Show me the Flanker!

[Flankerman]

I knocked off the 1% for the Zvezda Su-27SM because of the canopy cross-section not being horseshoe (Omega) shaped.

Otherwise its perfect - including that S-shaped LERX.

I agree with Berkut - the Trumpeter 1/72 Flankers are almost there - as are the HB 1/48 clones.

I forgot about the Kinetic Su-33 (its an age thing!)

Its a great time to be a Flanker modeller - but I've been doing them since a time when all we had were the Airfix and Hasegawa kits.

Ken

[The Scaremonger]

Yes, i can vouch for the AA/Kinetic Su-33 accuracy although there is one semi major issue (that was too late to fix by the time i got involved) that i have yet to see pointed out by anyone.

And might you tell us what that semi major issue about the Aviation Art/Kinetic Su-33 kit is, please?

[Wayfarer 30]

And might you tell us what that semi major issue about the Aviation Art/Kinetic Su-33 kit is, please?

+1

[Dmanton300]

And might you tell us what that semi major issue about the Aviation Art/Kinetic Su-33 kit is, please?

Not sure I want to know. If it's so major that you can't see it without it being pointed out to you, does it matter that much?

[dehowie]

I'm trying to work out how an issue can possibly be "semi major" if no one has seen, found or recognised what it is.

To me that is a "minor" issue if noone can see it.

No doubt three panel fasteners are depicted opening anti clockwise instead of clockwise.

[dryguy]

Not sure I want to know. If it's so major that you can't see it without it being pointed out to you, does it matter that much?

Well, for me, scale modelling is an exercise in trying to create a representation close as I can to the real thing, with my limited skills, so I try to correct any errors as much as I possibly can, even if I sometimes make a hash of it. Part of the fun for me is researching a project and correcting any errors in the kit, if indeed I can. Now I am not saying that this approach is any better than any other, and is perhaps worse, but it's what gives me enjoyment from the hobby which is actually the only thing that matters.

Edited May 3, 2016 by dryguy

[dryguy]

Issues that I know about;

1. the area behind the pilots head should be smooth, withoout the 'dots' found on the regular su27 (this would be hidden if the canopy is closed)

2. the kit really should have the pylons that go under the fuselage, (under and between the engines) I don't think it needs extra weapons, but I will need to make a plan to add the pylons, perhaps make resin copies from the hobbyboss su27 kit, which I also plan to buy.

There are probably other small issues, for example the 'back-rail-thingy' immediately behind the pilot's seat has a slightly different shape.

I must mention that none of these issues are from my own research, rather from reading other people's threads. I also think all of them are easily fixable. I thank guys like Berkut for sharing their high levels of knowledge on such subjects, as it allows plebs like me to accomplish what I want in a model.

I am not sure if there are any other, large issues, e.g. large shape errors. I am very much looking forward to building the kinetic su33, just got to save some pocket money :)/>/>

Edited May 3, 2016 by dryguy

[Flankerman]

Issues that I know about;

1. the area behind the pilots head should be smooth, withoout the 'dots' found on the regular su27 (this would be hidden if the canopy is closed)

The 'dots' are to be found on early Su-27K/Su-33's.......

Early Su-33's also had a slightly different arrangement of landing/taxi lights on the nosewheel leg......

Ken

[dryguy]

I stand corrected flankerman thanks! One less thing to correct/worry about!!

[jonbryon]

Yeah, I remember reading your review, but I'm just curious what year did you write the review in? Scalemates site states that the Academy Su-27 was released in 1995, so the design was probably made some years before that. IIRC, in the early 90's the Internet was still in its early infancy back then.

The earliest review I've seen from Ken was in Scale Models International September and October 1995 issues, in which he interestingly opines '...the Minicraft team obviously had access to every inch of the real thing (but not the cockpit?)...' and lauds the model for being a good fit to available plans. It was an inspirational review that caused me to build both the Flanker-B and -C; the former is still in my display cabinet.

Jon

[The Scaremonger]

If it's so major that you can't see it without it being pointed out to you, does it matter that much?

Same thought here, but then again, at the same time I thought that I respect what Berkut represents as a model manufacturer consultant on a modelling forum community. Hence, I asked him kindly because I'm truly interested.

I'm trying to work out how an issue can possibly be "semi major" if no one has seen, found or recognised what it is.

To me that is a "minor" issue if noone can see it.

No doubt three panel fasteners are depicted opening anti clockwise instead of clockwise.

To be honest with you, I fear that this semi major issue might be three panel fasteners which opening depiction was rendered on the model as to be anti clockwise instead of the other way round... :unsure:

Guess I'd be a tad mad if so, tho.

Well, for me, scale modelling is an exercise in trying to create a representation close as I can to the real thing, with my limited skills, so I try to correct any errors as much as I possibly can, even if I sometimes make a hash of it. Part of the fun for me is researching a project and correcting any errors in the kit, if indeed I can. Now I am not saying that this approach is any better than any other, and is perhaps worse, but it's what gives me enjoyment from the hobby which is actually the only thing that matters.

I wholly concur. Having an accurate kit to build is a blast, don't get me wrong; however, in spite that there are less than a handful kits which are known to be a 95% accurate, sometimes I feel rewarded in correcting issues on the kits I build (I like adding resin aftermarkets like mad too!), and I particularly like it when I find out that the aftermarket industry has come out with an specific resin set, be it to correct or detail any given kit on the market.

Let's hope Berkut tells us more about this semi major issue on the beautiful Aviation Art/Kinetic Su-33 kit

[adamitri]

Not to beat a dead horse but.....

I cant find the link to making a correct Su-27 in 48th scale. Minicraft, academy etc... And since today is Happy Star Wars Day, "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope."

[Berkut]

And might you tell us what that semi major issue about the Aviation Art/Kinetic Su-33 kit is, please?

+1

The issue is with the spine when looking from the front, it is a bit too "bulbous" and spread out. It should "suck cheeks in" basically. Bad paint;

The real flanker has a fairly steep drop and the whole shape is somewhat S shaped when viewed from front. In real life the kit looks better than the CAD but the area around the gun (on both sides of course) is a little bit too "fat".

I'm trying to work out how an issue can possibly be "semi major" if no one has seen, found or recognised what it is.

To me that is a "minor" issue if noone can see it.

No doubt three panel fasteners are depicted opening anti clockwise instead of clockwise. :woot.gif:/>

I don't know, maybe because people are different and some care a lot about accuracy, some little bit, but very few can ever claim to not care at all. Otherwise we would be swamped in Starfix Spitfire builds, but yet we aren't. Why others havent spotted is not up to me to speculate. It took some time for people to figure out KH F1 isnt really in 1/48, but i guess by that logic that makes it a minor issue too. How many know about it doesnt change the facts or whether it is there or not.

I suppose since you are so eager about assuming an extreme literal "rivet counting" example i can assume you are on the other side of the spectrum; not caring about accuracy in any way, right? This "it must be about rivetz!!!" assumption is getting pretty tiresome. The are gazzilion shape and detail changes happening in a good modeling project like AMK MiG-31 and AA Su-33. Some major, some not so much.

[The Scaremonger]

The issue is with the spine when looking from the front, it is a bit too "bulbous" and spread out. It should "suck cheeks in" basically. Bad paint;

The real flanker has a fairly steep drop and the whole shape is somewhat S shaped when viewed from front. In real life the kit looks better than the CAD but the area around the gun (on both sides of course) is a little bit too "fat".

Well, certainly I'd have never realised about that myself had I not been told, but surely is an issue I can live with.

Thanks, Anton, for having shared it with us.

[dehowie]

And there we go...

We have as per normal Berkut listing an error as "semi major" that nobody can see and when pointed out that semi major maybe a tad over zealous that I am a Starfix modeller.

Thanks for the input highlighting this "very minor" issue but have you thought that you are being just a touch over the top citing an error as "semi major" that no one can see?

If this is semi major then why haven't we seen your Cad diagrams and photos from ten thousand angles of the panel lines on the AMK Mig-31?

I mean what do you think of them now they are clearly visible to anyone who has seen ANY Mig-31 ever made, and are visible on every external part yet no mention of this?

What panel lines that are over cooked by a huge margin are not a Semi major, yet a subtle curve not one person other than you on any forum can identify?

Seems to me you need to learn the English definition of what the word "major" means.

Here let me help..here are some synonyms. Crucial, Vital, Great, Paramount.

Now there is nothing "semi vital" or "semi crucial" in your find whatsoever.

Now everyone appreciates you publishing the information have no doubt about that your inability to quantify the size of error is the problem.

The issue is how this can possibly be a semi major error?

I know you take great pride in over emphasising errors in kits and saying that anyone who does not agree with your assesment is a "Starfix modeller".

Lots of pictures highlighting errors that any normal person even those interested in accuracy CANNOT SEE and then you amplify an error that is virtually invisible to be listed as SEMI MAJOR!

You can't be serious can you...and then anyone who doesn't agree this is so crucial that it's listed as semi major you say is a Starfix modeller.:

Im sure you will be happy when Kinetic is no longer selling any SU-33's and then decide it's pointless to release an SU-27 or any other Russian subject.

Lucky for us the white Knight will come to save all of us Starfix modellers who can't spot Semi Major errors.

Edited May 5, 2016 by dehowie

[tko24]

And there we go...

We have as per normal Berkut listing an error as "semi major" that nobody can see and when pointed out that semi major maybe a tad over zealous that I am a Starfix modeller.

Thanks for the input highlighting this "very minor" issue but have you thought that you are being just a touch over the top citing an error as "semi major" that no one can see?

If this is semi major then why haven't we seen your Cad diagrams and photos from ten thousand angles of the panel lines on the AMK Mig-31?

I mean what do you think of them now they are clearly visible to anyone who has seen ANY Mig-31 ever made, and are visible on every external part yet no mention of this?

What panel lines that are over cooked by a huge margin are not a Semi major, yet a subtle curve not one person other than you on any forum can identify?

Seems to me you need to learn the English definition of what the word "major" means.

Here let me help..here are some synonyms. Crucial, Vital, Great, Paramount.

Now there is nothing "semi vital" or "semi crucial" in your find whatsoever.

Now everyone appreciates you publishing the information have no doubt about that your inability to quantify the size of error is the problem.

The issue is how this can possibly be a semi major error?

I know you take great pride in over emphasising errors in kits and saying that anyone who does not agree with your assesment is a "Starfix modeller".

Lots of pictures highlighting errors that any normal person even those interested in accuracy CANNOT SEE and then you amplify an error that is virtually invisible to be listed as SEMI MAJOR!

You can't be serious can you...and then anyone who doesn't agree this is so crucial that it's listed as semi major you say is a Starfix modeller.:

Im sure you will be happy when Kinetic is no longer selling any SU-33's and then decide it's pointless to release an SU-27 or any other Russian subject.

Lucky for us the white Knight will come to save all of us Starfix modellers who can't spot Semi Major errors.

+1

[Crazy Snap Captain]

Maybe not "semi" major, but it is significant. Semantics really, but it IS a visible inaccuracy when pointed out. Degree of accuracy is a personal thing, but striving for perfection is a road to getting something that is (here's that word again), "semi" accurate, mostly accurate, generally accurate, et al. If we didn't have people screaming about accuracy, then we would more than likely have kits that only resembled the real thing. Keep fighting the good fight.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Crazy Snap Captain

[dryguy]

Who would've thought pieces of plastic could result in these sorts of fights?

[Berkut]

Thanks for the input highlighting this "very minor" issue but have you thought that you are being just a touch over the top citing an error as "semi major" that no one can see?

Think of it however you want to. I wrote it and it is up to me to judge whether it is major issue or not. And it is up to you to judge whether you think it is major issue or not. I think it is a pretty big shape issue, semi major even , you might not think that and i am fine with that. Because unlike you i am able to understand people may differ in opinion. You dont think it is major at all, so therefor i am wrong in having my own opinion that it is semi-major, hence you went on a childish rant about my English, pathetic.

If this is semi major then why haven't we seen your Cad diagrams and photos from ten thousand angles of the panel lines on the AMK Mig-31?

I mean what do you think of them now they are clearly visible to anyone who has seen ANY Mig-31 ever made, and are visible on every external part yet no mention of this?

What panel lines that are over cooked by a huge margin are not a Semi major, yet a subtle curve not one person other than you on any forum can identify?

Because i am not personally responsible for the AMK kit(s)? Imagine that. I basically worked as a consultant for the to help with the different MiG-31 versions and around 100 bugs were fixed due to that. I am not responsible for any engineering decisions AMK takes. And i dont mind the panellines on the kit, you do and you are free to continue to do so.

Now everyone appreciates you publishing the information have no doubt about that your inability to quantify the size of error is the problem.

... It is my opinion to choose whether it is major or not, it is up to you and others to form your own opinion. Are you seriously unable to understand this?

Im sure you will be happy when Kinetic is no longer selling any SU-33's and then decide it's pointless to release an SU-27 or any other Russian subject.

Boy are you wrong here in so many ways and so many assumptions...

[Inquisitor]

Issues that I know about;

1. the area behind the pilots head should be smooth, withoout the 'dots' found on the regular su27 (this would be hidden if the canopy is closed)

2. the kit really should have the pylons that go under the fuselage, (under and between the engines) I don't think it needs extra weapons, but I will need to make a plan to add the pylons, perhaps make resin copies from the hobbyboss su27 kit, which I also plan to buy.

There are probably other small issues, for example the 'back-rail-thingy' immediately behind the pilot's seat has a slightly different shape.

I must mention that none of these issues are from my own research, rather from reading other people's threads. I also think all of them are easily fixable. I thank guys like Berkut for sharing their high levels of knowledge on such subjects, as it allows plebs like me to accomplish what I want in a model.

I am not sure if there are any other, large issues, e.g. large shape errors. I am very much looking forward to building the kinetic su33, just got to save some pocket money />/>

2. You shouldn't make resin copies from the HB Su-27, actually the trumpeter and HB parts are really bad representations in the three scales! The AKU-470 used under the fuselage and the little stumps to hang them under the intakes are included in the kinetic kit and accurate. They only included a pair though and the instructions tell you to use them in the inner wings.

AKU-470 = Kinetic part I-3+J-5 (only a pair)

Stumps to hang AKU-470 under Intakes = I-1 (four included)

Edited May 5, 2016 by Inquisitor

[dehowie]

Just to clarify for Berkut..

You are one of the hobbies great assets when it comes to Russian subjects and I have the highest respect for your knowledge on the aircraft you post on.

Obviously we disagree on what is major and what is not! Lol.. :)

I really do enjoy the information you present but I think you must understand with great knowledge comes a power in that many people will now take away a picture that the Kinetic SU-33 is suffering from a major issue.

There next move is to say no I'm not buying that kit it is badly flawed.

There step after that is to get on every forum they post in saying to every one they can how badly flawed the Kinetic SU-33 is.

That IS the problem.

As an expert on Russian aircraft and having an intimate knowledge of the aircraft to you it may be an issue and all of a sudden Joe Bloggs who would know an SU-33 from a Mig-21 is spreading forum posts that the Kinetic kit is fatally flawed with a spine out of shape and so bad the experts think it sucks.

Everyone loves the Input but the choice of words is so important today because whether you like it or not people are using your words to influence hundreds of kit sales and inevitably the choices the manufacturer makes in the future.

[White Wolf]

Just to clarify for Berkut..

You are one of the hobbies great assets when it comes to Russian subjects and I have the highest respect for your knowledge on the aircraft you post on.

Obviously we disagree on what is major and what is not! Lol.. :)

I really do enjoy the information you present but I think you must understand with great knowledge comes a power in that many people will now take away a picture that the Kinetic SU-33 is suffering from a major issue.

There next move is to say no I'm not buying that kit it is badly flawed.

There step after that is to get on every forum they post in saying to every one they can how badly flawed the Kinetic SU-33 is.

That IS the problem.

As an expert on Russian aircraft and having an intimate knowledge of the aircraft to you it may be an issue and all of a sudden Joe Bloggs who would know an SU-33 from a Mig-21 is spreading forum posts that the Kinetic kit is fatally flawed with a spine out of shape and so bad the experts think it sucks.

Everyone loves the Input but the choice of words is so important today because whether you like it or not people are using your words to influence hundreds of kit sales and inevitably the choices the manufacturer makes in the future.

I can guarantee that the "hundreds" of modellers you speak of won't give a damn about this error because they just want to build it and get the kit of one of their favourite aircraft on the shelf.

I also find it quite presumptuous that you suggest a large majority of modellers are mindless or weak-willed sheep with no opinions of their own and cannot be trusted to make their own decisions based on the info given.

In your black/white world:

A: No, don't buy this kit, it sucks!

B: Okay!

A: Yes, buy this kit, it's great!

B: Okay!

Whether they ultimately choose to buy it or not isn't up to you or Berkut to assume.

[dryguy]

2. You shouldn't make resin copies from the HB Su-27, actually the trumpeter and HB parts are really bad representations in the three scales! The AKU-470 used under the fuselage and the little stumps to hang them under the intakes are included in the kinetic kit and accurate. They only included a pair though and the instructions tell you to use them in the inner wings.

AKU-470 = Kinetic part I-3+J-5 (only a pair)

Stumps to hang AKU-470 under Intakes = I-1 (four included)

Thanks

[dehowie]

I can guarantee that the "hundreds" of modellers you speak of won't give a damn about this error because they just want to build it and get the kit of one of their favourite aircraft on the shelf.

I also find it quite presumptuous that you suggest a large majority of modellers are mindless or weak-willed sheep with no opinions of their own and cannot be trusted to make their own decisions based on the info given.

In your black/white world:

A: No, don't buy this kit, it sucks!

B: Okay!

A: Yes, buy this kit, it's great!

B: Okay!

Whether they ultimately choose to buy it or not isn't up to you or Berkut to assume.

People are clearly and obviously convinced and influenced by posts from people with influence and knowledge both correct and incorrect.

The facts are that once word is out that this kit has a semi major error in the eyes of one of the Russian experts it will spread like a bushfire and whether it does or does not have a problem will not be the issue.

It will pop up at Hyperscale, LSP, and everywhere else as people quote the experts that this kit has a major error.

It's a "perception" of a problem and you give the majority of consumers far more credit than any marketing company ever would.

Do you really think once it has spread all over the modelling forums that the Kinetic Su-33 has a semi major issue that it will not effect sales?

If not take a look at recent trends, posts and history in recent releases.

All it takes to start a wildfire of crap on the forums is the perception of an issue.

How many examples should I cite?

Let's see..Academy F-4J nose, Kittyhawk P-39, KH F-86D, HB F-84, HB F-80, Eduard 109, Eduard Mig-21 Bis, just to start the ball rolling.

[Jennings]

Perception of an error, or an actual, documented, provable error? In the case of most of those you mentioned, there are documented, provable errors, some of which are pretty darn significant.