Jump to content

Minibase Su-33 1/48


Recommended Posts

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

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
  • 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...