Mstor Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 Don't know anything about the aircraft so couldn't say anything about the kits accuracy, but it looks like a nice kit. http://www.hyperscale.com/2018/reviews/kits/afvclubar48112reviewjm_1.htm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dylan Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) it looks good. i'm not too sure about the flap hinges though. the starfighter had the same arrangement with a piano hinge on the bottom of the wing. there should probably not be any serrations on the top of the flap or wing. the U-2 was based on an F-104. I have no experience with a U-2 but I have assembled 2 sets of F-104 wings Edited November 9, 2018 by dylan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doppelgänger Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 With the awful shape of that nose and windshield, I'd still rather build the old Hawk/Testors kit. They both look terribly off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Jay Miller’s Aerograph #3 book on the U-2 series is an excellent reference for early (A thru D) airframes, will compare pics with my copy later tonite. https://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-U-2-Aerograph-Jay-Miller/dp/0942548043 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doppelgänger Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, habu2 said: ,will compare pics with my copy later tonite. Check out the comparison Caerbannog has done over at Britmodeller Here's the thread at Britmodeller and his brilliant post - scroll down to post #60 Cheers, Onigiri Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, Doppelgänger said: Check out the comparison Caerbannog has done over at Britmodeller Darn you, I was just about to post almost the same exact photos, without the nicely done outline though. Great comparison. Will check over on Britmodeler. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doppelgänger Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Mstor said: Darn you, I was just about to post almost the same exact photos, without the nicely done outline though. Well, you know how the saying goes; "The early bird gets the salary raise?" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Honestly, it's unfair to gig the intakes right now with all that tape on them. Also, I've seen three or four U2's in my lifetime, and I think each had a different nose shape. Be a good question for Ben Rich! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
skyhawk174 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Wow that canopy does not even appear close. Do you think it matters on which version? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jpk Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 I immediately noticed the canopy and nose issues when I saw the photos. The 56 year old HAWK kit has a better shape than this new kit. I suppose you could graft the HAWK nose and canopy to this kit. It is far better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.Sin Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, jpk said: I immediately noticed the canopy and nose issues when I saw the photos. The 56 year old HAWK kit has a better shape than this new kit. I suppose you could graft the HAWK nose and canopy to this kit. It is far better. Wow! Think about that, a 56-year-old kit is more accurate than a modern one. At the time that HAWK kit was made very little information was available on the U-2. Edited November 10, 2018 by B.Sin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted November 10, 2018 Author Share Posted November 10, 2018 It is rather disturbing that they could get it so wrong. One look at a photo of the real thing and it is readily apparent. Well, it is a test shot. Perhaps they will take it back to the drawing board and then retool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 10 hours ago, Mstor said: It is rather disturbing that they could get it so wrong. One look at a photo of the real thing and it is readily apparent. Well, it is a test shot. Perhaps they will take it back to the drawing board and then retool. Never understood how certain companies (KH cough cough) could get something so wrong when there is such a plethora of resources out there to aid their projects. It would be nice if they re-tool to address this but in just about every instance where this has occurred, we are already past the point of no return. Can't believe they missed something so basic.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jpk Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 On 11/9/2018 at 7:27 PM, B.Sin said: Wow! Think about that, a 56-year-old kit is more accurate than a modern one. At the time that HAWK kit was made very little information was available on the U-2. HAWK kits were always overshadowed by Monogram and Revell back in the early and mid 60's. Their 1/48 aircraft kits were, for the day, very well done. In some ways better than their competition. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jpk Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 On 11/10/2018 at 9:27 AM, 11bee said: Never understood how certain companies (KH cough cough) could get something so wrong when there is such a plethora of resources out there to aid their projects. It would be nice if they re-tool to address this but in just about every instance where this has occurred, we are already past the point of no return. Can't believe they missed something so basic.... Yes. There's lots of info on the early U-2's. No reason for that to happen. Maybe you can use doner parts from this kit to detail up the HAWK kit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KursadA Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 It looks like the issues (so far) are limited to the canopy and windscreen; and there may yet be hope that the manufacturer can solve these by modifying the transparent parts sprue. If not, an enterprising resin outfit may make a replacement part.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IAGeezer Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 On 11/9/2018 at 12:07 PM, Doppelgänger said: Check out the comparison Caerbannog has done over at Britmodeller Here's the thread at Britmodeller and his brilliant post - scroll down to post #60 Cheers, Onigiri Post #59 shows a -C model(???), and I believe the black a/c in the pics is a -C also. About that canopy.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tony.t Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 On 10 November 2018 at 2:27 PM, 11bee said: Never understood how certain companies (KH cough cough) could get something so wrong when there is such a plethora of resources out there to aid their projects... [snip] ... Can't believe they missed something so basic.... If I tried CAD I could have all the references in the world and still fashion a turdy U-2 canopy. Actually I think that's why they include the "howdah", to hide it. Or it's the effect of CAD designers doing all that cutesy cr@pp¥ armour and eggplanes - these days everything's a caricature Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 23 hours ago, KursadA said: It looks like the issues (so far) are limited to the canopy and windscreen; and there may yet be hope that the manufacturer can solve these by modifying the transparent parts sprue. If not, an enterprising resin outfit may make a replacement part.. The windscreen+canopy parts go on the fuselage. If there's an issue with the "footprint" of these parts then the fuselage part and what's in it (cockpit) are impacted. 3 hours ago, tony.t said: Or it's the effect of CAD designers doing all that cutesy cr@pp¥ armour and eggplanes - these days everything's a caricature I don't think the designer is to blame. It's a problem with AFV Club's design process. Lack of CAD validation process. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doppelgänger Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 23 hours ago, IAGeezer said: Post #59 shows a -C model(???), and I believe the black a/c in the pics is a -C also. About that canopy.... As far as I know, both the nose and windshield are exactly the same on the U-2A and U-2C. In any case, they don't look nearly like in the AFV kit, that's for sure. Cheers, Onigiri Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aircal62 Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 (edited) This is very disappointing for a kit that is going to retail I am guessing in the $70 USD range. They AFV seemed to have cared to try and get a good cockpit, wheel wells etc and then totally somehow got the exterior airframe shapes so wrong. Not just the nose, but the style of the budged intakes and the fin tip. I doubt at this stage in the game, AFV is going to fix the fuselage. I am not sure where they could have found any information available and have gotten the canopy so messed up. Yes no one would mistake the model for anything other than an early U-2, but AFV's market is about the serious modeler, where these details are important. I guess I could buy $70 in resin aftermarket to add detail to my Hawk U-2 or I could buy the $70 AFV kit for details to add to my Hawk U-2. John Andrews who was with Hawk models designed the Hawk U-2 kit in 1961 with the kit being issued in 1962. In those days the U-2 has just become very public but there were still not a lot of detail about the aircraft available to the public. John managed to get a model out that today 56 years later is still the gold standard for this aircraft. John, your keen eye and your market sense, we miss you still today. Edited November 14, 2018 by aircal62 spelling Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galileo1 Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 This is pretty disappointing. I was dead set on this kit when I saw the pics by AFV. Guess my Hawk kit will survive after all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jpk Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 On 11/13/2018 at 8:35 AM, Doppelgänger said: As far as I know, both the nose and windshield are exactly the same on the U-2A and U-2C. In any case, they don't look nearly like in the AFV kit, that's for sure. Cheers, Onigiri That is correct. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IAGeezer Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 Actually, I was pointing out the later model intakes on what is said to be an -A model U-2. Maybe AFV have further plans for these molds. That is all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aircal62 Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 I also just noticed looking at the model with the tape on it. The canopy being set up incorrectly, also created a budge in the spine that should not be there. The hope is that AFV per their normal practice will issue other variants of this aircraft and these molds could have corrected fuselages, but I do not hold out hope because those molds are likely already made also. 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.