marks on the surface in the build you posted are just nonsense).

 

Panel line size/scale is just a matter of personal taste: even the worst maintained and battered A/C in quarter scale should be as smooth as silk with almost invisible surface detail considering a panel gap of 2mm would scale to 0.04mm or 0.001in; look into the "in progress" section and you will found someone re-scribing and deepening the "perfect" Tamiya kit, and you can bet it will turn out an amazing build.

 

Regarding the nose cone fit I checked on my kit and as supposed you can add part U2 to the cockpit tub before inserting the whole assembly into front fuselage; that part is not really needed to keep the nose cone in place so if you think it can be more a problem than a solution you can avoid to use it; even if you follow the instructions that part fit without any major issue in it's place without need of pliers or brute force shown in video from your post.

 

Come on!

 

Ignore this guy! He is working for someone!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 11:54 PM, habu2 said:

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

What I still don't understand is which AMK competitor you work for?

 

If you want to know, I can tell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Andrea Bolla said:

 

Of the statements you quoted in bold the only questionable one is about the accuracy and execution of surface detail, where it was clearly demonstrated that they are not nor accurate nor perfectly executed.

 

Fit of main fuselage parts is indeed quite perfect.

 

 

There are two problems.

 

First the claim he made is a sophism. You can't judge the general fit of a kit, just by testing the fit between 2 parts, particularly without the numerous parts you've got to insert between them during the build.

 

And second and the least, we already saw the result when inner parts are inside:

 

Dry fit version of one of the build sponsored by AMK:

69471723_10220710111846681_7660830056595

 

Cemented version of the same build:

 

70717992_10220795760507844_3553217063772

 

70302808_10220795760947855_6449877118548

 

Sorry but it's not what I called a perfect fit/airtight/seamless.

And the builder himself said there are fit issues.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Andrea Bolla said:

and plastic surfaces are as smooth as they any other top quality kit (the "machining" marks on the surface in the build you posted are just nonsense).

 

Really?

 

Pic in the italian review few pages ago:

 

foto-08.jpg

 

Is it what you called "as smooth as they any other top quality kit" or he called "as smooth as glass"?

Not me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every high quality model company (among which many count AMK for their previous kits, 309 pages as proof, no Italeri could've pay such attention) should provide a test build. It's common in paper models, company hires a tester to build their project - no paint, no putty. Same should work in this part of modelling world, no paint, no putty, just pure plastic and glue. Such build can show fitting level.

 

  

1 hour ago, Sio said:

 

Come on!

 

Ignore this guy! He is working for someone!

 

 

1 hour ago, Sio said:

 

If you want to know, I can tell!

 

I think the worst AMK enemy in the whole AMK F-14 case was AMK itself. No external bashing can hurt the opinion of good kit (not shape-wise IMO) as much as bad designer company internal decisions.

Edited by Tapchan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, shion said:

Pic in the italian review few pages ago:

 

foto-08.jpg

 

Is it what you called "as smooth as they any other top quality kit" or he called "as smooth as glass"?

Not me.

 

 

Let compare AMK with a recent kit (GWH Su-35) under the same conditions (Celestron digital micro at same enlargement):

 

GWH

 

y4mylbjtf3BFgxqLafhLMsSFrpFhwECczGU0TqmS

 

AMK

 

y4myhnn3yaI8FqteQqoRG3d48JVCFdupocDaOeUj

 

My nose section has been reworked (see my slow start build in "in progress" section) so you can see the original plastic only around the antenna plate (there is a bit of primer left I that used to check the panel re-scribing work around the IFR):

 

y4mmaCwhPgV00XkzQL1Yqps3fYDEL_YXH9qFbIu5

 

and here the slime light frames toned down a bit and polished with 00000 steel wool (lot of cleaning required here):

 

y4mFaRUyaaB4j14wez7YyDxDNUksf9uC0R2g2lAs

 

Sorry not to include a Tamiya kit in this comparison but their most recent A/C kit in my stash is the He162 Salamander that is 14 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tapchan said:

Every high quality model company (among which many count AMK for their previous kits, 309 pages as proof, no Italeri could've pay such attention) should provide a test build. It's common in paper models, company hires a tester to build their project - no paint, no putty. Same should work in this part of modelling world, no paint, no putty, just pure plastic and glue. Such build can show fitting level.

 

  

 

If I remember right, Tamiya have a panel of testers, who provide feedback about the fit and if the engineer team must alter the assembling sequence.

And they and others companies have pro-builders, who build OOB kits  we can see on the box side/ catalogue/ adds.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Tapchan said:

 

 

I think the worst AMK enemy in the whole AMK F-14 case was AMK itself. No external bashing can hurt the opinion of good kit (not shape-wise IMO) as much as bad designer company internal decisions.

 

This.

And the fact they definitely gave up the promotion of their own kit, prefering to use all means possible, dubious ones included, to change the subject of the discussion, tells a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cluck, cluck, cluck.....you hens are amazing. It's your hobby, but I don't get how you receive more enjoyment bitching about a kit than actually building one you like. It's like arguing is the most enjoyable part of the hobby. As I said....it's your hobby 🙄

 

Maybe head to

You're welcome!

 

FFS

Edited by sideshow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2020 at 12:27 PM, Tapchan said:

Well, I was always told the proverb "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

If they send me free review sample I am also going to say it's excellent and even better than Grumman's snot.

 

Yeah, you will.. lol. and expected. Give me your address I am going to send you one. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, weirich1 said:

I just read a review on this abomination on another website. Who in the hell decides to give modelers the wing positionable leading and trailing flaps with swept-forward option? Seriously an F-14 model that does not allow wing sweep?  

 

On the other hand I do like the concept of one piece missiles and forward fuselage. The canopy frame and glass seem remarkable too. Furball Aero decals look amazing as always.

 

I'm going to show your post (minus the naughty word) to my 4th graders. We are currently studying author's bias/tone/perspective/attitude and the use of "juicy" (as one of my kids calls them) words to strengthen your position. Abomination is a perfect example. Nice hyperbole. However, they are going to get whiplash when they read the second part and you use the word "remarkable". It should be a fun lesson!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remarkable as in Amazing ?

 

or

 

Remarkable as in worth making a Remark ?

 

”Your remark was remarkable”

 

I think a lot of the content of this thread may be below 4th grade level...... 🙉🙈🙊

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sio said:

 

If you want to know, I can tell!

Why not name it right here, right now so that everyone would know rather than leaving everyone guessing and at the same time, to avoid the impression that you're blaming everyone who gives honest opinions and observations as coming from competitor companies.

Edited by flybywire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the allure of a box signed by a guy that I couldn’t pick out of a police lineup?  

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...