Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      Switched Identities   18/06/17

      If you are still having problems logging in and remaining under your own username following the DDoS attack last week, you need to log off, clear your browser's cache, and restart your browser to ensure you clear all the old files from your temporary area.  Then you should be sorted.

ya-gabor

Members
  • Content count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

288 Excellent

About ya-gabor

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

1,002 profile views
  1. KiittyHawk

    On late production models the canopy is tinted, mind you only slightly but the windscreen is not! This would call for either two pressings of the transparent sprue with clear and tinted plastic or producing a separate sprue for the tinted canopy. In mass production of the kit both solutions would be a "bit" uneconomical or cut back on the profit margin of the producer. The MiG-31 had a very different type of material used for the canopies resulting in tinting with service time. In case of the 31 the tint is very different and far stronger! So here it would be wise to make two versions to give back the strong tint of the canopies. In case of the Su-35 I am not convinced that this is the right way. In kit making sometimes you have to cut corners and leave the tinted canopy question either to the modeller (there are excellent paints to imitate this) or to aftermarket manufacturers (there are excellent clear resin castings now days). Best regards Gabor
  2. KiittyHawk

    We are speaking of brand new aircraft so . . . I also did get sidetracked by a 13 year old single malt Caol ila . . . Gabor
  3. KiittyHawk

    Had a quick look at Mikes sprue photos. Anyone knows what these surface features exactly are? They look like add-on panels on top of the surface. If one has a look at photos then it will be clear that the rectangles are in fact stencils (white boxes with black text referring to the fuel used in the aircraft) painted on the surface. This reminds me of years gone by, when some Russian plastic kits back in the 1960’s, 1970’s in odd scales like 1/50 had the stars and the aircraft number represented on the plastic surface as a raised panel line. OK the rectangles are painted on the surface and there is a thickness to the paint. But should it be this thick? Best regards Gabor
  4. KiittyHawk

    Hi Mike, OK, so where is it???? From the photo above on the sprue little is visible. Although it is interesting to see the side panels of the seat pan which are completely symmetrical (Part 21 and 22 on the sprue with the tyres). So according to Kitty Hawk the pilot has a choice to plug into either the left side ORK ( Russian for Personal Equipment Connector) or the right one. That would be interesting. The bigger question is how the seat looks like? Remember the Su-35 has the latest version of the Zvezda (not the kit manufacturer ) designed seat which is completely different from the earlier versions. Look forward to some photos of the seat Mike! Best regards Gabor Do you plan to include photos of the reverse side of the sprues?
  5. Here is a bit more on the detail of the Modelsvit MiG-21F kit. This is how you can see through the canopy. It is as clear as it can be I would say. The main wheel was glued and this is how it looks. No weld line is visible, the fit is very good. A very little sanding was applied, no surface details lost and the result is great. Or is it only me . . . Best regards Gabor
  6. I have only did some dry runs of different parts but had in the meantime some real fights with Photobicket which is a pile of stinking XXXX. Here is a trial with the after area. The engine exhaust parts. The afterburner flame holder rings are still missing from the whole set. It is very delicate and for the moment it is still on the sprue. Also missing are the photoetched spacers for the engine centre body. This is how it all fits into the fuselage halves. And when closed up. For the moment there are no issues here. The fuselage halves fit perfectly around the engine parts. Here is a trial with the fuselage. It is a very small jet plane I have to add. The cockpit area will be next. Here is the nose gear bay in the dry run build. I will have to see how the fuselage closes up with the cockpit/nose bay combo in place. Best regards Gabor
  7. The canopy was made with slide moulding tool, you need some space for that. Sorry it is not for something "bigger", well it is for the moulding form. Best regards Gabor
  8. Have to add that it would have been nice to have in the box the engine exhaust in the “static” form for the kind of money they ask for the kit. And lets not forget the year is 2017 so one can expect such things! One has to take into account that the kit has some extra gimmicks (whether you like it or not) like an open gun bay. Has anyone ever seen it open, not only on static aircraft but anywhere during maintenance? The one thing that would be open is the ammo box panel on the other side. To have the option to see the radar is a more likely situation but the engines would be “down” when the plane is on ground! So if anything this should have been provided rather than the gun or the radar! Yes, one can reproduce the dropped nozzles, but will it have all the fine details that the general modelling public is expecting from a kit in 2017???? Best regards Gabor
  9. As I have said above: The details are not really visible. One would need to have a closer look. I dont think one can make any serious review of a kit based on few photos. This would be very silly and irresponsible both in the direction of the manufacture and for fellow modellers. There are few obvious things visible like the tail sting or the engine exhaust positioning. But it is completely fruitless to go into bloody fights over a kit that no one has held in his hand till now, like they did / do on another forum over at ARC over this kit in the past few days. It does not help a bit to form an opinion of the kit but only gives an opportunity for frustrated chat addicts to went their anger. Pointless!!! Lets wait and see the kit when it is available. Best regards Gabor
  10. They are still struggling with the Tomcat which is a never ending saga for them. Was it a year ago when the release was already at any moment . . . They had a lot of different new kits proposed last year but they never materialized. So don’t hold your breath for a MiG-25 from them. Best regards Gabor
  11. This is good news! I did write to Revell, to my old contacts about the blue v. black decal question with no answer but it seems that they did learn from the mistakes of the ICM kit and made the change after all. At the begining of the year at a toy fair they had a built kit on show at the Revell stand and it still had the blue stencils. I was hoping that it was only because the new Revell decals were not ready at the time and they simply used ICM ones. I see they also did the instrument panel with all the dials. What do you do? Assemble the original ICM panel with the transparent parts sliding in from behind and put the decal onto it? One thing is that they only provide grey patches where once the squadron and wing badges were on the aircraft. The patches represent a later configration when the badges were sprayed over with grey. It would have been a nice alternative to give the badges too and so you could build the kit representing two different periods of its service life. But I know I am asking too much. As to any "out of box" decals for the early versions. I dont have the 48th scale Begemot decal so could not comment on this, but if I remeber right Kotey provided some early R or RB versions serving in Egypt. Hope he drops in on this question. All in all this is a great news for ICM, the plastic is produced by them and it should sell well even if not under they own name. This is good for business (money in the cash if this time from Revell) and hopefully it will mean that ICM will produce other versions too and make corrections as they go along. Best regards Gabor P.s. Yes, you can play around with decals from different kits and make an early version, that would be a solution too. Under "out of box" I meant an aftermarket decal sheet with everything in it to make an early bird.
  12. Hi Tony, Thanks for the comparison. Excellent informative photos. So some manufacturers learn from mistakes and make corrections even if not under their own label. Anyway now we have the chance to do the very early RBT from the ICM and the main production version from the Revell kit. It would be interesting to see if with the Revell rebox they have also listened to the problem with the decals. Did they change the stencils to black? Only a handfull early production R and RB's had the blue stencils. About 99% of production aircraft had black stencils together with the red warning ones. From the above photo it is not clear if the stencils have been changed. Anyway, if they did not change it, then there is always the excellent Begemot decal sheet which has the option for the black stencils and very detailed instruction sheet as to where to put them. I think I will have to get a Revell RBT Foxbat to go along my ICM one with the Cold War Studios nose. Best regards Gabor
  13. Hi Laurent, Well not exactly Martin-Baker had a very different concept. They adapted the basic seat version to any aircraft type and what is far more important to specific Air Force requirements (or given countries standards) in order to get the sale of the seats. This meant that the basic systems of a given seat version were used but the “body” into which it was incorporated differed / adapted to the particular aircraft types requirements ( size of the available space in the cockpit, guide rail possibilities . . .) Air Force requirement for particular parachute versions, differing harness systems, often a there was a need for knee side protection . . . So you will see from the outside a very different seat but inside it had the same rocket motor system, timer release, telescopic ejection gun, drogue gun, leg restraint . . . which were the particulars of that given mark of M-B seat. With Zvezda it is very different. They have a defined seat structure and since for decades the Zvezda OKB has a monopoly in supplying seats to all aircraft manufacturers (in Russia), it is the aircraft makers who adapt to the size limits. The early seats (K-36D, K-36L, K-36DM, K-36DM Serii2 . . . ) all had the same seat frame and only the headrest and some other minor parts were modified as it was developed to improve operational capability. Some “internal” systems were changed, new materials used but they were all basically the same. The new generation of Zvezda seats now only have the K-36 name in common with the predecessors. A completely new “body” has brand new and far superior systems inside which have nothing to do with anything that was used before! So it is completely different from what Martin-Baker did in the past. So lets see what KH has used. Best regards Gabor
  14. The tail sting was obvious from the photos. The details are not really visible. One would need to have a closer look. If one takes a closer look at the different airframes in the Su-35 family (prototypes, preproduction, first batch production, current production . . .) then you will see that it is not really possible to produce one plastic kit and to be able to hang on it every possible name within the 35 family. In some cases they had considerable differences which no single kit would be able to cater for! As I said before I would be curious to see the ejection seat. A lot of manufacturers make the mistake of adding to every Russian kit the standard (now close to 45 year old) K-36DM S2 seats without looking at the details. The seat in the Su-35 is a completely new design in every way only the K-36 name was kept as a "brand" name. Best regards Gabor