Jump to content

Great Wall Hobby G.W.H L4827 1/48 Su-27UB “Flanker C” Heavy Fighter


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 671
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

17 minutes ago, ching kuo said:

Nino is a good guy, he is insightful, the model kit is his guts that can be seen, he contributes to this forum in his own way, he is really a big help, like his motivation ,

👍👍👍🍺

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2020 at 10:40 AM, ya-gabor said:

Sorry for a belated update on the brand new G.W.H Su-27 kit family in 48 th scale. Here is another batch of images about the development and those fine details that we thought was important to add and differentiate between version in this kits design.  

 

s2s3Prq.jpg

 

 

TZlj82v.jpg

 

 

ghTwy0I.jpg

 

 

The radar. This is an interesting part.  

There was never an urge to cut the kit into little pieces by opening up lots of service panels, but the radar is serviced fairly regularly. The Su-27 aircraft design had a special feature incorporated into it. The whole nose section can be lifted with the help of a special and fairly simple winch. It take minutes to do and the technician has access to the unit. Remember that a radar unit servicing is mainly (95%) about the “black boxes” of electronics and only in 5% about maintenance of the actual radar dish. This is why one can simply lift the nose section and do the work. To get to the radar dish is a far more complicated task, very rarely carried out in field conditions. For this the nose cone is removed with many locks, under it one finds a protector hood of the dish which has to be removed by unscrewing dozens of lock. This is carried out mainly during heavy overhaul of the whole aircraft. There is absolutely no point in going so deep into radar details. Compared to this the nose part is lifted regularly, obvious that we went with this detailing and no further.

 

 

uoTKhuI.jpg

 

Little attention is payed to the big airbrakes that the Flanker has. In most cases “something” is provided and no difference is made between the single and two seater versions. Also there are some fine details here, both on the actual airbrake and in the bay. The UB two seater has a completely different design with many very complex curves and shapes. Personally this is kind of details that I look for in a kit and here it was luck that we could make it the way we as modellers would like to see it.

 

OGSdy5F.jpg

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

Dear Gabor and Yufei,with all do respects,

Can I ask you where and on which one aircraft did you took measures for canopy?

 I just got my friend asked to get on the top of Su-33 and take measure of section D which your prefere here as 508mm,but on SU-33 is 754mm,well it is near as same as on Su-27/35,because this part of canopy is practicly the same on all three types.

 But is very big defernece betwean 508mm and 754mm,but what is interesting,is that glass area on Su-33 in that rear part is exact 508mm???

And what is most interesting on your SU-35 model kit,this measure is something less than 0,15mm,which is fine.So it seams that you have made correct canopy for Su-35.I wait today to get measures of real aircraft also of this same section of Su-35.

Please explain.Thank you.

DC1225.jpg

Edited by Nino_Belov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread Hijack Alert!! What is a good reference book on the SU-27  from a modelers point of view? Similar to a Detail & Scale Showing wheel wells cockpits and other items modelers care about? I have the Yefim Gordon volume. But while thats a great history book it isn't the best from a modelers point of view.

Thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So regarding the Su-27 canopy data we disclosed, all data was from actual measurement.

It first came from our Russian friend's resource, and I compared with my data measured in China, they did fit with each other.

 

I can tell you more that:

The inner diameter of the Su-27 canopy opening is 705mm, frame thickness is 47mm, so over all diameter is 799mm which we round up to 800mm.

 

Edit: OK I apologize that seems the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page:

Dimension 508mm refers to the circular area outside, not the width between the frames beneath.

So we are talking dimension on different area, sorry for the confusion.

 

That is all I can tell from my reference.

Plus considering the plastic part shrinkage during injection, it does not really worth concerning so much about these data.

Or in other words, such data is just used as some kind of guidance for CAD drawing, but not the definition links to final part size.

After all, it is the overall looking of a model matters most importantly.

 

Just my 2 cents.

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

So regarding the Su-27 canopy data we disclosed, all data was from actual measurement.

It first came from our Russian friend's resource, and I compared with my data measured in China, they did fit with each other.

 

I can tell you more that:

The inner diameter of the Su-27 canopy opening is 705mm, frame thickness is 47mm, so over all diameter is 799mm which we round up to 800mm.

 

I have no idea why the above data is so different than ours, but if you calculate the difference 246mm by 1/48 scale, it will be over 5mm.

And if you compare it with ANY 1/48 Flanker kit, you will find the data as of 754mm, is apparently wrong. 

 

That is all I can tell from my reference.

Plus considering the plastic part shrinkage during injection, it does not really worth concerning so much about these data.

Or in other words, such data is just used as some kind of guidance for CAD drawing, but not the definition links to final part size.

After all, it is the overall looking of a model matters most importantly.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Ok,so lets say that I am wrong,and all those mechanics and airmans. It is always a chance that we all made mistake,and that none of us took measurements correctly.

Please measure section D on our model kit?And just show us here?If is just a little bit smaller than 15mm,you got it all wrong.

Edited by Nino_Belov
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

Ok,so lets say that I am wrong,and all those mechanics and airmans. It is always a chance that we all made mistake,and that none of us took measurements correctly.

Please measure section D on our model kit?And just show us here?If is just a little bit smaller than 15mm,you got it all wrong.

OK I apologize that seems the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page:

Dimension 508mm refers to the circular area outside, not the width between the frames beneath.

So we are talking dimension on different area, sorry for the confusion.

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

I have said that if you spend some time measuring ANY 1/48 Flanker kit, none of them has the width of that area over 15mm.

You can also cut a plastic card as of 15mm, put it on ANY 1/48 Flanker kit you will find it does not match fuselage at all.

Try it, I'm sure you will understand.

Will you be kind to measure section D,which you have shown here?And to show as all,with ANY of 15mm comparison size element or object.At least any measuring instrument.ANY...

hhreher.png

Edited by Nino_Belov
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

Will you be kind to measure section D,which you have shown here?

hhreher.png

OK I apologize that seems the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page:

Dimension 508mm refers to the circular area outside, not the width between the frames beneath.

So we are talking dimension on different area, sorry for the confusion.

Edited by haneto
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, haneto said:

OK I apologize that seems the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page:

Dimension 504mm refers to the circular area outside, not the width between the frames beneath.

So we are talking dimension on different area, sorry for the confusion.

Not a problem,people make mistakes.But in modeling those mistakes are crucial.

So here is a little bit of the look of section D on your Su-35:

0-02-0a-c4e7d7b3e89c8d8f9b32199c7e474b3f

 

And Kinetic's Su-33

0-02-0a-aba6d66503648130688fb2ce47dd73ab

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, haneto said:

OK I apologize that seems the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page:

Dimension 508mm refers to the circular area outside, not the width between the frames beneath.

So we are talking dimension on different area, sorry for the confusion.

And since "the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page",and the glass section is 508mm,it means that everything else is correct?Is there any chance that you have made some other "WRONG's"?

So it goes like this:

Since glass area is 508mm,how it can be 709mm in front,I am talking only about glass area,without frame,is in it a little bit bigger?/Please explain,and let me have a reason to tell all those people who took measures that they are wrong.Thank you.

P.S.And no...I don't trust in Yefim Gordon's books.And his datas.

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

And since "the booklet man made the WRONG arrow on the page",and the glass section is 508mm,it means that everything else is correct?Is there any chance that you have made some other "WRONG's"?

So it goes like this:

Since glass area is 508mm,how it can be 709mm in front,I am talking only about glass area,without frame,is in it a little bit bigger?/Please explain,and let me have a reason to tell all those people who took measures that they are wrong.Thank you.

Let me explain by this way: 508mm is the width of circular area on the end of canopy, including frame thickness(actually there is no glass any more).

I'm confused where did the 709 came from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You told that:

Snimak-ekrana-447.png

I have done matematics according to your's data, that 709mm in frontal section will be something that you are trying to achive,and it is also wrong,because you are telling that it is not just glass section.Since that is the side where your measures are going,linear constant with three check points,and to reasonable end point.Understandable?

Look bro,you have made excelent Su-35 and his cockpit is great.I just want to tell you that you reecheck your measures before you put to production your Su-27 single seater.And since GWH is not sending any replacement parts and they never answer on emails,I dont want people who are strong enthusiasts like me try to cut their model kits and then to throw them to trash.Ok?

Edited by Nino_Belov
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

You told that:

Snimak-ekrana-447.png

But I was measured according to your's data that 709 will be better reference to around it for Kinetic's.Since that is the side where your measures are going.Understandable?

Look bro,you have made excelent Su-35 and his cockpit is great.I just want to tell you that you reecheck your measures before you put to production your Su-27 single seater.

1. I only said the internal diameter is 705mm, not 709.

2. I have explained that plastic part deforms during injection, so you cannot  back calculate the real thing data from plastic part.

3. So neither of us can convince each other about the data, it will be an endless conversation.

    And as I have said it is the overall looking of a model matters most importantly, I think I have done my part.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, haneto said:

"That is all I can tell from my reference.

Plus considering the plastic part shrinkage during injection, it does not really worth concerning so much about these data.

Or in other words, such data is just used as some kind of guidance for CAD drawing, but not the definition links to final part size.

After all, it is the overall looking of a model matters most importantly."

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Bingo.....those are words to remember!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was gonna make a post with pictures and colored lines to conciliate both dudes arguments. But stopped because I realized Nino is deep into a crusade like Galfa was with the F-15 kit. No amount of evidence or arguments gonna convince him that you can't get the perfect scale kit unless you make your kit out of tin foil for the perfect thickness of parts.

Anyways that 508mm and 754mm for 'D'? both sides are correct if taken the measurements where they're supposed to be. 508mm for the diameter of the semicurcular aft end of the canopy as clarified by Haneto for 3+ times vs 754mm for the width including lower frame. Kit parts in the Su-35 are 10.57mm and 15.7mm in those same places.

 

If we take the measurements for A as 800mm, B 940mm, D as 508mm and D' as 754mm are all correct.

Then the GWH Su-35 A is too wide by 1mm, B too wide by ~1.5mm, D and D' are spot on.

I don't have the AA Su-33 obviously but the Kinetic Su-33 A, B and D are almost spot on while D' is too narrow by 1mm.

 

As for the new Su-27UB we can only take Haneto's word that they did use those correct measurements for the CAD design and wait for the plastic.

Edited by Inquisitor
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Inquisitor said:

If we take the measurements for A as 800mm, B 940mm, D as 508mm and D' as 754mm are all correct.

Then the GWH Su-35 A is too wide by 1mm, B too wide by ~1.5mm, D and D' are spot on.

I don't have the AA Su-33 obviously but the Kinetic Su-33 A, B and D are almost spot on while D' is too narrow by 1mm.

 

As for the new Su-27UB we can only take Haneto's word that they did use those correct measurements for the CAD design and wait for the plastic.

Very good summary. To me the shape of the Kinetic Su-33 canopy looks better(compared to Su-27/35), aslo both the mold and the CAD for GWH's new Flankers look perfect to me. I fully believe it will match their measurment very well, as far as I'm concerned everything just look better/right. Shame that they could't use the measured data for the Su-35 as it seems, the difference at A and B of that kit is well noticable to me and beyond normal design/manufacturing tolerence or material issues.

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

Very good summary. To me the shape of the Kinetic Su-33 canopy looks better(compared to Su-27/35), aslo both the mold and the CAD for GWH's new Flankers look perfect to me. I fully believe it will match their measurment very well, as far as I'm concerned everything just look better/right. Shame that they could't use the measured data for the Su-35 as it seems, the difference at A and B of that kit is well noticable to me and beyond normal design/manufacturing tolerence or material issues.

 

I read enough criticism here about the Kinetic Su-33 that I convinced myself not to buy it. I'm rather surprised you would make comparison using that kit, but whatever. I am waiting for the mystery Su-33 that "Nino" (or "Dragan", etc of the names he used before being banned) has touted for the past 4 years? Now that kit, I would buy if it ever arrives and is worthy of the hype.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK brothers,as I promised.

 

 I just finished skype video call with my friend,where he measured section B with help of his colegue,and the canopy was on the ground,removed from the aircraft,where I have seen with my own eyes that the B is 1000-1001mm,and A is 821mm.So there was no trust on words,I have seen it,there was no errors.So GWH-35 canopy is almost as perfect.

Then it goes in 1/48:

B=20,85mm

A=17,2mm

This thread is finished for me.

All the best to you all,

Goodbye.

Edited by Nino_Belov
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...