Alex Matvey Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Just other good illustration of written above. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gb_madcat_sl Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 35 minutes ago, Alex Matvey said: Just other good illustration of written above. Pardon me, but which variant of the Su-30 is this? Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Matvey Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 12 minutes ago, gb_madcat_sl said: Pardon me, but which variant of the Su-30 is this? Mark Su-30MKI demonstrator Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 9 hours ago, Alex Matvey said: Just other good illustration of written above. Great pictures! Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Scaremonger Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 On 10/11/2016 at 2:14 AM, Alex Matvey said: 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. Alex, the area where the four long hatches are on both sides of the upper fuselage close to the "hump" are not flat at all. This is what's wrong on the Hobby Boss kit. Check the picture below on the right side. The picture on the centre and the left show why the S-curve, which Ken Duffey found on the Zvezda kit, is absent on the LERXes of both kits. The area over those four hatches you speak about are subtly convex towards the LERXes, product of the space made for the main wheel bays underneath, which is where the S-curve generates. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Matvey Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 I agree with you. Longitudinal cross sections of the fuselage center should correspond to the wing profile, but lateral fuselage cross-sections (frames 31-34, place around 2nd and 3rd yellow stripes applied), formed by straight lines. There are no smooth transitions close to the "hump" section. Zvezda made this place absolutely correct. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 On 11/8/2016 at 11:26 PM, musangpulut said: This is the best kit of 1/48 Su-27 available right now and with good pricing too. I agree! (That's not saying it can't be better) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andreas Beck Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 http://www.flugzeugforum.de/threads/22986-Chinesische-Flanker-Su-27-Su-30MKK-J-11-und-J-16/page33 This might be a helpful photo for the cross section discussion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
brahio Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Andreas Beck said: http://www.flugzeugforum.de/threads/22986-Chinesische-Flanker-Su-27-Su-30MKK-J-11-und-J-16/page33 This might be a helpful photo for the cross section discussion. One have to be registered to see... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andreas Beck Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andreas Beck Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 or try this http://s64.photobucket.com/user/ABeck_2006/media/20F-1420Tomcat20fighter20jet20of20the20Islamic20Republic20of20Iran20Air20Force20IRIAF20has20crashed20n20Busheh.jpg.html?filters[user]=21260707&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Matt Foley Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Wow! I just finished reading all 5 pages of this post. What a magnificent game of "Wack a Mole" which eventually led to my purchase of the HobbyBoss kit. I'll stick to building and not focus on cross sections et.al. To me, after building an Academy Flanker years ago, this kit looks great. Now all I need to do is sell off all of the extras for the Academy kit I have purchased over the years...Su-35/37 conversion, corrected nose, burner cans etc. That should at least pay for the new kit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 --- BEWARE: FOR RIVET COUNTERS ONLY --- Wrapping all this thread up, accuracy wise, the issues concerning this new Hobby Boss 1/48 Flanker are as follows: - Windshield & Canopy (too big, too "bubbled") - Learx to fuselage area - Spine - Wheells wheels angle Not sure about air intakes Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Scaremonger Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 On 25/11/2016 at 7:05 PM, galfa said: --- BEWARE: FOR RIVET COUNTERS ONLY --- Wrapping all this thread up, accuracy wise, the issues concerning this new Hobby Boss 1/48 Flanker are as follows: - Windshield & Canopy (too big, too "bubbled") Wrong, which was already pointed above. The windshield's got the exact slope (or angle) that the one Mr Yufei Mao devised for his Fairy-Hobby vac-form correction set years ago. Canopy is indeed 1mm taller than the one in the abovementioned set. The Hobby Boss clear pieces have got no "bubble-form" to them, whatsoever. One accuracy flaw that escaped your wits is the undersized IRST, which is easily fixable (even more if you've got the Fairy-Hobby set). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Thank you very much !!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 7 hours ago, The Scaremonger said: Wrong, which was already pointed above. The windshield's got the exact slope (or angle) that the one Mr Yufei Mao devised for his Fairy-Hobby vac-form correction set years ago. Canopy is indeed 1mm taller than the one in the abovementioned set. The Hobby Boss clear pieces have got no "bubble-form" to them, whatsoever. One accuracy flaw that escaped your wits is the undersized IRST, which is easily fixable (even more if you've got the Fairy-Hobby set). Keep in mind that Yufeis parts were made to fit the Academy kit which had a much different size and shape canopy platform. As I previously mentioned, this kit is essentially a shrunk down version of the 1/32 kit. When they 're-tooled' the intakes for the release of the 1/32 Su-27UB and Su-30MKK they also did some 're-tooling' on the Flanker B. Rather than tool a whole new canopy they just adjusted the windscreen making it straight (in side view) rather than curved (bulged), but this was only part of the problem. The canopy is too tall, including at the intersection of the windscreen and rear canopy part. (original bulged windscreen on right) While straightening the windscreen (not shown) did improve things a little, the combination of the intersection arch and taller canopy still leave the canopy looking bulbous compared to the real thing. Sorry I don't have pics of the 1/48 canopy to compare to photos of the real thing but I've looked at builds of the kit as well as the parts in the box and it hasn't changed from the 1/32 kit. Of course since 1/48 is smaller than 1/32 the problem isn't quite as obvious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Matvey Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 I should say, that 1/48 canopy is much better in all respects, than 1/32 one, exept smaller IRST fairing. Shapes are almost perfect for single seat versions. But for two-sitters Hobby Boss didn't catch the shape at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Zactoman, Please, come to the rescue. Do your magic and give us everything we need to build this kit in a finally accurate 1/48 Flanker !!!!!!! Only you can do that... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 6 hours ago, galfa said: Zactoman, Please, come to the rescue. Do your magic and give us everything we need to build this kit in a finally accurate 1/48 Flanker !!!!!!! Only you can do that... Saddly, it's not in "his" scale... (to each his own...) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Scaremonger Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 On 28/11/2016 at 0:02 AM, Zactoman said: Keep in mind that Yufeis parts were made to fit the Academy kit which had a much different size and shape canopy platform. Sorry I don't have pics of the 1/48 canopy to compare to photos of the real thing but I've looked at builds of the kit as well as the parts in the box and it hasn't changed from the 1/32 kit. Of course since 1/48 is smaller than 1/32 the problem isn't quite as obvious. Hi, Chris! Thanks for the input. Indeed, the Fairy-Hobby piece was devised to correct the clear pieces on the Academy kit, which suffered from a certain degree of fuselage shortage. However, Yufei corrected both the angle of the windshield - which was too littke on the Academy kit, plus the canopy height and rear. I've got both the Fairy-Hobby set and the Hobby Boss kit; thing is, the Fairy-Hobby set requires that you cut out styrene at both the front and back of the cockpit area, which corrects some of the rear section of the canopy which is wrong in the Academy kit. Now, the Hobby Boss clear piece doesn't look as much as bulged as the clear piece on the 1/32nd scale kits, and in perspective against Yufei's set, it looks quite similar - will have to take some pictures of it. I'm planning to correct a huge lot of aspects on the Hobby Boss kit, among others, I will try and reconstruct the whole LERX area to add the S-curve which Ken noticed on his Svezda kit. As for the clear pieces on the Hobby Boss kit, I agree that the issue isn't nearly as obvious as with the 1/32 kits, all the more so if you depict an open canopy. Incidentally, do you know whether there's a replacement set for the wingtip rails in 1/48 which is available? Cheers, Henka Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Matt Foley Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I'm building it OOB. I'm not going to get myself lathered over curves and bumps, humps or otherwise. I received my kit from Squadron today (nice time of year for discounts) and once built it should provide a finicky guy like me with a Flanker that looks like a Flanker and is significantly more accurate than Academy's. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Scaremonger Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Matt, I wholly agree that the Hobby Boss Flanker is a lifetime better than the Academy one. I think that the only thing which should matter correcting is the wrong angle of the main landing gear bays, and only just. I ain't a rivet counter; it's just that I was stretching the Academy kit until the HB kit came along, for which I had bought a good plethora of materials and stuff, so now that I've got a fuselage that is the correct length, and also that I found some transversal profiles of both the LERX and the spine, I thought I might as well go to town with the Hobby Boss kit. Just that; I don't think the average modellers ought to do the same. Cheers, Henka Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Matt Foley Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 4 hours ago, The Scaremonger said: Matt, I wholly agree that the Hobby Boss Flanker is a lifetime better than the Academy one. I think that the only thing which should matter correcting is the wrong angle of the main landing gear bays, and only just. I ain't a rivet counter; it's just that I was stretching the Academy kit until the HB kit came along, for which I had bought a good plethora of materials and stuff, so now that I've got a fuselage that is the correct length, and also that I found some transversal profiles of both the LERX and the spine, I thought I might as well go to town with the Hobby Boss kit. Just that; I don't think the average modellers ought to do the same. Cheers, Henka Been there done that. I still have a SOL Su-35/37 conversion too. That will be sold pronto. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
boom175 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 What about the wingtip missile rails? Wasn't there some concern that they were not angled correctly on the wingtip?? If so can we just cut the launchers flush and reglue at the proper angle? or is the wing camber (curve) incorrect as well? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 (edited) The whole wingtip should have 'washout' - e.g. angled down. It isn't much - but it does make a difference. This photo I took at Lipetsk shows it well.... Ken PS - My photo appears 'squashed' - click on it for the original Edited December 5, 2016 by Flankerman 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.