Nocoolname
-
Posts
1,191 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Nocoolname
-
-
Hi Laurie
Without seeing a picture I'd be making a bit of a guess but for gradually curving lines I've used a narrow strip of masking tape - around 1-2mm width - which can still bend with the curve, then used a spare paint brush to carefully paint masking fluid over the edge that touches on the part you want covered then just add more over the open space. I've used the above approach for achieving straight lines over curved surfaces on such things as drop tanks and under wing pods as well as larger surface areas.
-
2
-
-
Mine landed yesterday. Too whacked by work to take a proper look at it yet. Sat next to the MV-22 that arrived today that I've also not had time to see yet.
-
2
-
-
I think the Romans might have preferred that M10
-
2
-
-
On 3/19/2021 at 11:54 AM, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:
Why? Swapping wings, for example, would be far more challenging were the whole lifting area different geometry which moves the centroid of lift around a lot and requires a different fuselage. A common way to combat that on variable geometry wing aircraft is to have a substantial broad-chord inboard wing area which does not change shape, and only sweeping part of the span greatly limits the migration of the lift vector - which is exactly what the concept above shows.
There's a good reason why no variable geometry wing production aircraft have the pintles anywhere near the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
As for wings just physically coming off and going back on conveniently, we can take instruction from radio control modellers who almost invariably have to make their models come to pieces and still have control surfaces easy to rig and derig - and they've done it for decades although now many R/C models are more sophisticated than many fullsize light aircraft.
Likewise with engines, providing some fixed limits of thrust vectors and CofG envelope, I can't think why power modules couldn't be fitted and unfitted with some common attachments, fuel connections and multiplex plugs. Afterall airliners are designed to allow exactly this - there's no getting away from tubing and cables, but no airline would touch an aircraft with a bargepole these days if it wasn't fairly straight forward to remove and replace an engine.
In the politest possible way, I don't think much from the automotive industry is relevant - they build cars in modules and assemble them without really much of a care for who has to try to do anything beyond ultra-basic servicing. That removing a gearbox or engine from a modern car is a job sent straight from hell is more a reflection of different priorities in that industry. People who need to have brand new cars depreciating like egg sandwiches in the sun don't care how awful it is to take apart because they'll have traded it for another by the time the warranty runs out. Aircraft operators buy aircraft expecting to have to take them apart.
Jamie
That's a whole ton of maths and physics that my brain can't accommodate. Thanks so much for doing what I just couldn't. The world is a safer place with me being a pizza eating robot rather than working in something important like aircraft (except at scale where I'm quite good at breaking things)
The pictures also reminded me that I have a 1/72 Tu-22 in the stash still waiting for some attention.
-
I genuinely and honestly appreciate the concerns around the care of the historical aircraft but... is there any further news about the 'model' of the Vulcan (subject of the thread?)... like, the release date, purchase options etc.?
-
1
-
2
-
-
It 'is' a good idea.
'flexible modularity' that is designed to allow interchangable parts on production aircraft to suit changing operational demands is a very good idea. If you can switch out parts of the actual aircraft as easily as you can switch out ordinance on a multi or swing role aircraft that would really increase your strategic and tactical options.
The problem, though, is that the journey from concept to product is extraordinarily complicated and where it has worked in the past has been due to having the right, the same - and consistently 'high' - expertise leading the initiative from start to finish, like the proverbial golden thread, but this rarely happens these days due to a... ahem... 'modular' approach to 'product management' whereupon a 'concept' is given over to another group that may not necessarily appreciate the nuances around the original idea (that cannot often and certainly not easily be translated into a set of model kit like instructions) and as such, not only lead to the development failing but do so in a way in which the narrative points the finger at the 'idea' rather than those involved in the execution.
I've seen a lot of news reports of people being assigned from a 'project profession pool' to take command of such disparate and complicated subjects on the basis that being able to apply PM principles to launching a corporate policy or a bakery automatically qualifies them to direct the delivery of a concept aircraft or a Death Star.
So a great concept - modularisation of an aircraft - may fail because of a poorly thought through approach to the 'modularisation' of its development and delivery.
But maybe things are sharper in the defence industry and its all slick from idea to flight?
I wouldn't know given that my day job is ruining model kits and eating pizza!
-
1
-
-
Ooooooooooooooo.....!
First thing I thought... 'oooo... someone has already got their hands on this kit' (I only ever wanted to build an F and ditched my G once this was announced)
Second thing I thought... 'oooo... that's a great build, really nice balance of detail and weathering for me'... and has got me chomping at the bit for my own pre-order.
Great stuff! Thanks for sharing.
-
1
-
-
Wow! That's a super job! The difference between this and my Airfix 1/72 F-14 effort 'back in the day' just made me hide under the table blushing
Thanks for sharing!
-
1
-
-
Well I've just taken the plunge and ordered one from Black Mikes Models along with a pre-order for the B-17F. With the Su-33 incoming that's a 'lot' of super detail and temporary loft insulation on its way and mostly due to Mike's amazing reviews!
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Greg B said:
Not sure about GBU-38's; service entry for testing was around 1997. Well after the B/N went out of service, the N went out in 1984
Thanks Greg!
Between my knowledge of Cold-War era ordinance being so ropey it could be used in a tug of war and the wheels occasionally coming of my brain there was a good chance I'd get it wrong.
I believe it should have been Mk 82's, (or as my brain sees them 'those green bomby shaped bombs that l have round yellow bands on them') of which I have copious amounts (from Academy kits and Eduard AM) in case Tamiya don't include them.
Their choice of the VF-51 CAG bird is awesome. I remember seeing a built version of the Hasegawa kit sporting this scheme on display at Harrods during a school trip to the Big Smoke back in 1987 and have wanted to build one like it ever since. I'd be looking to build the CAG bird as it might have looked had it been involved in bombing missions late in the Vietnam War (c.1972).
-
1
-
-
Well, I have my 'display idea' already formed for this kit thanks to having a Tamiya 1/48 Humvee in the stash, so this will initially be displayed in the flight/hover mode with a Humvee strung from beneath.
It may be some time before we see this though given that my current 'diorama' build (F-14 on Skunkworks Carrier Deck) is still... er.. on the deck and undergoing 'surgery', but at least I have all the parts I need to get cracking (save for the - prays
- hopefully to be released cockpit from Quinta which would really take it up a few notches). Unlike My Sea King HAR.3 idea that never got off the ground due to the lack of a Severn-class lifeboat in the same scale 
-
5 hours ago, alanbeeb said:
If there is another high intensity land war between wealthy nations.... I suspect any large slow moving object will be toast very quickly. There will be nowhere to hide.
Semi autonomous fast unmanned AI systems will dominate.
For actions against low-tech and non-state actors, I suspect smaller faster lighter vehicles that can be quickly deployed and with low logistical dependencies will be a better bet.
Not necessarily, if advancements in active camouflage and battlefield countermeasures deliver additional capabilities in parallel. ROV's (including vehicles that can be both manned or remotely operated as required) will definitely become more dominant with advancements in 'limited' AI taking on a greater load from and increasing the range of support to operators and commanders alike until countermeasures are developed to overcome these. If you're talking 'human equivalent' AI - which would require the replication of multi-spectrum sensive characteristics that haven't even been mapped in their original state yet (understanding even at a neural level is still immature), yet alone replicated in a manner that could be employed in an avatar (such as an armed vehicle) that could think as creatively and with as much inventiveness as a human counterpart - if that pops out of a lab we're all toast.
And besides, why waste billions on a tin terminator to stop a tank when a well disguised hole in the ground might do just as well.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, The Tomohawk Kid said:
Sci-fi modellers too.
Tommo.
I've gone for lighting for aircraft before - cockpits, cabin, strobes, nav lights etc. - but no mechanics. At least not since I put a motor into a 1/72 Sea King as a kid to get the rotors spinning and nearly took my hand off. I do like what they've done with this kit though.
-
Andy
That is simply stunning. My mind is so blown that I'm still trying to find it.
It has both intimidated me into looking away from my own kit but then inspired me to dig it back out again and start working up my own build. It is like Schrodinger's hobby experience.
Any chance you can start running classes for us - not on how you achieve the effects that you have, but how you make it look so 'easy'?
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Beermonster1958 said:
And, thereby hangs a tale!!
You are right of course.
I simply cannot get round this fad for flooding panel lines with gallons of "wash"!
Is it an age thing?
.
Why accentuate panel lines on this fashion. Real aeroplanes do not have their panel joints flooded with "washes"! For sure, they do get dirty and worn but, evenly and neatly along their entire lengths?
OK. Its personal choice after all as to how one finishes one's model.
But, the patchwork quilt looks that are so favoured by many modellers just look (in my opinion anyway) darn silly and unrealistic.
John.
As you say, it's all about choice, and also perspective.
To be fair, getting the size and depth of lines right at scale has always been a tricky business and its possible, likely even, that at 72nd these will be large.
But many aircraft still have 'lines' - the demarcation between one panel and the next and which has been accentuated by dirt, oil or other factors - and they 'do' show up, quite clearly in many cases and in photos that when reduced in size would be comparable to the scales we use.
But its really down to the modeller as to whether they wish to represent these as close to the image of the 'real thing' as they can (for me, in this case, I would go for a much lighter wash for selective panel areas only and aim for a more 'blended' look) or wish to go for something that is simply more pleasing to them.
These are after all, personal works of 'art' rather than just assembly, and driven by the imagination of the perception of the creator. There is no right or wrong way. Scale modelling is an art and a hobby and while the manufacturers put in extraordinary efforts to give us high fidelity components, the outputs are governed by imagination rather than doctrine.
Every build of this kit will be a 'right' build whether it has faded cammo, heavy lines, bleached panels or massive go-faster stripes with a Rebel Alliance signet.
I say to each their own and celebrate each other's choice of how to represent their model. I can't wait to get mine (please Airfix... will you put a pedal on with this...?!?
) and will look to build mine a little rough and faded and will also go for airbrushed edges to the cammo rather than sharp, because that's the look that I like for my models
-
3
-
-
This year was going to be the year that I 'stopped' buying kits save a rare few that I had anticipated and planned for - namely the Revell 1/48 SR-71A, HKM 1/48 B-17F and Airfix 1/72 Vulcan.
In part, because one set of health conditions was making it difficult to put the time in to the kits I had started which this was then compounded by the development of an eye condition that was making fine detail work harder and harder.
It was also in part because aside for the above mentioned kits I had not really expected many more to appear that would tick the boxes, either as a brand-new never before tooled subject or as an amazing new tool of an existing subject, especially one for a kit that I might already have bought from another manufacturer but which presented too many challenges to build as I would like or one that simply blew the competition away in terms of detail.
This kit is one such instance that is about to lead to a reverse in my home-insulation reduction policy.
I had the Italeri kit a couple of years back and studied long and hard about how to re-scribe the lines and add the rivet details and also how to pose it with the wings pivoted inwards, but when I thought about the time and effort alongside that planned for other kits I decided to abandon the idea and let the kit go. But now this has popped up and changed that.
Even 'worse' I now have to 'accommodate' amazing new tools of:
1/48 HKM Lancaster
1/48 MiniBase Su-33
1/48 Tamiya F-4B
1/48 Airfix Chipmunk
1/48 Zoukei Mura F-4G
1/48 HB Chinook
If Round2 release a 1/72 Eagle Freighter or LabPod and someone else releases 1/48 Buccaneer, a 1/350 injection molded Type 42 Destroyer, R09 Ark Royal or R08 QE I think my head will explode!
-
2
-
2
-
-
This kit looks great and in my 'usual' scale for aircraft too. If I could pluck up the emotional courage I'd look to build one as either of the planes I was given my first flights in as a young cadet over at Woodvale and Valley back in t'80's.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Stephen said:
The sprues for the missiles are the same ones used in the F-14A/D Tomcat kits and I can assure you after building six kits that they go together without a problem irrespective of not being slide molded.
This is the only part I've got round to assembling for my F-14
but that said, the parts are so well engineered they virtually assemble themselves so I'm struggling to see the problem here?
-
1
-
-
On 3/18/2021 at 10:03 AM, One 48 said:
Aww, dont and wont do facebook.
I click on the link provided and I'm still able to see the page and the photos without needing to log in to Facebook. I'm guessing they've set it up so that it is publicly viewable? It's good to see more pictures though the close ups are a little disconcerting since it makes what are no doubt classically fine Tamiya panel lines look like the Death Star trench. It would be good to start seeing pictures of the instructions so we can get a feel for the assembly approach and engineering decisions. I'm already satisfied that the Tamiya kit will offer the level of detail and fidelity that I would want, I'd now like to see the range of possibilities that might be on offer based on how the parts can be assembled. For instance, the separate spine suggests that it might be possible to add something similar to the Black Dog spine set to those inclined to do so while the slots at the bottom of the weapons holders suggest the possibility of adding a rack of GBU-38's, either through AM or through my Academy F-4 spares, while I am hoping that the way the radome connects to the fuselage doesn't cause too much trouble for adding a radar (either if one is produced for the B as AM or if I produce my own).
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, colin said:
Isn't the new Tamiya F4 going to have a working canopy.
Hi Colin,
I asked a question about that recently based on comments I saw in a review but the consensus so far appears to suggest that it is 'positionable' rather than working. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Bandsaw Steve said:
Hello @Nocoolname
The only suggestion that I can make is that I think there is a big difference between a ‘Working part’ and a ‘Repositionable part’
if for example I wanted to make an aircraft that could be displayed either wheels up or wheels down than I would probably make the U/C completely removable and make two sets of doors - one for use with wheels up (closed) and one with wheels down (open).
This way there’s no need to engineer tiny working parts. You just need to be able to ‘plug in’ each part or hold each part with a magnet or whatever.
To me (a non-engineer and non-fan of breakable moving parts) this seems like a much simpler approach. I want to try it with a swing wing aircraft some time. Two sets of wings - one forward with flaps deployed etc and one swept back and clean.
Thanks Steve
The approach I'm taking is quite similar since it's too impractical in some instances to go for the 'working hinge' bit. Where they are feasible I'll use them, where not, I'm using tiny magnets embedded in the parts in the right position to allow for them to be repositioned without loss or breakage and extra parts as you suggested above for where even that won't work. It's all a bit experimental at the moment with a lot of trial and error. Mostly error.
-
1
-
-
On 3/17/2021 at 8:34 PM, Davidrebolton said:
This maybe of help to you Nocool. Scroll down to near the bottom - there is a video. Throughout the set of videos it shows how to make door hinges, boot hinge and the bonnet
Thanks David
Much appreciated! I'm now going to see if I can create something similar for the canopy of a 1/48 F-4.
Cheers!
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Gene K said:
Where are you getting your information ("somewhere"?) that the F-4EJ will be limited edition? According to the announcements that I've seen, for example here in The Old Man's Blog, it will be a normal release in the ZM long nose Phantom program:
●F-4E Early:Released in Japan on August 29!
●F-4EJ Kai (Retirement Commemoration Marking): Released early 2021
●F-4G: Planned release in Summer 2021
●F-4E Late:Release date TBD
●F-4F Release date TBD
●F-4EJ Release date TBD
●F-4F/ICE Release date TBD
Considering the ZM schedule, I don't think Tamiya would be anxious to produce a long nose Phantom for you ... but ... .
Gene K
Great news about the G. The only long nose I’ve ever been interested in building is the Victorville ‘Sweet Sixteen’ Wild Weasel after seeing Hasegawa’s 1983 version of the same.
-
I've virtually given up on MC. I've always wanted a modern tooling of the B-52 in 1/72 to render the Vietnam era B-52D with the tall tail, mostly to be able to create a far better version of what I did with the Monogram kit as a kid and I only picked up the original MC B-52G in case it was all they released and which would at least give me the basis to modify (hopefully) into something closer to what I was after. Their announcement of their B-52D gave me hope that I could 'retire' my G and build a D straight from the box but as time has gone by it's feeling more and more like vapour-ware so I'm gearing up to '3D' a tail extension and other parts in order to at least use the kit I have. I'm also disappointing that the new tool B1B never materialised either.
Wheres that kit I ordered ?
in Chat
Posted
Cue all the Austin Powers three-point-turn memes