Jump to content

MoFo

Members
  • Content Count

    3,571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MoFo

  • Rank
    Arise... again.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canadark

Recent Profile Visitors

21,019 profile views
  1. You're from Argentina? Have you ever encountered that knob-end who keeps posting under stupid fake personas on scale model discussion boards? Used to post here as "Uncle Uncool", "The Scaremonger", "Hubbie Marsten" and a bunch of others. He'll make up some new schtick, post for a while, then inevitably everyone realizes he's the same moron who has been banned a dozen times before, so he gets the boot. Always comes crawling back with some other dumb 'persona' though. Really, it's pretty pathetic when you think about it. Like, how pathetic does your life have to be to waste THA
  2. https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1118174489131532289 https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1021607182213767168 https://xueqiu.com/7956505474/195521830 https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/china-defense-close
  3. Anybody have any idea about the relative reputations of the drawings from Aviation & Time vs DM(? the 1/35 drawings by Malkov)? I'm finding serious discrepancies between the two sets of drawings. Of course, there are also minor discrepancies between the different drawings from Aviation & Time, so I'm not really sure which to trust...
  4. Googling 'airbrush patent 1908' shows the patent belongs to Paashe, along with a few useful pages. https://www.airbrushmuseum.com/airbrush_patents_14.5.htm https://www.airbrushmuseum.com/airbrush_lit_1915_paasche_cat_index.htm I'd guess it's a Paasche H, based on the 'H' on the body.
  5. You could reach out to the person who printed the model in the OP. It wouldn't be hard to re-scale the larger prints.
  6. To be fair to the builder, the instructions probably weren't ready when they had to build the display model. And they probably had a very short amount of time to build the model/s (it wouldn't surprise me if they had a few models to build in, like, a day), so no time for research. And as you suggested, they're just a worker, doing a job, building everything from Sopwith Camels to submarines, so they can't be expected to know the arcane details of every kit they have to slam together and photograph.
  7. Well it might be coming back: https://www.pink-unicorn.tv/jpsmodell-de In the mean time, this Flickr stream popped up in a Google search. Not sure if it's everything, but there are a lot of profiles. https://www.flickr.com/photos/70058423@N07/35860014711/in/photostream/
  8. Could be worse: https://jalopnik.com/europe-funds-nuclear-rocket-research-deep-space-travel-1850405252
  9. No, not at all. Apart from the obvious pylon/cockpit differences, there are a few panel line subtleties around the engine humps between the fighter and strike Eagles. There is zero reason to split it that way for the A/B/C/D - they're all the same. The only reason for that specific breakdown is that they're at least considering a Strike Eagle.
  10. The only reason for that unusual rear fuselage breakdown is to allow them to do an accurate Strike Eagle rear fuselage. Interesting.
  11. I mean, he uses the scan to completely re-draft the part in CAD, because it's not even remotely useable for production purposes, but other than that, sure, it's great. My point being, if it's so bad at recreating such fundamental geometric shapes as "circle", "flat" and "parallel", then don't expect to be able to just scan and print kit parts. The technology, while it has its uses, just isn't there yet. As for the Solidworks vs Fusion 360 debate... Solidworks now offer a hobbyist license for $90/year. https://discover.solidworks.com/3dexperience-solidworks-mak
  12. Note, though, that the scan... sucks. None of the holes are round, smooth surfaces aren't, and the raw scan data is basically unusable - he's just using it for gross measurements to completely rebuild the part in CAD.
×
×
  • Create New...