Jump to content

Minibase Su-33 1/48


Recommended Posts

But GWH said it's the "outside diameter"? It's really confusing.. And I'm pretty sure that GWH modified their design and make the canopy of their flanker "V2.0" narrower X-P

Edited by delide
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, delide said:

But GWH said it's the "outside diameter"? It's really confusing.. And I'm pretty sure that GWH modified their design and make the canopy of their flanker "V2.0" narrower X-P

Thank you for this information.I will investigate this,and why did i get 843mm from my source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

Now I called via phone my friend and he took measure again and it is 843mm in the most wider area...Maybe you took it a little bit up???

I meant I only measured the GWH's SU-35, the B on the kit is about 10% wider than their own 940mm measure data for Su-27 above. B is not to be ignored, as it affects the width of the cockpit.

 

No sure who's right, GWH's new data match Kinetic's old kit, and your friend's data matches GWH's old kit... such mystery of a triangle X-P

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

Yes, you are right.But the only thing that confuses me is real measures,if they are correct,and i think that they are,I dont see a reason why I have been lied from my source.Anyway, 0.35mm I can exept.

Yes, I'm totally confused by the contradicting measurement data... And it's very Interesting to read that the Su-33 actually has a wider/different canopy! Could it be possible that there were different versions of the canopies??? The way it looks, GWH's Su-35 and Su-27 will certainly have different sized canopies,  and the differences are much more than 0.35mm as our photos and your measurements show,

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

I need to check also measure B on Su-35,but I think that this area is a bit wider than on Su-27,just give a little time.The glass is same as on Su-27,but only frame I think that is a litle bit wider on Su-35.

Yes, that would be great!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,on Su-33 canopy is deferent.Just look the photo I have showed in previous posts.The ejection seat is pushed in front,it is not like in regular Flanker.And top of canopy is higher,because of better view,on carrier landings.She is not wider,she is just taller.

Edited by Nino_Belov
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nino_Belov said:

Yes,on Su-33 canopy is deferent.Just look the photo I have showed in previous posts.The ejection seat is pushed in front,it is not like in regular Flanker.And top of canopy is higher,because of better view,on carrier landings.

I see, I was just wondering about the reason! Thanks!

 

I did notice the slightly different curve on the top before, but I just  dismissed it, with the much frequently used reasoning: different angles of photos, etc... But now I see the truth and it makes sense!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, delide said:

I see, I was just wondering about the reason! Thanks!

 

I did notice the slightly different curve on the top before, but I just  dismissed it, with the much frequently used reasoning: different angles of photos, etc... But now I see the truth and it makes sense!

I am glad I helped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,so here is comparison betwean Su-27 and Su-35, their canopies are complitly same in every point,I am talking about contures and shape,there is some small deferences on equipment which is  atached on the frame from the inside,but the overal shape is 100% same.

sdfdgg.png

and here is shape deferences betwean those two in whole.

htw568.jpg

 

Edited by Nino_Belov
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nino_Belov said:

delide

Ok,so now I have measured area on fuselage,in section where is joint when canopy is closed on Su-35,and it is 21,25mm.Which is 1020mm in 1/1.SO it means that I little bit pressed harder plexi material when I have measured canopy,so correct measure is logicly 21,25 of GWH Su-35 1/48.So, Delide,you were right.Something is strange going on here.It appears that on each side the lowest area of canopy is wider exact 0.78mm from each side.Which in full scale is around 10% than it should be.Now how the f... to fix that???In my first measuring,which was wrong,the error was 0,35mm,but...after repeated method,but inverted,on area where is joint,and surface is harder,I got now correct values.The only way how to fix it, is next: I need to buy  new SU-27 single seater,and then cut the area around fuselage,and then transplant that part on Su-35 and use canopy of SU-27.The only solution.And what is left of parts to throw to trash because it is unusable.Or to beg GWH to send me just upper fuselage of single seater and canopy for my surgical procedure...But I doubt that they will do it.

Yes, I only took rough measurements, it already tells me that should be around 10% difference to the Kinetic's V1.0, so I didn't check further. Wondering about the truth, I tried to find more photos of the Su-27/35,  they pointed me more and more toward Kinetic actually. Now that the new data from GWH confirmed that Kinetic is indeed more correct(for a Su-27/Su-35 that is, maybe the design team used data/drawings of the Su-27 to design the V1.0 kit?). I guess finally I know the truth now. Personally I would just live with it, as the canopy of SU-35 kit looks quite OK from the side, and if you build the kit with canopy closed, then it's only about 5% too wide, so only half as noticeable. But I can understand if that would be difficult for you.   

 

Yes, it's going to be difficult to fix, as always with canopies. Their new Su-27 could provide a solution, but the windshield of the Su-35 is too wide too(it has to match the canopy after all), and you can not use the one of Su-27. But think positively, their at least measured the real thing and corrected it on their Su-27 kits for us, so we will have the perfect Su-27 at least(Until we do more comparisons... X-P just kidding, I do not expect any sufficient issue).

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

no no no,it was just ruff point of view,I am not  alowed to show real photo...

OK OK, that sounds much better, but still I thought you guys were able to measured the real things. I don't know how to take exact measurement from photos and there is not that many photos of the Su-33 I can find, so I can not tell. I will see the test build someday.

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

OK OK, that sounds much better, but still I thought you guys were able to measured the real things. I don't know how to take exact measurement from photos and there is not that many photos of the Su-33 I can find, so I can not tell. I will see the test build someday.

Yes,there was some real measures taken,and,now i am waiting for more updates,I will inform about it ASAP.Belive me I am in great sorrow about this situation.

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...