Intakes: Which architecture would you rather have?

[arnobiz]

Hello,

As you may know I am now working on seamless intakes for kits which do not have much in the way of depth (Namely the 1/72 Academy Hornet and Hasegawa Super Hornet, more may follow, F-4, F-15?). An example can be found here, and below is an example.

What was initially planned as a personnal thing (i.e. just for my builds, maybe some trade with fellow modellers) has spurred some interest for which I am most grateful. Since these intakes were initially designed for individual use I did not put the emphasis on ease of use, rather on smoothness and aspect once in place. I am thus now thinking to improve their ergonomy so they can be widely used, i.e. produced at a greater scale by an AM company. The question now is what would you find easiest to use out of the two options sketched below? All comments are of course welcome!

Please let me know what you think so these can be ready for the Hornet GB!

Many thanks for your help,

Arnaud

[arnobiz]

Thanks for the response! Any comments?

I will post pictures of the Hornet intakes tonight so watch this space, especially you future participants to the Hornet GB

Arnaud

[JasonC]

I would think a mixture of 1 and 2 would be better. The 'top' seam in option 2 does not require material removal, and as you note gives a better joint. There seems to be no reason why you couldn't use the same arrangement in option 1. The desirability of option 2 will come entirely down to the complexity of the shape that needs to be carved. As drawn, it looks too complex, and would probably require a lot of filling as a result anyway. Which would somewhat defeat the object!

regards,

Jason

Edited March 21, 2013 by JasonC

[Pin]

Option 2. I don't really see any advantages in option 1 at all, people who have enough skills to use aftermarket must have skills to get some plastic removed.

[Jimbo]

Hi Arnaud

I've voted for option 2, although I'd be happy with either just to get some nice intakes :-)

Jim

[arnobiz]

Thanks for the feedback. For the Hasegawa Super Hornet the configuration (viewd from top) is exactly as shown in the basic drawings. At the moment the intakes are made according to what Jason said: The top (actually inner) seam is like Option 1 and the bottom (actually outer) seam is like option 2.

Now talking of the bottom seam: While I was quite for option 2 initially, I must say I am reconsidering my position. It really comes down to the fit quality of the part: If fit is as good as I intend it to be then option 1 is quite viable as it makes integration of the part much easier (it drops in position, no kit modification required) and the small gap that will be there will completely disapear with a layer of household white paint (a.k.a latex paint technique). What do you think?

Arnaud