jenshb

Oh, I have no doubt that you are technically correct about the ship sinking in an unnatural manner, so that is not what I am commenting. I do not doubt that you have knowledge about ships - my own knowledge of that subject is not sufficient to question you on that. What I do find peculiar is that you are so critical about a minor detail on the least important aspect of a kit, yet you are glossing over potential problems in a "review" that could help readers buy or not buy the said kit when it is almost served to you on a platter. So you don't want to take other people's words for it - by all means show some professional scepticism and use that as checkpoints and do your own research. If you have done enough digging on the internet to find out that some people are unhappy with the Kinetic kit, then surely you will also find out *why* they are unhappy with the Kinetic kit? Alternatively check out finished Kinetic builds and compare them with photos of the real thing.* As a reader who would like to know more, that would be far more informative. The fact that you think it looks like an F-16 is a cliche (what *did* you expect it to look like?) that shows you don't understand the subject you are reviewing. I wouldn't expect such meaningless, empty words from someone with your degree and professional qualifications - since you wanted to bring that up to lend weight to your arguments... Jens *When making my comments on the KittyHawk Gripen intakes, it took me longer to type a reply than it did to find a couple of photos to illustrate my point on airliners.net. If I can do it, anyone can...

I agree that the box art can suck people in to buy the kit if it is well done, but if the subject is interesting and the contents accurate and well executed, they can pack it in a brown paper bas as far as I'm concerned:) The only thing I expect is that the box art portrays the right version. What I find really hilarious though is that one BM reviewer so keenly critisises this least important aspect of a kit, yet, is so completely uncritical of the box contents of a kit - http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234933424-f-16-ab-nsawc-adversary-kinetic-148/ - the conclusion is so non-descript, inoffensive and uninformative it is hard to believe it comes from the same person who claims a ship on the box art is not sinking the right way. If people on the internet - who have a fair knowledge of the subject has voiced concerns, then maybe they're on to something? Tell your audience what the issues are, or use the concerns to do your own research rather than offering an ill-informed opinion without even bothering to dryfit the kit together. To make things even more entertaining, said reviewer displays great indignation about these words Of course , reviewer will write lines and lines about all what we don't need ( the colour and quality of the plastic,the number of parts , the scale, the raised or recessed panel lines and, more important , the fact that we can look through the glazed parts or not , the shape of the box, the quality of the plastic bag in which the canopy is wrapped, the way the decals are printed and by who. One thing is sure , they won't tell you whether the model is right or not . There are no reviewers anymore , there is just a bunch of advertisers. It's high time they stop taking us for fools . by Madcop who hits the nail on the head even though they are not aimed at him, but reviewers in general. So...it's all right to savage a piece of box art - that for what we really want is insignificant, but not a kit? I can hardly wait for the Britmodeller review of the Trumpeter Vampire... Jens

AFAIK, there aren't any aftermarket GE F110 engines available in 1:72. Strange really, as the GE exhausts are in as much need of replacement as P&W exhausts. The item number you are referring to is for P&W F100 nozzles. Your best bet is to see if you can adapt F110 exhausts from F-16 or F-14 kits that include them. Hasegawa's F-16 kits I think include it and the F-14A+/B/D kits. Jens

I look forward to seeing them. If you guys are seriously interested in feedback to make corrections, then could I propose that you share images of a stereolitography model of the CAD surface model after the CAD model is released? That way you won't have to make expensive tooling changes if someone points out errors that will be expensive to retool to correct. Jens

It's probably natural, untinted fibreglass or similar. Depending on the resin, it will be somewhat translucent, but not transparent. Jens

The two are connected. Slope the top of the intake down, and it will be smaller. The main problem seems to be the top of the intake rather than the bottom. In any case, we are too late for tooling changes...I'm beginning to think the Italeri kit isn't that bad - and cheaper. Jens

Looking at this... And comparing with these... http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Air/Saab-JAS-39C-Gripen/2220015/L/&sid=b22395734431266fee3ab88048f0d038 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Air/Saab-JAS-39C-Gripen/2220179/L/&sid=b22395734431266fee3ab88048f0d038 The air intake looks too big and spoils the look of the model to me. The nose wheels too appear to be too large in diameter. Does it have a full engine that you glue inside the fuselage as well? Jens

It certainly looks sleeker than the C-17 - quite attractive IMO. When is the Trumpeter kit out? Jens

Xtracolor (enamels, I know) do paints labelled as Mirage 2000 light grey and dark blue/grey, but in my view, their representation doesn't match my perception of what those colours look like - they are not "blue tinted" enough. The lighter grey can be achieved by mixing 7 parts FS36350 and 3 parts FS36495 from what I can remember of the Syhart decals instructions. Can't remember the dark blue Celomer offhand. The colour representation of Xtracrylics seems a lot better and more consistent than Xtracolor in my opinion. Jens

...if you're not in a hurry, wait for the Revell kit. Jens

Are the corrected items to the left? Based on these photos http://www.airliners.net/photo/Romania---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-23MF/2207258/L/&sid=1cbfd1c9d056c0866e3daa260332c05f http://www.airliners.net/photo/Czech-Republic--/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-23UM/2180797/L/&sid=1cbfd1c9d056c0866e3daa260332c05f I'd say "close but no cigar". The top and bottom lips should be perpendicular to the vertical side, which seems to be the case with the intakes on the left and is a mistake with Trumpeter's intakes (to the right). However, the radius in the corners should be the same top and bottom, and the resin parts do not seem to address this: The radius on the bottom is larger than the top. They do look like an improvement, but not entirely correct. The "lining" of the intake makes them look less hollow, and is a benefit, but personally I would have liked to see the radius corrected before spending my money. Jens

At long last...! Jens

Haven't got any pics, but I can confirm that my Aires (early) Eagle cockpit is too short. If I line up the rear wall of the cockpit with the panel line on the fuselage where the cockpit bulkhead would be, then the rear wall of Bay 5 is about 3 mm further forward of the panel line that should be coincident with that bulkhead. There are a couple of build threads on Z-5 that illustrate the problem - I think Jake Melampy's build shows it, and that of some other chap whose username escapes me. A shame that Aires tried to be so clever and mould it all in one piece... Jens

Have you had a chance to check the kit against the potential issues raised in the threads in the Rumourmonger and Modern Aircraft subforums? Jens

Exhaust easy. The Aires exhaust fits quite well, with only a little filler and sanding between the doughnut panel and the rear fuselage. Cockpit - not so easy. AFAIK, there are no aftermarket cockpits or photoetch for this kit at all. THe Aires cockpit is made for the HAsegawa, and that is too short and too wide (same as the wheel wells). You may be able to make an Eduard set for the Hasegawa kit fit parts of the kit though. For ejection seats there are Quickboost and Aires, and they should fit the kit tub. Jens