Correcting canopy area on GWH's SU-35 1/48

[Nino_Belov]

Hello friends,

 

Just wonder does anyone is interested to do such a thing ,to correct area of canopy and fuselage on GWH's Su-35 in 1/48 scale.

Ok,so now I have measured area on fuselage,in section where is joint when canopy is closed on Su-35,and it is 21,25mm.Which is 1020mm in 1/1.SO it means that I little bit pressed harder plexi material when I have measured canopy,so correct measure is logicly 21,25 of GWH Su-35 1/48.So, Delide,you were right.Something is strange going on here.It appears that on each side the lowest area of canopy is wider exact 0.78mm from each side.Which in full scale is around 10% than it should be.Now how the f... to fix that???In my first measuring,which was wrong,the error was 0,35mm,but...after repeated method,but inverted,on area where is joint,and surface is harder,I got now correct values.The only way how to fix it, is next: I need to buy  new SU-27 single seater,and then cut the area around fuselage,and then transplant that part on Su-35 and use canopy of SU-27.The only solution.And what is left of parts to throw to trash because it is unusable.Or to beg GWH to send me just upper fuselage of single seater and canopy for my surgical procedure...But I doubt that they will do it.

[Nino_Belov]

it is imposible,I am just telling giberish...sorry for bothering dear friends.

[delide]

Nah, not gibberish. but I am not sure how many will see or care about the issue, most will probably live with it, still 10% is rather big difference, it's like 1/43 or 1/44. 

 

Other than sanding and polishing, I don't go further with canopies, and the whole cockpit tube is most likely too wide as well, so I will have to live with it too. It's a pity, but at least from the sides it's not noticeable.

Edited August 17, 2020 by delide

[Nino_Belov]

I have now studied technical drawings.And after a lot of thinking I think that is posible to fix this error on Su-35.First one need to make order sectors which need to be sanded down.After i achive this i will update you.And then I can see when I remove from zero that 0,78mm ,point which is start Shp6 on technical drawing.

So here is start,first one need to thin both area near fuselage in joint of canopy.Then to chose carefuly section where to grind the most.And then take linear action.Here:

    

Edited August 17, 2020 by Nino_Belov

[Nino_Belov]

Also,be carefull with this area,this bulge needs to be:

[delide]

Wow, nice drawings! I do approve them 😛 Looking forward to your updates, but yes, be careful and take it slowly.

[Alex Matvey]

Don't be hurry to make conclusion. It may be that Su-35 Is very good in sizes.

[Nino_Belov]

Ok here is the thing...HUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!

 

GWH made it correct and I have F U > > > > UP my model kit!!!!!!!!!!!

But what is the worse...if they have scaled it down for new Su-27,well that's bad////Also engine exhaust and engine compartment is perfect on Su-35 of GHW in 1/48.

See this technical draws:

                           

 

[Nino_Belov]

Now what!? 🤪 I just killed my Kinetic's Su-33 to cut his area around cockpit to transplant on GWH's Su-35.Well truth to tell thanks to God Su-35 is correct.But my Kinetic's Su-33 is dead...

Edited August 18, 2020 by Nino_Belov

[Alex Matvey]

27 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

But what is the worse...if they have scaled it down for new Su-27,well that's bad////Also engine exhaust and engine compartment is perfect on Su-35 of GHW in 1/48.

See this technical draws:

Not so perfect. The Su-35 engine nacelles and root sections of the nozzles are bigger in diameter, than should be, seems due to "rotating" option. I can not find another explanation for this.

[Nino_Belov]

12 minutes ago, Alex Matvey said:

Not so perfect. The Su-35 engine nacelles and root sections of the nozzles are bigger in diameter, than should be, seems due to "rotating" option. I can not find another explanation for this.

No,I measured that area.You see the inner cross section is 0.95m on real aircraft,so that engine can be put inside,and engine AL-41F-1S is 93,4cm in cross section in widest area,not exhaust,only engine,and on model kit cross section is 19,8,near 20mm.The joint of system for trust vector is videst for 22mm in whole,so... So truth to say,maybe I got wrong data,but for me it is correct...Yes there is 0,2mm that section for rotation of exhaust is wider,but if you put aftermarket...everything is just perfect.

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Nino_Belov

[delide]

52 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

Ok here is the thing...HUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!

 

GWH made it correct and I have F U > > > > UP my model kit!!!!!!!!!!!

But what is the worse...if they have scaled it down for new Su-27,well that's bad////Also engine exhaust and engine compartment is perfect on Su-35 of GHW in 1/48.

See this technical draws:

                           

 

I thought you were trying to correct the B, have your friend not been able to measure it too?? Shame that the 800mm of A appears to be wrong. I have spent some time comparing photos of the Su-35/27, including some telezoom front view to compare with their Su-35's CAD, of course it's very difficult to draw conclusion this way, but the canopy did look a bit too wide to me, that or the surrounding fuselage is slightly under scaled. Since there is no way to prove it, it's a puzzle ever since, till GWH released the 800mm measurement, it matches your 16.67mm measurement of the Kinetic perfectly, it's hard to believe that it's a coincidence(the 940mm of B should match well too). A pity that there is no further information form GWH so far.

 

But yes, I'm quite certain that GWH made it narrower on their new kit, first it's noticeable on the photo of the mold, then later they released a front view of the CAD, I have compared it with the old CAD for their Su-35(both with parallel projection, scaled to the same size). The thing with their Su-35 is also that the cross section at the opening is not truly circular/slightly squashed, their CAD of the Su-27 shows more circular shape and does look better to me both in shape and also in width in relation to the surround fuselage. 843mm or 800mm, the difference is at least not that big.

Edited August 18, 2020 by delide

[Nino_Belov]

8 minutes ago, delide said:

I thought you were trying to correct the B, have your friend not been able to measure it too?? Shame that the 800mm of A appears to be wrong. I have spent some time comparing photos of the Su-35/27, including some telezoom front view to compare with their Su-35's CAD, of course it's very difficult to draw conclusion this way, but the canopy did look a bit too wide to me. Since there is no way to prove it, it's a puzzle ever since, till GWH released the 800mm measurement, it matches your 16.67mm measurement of the Kinetic perfectly, it's hard to believe that it's a coincidence(the 940mm of B should match well too). A pity that there is no further information form GWH so far

 

But yes, I'm quite certain that GWH made it narrower on their new kit, first it's noticeable on the photo of the mold, then later they released a front view of the CAD, I have compared it with the old CAD for their Su-35(both with parallel projection, scaled to the same size). The thing with their Su-35 is also that the cross section at the opening is not truly circular/slightly squashed, their CAD of the Su-27 shows more circular shape and does look better to me both in shape and also in width in relation to the surround fuselage. 843mm or 800mm, the difference is at least not that big.

I dont know why he didnt take photo of B,but A is enough for me.And,yes on GWH SU-35 there is narrow edge inside canopy,but this can be solved with tamiya polishing paste.I have done this before on model kits.It's easy pisy.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Nino_Belov

[Nino_Belov]

I think that the problem is that they didnt took real "live" measures.They have trusted to publications.If you know what I mean.For example check my post in thread about their new Su-27,section D 100% is not 508mm.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Nino_Belov

[delide]

17 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

I dont know why he didnt take photo of B,but A is enough for me.

You mean photo with a ruler or something on the real thing as a prove?

 

I did read on baidu that they took measurement of the real thing, the D as I understand it's not edge to edge but the outer width of the glass portion(or rear frame for the glass portion), as they stated "at the end Out Diameter (D)"  Until GWH could share some light on their measurement of the A, I'm returning to my puzzled state. Anyway, I still do not like the canopy of their Su-35 also because the omega shape is not as pronounced as it should be, which probably contributed to the problem with B too.

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by delide

[Nino_Belov]

5 minutes ago, delide said:

You mean photo with a ruler or something on the real thing as a prove?

 

I did read on baidu that they took measurement of the real thing, the D as I understand it's not edge to edge but the outer width of the glass portion(or rear frame for the glass portion), as they stated "at the end Out Diameter (D)"  Until GWH could share some light on their measurement of the A, I'm returning to my puzzled state. Anyway, I still do not like the canopy of their Su-35 also because the omega shape is not as pronounced as it should be, which probably contributed to the problem with B too.

 

trust me,when you grind down that narrow inside area,you will get it correct.My sources told me the live measures.I dont need anything else.And take a closer look what they have marked as D area...

Edited August 18, 2020 by Nino_Belov

[delide]

11 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

trust me,when you grind down that narrow inside area,you will get it correct.My sources told me the live measures.I dont need anything else.

Yes, it will look better, but I meant the omega shape of the outside surface, not the inside.

 

I know your trust your source, I'm just a bit confused about what does taking photo has to do with measurement. Anyway, it's about 5% difference, it could be measurement errors also. The biggest different is at the B, but yes, if you build with closed canopy it basically doesn't matter. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by delide

[Nino_Belov]

I have just been told that B is a bit more than 980mm.And we will have to wait for that live measure also.

[delide]

3 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

I have just been told that B is a bit more than 980mm.And we will have to wait for that live measure also.

I thought 940mm was confirmed, so you decided to correct it😢 Sorry about that, but yes, let's wait for your measurement.

[Nino_Belov]

Check this...

[delide]

20 minutes ago, Nino_Belov said:

Check this...

Yes, I saw that in the other thread, nice comparison, I trust that you have the Su-33 measured, so the V2.0 is a must buy for me.

 

Basically both V2.0 and V1.0 has omega shaped inside, so there is little distortion too, and unlike GWH's UB, separated glass parts are somehow not needed here. As for the GWH Su-35, the inside is still U shaped, omega shaped outside is maybe a little more pronounced than I thought, but I still believe that, if you measure the lowest/narrowest part of the glass portion, the difference is going to be greater than the 5% of A to V1.0. It will be interesting to do a comparison with their Flanker B later.

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by delide

[Nino_Belov]

Yes,now you see that front view of A of GWH is correct because it is practicly same as on Su-33,the real deference is only about 2mm on real thing.Canopy of Su-33 is only higher than on Su-27/35.And on lower level when you look on botom edge on both V.2.0 and GWH there is no deference.Everything just there as it should be.Fuselage on GWH Su-35 is correct,and if they made smaller canopy in those 5% it will be much much more noticable than it is when you look upper photo.

[delide]

1 hour ago, Nino_Belov said:

Yes,now you see that front view of A of GWH is correct because it is practicly same as on Su-33,the real deference is only about 2mm on real thing.Canopy of Su-33 is only higher than on Su-27/35.And on lower level when you look on botom edge on both V.2.0 and GWH there is no deference.Everything just there as it should be.Fuselage on GWH Su-35 is correct,and if they made smaller canopy in those 5% it will be much much more noticable than it is when you look upper photo.

I'm a bit confused, you said in the other thread that the A(the widest point) of Su-33 is about 929mm, that' quite a bit wider than 843mm or 800mm even. So the canopy of Su-33 is not only higher but also much wider. I guess you mean the B or the base of the glass portion should be roughly the same? Then did you guys measure it on the Su-33 for the V2.0 design?

Edited August 18, 2020 by delide

[delide]

By the way I went to the baidu thread again here: https://tieba.baidu.com/p/6421997155?pn=4

 

Scroll about 1/4 down there is the haneto's post about the canopies. You could use google, it's quite good, I'm better than google actually, what haneto said there is that the data measured from the real canopies, actually for both the single and the double seaters, that the cross section is truly circular, and that the A and B for both versions are the same, 800mm and 940mm respectively. So it's really strange to me. Ans the

 

Yes, the 5% difference is noticable, I checked some top view photos too, many of them make me think that the relation between the width of fuselage and canopy is closer to the V1.0, but of course it's difficult to be certain.

Edited August 18, 2020 by delide

[Nino_Belov]

Yes, that was wrong,it is not correct,it is hard to handle so much infos at the short time and with deferent people in all parts of the world.It is not 929mm,it is around 843mm.Yes we have measured real thing.And all that infos had gone to the team.So I waited long time to see product,the first batch was wrong measured and backscaled in 1/1,and we on first samples have seen something else.In finalized products ,measure is 17,5/17,58mm,so it goes near 843 from the first point.