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

    1,137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

461 Excellent

About Laurent

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 05/15/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3,209 profile views
  1. It seems to me that Modelsvit has made a proper Mirage III nose (conical radome) this time. Good ! EBR but not a modernized EBR apparently: no canards.
  2. I recognize that there are inaccuracies yet indeed the question is "What's the best 1/72 MiG-17F nowadays ? DML, Hasegawa or Airfix ?". I believe Airfix is the answer. The seat can probably be replaced by a Pavla KK-2.
  3. There are two things here: - a technological limitation: the lip has to be thick enough to avoid injection incidents - an actual inaccuracy: the inlet is U-shaped instead of being circular
  4. Fit matters appear during tooling stage. Being an expert on a subject is one thing, using the expertise to review a CAD export is another. The subject expert may not know how to overlay images or manipulate the CAD export beyond using standard views (port, starboard, top, bottom, front, rear) like verifying cross-sections.
  5. Dragon used to hand out CAD export for validation. Kinetic and GWH have been doing the same for years. There's no need to have a particular expertise on the subject: playing the Game of Seven Errors is often enough to point out most bugs.
  6. AFAIK it depends on the quality of the equipment used by the mold maker and on the budget allocated by the customer (Airfix). For the MiG-17 the mold maker was World Star Industry (HK) LTD apparently: Source: https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/early-classic-jet-project-for-young-airfix-designer
  7. If a producer wants to improve the accuracy of a CAD design, there's only one way to do it: peer review. It's even the case if the CAD is based on a 3D scan because the designer may miss some shape features of the subject. Some producers like Great Wall Hobby or Kinetic Model do it.
  8. It is a beautiful kit indeed. It's just not an accurate MiG-21 model. - when viewed from the top the rear of the canopy is not pinched as it should be - the framing of the windscreen isn't accurate - the front airbrakes aren't separate parts while rear airbrake is... all three should go down when airbrakes are opened - the top and bottom MLG wheel bulges aren't aligned - etc
  9. The engine cowlings look weird to me. Truncated ogive shape: the diameter seems to diminish constantly from the rear to the front. I'm not familiar with the A-26 but I think the rear half or rear 2/3rd should be more cylindrical.
  10. The 1/48 Beau ? CAD was designed by Braz Models. Check the CAD section of their website.
  11. People who own the AMK kit can compare the lengths of the AMK and Tamiya canopies. The point is that there's perfect match with Tamiya but not with AMK.
  12. Profile photos of built AMK kit is enough as suggests the Tamiya vs Grumman overlay The conclusion would rather be that AMK may have used the Daco drawings to design the CAD. AFAIK the Daco drawings don't include cross-sectional data so it's impossible to make an accurate 3D model out of them.
  13. Imagine the following situation: - you discuss with an F-14 enthusiast friend that thinks that there's something weird about the front fuselage profile of built AMK F-14s - in order to figure out what you friend actually means and pinpoint the issue you overlay Grumman drawings to built AMK and to built 1/48 Tamiya photos... Grumman drawings match Tamiya (without changing aspect ratio) but they don't match AMK Would showing these overlays be considered bashing the AMK kit or providing factual informations ?
×
×
  • Create New...