For Martin@ AMK Keep The F-14 Release on Schedule

[kellyF15]

You would be wrong on this one......There is a Tamiya rep on this board and he has posted quite a bit in Tamiya related threads. The F-14 being the most recent. However, unlike other Reps, he doesn't discuss certain things simply because that is not how Tamiya works.

Lol. Technically I said I never see one so I wouldn't be wrong. I stand corrected though.

[ChesshireCat]

you have a local hobby shop?

actually two, but one guy seems to have his own hours<g>.

glt

[Hoosfoos]

Keep the Super Etendard on Schedule also. I will buy at least 2!

[Youngtiger1]

Think 1/32 Mustang at 8000 yen ie 65USD at release.

I don't know where you saw this and how often, as I have been looking to score a second mustang for under $100 and I haven't seen yet. I have seen few close to my ballpark at private sales, but not at any stores.

Added note, I hope AMK will get into 1/32 someday and give us a cool jet that hasn't seen the light of day....F-22 hint hint

Edited May 16, 2016 by Youngtiger1

[Manuel J. Armas S.]

Yes...

1/32 F-14A/B/D from AMK

[Poncho 6231]

There's a growing belief these days that AMK is somehow "the new Tamiya". I find this very amusing. The image below explains better what I mean.

My suggestion to the "in AMK we believe" people is to do a similar comparison with pictures of the real thing for any kit made by Tamiya in the last 15 years.

AMK needs to raise its game considerably regarding panel lines size AND ACCURACY. If they don't, when compared side by side with Tamiya their F-14 kit will look ridiculous.

Also about AMK MiG-31. One engine is a mirror image of the other one. This is incredibly silly. They really believe there is a left side engine and a right side engine! Obviously they are not aviation engineers and they don't know that would be a complete nightmare, production-wise, maintenance-wise, etc.

The engines are identical. Only the nozzles are different because they intersect.

Please don't start throwing rocks at me if I criticise what happens to be your favourite kit. I am certainly not some kind of "AMK hater" and I usually give credit where credit is due. AMK did a great job at cockpit interior, landing gear, gear wells and air intake tunnels. They did a lot of stuff right. But regarding panel lines width/depth and panel lines/access panels accuracy this is sub-mediocre stuff. The "accuracy" you see in the image below is very 1980s. You just can't compare that with Tamiya. They're not even in the same league.

[madmanrick]

I truly do get when rivet counters say Trumpy (or whomever) kits are misshapen, what with the MiG-23 series being all off in the nose and inlet areas, along with others. However, now we are going to count panel lines?? Seriously? 99.99% of modelers not only do not have the intimate knowledge of the subjects they chose to model to know that their MiG-31 is "missing" a few panel lines and access panels. Even more of them lack access to detailed references of said subject. Last time I checked this is marketed as a "model" not a 100% accurate interpretation of a MiG-31. The relevant point should be, did AMK accurately capture the shape of the MiG-31? Is it a mostly accurate representation of said aircraft and is it build-able?

Tamiya has their own issues, which have been well documented, ad nauseam. Tamiya has also been making model kits since what 1946? I would hope they learned some things along the way. AMK is not trying to be Zoukei Mura, nor are they trying to be Trumpy/Hobby Boss. You can't even begin to compare AMK's first few releases to Tamiya's, since they are separated by many decades of time, experience and equipment. So let's just agree that AMK's MiG-31 while not perfect, is a damn good kit for their sophomore year of releases. It is apparent that Big T will hit a home run with their 'Cat, but I am literally betting (with my dollars) that AMK will as well and I will also bet that AMK will provide more value for the buck.

Rick

P.S. I am also certain that AMK will and do listen to their customers MUCH better than Big T or almost any other model company I am aware of (not to include any of the cottage industry).

[Darren Roberts]

There's a growing belief these days that AMK is somehow "the new Tamiya". I find this very amusing. The image below explains better what I mean.

My suggestion to the "in AMK we believe" people is to do a similar comparison with pictures of the real thing for any kit made by Tamiya in the last 15 years.

AMK needs to raise its game considerably regarding panel lines size AND ACCURACY. If they don't, when compared side by side with Tamiya their F-14 kit will look ridiculous.

Also about AMK MiG-31. One engine is a mirror image of the other one. This is incredibly silly. They really believe there is a left side engine and a right side engine! Obviously they are not aviation engineers and they don't know that would be a complete nightmare, production-wise, maintenance-wise, etc.

The engines are identical. Only the nozzles are different because they intersect.

Please don't start throwing rocks at me if I criticise what happens to be your favourite kit. I am certainly not some kind of "AMK hater" and I usually give credit where credit is due. AMK did a great job at cockpit interior, landing gear, gear wells and air intake tunnels. They did a lot of stuff right. But regarding panel lines width/depth and panel lines/access panels accuracy this is sub-mediocre stuff. The "accuracy" you see in the image below is very 1980s. You just can't compare that with Tamiya. They're not even in the same league.

I am not an AMK apologist. I'm not a Tamiya fanboy. I just enjoy good, quality models. You have exactly 5 posts total on ARC and you come on and post this? A little more credibility might be in order before you start posting a response like this. I've been building for over 40 years. AMK produces an excellent product, as does Tamiya. I find it interesting that so many are rushing to Tamiya's defense. It's like debating which one is better, steak or bacon. They're both good!

[Don]

I am not an AMK apologist. I'm not a Tamiya fanboy. I just enjoy good, quality models. You have exactly 5 posts total on ARC and you come on and post this? A little more credibility might be in order before you start posting a response like this. I've been building for over 40 years. AMK produces an excellent product, as does Tamiya. I find it interesting that so many are rushing to Tamiya's defense. It's like debating which one is better, steak or bacon. They're both good!

This ^^^.

Oh and everyone knows steak trumps bacon... :lol:!

[Timvkampen]

They both will find a market...Tamiya is just Formula 1, AMK the new kid on the block. It comes down to your building skills ultimately anyway....and: it may be we have FUN building and comparing both??

[boom175]

I truly do get when rivet counters say Trumpy (or whomever) kits are misshapen, what with the MiG-23 series being all off in the nose and inlet areas, along with others. However, now we are going to count panel lines?? Seriously? 99.99% of modelers not only do not have the intimate knowledge of the subjects they chose to model to know that their MiG-31 is "missing" a few panel lines and access panels. Even more of them lack access to detailed references of said subject. Last time I checked this is marketed as a "model" not a 100% accurate interpretation of a MiG-31. The relevant point should be, did AMK accurately capture the shape of the MiG-31? Is it a mostly accurate representation of said aircraft and is it build-able?

Tamiya has their own issues, which have been well documented, ad nauseam. Tamiya has also been making model kits since what 1946? I would hope they learned some things along the way. AMK is not trying to be Zoukei Mura, nor are they trying to be Trumpy/Hobby Boss. You can't even begin to compare AMK's first few releases to Tamiya's, since they are separated by many decades of time, experience and equipment. So let's just agree that AMK's MiG-31 while not perfect, is a damn good kit for their sophomore year of releases. It is apparent that Big T will hit a home run with their 'Cat, but I am literally betting (with my dollars) that AMK will as well and I will also bet that AMK will provide more value for the buck.

Rick

P.S. I am also certain that AMK will and do listen to their customers MUCH better than Big T or almost any other model company I am aware of (not to include any of the cottage industry).

n

I thank Pancho for his post and while you may not care about the panel lines several people do. I also "LOVE" the AMK MiG-31 and I think its and incredible model and Pancho was just trying to push AMK to that final goal of 100%. That final goal may never be reached, they're may not achieve 100% because of some other mitigating issues, cost, tine etc.

I just don't see why criticizing Pancho's post accomplishes anything. In all honesty he just said the Emperor's clothes ain't perfect! He wasn't disrespectful and was trying to add to the conversation.

[skuki]

The image below explains better what I mean.

I don't care about few access panels when judging the quality of the model. You do and that's OK.

But don't make statements that only you hold as a fact, assuming they apply on all universe.

For that reason the image below explains me nothing.

Try to accept that your opinion is not applicable to all of local superclusters, before you state something as a fact

Edited May 16, 2016 by skuki

[Sir Fondlebottom]

I am not an AMK apologist. I'm not a Tamiya fanboy. I just enjoy good, quality models. You have exactly 5 posts total on ARC and you come on and post this? A little more credibility might be in order before you start posting a response like this. I've been building for over 40 years. AMK produces an excellent product, as does Tamiya. I find it interesting that so many are rushing to Tamiya's defense. It's like debating which one is better, steak or bacon. They're both good!

He has photographic evidence and you think post count has anything to do with the validity of a claim? Amazing.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Sir Fondlebottom

[mingwin]

TBH Poncho 6231, you have raised the bar of rivet counting to a higher/lower level... you nearly really have counted the rivets itself one by one!!!

...you could also have mentionned the fact that AMK didn't provided decals to go with every screws in the forward part of fuselage...

it is nonetheless as much important thant 2 or 3 round (but still obvious) access panels (that should require a look if all MiG-31 have them there...) or a slight weld line being flat (most, if not all rivets are represented as recessed holes, isn't it heresy!!??)

also... those screw lines are there on most soviet aircraft, and still no model manufacturer depict them on their stencils decals...

[Swordsman422]

There is plenty of room for both kits and none of us have them in hand yet to speak of their quality. We can only assume and surmise. I'm sure that AMK is going to stay right on schedule with their F-14, and it'll be excellent. I've got enough faith in Tamiya to give their kit a try as well.

Steak or bacon? Please. Steak wrapped in bacon and now we're talking.

[skuki]

on that picture (Poncho's) I can see a lot of nice panel lines. I like them like that. :rolleyes:/>/>

regarding the access panels, we have photographic evidence. Now present me photographic evidence that all tamiya kits have access panels, panel lines, fasteners etc. right on their places :rolleyes:/>/>

I think, for example, that fouga magister is definitely in the league with tamiya. Especially because of all of the inner structure, engines etc. The fit is tamiya one (for now), the plastic and the panel lines are almost identical.

For the company that made fouga magister, it is quite reasonable to have "growing believe" that this company might be some sort of new tamiya these days, or at least in the near future.

You didn't change my mind with one photograph, of one model, especially not the one that is rivet-counting oriented, in such a huge amount.

Edited May 16, 2016 by skuki

[RKic]

Its fun to watch the rivet counters squirm when confronted by an uber-rivet counter. See guys? This is how you make the more casual modelers feel when you poopoo things all the time.

[boom175]

Its fun to watch the rivet counters squirm when confronted by an uber-rivet counter. See guys? This is how you make the more casual modelers feel when you poopoo things all the time.

What the F#%k are you talking about? A discussion of a model in a model discussion group.. Wow that's radical!

[foxmulder_ms]

Hey... we have Galfa for Great Wall, we should have someone for AMK, too ;)/>

thanks for great post Poncho 6231! :)/>

Edited May 16, 2016 by foxmulder_ms

[Don]

Steak or bacon? Please. Steak wrapped in bacon and now we're talking.

BRILLIANT idea!!!! Best post yet... :lol:!

[Berkut]

There's a growing belief these days that AMK is somehow "the new Tamiya". I find this very amusing. The image below explains better what I mean.

My suggestion to the "in AMK we believe" people is to do a similar comparison with pictures of the real thing for any kit made by Tamiya in the last 15 years.

AMK needs to raise its game considerably regarding panel lines size AND ACCURACY. If they don't, when compared side by side with Tamiya their F-14 kit will look ridiculous.

Also about AMK MiG-31. One engine is a mirror image of the other one. This is incredibly silly. They really believe there is a left side engine and a right side engine! Obviously they are not aviation engineers and they don't know that would be a complete nightmare, production-wise, maintenance-wise, etc.

The engines are identical. Only the nozzles are different because they intersect.

Please don't start throwing rocks at me if I criticise what happens to be your favourite kit. I am certainly not some kind of "AMK hater" and I usually give credit where credit is due. AMK did a great job at cockpit interior, landing gear, gear wells and air intake tunnels. They did a lot of stuff right. But regarding panel lines width/depth and panel lines/access panels accuracy this is sub-mediocre stuff. The "accuracy" you see in the image below is very 1980s. You just can't compare that with Tamiya. They're not even in the same league.

The raised weld lines (there are also some on fuselage) was pointed out to AMK but that either couldnt be done for whatever reason or Sio simply forgot about it. There were roughly 100 bugs or so ironed out and personally my philosophy is shape shape shape. Shape always takes precedence for me atleast, and seemingly it did so for AMK too so getting some access panellines 100% correct is pretty far down the list after those 100+ bugs.

As we both know i said in the MiG-31 thread that if anyone has any mistakes to point out there were free to do so after i posted several rounds of CAD's. And you contacted me with some mistakes you yourself saw, and those were corrected. Either you didnt think those panelline errors were major enough to point out at the time, or you didnt see them then. Either way, you had your chance as anyone else to point them out, and then they would probably be fixed.

So while you are correct on these things, shapes takes first seat every time over panellines. Adding the missing access panels will take roughly 2 min, not exactly a monumental task. As to the depth of the panels, this has been discussed to hell and back. Some are fine with the panels, some are not. Color me a shill, but i am completely fine with them. Either way this was a choice they made and it wasnt based on technical ability.

And come on people, dont act childish over Poncho's post. Relax; me and i am sure AMK are not getting their panties in a bunch over this - and neither should you.

[FAR148]

I have the utmost confidence in AMK and feel that they will produce a Tomcat that is going to be superior than Tamiya kit. A kit design and made by kit builder

Steven L

[skyhawk174]

The raised weld lines (there are also some on fuselage) was pointed out to AMK but that either couldnt be done for whatever reason or Sio simply forgot about it. There were roughly 100 bugs or so ironed out and personally my philosophy is shape shape shape. Shape always takes precedence for me atleast, and seemingly it did so for AMK too so getting some access panellines 100% correct is pretty far down the list after those 100+ bugs.

As we both know i said in the MiG-31 thread that if anyone has any mistakes to point out there were free to do so after i posted several rounds of CAD's. And you contacted me with some mistakes you yourself saw, and those were corrected. Either you didnt think those panelline errors were major enough to point out at the time, or you didnt see them then. Either way, you had your chance as anyone else to point them out, and then they would probably be fixed.

So while you are correct on these things, shapes takes first seat every time over panellines. Adding the missing access panels will take roughly 2 min, not exactly a monumental task. As to the depth of the panels, this has been discussed to hell and back. Some are fine with the panels, some are not. Color me a shill, but i am completely fine with them. Either way this was a choice they made and it wasnt based on technical ability.

And come on people, dont act childish over Poncho's post. Relax; me and i am sure AMK are not getting their panties in a bunch over this - and neither should you.

Thank you Berkut for your post. Without your input as well as others, I don't think we would have seen such an accurate Mig 31 in our lifetime. At the present time I do not have the Mig 31 but it is on order so I will finally have some plastic in my hands.

I too am all about the shape. Like you that trumps everything. I would even accept 99% correct in shape. However to get the shape wrong drives me up a wall. Have a look at the Trumpeter 1/32nd A-7 Corsairs and you know what I mean. Too bad Hobby Boss used those designs to create their 1/48th series.

As for panel lines I am neither here or there with them. As long as they are not too soft and wide I am happy. Hey even the big boys don't get it right all of the time. Have a look at Hasegawa's F-104. Those rivets all over and especially on the wing are a bit of a pain but at least you can fill them.

[Darren Roberts]

He has photographic evidence and you think post count has anything to do with the validity of a claim? Amazing.

It has nothing to do with having photographic evidence. That's awesome. It's all about the tone of the post. Whether we like it or not, a message board is a community. You come to know people through their posts. That's where post count comes in. Poncho has 5 posts, so I have no idea who he is. He could be an expert on the MiG-31. But instead of posting in a conservative manner, the tone of his post was very critical. In the end he tried to temper it, but the beginning as very negative. It was also a lot of opinion. Here's what he posted:

"There's a growing belief these days that AMK is somehow "the new Tamiya". I find this very amusing." Why was this comment necessary?

"The image below explains better what I mean." Excellent. Photographic evidence in a matter of fact way.

"My suggestion to the "in AMK we believe" people is to do a similar comparison with pictures of the real thing for any kit made by Tamiya in the last 15 years." Snarky comment.

"AMK needs to raise its game considerably regarding panel lines size AND ACCURACY. If they don't, when compared side by side with Tamiya their F-14 kit will look ridiculous." An opinion that he may hold but is not factual.

"Also about AMK MiG-31. One engine is a mirror image of the other one." Factual information.

"This is incredibly silly. They really believe there is a left side engine and a right side engine! Obviously they are not aviation engineers and they don't know that would be a complete nightmare, production-wise, maintenance-wise, etc." Another unnecessary, snarky comment. Of course they aren't aviation engineers. They are a model company.

"The engines are identical. Only the nozzles are different because they intersect." Excellent, factual information with no snarky comment.

This is what I mean when I talk about post count. If Poncho had been posting for a length of time, we would know what to expect from him. But he posted comments that were nonproductive to the discussion. It would be like me coming into your house while you were building a model and have me start telling you everything you were doing wrong and how ridiculous it is for you to be doing it your way. That is why I posted my response to Poncho.

[Rex]

"It would be like me coming into your house while you were building a model and have me start telling you everything you were doing wrong and how ridiculous it is for you to be doing it your way."

Hey !

You are welcome to do that here anytime you want to. Can you stay for a week? (bring Tommy T and Dana B with you?)

Of course, I just typed that to a person that I have known online for over a decade. It might have looked different if I had only posted once before on here.