Jump to content

Minibase Su-33 1/48


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Nino_Belov said:

I have just spoken with SuperTomcat21 on other forum and he told me that this is test sample,and that this is not serial production model.So no alarm...They have tested molds,temperatures etc...so what is shown on those pictures above are NOT serial and FINISHED product.

Glad to hear that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nino_Belov said:

Yes they did,and the man who had done that,says that it fits perfect.

There is also a pictures of it comparison with parts of version 1.0,and truth to tell there is so much deferences. But I don't know can I take those pictures from that other forum and post here.I will need to ask this man ,will he me give a permission to do that...And also I dont know do I have right to post on this forum pictures from other forum...I am betwean hammer and the anvil...

 Hopefully all of the issues will be worked out before the kit is released.  I'm sure it will be fine!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nino_Belov said:

I have just spoken with SuperTomcat21 on other forum and he told me that this is test sample,and that this is not serial production model.So no alarm...They have tested molds,temperatures etc...so what is shown on those pictures above are NOT serial and FINISHED product.

 

Hmmm, Gabor stated above that Kinetic had to redo the molds to eliminate the sink mark problems. I hope this doesn't become the same kind of problem here. :hmmm:

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

 

Hmmm, Gabor stated above that Kinetic had to redo the molds to eliminate the sink mark problems. I hope this doesn't become the same kind of problem here. :hmmm:

 

Please dont confuse adjustment and re-tooling of a mould.

Kinetic did not retool! They simply adjusted the injection moulding procedure. Injection moulding and its technology is an interesting subject but far bigger than what can be even scratched on a forum like this. In short the flow of molten plastic inside the tool, the temperature, gates and the cooling cycle . . .   of the tool to make plastic removable is where the real problem can be found. It is all possible to adjust to eliminated problems.

 

Actually in our age there are fantastic comp programs which are specifically designed to model tools, molten plastic, cooling, number of gates, optimal cooling system . . . But also in parts brake down which is in many cases responsible for such problems. Using prior modelling and all this can be eliminated in CAD design stage while in practice many makers cut metal and realise problems only when the first test sprues are made. Not making proper tool design in short term saves time and money but in long term can be far more costly in a project like this no matter how fine and fantastic details are incorporated into a kit.

 

Kinetic corrected what they could with the given tools.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

 

Please dont confuse adjustment and re-tooling of a mould.

Kinetic did not retool! They simply adjusted the injection moulding procedure. Injection moulding and its technology is an interesting subject but far bigger than what can be even scratched on a forum like this. In short the flow of molten plastic inside the tool, the temperature, gates and the cooling cycle . . .   of the tool to make plastic removable is where the real problem can be found. It is all possible to adjust to eliminated problems.

 

Actually in our age there are fantastic comp programs which are specifically designed to model tools, molten plastic, cooling, number of gates, optimal cooling system . . . But also in parts brake down which is in many cases responsible for such problems. Using prior modelling and all this can be eliminated in CAD design stage while in practice many makers cut metal and realise problems only when the first test sprues are made. Not making proper tool design in short term saves time and money but in long term can be far more costly in a project like this no matter how fine and fantastic details are incorporated into a kit.

 

Kinetic corrected what they could with the given tools.

 

Best regards

Gabor

 

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I took "Kinetic DID correct the tools to avoid the sink marks" to mean they made changes in the actual molds. My bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mstor said:

 

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I took "Kinetic DID correct the tools to avoid the sink marks" to mean they made changes in the actual molds. My bad.


sorry to put message here, it related to Kinetic. 
 

we have do some adjustment on the tooling to allow it to inject without the shrink effect. But the result does not have too much. The major breakthrough on the su-33 is the total engineering from tooling design to injection system. 
 

The su-33 lead to the investment in the in house injection floor with digital motor. The result is very good and basically fix most of the injection problem that trouble us for year. The injection is quite unique where it is not common to find a subcontractor. Without such facilities one should to do excessive QC sprue by sprue like resin casting. Instead we solve it by Process Control. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raymond Chung said:


sorry to put message here, it related to Kinetic. 
 

we have do some adjustment on the tooling to allow it to inject without the shrink effect. But the result does not have too much. The major breakthrough on the su-33 is the total engineering from tooling design to injection system. 
 

The su-33 lead to the investment in the in house injection floor with digital motor. The result is very good and basically fix most of the injection problem that trouble us for year. The injection is quite unique where it is not common to find a subcontractor. Without such facilities one should to do excessive QC sprue by sprue like resin casting. Instead we solve it by Process Control. 

 

 

What ever adjustment work did Kinetic do on the original tools to control the problem, the result was good. I had both the original and the new Kinetic version thanks to the company and the difference was clearly visible! Thanks again!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nino_Belov said:

She will came out without those sink marks.

 

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. In other words, I will have to see for myself, but I have a good feeling about this one. It will very good to have a very accurate, highly detailed and will molded Su-33 kit. Now, like I said, if only you had done this a couple of years ago. Then I wouldn't have already bought the old version of the Kinetic kit already. At very least, I would have gotten the improved Kinetic kit, but if the AA one had been released, I would have certainly gone with it.

Oh well, it is what it is. Now if I could only get myself restarted on finishing my Kinetic Su-33. Damn health problems have put a halt on all my modeling activities. Aside for the Guintas Mig-29 cockpit set, I haven't made any modeling related purchases in many months (its amazing how much money I have managed to save in that time).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

That's unfortunate, however I think it's not the worst thing to be childish... and considering our hobby isn't well known as a hobby for mature men either. To be fair I read some extremely stupid comments towards him like "understand his ex-wife",  which one wouldn't make when talking face to face. In fact I have zero idea, why many need to talk about him at all?? If one doesn't like his posts, there is a "ignore member" function here, I guess it should be working?

 

Anyway, good luck to SuperTomcat21 fixing those sink mark issues, and maybe after this kit he will start an other new project? And I also have to apologize for questioning the design/size of their canopy without having a good look at it, it's great that they didn't change anything.  

 

 

Edited by delide
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Hi all 

   First I would like to thank Russian friends for their excessive praise after receiving the T2 kits(https://vk.com/wall-114983756_183033). Obviously, in order to highlight the rich details of the parts,Maybe the photographer used HDR shooting mode,
After HDR is turned on, it will take three photos in a row, corresponding to underexposure, normal exposure and overexposure, and then combine these three pictures into one and highlight the best part of each photo to generate an exquisite photo. It is generally more suitable for scenery, people in the sun, low light and backlit scenes,But obviously not suitable for product shooting,Since the photos are synthesized through algorithms,The calculation program will synthesize and enlarge some features that are default advantages and display them at the same time,Therefore, the parts shown in the photos will be quite different from what the eyes see,It is similar to ladies’ favorite beauty shooting mode. But when used in product shooting, it will give viewers some wrong information. In addition, the lower resolution of the photo is more likely to cause misunderstanding. At least it is certain that this collection of photos taken with mobile phones does not reflect the facts.
    About shrinkage, The following is a set of photos of parts(T1) taken with a SLR camera at the end of 2019 ,By comparing the newly released photos:http://tieba.baidu.com/p/6421734499
It can be known that although there are some shrinkage phenomena,But the overall quality of the kit is still very high.
The contraction except for the trailing edge flaps and the vertical tail wings base is only slightly,
It is normal for some parts to shrink during the first test,They can generally be improved in later debugging. Follow-up T2; T3...is the quality optimization engineering,Until it reaches the required index for mass production delivery.
    In the process of injection molding, If want to control the shrinkage of the product, the thickness of the plastic needs to be kept in a stable range. And it is necessary to minimize the thickness jump when the thickness changes.
The shrinkage rate can generally be improved by adjusting the injection pressure,In addition, the quality can be improved by adding runners and replacing plastic raw materials, or even replacing more advanced injection molding machines. These effective improvement methods do not need to modify the mold.
    Actually T2 has been greatly improved compared to T1,After T2 appears, most contraction problems can no longer be recognized by the eyes. Due to the special shape of the trailing edge flap now, there is still a certain degree of contraction. We hope it can be adjusted to a generally acceptable level when T3 appears. Various inspections and improvements before mass production are a responsible behavior to the buyer,Although there is no perfect product in the world,But the team still hopes to go all out to optimize its quality,So that the product meets its original goals as much as possible.

 

            Ran

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, delide said:

That's unfortunate, however I think it's not the worst thing to be childish... and considering our hobby isn't well known as a hobby for mature men either. To be fair I read some extremely stupid comments towards him like "understand his ex-wife",  which one wouldn't make when talking face to face. In fact I have zero idea, why many need to talk about him at all?? If one doesn't like his posts, there is a "ignore member" function here, I guess it should be working?

 

Anyway, good luck to SuperTomcat21 fixing those sink mark issues, and maybe after this kit he will start an other new project? And I also have to apologize for questioning the design/size of their canopy without having a good look at it, it's great that they didn't change anything.  

 

 

This is a photo of transparent parts taken with a SLR camera when T1 appeared:https://vk.com/photo-114983756_457319626

Maybe its appearance can bring us closer to the real airplane

Edited by SuperTomcat21
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SuperTomcat21 said:

This is a photo of transparent parts taken with a SLR camera when T1 appeared:https://vk.com/photo-114983756_457319626

Maybe its appearance can bring us closer to the real airplane

No, there is no more question about the size of the canopy. Last year I found rather sufficient difference(about 10%) in width of the canopies of GWH's Su-35 and the Kinetic's Su-33, immediately I thought GWH must be correct/more correct, but later I had my doubts, a lot... Now that GWH released the measurement data for their new Flanker, it does prove that your design is basically spot on, so it's case closed for me. An amazing job if you guys have not measured the real thing.

 

Great to know about the improvements, good to see a manufacturer chosing the totally opposite direction of Kitty Hawk, best of luck!

Edited by delide
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here is the thing,very important.

 This what I am now talking will explain why there is need for new Su-33 in 1/48, and what is what ,and it will solve every mistery about this story for all eternity about his kit.There was some talking in the past, that Kinetic's Su-33 ie:V1.0, have some mishaping with GWH's Su-35 canopy glass

This is the old story "fire starter":

gh.jpg

 

It took couple of days to complete this quest but ,I think that this is very important for all of us here who follow this thread.

So this led us to thinking who is right and who is not.

 Then, this quest took path for real measures on real things,on Su-35 ans Su-27.The widest area on omega shape frontal view is 843,6 mm , so which lead us to 17,56 mm in 1/48 scale.What is interesting it is same on both aircrafts. And 100% correct source tells that Su-35 and Su-27 single seater variant have same canopy,in contures and shapes.

And then I took photo of GWH's Su-35 in 1/48 scale with real measures and here it is: 17,56mm.INCREDIBLE!!! Bravo GWH.:thumbsup:

0-02-05-166a55868ff85ec7a9a3b6b689f32ca9

 

Next step in quest was:

Acording that GWH's Su-35 canopy is correct ,lets see why is such a deference betwean canopy of Su-33 of Kinetic's kit?

On real SU-33 the canopy should be bigger than on regular SU-27/35.That was confirmed with 100% correct source.It was very hard to find proper photos to compare it and to present to people.But after some..some....some time,the magic happened.And wuala,watch this:

Kabina.png

Next step was to confront all three canopies together with their comparison and measures.With the help of my friend,here it is:

sadasd.png

Next photo shows comparison betwean GWH and V.2.0

Kabina-2.png

Next one is V.2.0 with V.1.0 ie.Kinetic's

Kabina-3.png

 

So,Mr.Liang and the team have make 100% CORRECT canopy,and BRAVO sir,since contures of canopy in lower area is leading a shape of fuselage of front and upper area,it means that a lot of things have been corrected,and it tell's us why there was need for V.2.0.

 But this is only talking about canopy.The rest of the model kit will talk about it self.It's just fantastic.

It's only left to tell both GWH and AA,well done!!!And BRAVO for giving us correct model kits.Thank you!!!:worship:

 

Happy modeling friends.

Edited by Nino_Belov
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Petarvu changed the title to Minibase Su-33 1/48

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...