Zactoman Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 On 10/26/2016 at 10:45 AM, mingwin said: they certainly not "Nailed" it... ^ (bold mine) While some changes have been made this is essentially the same as the original 're-tooled' 1/32 and reduced 1/72 kit. It has the same correct and erroneous shapes. I don't have time to give photo comparisons but Berkut is correct with his analysis. Not sure why there is any argument... As for the LERX area, they do match the top view profile but the forward fuselage cross sections are off making the LERX appear narrow similar to this: (From this thread) Because the sides of the fuselage have a softer blend into the LERX the LERX fades away and ends towards the front where it should be pronounced much further forward. The rear of the LERX lacks the S-curve. Otherwise the other issues pointed out are valid, all carry-overs from the original 1/32 kit, including the bulbous canopy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Andrea Bolla said: Exactly. In my opinion a model has to give the right perception of the real thing, and this can be achieved even with wrong dimension; the Academy kit is too short because they have misunderstood the total lenght of the real airplane, but they have done a nice work in the side view so the final result is not too bad (nosecone apart): obiouvsly you have a slightly small cockpit (near 1/50 scale) and too shallow gearwells but they catched the general proportion of the plane so the not so small error in absolute dimension SEEMS less disturbing. The new Su-34 from HobbyBoss has a silly dildo-shaped nose seen from above, but the general looking of the plane is a nice rapresentation of the real thing, maybe better than this Su-27 and if KittyHawk was not working on their own Su-34 I would have already bought the HobbyBoss one; givent the not too high price probably I will give a try also to this one. Which one looks more like the real thing? No contest IMHO: From adrianm2 @britmodeller: Quote Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Berkut said: You are not fooling anyone, "bloke". indeed! you can denies as much as you wanted! you're burned! from Henka to Uncle Uncle, doesn't need to be far fetched! (to any who have doubt , say "Henka Henka" two times, after, repeat with : "Uncle Uncool"...) ...he even wrote his name: Unc² sometimes... even your avatar shows the same taste for grimace... .UncleUncool"... "the scaremonger" do i need to say more??? they almost looks more related to each other than many HobbyBoss kits with the subjects they're supposed to depict! sorry guys for all that OT stuff, it should pass when the abscissa will be emptied from all that pus... to add to the "bloke" thing Berkut pointed out : it's surprising what the "search" function of the forum can teach us! ...by searching the word "bloke" i've found 648 results, of all those 648 results, 260 where from uncle uncool!...and this, only from 2009 to march 2016... (that covers 450 results out of the 648...) ...so roughly, when he was active under the Uncle uncool moniker, 1/2 of all the "bloke" written at ARC forums where from that very very Bloke!) ...funny that, by doing a single search on a single word, you can track down a user contribution to the forum... who would have tell that! ...he surely goes more easy on the "bloke" things now, only 5 out of 91 posts! Bravo! Edited October 28, 2016 by mingwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Scaremonger Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 18 hours ago, mingwin said: ...he even wrote his name: Unc² sometimes... Sherlock... but isn't that a typo from the superscript cypher...? So, UncA UncA = Henka Henka...? My God, what a zero cypher you are, bloke! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Matvey Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 On 28.10.2016 at 9:22 AM, Zactoman said: ^ (bold mine) While some changes have been made this is essentially the same as the original 're-tooled' 1/32 and reduced 1/72 kit. It has the same correct and erroneous shapes. I don't have time to give photo comparisons but Berkut is correct with his analysis. Not sure why there is any argument... As for the LERX area, they do match the top view profile but the forward fuselage cross sections are off making the LERX appear narrow similar to this: (From this thread) Because the sides of the fuselage have a softer blend into the LERX the LERX fades away and ends towards the front where it should be pronounced much further forward. The rear of the LERX lacks the S-curve. Otherwise the other issues pointed out are valid, all carry-overs from the original 1/32 kit, including the bulbous canopy. You are right, Chris. The new 1/48 HB kits have almost the same shorcomings as they predecessors in 1/32 and 1/72 scales. Besides top half cross-section issues, they have wrong belly shapes and engine intakes. Real aircraft fuselage belly, including main wheel well areas, between the wing is formed by two flat surfaces joined at the centerline with distinctive obtuse angle. The models have strange twisted main wheel wells also. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 14 hours ago, Alex Matvey said: You are right, Chris. The new 1/48 HB kits have almost the same shorcomings as they predecessors in 1/32 and 1/72 scales. Besides top half cross-section issues, they have wrong belly shapes and engine intakes. Real aircraft fuselage belly, including main wheel well areas, between the wing is formed by two flat surfaces joined at the centerline with distinctive obtuse angle. The models have strange twisted main wheel wells also. Yes the list of minor problems is actually pretty big. But you know what they say, "There's no such thing as a perfect kit!". I say "Not yet! "... BTW, nice resin exhausts you're releasing! http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/295593-148-resin-nozzles-for-hobby-boss-su-2730-family/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
keen Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 On 2016/10/25 at 3:50 AM, Flankerman said: If someone could do the same on the HB Su-27??? - it would help. Hi, Ken I think you're right. HB or Trumpeter just ingores these errors in their 1/72 kit and brings them into the 1/48 kit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Scaremonger Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 keen, you've bloody beaten me to it! I didn't do the LERX, tho. Good job, mate. I've also been taking a good look at the windshield and canopy on the Hobby Boss kit; I've compared it to Yufei Mao's vac-form one, and the shape of the Hobby Boss windshield and canopy looks exactly the same; it's not bulbous at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 I encounter this picture of Su-33 (so in Su-27 the spine between engines is actually much more subtle): I would say Trumpeter 1/48 spine is not bad at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
murad Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 off topic but, what are the battery of holes on the left and right in metallic for, flare dispensers? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Flare and chaff dispensers. They are mounted further forward on the Su-33 - because the rear spine has a different shape. On the Su-27 they are mounted in the 'boxes' on either side of the spine, further aft. This view shows some of them having been fired.... Note also the definite 'crease' between the spine and fuselage. Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, foxmulder_ms said: I encounter this picture of Su-33 (so in Su-27 the spine between engines is actually much more subtle): I would say Trumpeter 1/48 spine is not bad at all. Nice try, in order to excuse HB/Trump in some way you are seemingly literally willing to bend over backwards. And if one place camera on the spine, it will look even more just like HB, i promise! Because then one will especially not see the pesky transition between spine and fuselage. Nope, it looks nothing like the HB spine; But again, nice try. Edited November 7, 2016 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
murad Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 5 hours ago, Flankerman said: Flare and chaff dispensers. They are mounted further forward on the Su-33 - because the rear spine has a different shape. On the Su-27 they are mounted in the 'boxes' on either side of the spine, further aft. This view shows some of them having been fired.... Note also the definite 'crease' between the spine and fuselage. Ken as always, thank you very much Ken! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 4 hours ago, Berkut said: Nice try, in order to excuse HB/Trump in some way you are seemingly literally willing to bend over backwards. And if one place camera on the spine, it will look even more just like HB, i promise! Because then one will especially not see the pesky transition between spine and fuselage. Nope, it looks nothing like the HB spine; But again, nice try. The picture I shared is perfect to see the transition between wings and the spine. And yes, a picture where the camera was on the aircraft will be even better for this because we are trying to see the cross section, duh??. If anything, the two pictures you shared are misleading due to sun's location and the shadows, they create illusion of sharper transition. Also, chill. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) ...i'd like to see a photo of the Trumpeter/hobbyboss model from that angle... not sure that this photo prove something that much foxmulder_ms. it's like taking a picture from the tip of the pitot to show "front view" of an Aircraft. the lenses often creates shapes distortions. that same picture should be taken from a greater distance from the subject. put you camera on the ground and take a picture... then show us how "curved" of "flat" the earth is... but from this angle...it looks more "piched" than "morphed/melted/merged in" (taken from this walk around: link) and that one, from the very same warkaround/ same aircraft/ same day...thant the image you where showing us! ... but from another point of view: from this Su-33 walkaround so, even without shadows... it can be easily seen from the sides. you have just searched for, and chosen, the photos that where supporting your beliefs. just ask someone like Ken (flankerman) ...a guy that have seen many times the real thing in "flesh and bones" or other members that have seen up close the real thing...people that have taken many photos of the real thing... ask them what the reality is, and leave the realm of faith for the one of knowledge instead...at least for scale modeling! Edited November 7, 2016 by mingwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 the next release will be Su-30MKK (reserve begins at hobbysearch) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 3 hours ago, mingwin said: ...i'd like to see a photo of the Trumpeter/hobbyboss model from that angle... not sure that this photo prove something that much foxmulder_ms. it's like taking a picture from the tip of the pitot to show "front view" of an Aircraft. the lenses often creates shapes distortions. that same picture should be taken from a greater distance from the subject. put you camera on the ground and take a picture... then show us how "curved" of "flat" the earth is... but from this angle...it looks more "piched" than "morphed/melted/merged in" and that one, from the very same warkaround/ same aircraft/ same day...thant the image you where showing us! ... but from another point of view: so, even without shadows... it can be easily seen from the sides. you have just searched for, and chosen, the photos that where supporting your beliefs. just ask someone like Ken (flankerman) ...a guy that have seen many times the real thing in "flesh and bones" or other members that have seen up close the real thing...people that have taken many photos of the real thing... ask them what the reality is, and leave the realm of faith for the one of knowledge instead...at least for scale modeling! Please do not assume about what I think or about the reasons I do stuff. I already wrote my reasoning. Hands on heart, which picture do you think is better for seeing the cross section? I really think the one I shared is the best, it really shows the cross section in a quite good angle. The one showing the engines is not even relevant because Su-33 and Su-27 differ there. So now, who is picking the pictures according to beliefs? There are many pictures showing Su-27 from side or top, they are not that informative or at least conclusive for me. The picture I shared is really cool and unique for this discussion purpose. When I saw this picture I was looking for reference for my J-15 built, I was not even thinking about this thread at all. Anyhow.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, foxmulder_ms said: Hands on heart, which picture do you think is better for seeing the cross section? Not yours, that is for sure. How in the world can it be yours when it literally half of the picture doesnt even show the ending of the spine against the fuselage because of the angle? It basically only shows the spine ending from around the airbrake and upwards, which has never been discussed. You completely cherry picked that picture and then twisted it to fit your narrative. Then tried to discredit me and everyone else by claiming " due to sun's location and the shadows" which is just complete nonsense. Mingwin's third picture actually shows how the spine ends on the fuselage and it is of the same exact area. Quote The one showing the engines is not even relevant because Su-33 and Su-27 differ there. So now, who is picking the pictures according to beliefs? You still are because Mingwin's picture of the same area as yours actually shows how the spine is connecting to the fuselage. Su-27 and Su-33 are same in that area, they only differ on the stinger tip which was never a discussion. Here is another picture for you; But hey, Su-35S has a different stinger tip than Su-27 so that of course totally matters in that picture too. Edited November 7, 2016 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jonathan_Lotton Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 This thread got really ugly really fast... Usually only Tomcat threads can do that..well done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantomdriver Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 ( Sounds of aircraft going down in flames.....) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gb_madcat_sl Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 5 hours ago, foxmulder_ms said: Please do not assume about what I think or about the reasons I do stuff. I already wrote my reasoning. Hands on heart, which picture do you think is better for seeing the cross section? I really think the one I shared is the best, it really shows the cross section in a quite good angle. The one showing the engines is not even relevant because Su-33 and Su-27 differ there. So now, who is picking the pictures according to beliefs? There are many pictures showing Su-27 from side or top, they are not that informative or at least conclusive for me. The picture I shared is really cool and unique for this discussion purpose. When I saw this picture I was looking for reference for my J-15 built, I was not even thinking about this thread at all. Anyhow.. Look, if this issue with the kit doesn't bother you then don't waste your time picking fights with the critics. Instead, build that model and display it proudly on your shelf and in these forums. At least you will have something to show for your effort. Googling for photos and posting them here is child's play compared to the skill required to finish a model well. So put that mouse down and get cracking! Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Inquisitor Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 After reading the thread, it feels like any time someone points at a valid accuracy error in the kit, it is met with this: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Berkut said: Not yours, that is for sure. How in the world can it be yours when it literally half of the picture doesnt even show the ending of the spine against the fuselage because of the angle? It basically only shows the spine ending from around the airbrake and upwards, which has never been discussed. You brought up it!, lol: where are you highlighting here? On 10/21/2016 at 6:37 PM, Berkut said: And this picture is bad for the highlighted area? I again lol. Picture are here, people should decide for themselves. 22 hours ago, foxmulder_ms said: I encounter this picture of Su-33 (so in Su-27 the spine between engines is actually much more subtle): I would say Trumpeter 1/48 spine is not bad at all. By the way, I just realized now, why you freaked out about the picture I send!!! It is so funny if this is true let me know. I think that you think I send this picture for the very edge of the see-able fuselage. NO! I send it for mid section right for the area you are highlighting. This is so funny, I literately lol'ed please tell me it is so. That is why you are so mad!! I think the picture I send is great because you can see the shape of the little panels they used in spine body blending! Oh man.. you must have thought I am one those guys in key forums :) I swear I didn't even pay attention to "horizon" of the aircraft. That is not the point.. gee... that is almost lerxes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
musangpulut Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Thanks to the various hi res Su-27s spine pictures in this tread, I already made my own conclusion. To my untrained,non technical average modeller eyes, I would say Trumpeter 1/48 spine is not bad at all too.This is the best kit of 1/48 Su-27 available right now and with good pricing too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Matvey Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 All you should know about Su-27 spine. Top of the fuselage in the area of 28-34 frames, where the wing attached to, formed by flat surface. The semi-round "hump" parts placed over it and joints covered by relatively small fairings. So, the areas of four long hatches on both sides close to the "hump" have to be absolutely flat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.