JeffreyK

The whole engine nacelles are oversized by quite a bit. J

Very very nice indeed Chapeau! J

If this will be a continuation of the "Kitty Hawk standard" then I hope not as I'd prefer an accurate Cutlass... KH had a few gems but the majority just had so many accuracy issues. And Trumpeter/HB are not exactly known for accuracy as their strong point either. J

Great work, I really like it a lot!! J

J

GWH. From what I've read, the only real issue is the fit of the engine nacelles (but I haven't built mine yet though). Detail and accuracy wise, leagues above Monogram and Academy (reboxed by Eduard for instance). J

I have the pylons in my line: https://www.hypersonicmodels.com/product/f-4-phantom-outer-pylons-navy-72 Cheers Jeffrey

Ah, that would have been nice, wouldn't it? The only early B/D canopy I currently have is a vac piece from the RVHP resin conversion kit. And it has a bubble/flat spot in it... Of course C-1 seats would be needed though. J

Wow, stunning, that paint work is exceptional. Especially around the engines. I have the Su-27 in the stash and love all the detail in the box. But that exhaust area painting scares me... J

They are locks that clasp around the oleo and prevent it from getting compressed. A common sight on museum aircraft as well as in the maintenance hangar so that the aircraft is stable and the landing gear doesn't sag even at loss of pressure etc. I too have lots of pictures with the landing gear having them but they are all from museums, i.e. not active airframes. Have a look here http://www.arcair.com/awa01/101-200/awa126-SR-71-Kiriokos/00.shtm , this airframe is very light (stripped equipment, no fuel, possibly no engines) the upper portion of the oleo that usually moves in and out is polished while the lower part retains its dark titanium appearance. J

...there are many issues with accuracy on this kit but here I have to defend Revell in that of course upon retraction, the landing gear is unloaded and the oleo will extend. Then the wheels will be roughly in the position of the tyre cans. And I'm not sure I've seen those red oleo sleeves in photos of operational SR-71's, only museum artefacts or perhaps in maintenance or construction. But I could be wrong on that... J

Maybe too late now, but ZM have put the airspeed sensor in the intake in the wrong position. It should correspond to the position of outside access panel further aft and more centrally, not the forward/lower one. But as you are concerned about getting the intake internals correct... http://acc.kitreview.com/cec48455reviewda_1.htm https://www.quora.com/Was-the-MiG-23s-air-intake-design-really-a-copy-of-the-F-4-Phantom-or-was-it-a-reinvention-of-the-intake-design-What-about-the-Su-24s-intake http://www.sbap.be/events/2017/055andravida2017/055andravida2017.htm J

Fantastic work! J

No, I don't think so, the fence on the S wing is much longer and less tall. From what I've seen, the fence on the G wing looks about right in length and height at the back, but to me looks like it's sloping a bit too much towards the front. But the deployed slats are a bit misleading as well. As I say, we'll know more down the line and in any case it's not a massive problem. J

The ALQ-126 ECM fairings over the intakes aren't in the current B box and neither is a matching RSO instrument panel (ok, very early N's didn't have them but...) As there are mounting pins already moulded on the intakes it will take just one small additional sprue plus as you say decals and instructions/boxart to make an N release. I wouldn't bet money on it (we know about the sometimes unpredictable choices Tamiya makes) but I really wouldn't be surprised to see it this year. As for an F-11 or F2H: no, I don't think so, way too "leftfield" for Tamiya I think (although I'd love to see a Big Banjo of course). J

Can't wait!! Hopefully released this autumn. They designed the slats again in the open position...extra work needed to get them closed, but not too difficult I guess. The wing fence looks a tiny bit odd though, a bit too sloped towards the front I think. Time will tell. J

The seats were the original Convair seats before the pods came in and used mainly on test aircraft and chase planes (like the XB-70 test chase). Fischer Model made the seats (as well as a number of other nice Hustler upgrades) https://www.scalemates.com/kits/fisher-model-and-pattern-a4804-b-58-hustler-pilots-hatch-and-ejection-seat-set--948686 but sadly they are no more as everything was lost in the fire... You may be able to get there by modifying F-102 seats...? J

Very nice work, I really like it! The patina and weathering are great. J

There are a couple of things off with the model, please scroll down to my comments on the review thread (don't know how to link only specific quotes from a thread). I completely ignored the lack of Q-bay windows and configurations though ...

I have some detail sets in the works but will refrain from large "correction" sets, not only will they be unviable I think, also of course we are working on a kit that will be (I hope) as accurate as possible. Very briefly: Revell's cockpits (both fore and aft) are too short, to narrow and too shallow (canopy height and tub depth) by a few mm each, with the length being the biggest shortfall. Visually, most noticeable is the lack of width, with the lateral bulge around the cockpit section completely missing. Also, the bulge around the ANS window is missing (although that is rather subtle). The IFR door is way oversize and slightly in the wrong place, the nose is too long while the whole fuselage (nose joint to tip of tail) is too short. Joint 715 is way too far forward (12mm!) and the wing/fuselage join/transition a little as well, hence the inboard RAW panel scribing is quite skewed. Other problems are the rudders - too long but too thin, the cross section of the aft nacelles (on the underside in particular), position and shape of the chute bay door, quite a number of panel lines, as you said the wing plan form and size of the elevons, the position and size of the tail cone. The red (walkways etc.) used on the decals is quite a bit brighter than on all other AM decals I have or have seen as well. I expected the kit to be a bit low on detail, with some simplifications and perhaps soft surface detail. But I did expect them to get the basic dimensions and shapes right. I can't and won't claim my CAD is 100% correct, that will never happen. But I have a high degree of confidence in it and yes, I was and am still surprised by what I found on the Revell kit...it looks to me that Revell have made no use of drawings and dimensions whatsoever, otherwise key positions wouldn't be so off. I understood they had a couple of days measuring up Duxford's airframe (so did I) but it seems they left it at that and didn't dig out all the Lockheed manuals that can still be found if you look in the right places or ask the right people. That said, the finished model still looks like an SR-71 and is in many ways ahead of the Italeri kit. But... I really do hope this is not understood as slander of a competitor - nothing here is made up or drawn from thin air, just hard and cold measurements. Cheers, J

I have the plastic in hand and indeed there's something off with the nose and the tail sits dead vertical/perpendicular to the fuselage centreline, while actually it should "lean" back somewhat. The root of the problem is the horizontal stabilizers which should have a slight slope on top, carried on in the parachute housing. Both are dead horizontal/straight. The nose issue is solvable I think, the tail issue will require quite a bit of fettling.... J

...the 1:48 Scimitar is in the way from new company DBMK: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235102177-148-supermarine-scimitar-by-db-model-kits-dbmk-release-october-2023/page/7/

Good catch but that’s not nearly all I’m afraid.😯 J

A good one, and went straight onto my shopping list. The price is fair for an 1:48 kit the size of a Bucc with the shown level of detail. Caveat: Airfix’s low-grade plastic that’s not exactly enhancing the surface detail and their shoddy quality control letting out kit after kit with manufacturing defects (my last four Airfix new-tool kit purchases all had issues). I think that’s mainly why people perceive the price to be too high and don’t put Airfix in the same league as Tamiya, Eduard or GWH even though Airfix do good work in their R&D. J

Looking very good Mike! J