Jump to content

AFV U-2A test shots on Hyperscale


Recommended Posts

Happily keeping my old Testors 1/48 U-2C kit + all of the Cutting Edge resin bits I've been harvesting for it during the 10+ years since I got it.

Not even disappointed at AFV, considering how awful the nose and windshield are on this new kit. Also, the canopy and intakes are off.

Cheers,

 

Onigiri

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, aircal62 said:

It will be interesting to see the Hobby Boss U-2R down the road.    If they make the same mistake one would have to wonder where they are getting their info from.  China and Russia both have examples to look at! 

 

 

...but are they still...ummm... straight?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, aircal62 said:

It will be interesting to see the Hobby Boss U-2R down the road.    If they make the same mistake one would have to wonder where they are getting their info from.  China and Russia both have examples to look at! 

 

TrumpyBoss's definition of research is downloading drawings from airwar.ru and a walkaround from the internet... or copying a Hasegawa kit. Going to a museum wouldn't cross their minds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 2:48 AM, tony.t said:

 

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

 

Well, having CAD and 3D software doesn't necessarily make it easier to get it right, it only makes it easier to visualize in real time and flip it around before you cut metal. Having crappy information (or just lack of knowledge or interest) to getting it right still produces bad results. Plus, it's not as simple as it seems to take 2D imagery and project that out into the the 3D world. Angles change based on different photos that APPEAR to from the same angle but aren't really, telephoto lenses vs macro lenses, fore shortening, perspective...all of those things make it pretty hard to generate a 3d model that looks accurate. With a 3d scanner you can get really really close, but even that has room for errors. In the end, it takes a really good eye and someone who has seen the subject a LOT to catch some of the subtle differences. And they have to care! Some errors are obvious, some aren't. Especially when you get target locked in a model and can't seem to see what is actually there. I've done that many times where I swore what I was seeing was right. Only to come back a few months or so later and see how far off I was. It happens. There are also mold limitations that have to be in the back of their mind, so yeah, it's not real easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, niart17 said:

Well, having CAD and 3D software doesn't necessarily make it easier to get it right, it only makes it easier to visualize in real time and flip it around before you cut metal. Having crappy information (or just lack of knowledge or interest) to getting it right still produces bad results. Plus, it's not as simple as it seems to take 2D imagery and project that out into the the 3D world. Angles change based on different photos that APPEAR to from the same angle but aren't really, telephoto lenses vs macro lenses, fore shortening, perspective...all of those things make it pretty hard to generate a 3d model that looks accurate. With a 3d scanner you can get really really close, but even that has room for errors. In the end, it takes a really good eye and someone who has seen the subject a LOT to catch some of the subtle differences. And they have to care! Some errors are obvious, some aren't. Especially when you get target locked in a model and can't seem to see what is actually there. I've done that many times where I swore what I was seeing was right. Only to come back a few months or so later and see how far off I was. It happens. There are also mold limitations that have to be in the back of their mind, so yeah, it's not real easy.

Word.

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

One of the biggest issues with the Hawk/Testors U-2 kits is the wing asymmetry - a bit of a bear to put right: http://hsfeatures.com/features04/u2a48jf_1.htm ...

 

Hi Jeffrey!

:hmmm:Indeed! Are all of the Testors examples flawed by this wing asymmetry? I've got the boxing which brings the trolley in it.

One kit to be fished out during the weekend.

Incidentally; any news regarding your 1/48 SR-71 project as of late?

Cheers,

 

Onigiri

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

Incidentally; any news regarding your 1/48 SR-71 project as of late?

Cheers,

 

Onigiri

 

It is progressing nicely (working on it to some extent nearly every day), but a huge amount of work is still looming.

 

I'm not at home at the moment but when I return I'll check my Hawk kit as well - I thought the issue was present in all of them (as they all originate from the same moulds)...

 

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 9:45 PM, niart17 said:

. . .  In the end, it takes a really good eye and someone who has seen the subject a LOT to catch some of the subtle differences. . . 

 

Yes, it is very important to go up to the real aircraft and „feel” its shape! Touch it and look at it from all directions, get into a real intimate relation with it to be able to interpret the shapes. I also understand that some companies dont have the time and money to do this.

 

But then again you have examples where a company takes the time, goes out to check several original aircraft, makes hundreds of photos from all directions, measures details only to go back to the office and take out a completely wrong drawing and “insert” the newly acquired detail knowledge into that, cut metal and you get a wrong Me-109G in the end.    :wall:  :wall:

 

The U-2 in Moscow has its intakes. Have to look at my photos but know that I have spent most of the time (surprise surprise :winkgrin: :winkgrin: :winkgrin:) with the ejection seat of Gary Powers.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both intakes are there in Moscow. Here is the right one from above and front and also from front. A slight bulge is visible.

 

 

 

Some parts of the airframe were patched up to “build up” the shape by the Russians but it is also visible that some testing of the paint was carried out.

There is a nice green surface below the Blue-black. Where the paint was sanded down there was a Blue-black on top with green under, another layer of Blue-black with more green before the metal surface.

 

On the inside in most places clean aluminium is visible on “Moscow parts” with some Chromate Yellow on some parts.

 

 

Sorry but the photo share (Imgur) is not accessible at the moment so I will post the photos when I can.

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

So at last here are the photos. I think Imgur is also starting what out dear friend Photo Buck did before. They want all sorts of info and dont let into the account. I dont like it.

 

Anyway here is the U-2 in Moscow.

It was involved in a crash but  . . .

 

Just have a look 

 

djQYXpZ.jpg

 

 

yGaEo8P.jpg

 

 

And the paint test.

 

YZXLpa7.jpg

 

It wasn't me with a sanding block !!!! :D  :D  :D I guess Russian investigators  wanted to see what is under the paint. 

 

Best regards

Gabor 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn’t really about dimensional accuracy. Just shared photos of the Moscow aircraft. Question was asked further up about them.

 

Still that wreck provided some excellent details for me on a lot of things including the ejection seat!   :yikes:

 

From the photos I seen the ones in China were in a similar state after they have crashed. They were put on public display side by side and all looking like this one. Just as the U-2’s brought down over Cuba. Took some photos of them in Havana, but the museum is gone by now. :( 

 

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
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...