Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

DarrenH's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/9)



  1. Given the very well documented and plain as day contorted rear fuselage of the AMK kit, its poor fit AMK missed the boat. Just sitting the AMK kit next to the extremely accurate yet lightly detailed Tamiya reveals everything you need to see. The way overdone rear curves aft of the wing, the rear fuselage shape being clearly visual for all to see. You dont even need a red line drawn to see what is there fir everyone to see. Now ive git several AMK kits and the finished one sits well away from my Tamiya ones as its shape and sit is so poor that even someone lenient on accuracy can see it looks very different. Hopefully GWH bring the same team who did the Flankers to the F-14 release and we get not only accuracy but also highly detailed crisp plastic just like the stunning Flankers. Hopefully their F-14’s makes up for everything AMK got wrong. Anyone interested in the AMK issues just stroll through the outstanding posts by Zactoman at ARC who clearly highlighted the obvious glaring issues and translated that into simply info and how it impacts every part of the kit. Unlike most kits with issues you dont need red lines and once seen you will never unsee the real fuselage issues but like most things that issue leads to multiple other issues to compensate for the contorted rear fuselage shape. Some wont care until they sit it next to the Tamiya kit built off the Grumman blueprints then you simply squint and look away and say “how did they do that”… Tomcat lovers are well treated and accurate F-14’s are a plenty. Tamiya, Monogram, Hasegawa evn Hobbyboss kits with there by comparison minor intake issue compared to AMK’s distorted fuselage are all far better. We can only hope GWH pack it with detail and maintain accuracy so we get it all in one box. Still the Tamiya F-14 is still the best engineered model ive ever built and combine that with deadly shape accuracy its tough to match.
  2. Well given that the size of the error is so small that it took over 50 years of research to even find the minute characteristic difference no manufacturer has ever tooled and even looking closely at Tamiyas it may not be perfect. No other F-4 kit has ever reproduced this tiny shape difference id say saying the canopy is wrong is drawing a bow so long as to be ridiculous. On similar sized errors we could say with equal vigour the “Tamiya canopy is wrong” as well as its far over scale in thickness. Similar sized errors so if we are slagging kits for being wrong for errors so small lets get to it. Ridiculous comments like “The ZM canopy is wrong” have no scope, provide no relativity and should be treated as a throw away line to be discarded to the dustbin of history. Oh i can guarantee the Meng burner cans will be “wrong” to because its impossible to mould burners to scale thickness in 48th, canopy to thick therefor shape is wriong, airfoil shape is not the correct NACA MD version, gear doors are to thick. There is wrong and there is wrong. Good luck finding any kit ever made if your tolerances of wrong are so small because you will be sorely disappointed by every plastic kit ever released period.
  3. if accuracy is not of interest then the AMK kit is ok bar the build issues. If correct shape is a concern then side by side the AMK kit has significant clearly visible issues so just get Tamiya. One thing the AMK kit is still handy for is deployed spoilers either partial for DLC use on approach or all spoilers up on the ground. The spoilers can be seen all up with flaps down in several pics after shutdown so using AMK’s wing gives that option.
  4. There is plenty of evidence in the shape of massively misfitting F-18’s all over the internet combined with plenty of text discussing this kits issues. The sheer number shows its far from people over hyping that kits issues. Now even Revell guys where forthcoming with excuses about several changes during development that lead to the issues which are far from small. Some of the guys me included have been building kits for a long time. Anyway on the SR im just hoping for the first time we get a dimensionally accurate SR with a proper width chine. So far only Italeri has gotten close and that was in the 80’s. No other SR has been dimensionally correct in any scale except the 72nd Monogram kit which got the chine right but flattened the fuse top giving a very squashed front end. Cmon Revell hopefully the SR is like JU-88 an accurate great building kit.
  5. Just got my Hind P. With a lit of negativity around i was very pleasantly surprised. Very sharp clean molding with some beautiful tooling. A Quinta set plus maybe a resin rotor head. Lots if things to hang of pylons and lovely decals. Having been flying the DCS Hind thus is very welcome to do a heavily weathered Afghan bird.
  6. Its a great kit packed with detail. Im just hoping it builds ok. From a realistic level though the surface detail on the GWH Flankers is actually better than the Minibase kit. We are spoiled for great Flankers and the great news is the GWH SU-27 is on the way. A great time to be a Flankerofile. https://youtu.be/_hTb5la_Ln8
  7. Nice to see at least one person managed to get it together. After my experience of mismatched engineering, poor design i sold my other 2. Still the spine is still the wrong shape being almost square in criss section. An excellent build here of the kit highlighting some of the many many issues of the original release. https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/80072-revell-super-hornet-with-lessons-learned/ Anyone saying this is an acceptable level of engineering really needs to build this kit. Like the Tornado which needs an entirely different build sequence to the instructions avoid a litany of fit issues Revell need to look long and hard look at there engineering. Another build highlighting not just engineering but the nose shape. https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/80153-revell-fa-18e-super-hornet-build/ Revell can do great work like the 262 Single seater and amazing Ju-88’s. They better not screw the SR with horrendous design, poor fit and incorrect shapes.
  8. Awesome. Build well done! Only thing i would of done differently would be have spoliers at mid position for the DLC system used on approach where iirc three spoilers are in the mid open position and cycle open and closed on command. But they do pop down when aircraft goes low on the ball and get stowed momentarily until back in the groove. Been wanting to do an F-14 like this for ages thanks for the motivation!
  9. They are not a decal. they are simply secured to decal paper for transport. Once removed they can be secured using whatever method you want ie white glue, super glue, etc. Do not mistake the panels for being a decal they are most definitely not.
  10. Well its 38 years since 1982 so it doesnt just seem like ages it has been!
  11. completely agree and disagree. Kits like the 262 gave been excellent. As mentioned not only by me but numerous online builds the F-18E was a debacle of the highest order. 3 different design teams it was mentioned lead to easily the worst kit i have ever tried to build in 45 years of modelling. I mean instructions which warn you about flash but dont bother warning youthe engineering in the intake fuselage design is simply horrendous. No hyperbole just go take a look at the unfinished online builds where people just throw it all in a corner never to be touched again. Hopefully the A team will look after the Blackbird not the committee who butchered the Superhornet. This is a typical experience and almost identical to mine. https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/79865-revell-bug/
  12. i find what is going on quite disgusting. On one mans word with nothing written to confirm what he said from those that matter everyone has immediately jumped to conclusions the opposite what is published on the WW site. When and what WW choose to do us up to them and its certainly not up to some random to publish information true or “not” without being official. We now have people running around commenting that your money isnt safe with a WW purchase. Its quite disgusting anyone with this info would release it on a non official level damaging the brand to score internet traffic. If Peter Jackson had come to me and said “Hey Dazz things look pretty grim” i can tell you the very last place id be writing it is on the internet. Its up to him to put that out when he wants and in an appropriate format and manner. Its up to WW to broadcast their intentions which they have now very clearly and nobody else. I only hope this has not damaged their brand but he has certainly cost them sales. Utterly disgraceful.
  • Create New...