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. :)

lesthegringo

Members
  • Content Count

    455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

174 Excellent

About lesthegringo

  • Rank
    Established Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hungary

Recent Profile Visitors

746 profile views
  1. I suspect that AMK have maybe confused things with their instructions. If you take your time with them you can see that they have depicted multiple options in one diagram, which are logical but definitely does not simplify interpretation. The way that some other manufacturers do it, by having a separate diagram for each option is much less likely to cause confusion or errors. That, at least in my opinion makes the build appear more complex and fussy than it really is. However looking at the build instructions (and I have say that this is an opinion without the kit in my hands) does for me show that they have paid attention to detail and making the construction of certain areas easier, or at least more robust / foolproof. The way the horizontal stabilisers are fitted onto keyed, well attached mounting parts is one, I only have to look at my cabinet to see the likes of the F-15, Academy F-14, Hasegawa F-14, MiG to see where poor attachment design has led to multiple re-attachment. Other things that stick out are some details like the canopy lock hooks, airbrake and spoiler interior detail, intake ramp detail including the actuators, basically a lot of stuff that you would generally go aftermarket for is good to see. Also the fact that if you don't want 'wet' wings, a clean pair are supplied so there's no messing around cutting, filling, scribing... Ditto the closed canopy. I will get one of these, and I am sure that there will be bits of it that I rail at, nothing is ever perfect. Who knows, as suggested here a frankenstein between the AMK kit and the Tamiya one I have in my stash may come about. I doubt it though. The Tamiya kit will almost certainly be a pleasure to build, and I can't see me risking spoiling it. It's more likely that I will make the AMK kit using a couple of -A exhausts and maybe some other -A bits robbed for other kits or the aftermarket and (whisper it) make a high-viz -A with everything hanging out with incorrect details that are only noticeable by people who really know. After all, the only reason I build models is to enjoy myself, not as some kind of competition. Everyone is free to build what they want, how they want I appreciate all the input here by everyone, thanks again Cheers Les
  2. Maybe by getting one of the older kits as well I can swap parts and correct it that way. I don’t think trying to mod the Rye Models kit is a goer though Les
  3. I have a load of those knockoff chinese airbrushes, of varying pedigree, and while I can't say they match something like a Devilbiss Aerograph 63 for very fine work, 98% of the time they are absolutely fine. I basically have some I use for spares, or for when a deep clean and soak is required. The great thing is I can have four or five colours on the go and with paints like the Gunze series, which dry fast on the model but behave themselves in the airbrush, I can do quite a lot of work in one session, especially when pre-painting sprues or finishing up a model. As for compressors, apart from a couple of really big aircraft (144th B777) where a lot of one colour went down, I have never had my little compressor struggle. You can spend a lot on these items, but with a bit of care and some practice, you can get away with the cheapo stuff Cheers Les
  4. Just a point of note, if those remove before flight tags are the same 1/48th ones as what I have from Eduard (not at home so can't verify but they came in the Eduard Tornado Big Ed set) beware that they come out at a scale 55" long, waaay too long compared to what I have seen on real aircraft. I ended up buying the 1/72nd set for my Revell Gulf war Tornado, they were far better in terms of scale length And take your time with setting the wings, I did mine by attaching them to the fuselage halves before joining the fuselage, which helped immensely with the correct dihedral, but I realised too late that when the wing halves are being joined, you need to clamp them very firmly to setting blocks to get the characteristic wing warp shape. Mine are slightly different side to side, hence the position of the model in the cabinet to hide my faux pas Cheers Les
  5. I found a preview of the Rye Models kit, and even to my untrained eye it is not the same as he's driving. The big 'panniers' outside of the track skirts are not present on the ones he drives, his have the jagged shaped ones. Looks like the Trumpeter one is what I will go for. As for the fettling, compared to some of the miserable aircraft kits I've built, I can't see it being too much of an issue - no compound curves, aerodynamic fairings, visible weld beads and single colour matt finish, compare that to prepping an ill fitting aircraft kit for a metallic finish with fuselage and wing bands in bright primary and above all gloss finish! The kit shall remain unnamed. And the other factor is I can use mud and other weathering to hide anything nasty! Cheers Les
  6. Thanks for the replies gents. The intention was to build him something he has driven, so whatever is is use now. How long until the Rye model is out? If it's going to be a while, I'll go for the Trumpeter version Cheers Les
  7. Thanks, a quick look shows that they were more similar than I expected Cheers Les
  8. I have the Tamiya kit, but no separate flaps, slats, spoilers..... it's still in the box I have built the Hasegawa kit with everything that it has hanging out, but you know how tricky they are to put together, and requires filler in stupid places. The AMK kit just seems to address those issues apart from the minor detail that it's a -D Cheers Les
  9. Guys, my eldest son, who despite my attempts to get him into aircraft loves tanks. So much so that he has built a load, and bought me some to make. In fact so much so that a few weeks back, he became a qualified Challenger ll tank driver in the Royal Tank Regiment. I'm still trying to get my head around that.... especially after a family day at Bovington when he got me to sit in his new 'office' - my back will never be the same again But I want to to build him a Challenger ll for him to display for his birthday later this year. As I am no AFV expert, and have very little interest outside of his influence, I d like to know what the current kits are like, and which you would recommend. I believe there are two, Trumpeter and Tamiya, the idea would be to just lightly weather it but not go nuts on details as I would have no idea if it was right or not. Apart from maybe an open hatch or two, I'm not interested in any full interior kits, though may consider the drivers compartment if it does not end up a detail rabbit hole (no pun intended). I don’t know which kits represent the Challenger ll currently in use, I assume the older ones are not up to date though. So any guidance gratefully received, including any glaring errors that can be easily corrected Thanks Les
  10. Fresh from reading Mike's nice review of AMK's F-14D, it's clear it's a really nice kit, with everything that you could want posable so that you can have it all hanging out. But, we are never completely happy, are we, I would have preferred to see the -A version, not least because of the cool high viz schemes. I know the TF30's were replaced, but I'm sure an aftermarket resin set can be modified to suit, and ditto the bang seats. The cockpit was changed, but again I suspect that some aftermarket cockpit panels could be used to at least be in the ballpark with some changes. What else is distinctively different? The beaver tail, gun ports, some of the chin sensors...... if I really was fixated on the -A, what would prevent the AMK kit being retro'd to a -A? Forget panel lines or relatively minor stuff like that, what would require major work? Not being an F-14 obsessed nut aside from from what I've mentioned, what would you need? Cheers Les
  11. Found the thread, and it looks like Photobucket reversed their stupidity and so the pictures are still there, the pictures are blurred out in the forum but click on them and they appear clearly Hope this helps Les
  12. Thanks, was curious to know how good they are, they certainly look good in the pictures Looking forward to the rest of the build Cheers Les
  13. Yes, I was able to salvage it, except the main canopy has a big crack in it. I keep meaning to deal with that by putting a 'canvas' cover on it, which I've seen was commonly used on Soviet aircraft when parked - maybe to stop yellowing or crazing of the plexiglass? It still looks good, the splinter camo was an expermental one, and so was the use of the resin and so forth, I was trying to get experience with it. I seem to remember doing some posts either on here or ARC about the comparison of the aftermarket bits, not sure if I actually did any proper WIP stuff though. The only real WIP I ever did was the Jasmine F-6F, and the photobucket debacle essentially nixed that, so probably the same happened to my posts on the MiG Cheers Les
  14. I liked the rather gawky look of the aircraft on the ground with everything open, so mine is set with the wings forward. I did fix them by cementing everything solid, as apart from ensuring the correct position of the wings, it meant I could close the gap in the fuselage seals wings would retract into prperly. Of course, it also imbues the assembly with more strength, but not enough for a concrete floor! Even with the wings forward it does fit comfortably into one of those Ikea glass cabinets, so it is not a very big bird Cheers Les
  15. I built one of the trumpeter boxed MiG-23 kits a while back, and used aftermarket bits from a number of companies for it. The Eduard bits were definitely the better ones, especially the resin parts. I used their exhaust, which while very nice will be virtually impossible to see properly. Their main gear bay and detail set is really nice, and is quite a visible part of the plane, but boy is that main gear weird and a pain to get sitting properly. I used the Eduard photo etched set too, and the best advice I can give on this is to avoid using the parts for the auxiliary intake scoops, they are not worth the bother. Lastly, after you have built the kit, complete with a very complicated multi colour splinter camouflage paint job, installed the gear, open cockpit canopy, don't drop it on the floor. I think you can guess were that last bit of advice originates. Nevertheless, for about 20 minutes I had a fantastic looking MiG-23 that the Trumpeter kits builds to, especially with a bit of aftermarket stuff. You will enjoy building it. Cheers Les
×
×
  • Create New...