Jump to content
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. :)

Laurent

Members
  • Content count

    904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

294 Excellent

About Laurent

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 15/05/72

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Saint-Leu-la-Forêt, France

Recent Profile Visitors

2,305 profile views
  1. Looks great Kotey ! Do you know what are the yellow things in the main landing gear bays ?
  2. Cockpit, complete landing gear, panel lines of engine intake areas (Yak-130 has anti-FOD intake devices, not the M-346) and engine nozzle area are very different.
  3. I've just asked Paul. Temporary website hosting issue apparently.
  4. Well I have a scientific/technical background and this may explain why I tend to try to understand who does what, why and how.
  5. They aren't trying to say anything. They just take any old 4-views scale drawings, various walkarounds, design a kit out of these and sell it. They don't understand the subjects they are depicting (which is normal) and they don't want help (which is less normal and quite frustrating). They want to produce kits, not accurate models. Think positive. They dropped 25% of the pooch: AFAIK 3 over 4 marking options are relevant.
  6. Boulton Paul Defiant F1 1:48

    Thanks for the review. Could someone demonstrate the inaccuracies ? Since the painting & decaling sheets seems to be based on the CAD model for TrumpyBossHawk kits (see the Super-Etendard, Su-17s and MiG-23s), I've overlayed the standard views of the sheet with some drawings found in airwar.ru. The top rear fuselage <> fin leading edge curvature diverges from the scale drawings so does the fuselage width in the turret area yet the rest matches pretty well. Of course I don't know if the MMP scale drawings are accurate and I doubt Trumpeter used the fuselage cross-sections. Are the MMP drawings accurate or not ?
  7. Airfix 1/72 Phantom FG1

    Not if the CAD model is used to do the artwork (painting instructions). Take the Hobby Boss Su-17M4: the windscreen and canopy parts have the same shape problems as the ones that could be seen in the drawings in the painting & decaling sheet. Same thing with the KH Su-17M3/M4.
  8. Airfix 1/72 Phantom FG1

    True. It's likely that the CAD designer did an error then.
  9. Airfix 1/72 Phantom FG1

    It is correctable as it's a matter of removing steel and not adding some. Could perhaps be just a plastic flow issue though.
  10. I've done a side-by-side comparaison of HB and KH single-seaters. 1. Top of HB front fuselage is bulged so it doesn't have a circular cross-section 2. HB windscreen is too low and the base is flat when it should be curved 3. HB windscreen base is too straight and narrow (this explains why the windscreen doesn't "eat" the top fuselage) 4. Top of canopy curves down too much on HB The last three characteristics were visible in the painting & decals instructions so that somewhat proves these are made using the CAD model.
  11. Does anyone know if the steps around the wing dogtooth and parabrake fairing will be in the production sprues or not ? The former is fairly easy to fix (sanding) but the later is more painful.
  12. Well even if it has some inaccuracies we now have a 1/48 injected plastic Su-17/22UM3.
  13. what about a 1/72 Mirage III?

    I'm not sure I still have the old HPM tooling in my stash. If you have the old-new or the new-new tool, perhaps you could compare ?
×