PMG Offramp Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Well this is a very interesting subject ! I was looking forward to their IDS kit, bought it and only then started reading about it's shape problems. I was looking forward to this one F3 as well as the F-111 but... as said another member, bite me once -> you bad, bite me twice -> me bad. I'll sell the bloody kit ;-) ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishgreek Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Glad I just got the 1/48 Italeri one off eBay for $20 (or about 12-13 quid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kspriss Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 could be worse....you could have the airfix 48th ones ...oh wait...i do...hmmm... steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishgreek Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Yea, I have the Airfix GR1 too. (as he sighs and types...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike7451 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Here's a couple of shot's of the Italeria F3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacktjet Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 (edited) I'm pretty sure it's the same canopy as the GR,The F2 was developed from the GR1 so it stands to reason that to cut cost's,(and it makes sense) the majority of items on the jet are very much the sam between the marks. Initially, both had the same canopy. Early into the F.3 service, the rear portion covering the nav, was increased in height and shape but I think this mod is now standard on all (British) Tornadoes. As far as the two kit canopies go, I think the reason for the taller canopy on the F.3 kit, is because HB have continued with a constant gradient on the spine. The increase in the F3 fuselage length has therefore resulted in a taller spine where in meets the canopy Edited May 10, 2010 by Blacktjet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCC Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 This is all so disappointing Having heard that HB were releasing a series of' The Fin' this year, I could hardly wait. So, here we are yet again HD/Thrumpy make a complete man-vegetables of the job. is there ANY occasion when an aircraft release has been acceptable by 'us anoraks'? I can't believe that a 21st Century company with ALL the resources available today that they can make such a balls up of just about everything they produce. I mean, have you seen all those rivets on mainplane of the Typhoon? I could have sworn it was supposed to be carbon? Bottom line is that I will certainly not be wasting my hard earned shekels on any of these. Sad fact is, unless Tamigawa decide to get it right, we will in all probability, never have any better. On the Brightside, its only taken something like 30 odd years to get an almost acceptable EE Lightning and they made a man-vegetables of that in 1/72 and outrageously expensive in 1/32 (still with ‘issues’) Ho Hum…….. back to the drawing board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.smith10 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 This is all so disappointing Having heard that HB were releasing a series of' The Fin' this year, I could hardly wait. So, here we are yet again HD/Thrumpy make a complete man-vegetables of the job. is there ANY occasion when an aircraft release has been acceptable by 'us anoraks'? I can't believe that a 21st Century company with ALL the resources available today that they can make such a balls up of just about everything they produce. I mean, have you seen all those rivets on mainplane of the Typhoon? I could have sworn it was supposed to be carbon? Bottom line is that I will certainly not be wasting my hard earned shekels on any of these. Sad fact is, unless Tamigawa decide to get it right, we will in all probability, never have any better. On the Brightside, its only taken something like 30 odd years to get an almost acceptable EE Lightning and they made a man-vegetables of that in 1/72 and outrageously expensive in 1/32 (still with ‘issues’) Ho Hum…….. back to the drawing board H/B 1/48 A-10 is pretty good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 So, here we are yet again HD/Thrumpy make a complete man-vegetables of the job.is there ANY occasion when an aircraft release has been acceptable by 'us anoraks'? Well, no, there doesn't seem to have been. Despite all that's been said I'd hardly describe this as a complete man-vegetables. Less than perfect isn't the same as utterly toss and we must not let the best be the enemy of the good. For most people (possibly including me), it'll still do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCC Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 H/B 1/48 A-10 is pretty good actually, quite right. I have one of those and an F-18A. both of which seem very nice, although not built yet. Come to think, perhaps best engage brain before openning mouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 Fortunately there seems to have been better models from HB/trumpeter. I've heard very good things of the 1/32 crusader and of the Me.262. The 1/32 swordish seem to be good too. The wyvern was good too and the gannet not too bad. There may be other kits that I don't know of that are good too. I should add the HB mirage III and Rafale... but these are really too similar to existing kit to be considered the result of their original research.. Sure these tornadoes have some serious shape issues, as happened to the su-27, just happened on the tomcat and also on the lightning. How important these issues are guess still depends on anyone's taste. Personally I find some of them too much for my liking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 The Wyvern was pretty good with only minor quibblles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCC Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 How important these issues are guess still depends on anyone's taste. Personally I find some of them too much for my liking and this is the point. there is plenty of research material, so why do they get it wrong. I they were 'pocket money' kits, it would be understandable. These are expensive no matter which way it is viewed and should not occur with such regularity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 I agree, for that price I'd like to get accurate kits, not only nice mouldings. Somebody told me that they have troubles in finding materials because of the language: as most reference materials around is not in chinese, they don't have access to it. Might be true, yet I'm not convinced. Chinese websites don't seem to have problems in posting links to western publications on aeroplanes, yet a model company can't find them ? And the internet is a ready source of pictures of almost anything ever flew, a day on airliner.net or any similar site would provide hundreds of pictures of a tornado. The fact that some kits are very accurate and others are sure shows that there is inconsistency in the way they do their research. Don't know, sometimes I think that afterall they're still quite young companies, they have yet to learn in some aspects. Now, ho can we make them know we'd like more accuracy ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 Now, ho can we make them know we'd like more accuracy ????? Basically, we can: * write to them en masse, and hope that they notice * not buy the kits we don't like, and hope that they notice * buy the inevitable corrections, and hope that they notice If enough people buy poor kits and don't do any of these things, we won't be noticed. And there's nothing we can do about that. I take some solace in the thought that it has always been thus and the world hasn't ended. I'm slowly thrashing the Airfix Vulcan into shape, for example, and I'm enjoying it far more than I expected to. (Can you thrash things slowly?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 (edited) * not buy the kits we don't like, and hope that they notice And this has been my way to let them know ! I was really excited about the new 1/32 tomcat, and when I got paid for a consultancy job I was ready to open my wallet to hand the shop the 120£... but when I saw those intakes I had to say no thanks! If I have to work hard to correct the only ever existing kit of the Tebaldi Zari I can do that, but having to work hard to correct a kit when there other available kits of the same subject that are already right, well I'm not sure about it. Of course, never say never, I've done more stupid things with plastic models... Edited May 11, 2010 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark M Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 (Can you thrash things slowly?) yes but not on this website!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 How do they do their research? Well, a few years ago, there was a shot of the Trumpeter R&D section posted on one of the forums. At this point, the Fw200 was in development, and on one of the workbenches was what looked like the box for the Koster Fw200 kit!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike7451 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 How do they do their research? Well, a few years ago, there was a shot of the Trumpeter R&D section posted on one of the forums. At this point, the Fw200 was in development, and on one of the workbenches was what looked like the box for the Koster Fw200 kit!! And did'nt Mr Soong from Trumpy request information from forums such as here & ARC,which are,IMHO,the main modelling internet sites out there at the moment.No weather they act on the information is another thing but,again IMHO,the are enough of us 'experts' on various subjects who have worked/flown/crashed on various subject's for them to approach & ask if something looks right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 This is the problem here... everybody seems to missed the point here... TORNADO, to discuss the HB-Trump traditional incompetences . Lets turn to the object and find a way to correct it, as We usually do with any other kit, even from the "tamygawa" :shithappens: ? Good Luck Tonka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thx6667 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 everybody seems to missed the point here... TORNADO, to discuss the HB-Trump traditional incompetences . Agreed, maybe a separate thread for the state of research in China would be better and keep this one for fixes and cheats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousER99 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Agreed, maybe a separate thread for the state of research in China would be better and keep this one for fixes and cheats. I agree with Jonathan on this oe. Back on topic please folks. Cheers Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 Bringing us back on track - an update: like the GR fusleage, the lower front section ( ie where the gun ports are) doesn thave the jowly-ness of the real thing. On the GR1 I solved this by inserted widening strips in to the lower fueslage to push the area out. The 3 - due to its separate lower feusalge insert makes this diffuclt, soi I 've been building up the area with CA and baking power, sanding to shape then finishing off with Mr dissolved putty as a top filler. I've done 1 side, and the other is "virgin". before I do the other side I'llpost somepics sdo you can see if you think its working. As a previous poster has pointed out the transission from normal Tornado cross section to round F3 nose cone area is very elusive - in some photos the change of cross section and kinkiness is apparent, in others its not ( and the grey scheme doesnt help either as it tends to reduce shadows and even out the percieved shape changes). I'm pretty happy with jow its turned out - but you lot can decide too! Jonners On another note I picked up the Revel harrier GR9 boxing last weekend for a tenner at MK modelzone ( bargain!) - and it has the sidewinder rails with the BOL launchers that the F3 carries on its inner inside pylon stations. So that solves that problem too. Still no nearer to working out why the F3 canopy is deeper than the GR canopy on these models - doesnt seem to be different in pics of the real thing. Hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacktjet Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Still no nearer to working out why the F3 canopy is deeper than the GR canopy on these models - doesnt seem to be different in pics of the real thing. Hmmmm See post 56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Kunac-Tabinor Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 See post 56 thankyou my friend - so the canopy is taller but the spine should still be the same height? thats what I'm reading. Jonners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now