Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 5/12/2017 at 6:01 PM, Zactoman said:

I'll be posting a bunch of final renders in the coming days.

Sorry for the delay. Not only was ARC broken but Facebook locked my account for several days until I sent and they verified a picture of my face. :angry:

 

Bronco_47_sm_zpsaingyknk.jpg

 

Bronco_48_sm_zpseorxuyq5.jpg

 

Bronco_49_sm_zps1lmzwxrw.jpg

 

Bronco_50_sm_zpsx8rrbjsb.jpg

 

Bronco_51_sm_zps1ar2hip4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2017 at 6:50 PM, Dale Bohling said:

:yahoo: Dang, I can't stop drooling. You don't work for Pavlov  do you?

Pavlov? Pavlov who?

No. Pavlov is not a very common Chinese name...

 

On 5/12/2017 at 7:03 PM, Sabre Freak said:

Outstanding job on a subject desired by a lot of modelers and sadly overlooked by manufacturers.  The CAD looks magnificent so far!

 

I am curious.  The list is probably a mile long of subjects desired by modelers and sadly overlooked by manufacturers.  What motivated you guys to say OV-10!  Let's do The OV-10!

 

i ask because sometimes the motivation can be as interesting a story as the endeavor itself.

Happy to hear that you like what you've seen so far.

Sorry, but the background of the choice is not exciting. The Bronco is just what the boss wanted to do first (well, Su-33 was first but that went South...).

 

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Zactoman said:

I hope I'm not overdoing it and posting too many pics. I plan to post more tomorrow

 

Since nobody complained ( :tumble: ):

 

Bronco_57_sm_zpstn18dhhq.jpg

 

Bronco_58_sm_zpsljuvxejo.jpg

 

Bronco_59_sm_zpsvkgut19o.jpg

 

Bronco_60_sm_zpsxqv6ialp.jpg

 

Bronco_61_sm_zpsxqumzkkj.jpg

 

Bronco_62_sm_zps6jf9jwwc.jpg

 

Bronco_63_sm_zpszwlshtfm.jpg

 

Bronco_64_sm_zpsam5tifyr.jpg

 

Bronco_65_sm_zpskacky1xv.jpg

 

Bronco_66_sm_zpsi0w4syne.jpg

 

:cheers:

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

looks great for the most part. the second to last shot though has the rudder pedals on the side consoles rather than on the floor.

The pedals in the observer's compartment are in the correct location.

Perhaps one of the Bronco guys can fill us in on why they are located there.

Observer_pedals_zps1mqvddde.jpg

 

I'm also curious about the fact that the rear flight controls (flap handle, control stick and pedals) are listed in the NAVAIR manual as "optional". Where they ever not installed?

 

55 minutes ago, VAL-4 Black Ponies said:

Seat on the right (without backpad) is the pilot's (front seat). Seat on the left (with backpad) is the backseat.

Drag on the parachute pack that is on the back left side of the front seat would make the seat go to the left on ejection.

And the back seat would go to the right.

I was curious as to why they are opposite. Thanks for the explanation!

So many nagging Bronco questions the more I study the plane...

Do you happen to know if I got the latch and ring answer correct in this post? http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/296183-148-ov-10a-bronco/&do=findComment&comment=2853273

 

41 minutes ago, VAL-4 Black Ponies said:

Is the actual plastic going to be as rough as it looks on the CAD images?

Actual plane was a lot more streamlined than the fourth picture indicates.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here.

If it is in regards to the rivets/fasteners, we are limited by molding technology so have minimum sizes that can be molded.

The flush rivets have to be molded as engraved details. A finely engraved flush circle done to scale isn't really possible and would disappear under the thinnest coat of paint.

The detail will be as petite as our tooling will allow.

 

I didn't realize how prominent the fastener detail was before starting this project:

Fasteners_zpsemta45ui.jpg

 

34 minutes ago, VAL-4 Black Ponies said:

OK - a poser. System won't let me upload another photo so use the one above.

Centerline tank with aircraft on ground has a slight nose down angle.

If you look at where the fill point is you can tell that it is below the tail of the tank. How do you completely fill the tank?

Good question. Something I hadn't even considered.

Rear filler cap?

Bronco_34_sm_zpsk17xfwme.jpg

Or is they some fancy hydraulic system to jack the nose up that I'm not aware of? 

Park it uphill when fueling?

:dontknow:

 

:cheers:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

Great project by far. It's gonna be a real stunner being plastic cast...in case the molds are as such as the 3D-modeling shows.

I'm not a 1/48 scale fun but this kit will be an exquisite stuff I would eager to have in my stash.

Well, I think I'd better go and take my bib to drool. :)  

 

Cheers!

Alexander

Edited by Eastern
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zactoman said:

The pedals in the observer's compartment are in the correct location.

Perhaps one of the Bronco guys can fill us in on why they are located there.

Observer_pedals_zps1mqvddde.jpg

 

I'm also curious about the fact that the rear flight controls (flap handle, control stick and pedals) are listed in the NAVAIR manual as "optional". Where they ever not installed?

 

 

well I stand corrected. they look like they would make flying the plane almost impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VAL-4 Black Ponies said:

Is the actual plastic going to be as rough as it looks on the CAD images?

 

Just a comment on CAD models. CAD objects are used to control CNC machines that will cut steel (moulds) or copper (EDM electrodes) so one can only partially extrapolate how the plastic will look like from a CAD rendering. You can have a idea of the shapes and detailing but nothing more as the CAD model is a collection of abstract objects. CAD renderings must be taken with a pinch of salt as...

- a CAD model is scaled (thickness of parts and details level depends on scale) but the rendering software allows to zoom in the CAD model infinitely close while you cannot look at plastic parts infinitely close; 4th photo makes the model look like it's a 1/10 scale model but it's still a 1/48 scale CAD model

- objects of a CAD model have razor sharp edges and corners; this isn't the case with plastic parts where corners and edges are always a little rounded as the tool tip hasn't infinitely sharp edges and corners; EDM process also doesn't allow infinitely sharp details

All in all the CAD model is an intermediate phase in a model kit design. What matters in the end are the plastic parts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Laurent said:

All in all the CAD model is an intermediate phase in a model kit design. What matters in the end are the plastic parts. 

 

That is exactly the point I feel about CADs and why I never get very worked up about them. For me it's the end product and sharpness of molding. Fitting of the parts and assemblies is very high on my "want list". I will wait for sprue shots before I get closer to purchase decision.

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

So many nagging Bronco questions the more I study the plane...

Do you happen to know if I got the latch and ring answer correct in this post? http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/296183-148-ov-10a-bronco/&do=findComment&comment=2853273

 

 

Yep, door hold open assembly. I've got the Air Force version of the "Illustrated Parts Breakdown" on the Black Pony webpage - http://www.blackpony.org/ipb.pdf

 

 

Technical_Manual_Illustrated_Parts_Breakdown0001.jpg

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

 

Just a comment on CAD models. CAD objects are used to control CNC machines that will cut steel (moulds) or copper (EDM electrodes) so one can only partially extrapolate how the plastic will look like from a CAD rendering. You can have a idea of the shapes and detailing but nothing more as the CAD model is a collection of abstract objects. CAD renderings must be taken with a pinch of salt as...

- a CAD model is scaled (thickness of parts and details level depends on scale) but the rendering software allows to zoom in the CAD model infinitely close while you cannot look at plastic parts infinitely close; 4th photo makes the model look like it's a 1/10 scale model but it's still a 1/48 scale CAD model

- objects of a CAD model have razor sharp edges and corners; this isn't the case with plastic parts where corners and edges are always a little rounded as the tool tip hasn't infinitely sharp edges and corners; EDM process also doesn't allow infinitely sharp details

All in all the CAD model is an intermediate phase in a model kit design. What matters in the end are the plastic parts. 

Thanks much Laurent - I'm not a modeler and didn't know.

Bob

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

Good question. Something I hadn't even considered.

Rear filler cap?Or is they some fancy hydraulic system to jack the nose up that I'm not aware of? 

Park it uphill when fueling?

 

No hills in the Mekong Delta. Nothing in the books about it - so the North American Tech Reps told us to throw a line over the booms, loop & tie it loosely and sit on the rope to pull the nose up. In actual practice - we walked up to the nose gear facing aft, placed a shoulder blade under the fuselage - and straightened up lifting the nose until the gear extends & locks, place chock behind wheel and it would stay that way until your done.

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

 

That is exactly the point I feel about CADs and why I never get very worked up about them. For me it's the end product and sharpness of molding. Fitting of the parts and assemblies is very high on my "want list". I will wait for sprue shots before I get closer to purchase decision.

Accuracy matters a lot to me so the CAD design phase is very important to my eyes... still designing a kit is like making a chain link by link. A weak link and the whole chain integrity is compromised. Reference material has to be reviewed, CAD model has to be reviewed, parts breakdown has to be reviewed (ease of build, tooling cost), toolshop has to use machines that match the specs (very complex and intricate CAD model require high precision so very expensive machines for tooling), moulds have to be designed to avoid injection issues (short shots, etc), care is needed to design helpful instructions, box should be sturdy enough and box art attractive. And the ETA should be predictable so that the company can recover the invested money.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

A related/unrelated kind of question: has anyone done the research to determine the markings of Marshall Harrison's OV-10 as written up in his book "A Lonely Kind of War"?  Especially when he was flying where there wasn't supposed to be any US presence (i.e. Cambodia).  I'm assuming some sanitizing was done (national markings, etc) but I've never seen it confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thinking that the tooling is somehow very loosely based on the CAD has to stop. It is nonsense. Other than technical restrictions for the details, what you see in CAD - is what you will get in plastic. Thinking the CAD is loosely related to tooling just gives excuses for the modelmakers to make mistakes and modelbuilders to make excuses on modelmakers behalf. Mistakes in CAD will be reflected in the plastic. There isnt some magic gulf between the CAD design and the final product.

 

Hobby Boss Su-34 mistakes are not some wish-washy result of CAD being "collection of abstract objects" or technical limitations. Spine and wheelbays in Su-27 kit isnt wrong because of that either. Or the nose/canopy on MiG-23/27. Zvezda's (and HB for that matter) T-50 doesnt look like it does because CAD's are some sort of random sketches of the final product. All the mistakes in those kits are mistakes in CAD because of lazy/shoddy work by the design team. Not some technical limitations of the technology. If Hobby Boss can tool thin panellines and rivets - then they are obviously not limited by the tooling technology when MiG-27 nose ends up looking as it is.

 

These excuses of "don't complain about the CAD's, the product will look completely different!" are just that, excuses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>> These excuses of "don't complain about the CAD's, the product will look completely different!" are just that, excuses.

 

Anybody have any CAD & completed project images?

 

I'm not a model builder and wouldn't attempt to build one on my own since I don't have the talent, but I am curious how well the finished version matches the look of the real thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 3:37 AM, Berkut said:

Stunning job on the CAD design by the HazMat team Chris! Will the tooling be done by the same people as GWH MiG-29/Aviation Art Su-33?

Thanks Berkut. I wasn't directly involved in creating the CAD work so I feel it's OK for me to brag. :worship: They did an outstanding job :worship:.

My understanding about the tooling source is no, it is a different tooling factory.

 

On 5/23/2017 at 8:37 AM, Laurent said:

...CAD renderings must be taken with a pinch of salt as...What matters in the end are the plastic parts. 

 

On 5/23/2017 at 9:17 AM, Craig Baldwin said:

For me it's the end product and sharpness of molding. Fitting of the parts and assemblies is very high on my "want list". I will wait for sprue shots before I get closer to purchase decision.

 

On 5/23/2017 at 4:56 AM, Eastern said:

It's gonna be a real stunner being plastic cast...in case the molds are as such as the 3D-modeling shows.

Laurent is absolutely correct in his explanation of CAD vs tooling/plastic. Though saying that "CAD renderings must be taken with a pinch of salt" could be misinterpreted unless you read everything else he wrote to defend that statement. The CAD will match the size and shape of the resulting kit. The tooling and plastic will only be as good as the tooling/molding company is capable of producing.

 

Which brings me to Berkuts comments:

 

16 hours ago, Berkut said:

This thinking that the tooling is somehow very loosely based on the CAD has to stop. It is nonsense. Other than technical restrictions for the details, what you see in CAD - is what you will get in plastic. Thinking the CAD is loosely related to tooling just gives excuses for the modelmakers to make mistakes and modelbuilders to make excuses on modelmakers behalf. Mistakes in CAD will be reflected in the plastic. There isnt some magic gulf between the CAD design and the final product.

 

Hobby Boss Su-34 mistakes are not some wish-washy result of CAD being "collection of abstract objects" or technical limitations. Spine and wheelbays in Su-27 kit isnt wrong because of that either. Or the nose/canopy on MiG-23/27. Zvezda's (and HB for that matter) T-50 doesnt look like it does because CAD's are some sort of random sketches of the final product. All the mistakes in those kits are mistakes in CAD because of lazy/shoddy work by the design team. Not some technical limitations of the technology. If Hobby Boss can tool thin panellines and rivets - then they are obviously not limited by the tooling technology when MiG-27 nose ends up looking as it is.

 

These excuses of "don't complain about the CAD's, the product will look completely different!" are just that, excuses.

Berkut is referring to something that often happens on modeling discussion forums that is very frustrating and has often lead to arguments and even name-calling (flame-wars).

 

People will look at CAD drawings or renders (drawings are the initial blue background pics I posted where renders are the more polished pics I posted later) and find a flaw, maybe the nose is the wrong shape, the panel lines don't match the real plane, etc. (These people are often called "rivet-counters". I wear that badge proudly!) They point out the flaw hoping the company will fix it and for some reason some people get angry and defensive basically telling them to shut up and just accept it the way it is. They seem to think by pointing these things out that you are somehow insulting the company rather than trying to help.

The same thing happens with test-shots (first plastic parts made from new molds to evaluate the tooling). If flaws are pointed out the "good enoughs" ("That looks good enough to me. Quit complaining and just accept that we finally have a new tool Bronco!") will jump down their throats and try to shut down the conversation (in a "model discussion forum" of all places! :bandhead2:).

 

Generally, molds will not be changed (very expensive!) so test shots pretty much always represent the final product. Identifying problems with the CADs is the best time to make corrections.

 

Having said that and now being part of a development team, I dread the thought that somebody might find problems and point them out for the whole world to see (It's embarrassing, especially if it's a stupid mistake).

Some have suggested e-mailing the company about the flaws rather than making it public. I am mixed about this because somebody noticing a small flaw might lead somebody else to finding a related bigger/fatal flaw that might have otherwise been fixed.

 

When flaws are pointed out the company will then decide if the problem is important enough to justify the cost of fixing. Fixing a problem on the CAD can be simple or very difficult and time consuming (expensive) depending on what it is. Fixing a problem once the tools have been cut can be very expensive, even for small things (fixing a tool often requires welding the cavity and re-machining).

 

Being a new company (with no income from previously released kits), we are striving to get everything correct the first time so that no fixes are necessary.

If any of you do see problems with our work, I welcome you to e-mail me (Zactoman at Zactomodels dot com) the details (or post them if you'd prefer).

 

10 hours ago, VAL-4 Black Ponies said:

>> These excuses of "don't complain about the CAD's, the product will look completely different!" are just that, excuses.

 

Anybody have any CAD & completed project images?

 

I'm not a model builder and wouldn't attempt to build one on my own since I don't have the talent, but I am curious how well the finished version matches the look of the real thing.

I don't think this Bronco thread is the right place to post examples of other companies successes or failures in CAD modeling and their results in plastic.

I will say that this kit will match the CAD in size and shape. Hopefully the tooling will be great and the details will be crisp and clean.

So now we wait, fingers crossed... :pray:

 

:cheers:

Edited by Zactoman
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...