Jump to content

AFV U-2A test shots on Hyperscale


Recommended Posts

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 by dylan
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :explode:

Great comparison. Will check over on Britmodeler. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by B.Sin
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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....  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 12:07 PM, Doppelgänger said:

 

Check out the comparison Caerbannog has done over at Britmodeller

 

45071497194_7fce94a7ef_b.jpg&key=7c0f067

 

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....

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by aircal62
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.     

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...