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. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sharkmouth

  1. English is not my first language. I don't get the point alluded to here. I am quite passionate about my shark mouth schemes so this was a needed purchase. I bought it, shared image of it to garner information on what needs to be done to improve it since I do not mind using some old fashioned modeling skills. The fact anyone doesn't like the errors inherent to the model doesn't mean that they tell me my "kit is candidate to bin with sorted waste." That is insulting to me personally as I bought the model, took the time to share images of my kit, and then I have someone dictate to me their opinion as to what to do with my kit. The opinion of why the subject is not up to their standards is not covered, only that the model is garbage and a caricature. Basically, that person can't or won't put any effort into old fashioned modeling skills and would rather just assemble kits. This is fine but it does not help me with the kit subject posted. Telling me to build other models is not helpful either as I may not be interested in recommended models or I have already bought and/or build them. Thank goodness for the block function! Regards,
  2. And there ^ is the proof of what I wrote. Here is someone telling me to throw a kit into a bin which I paid for (and I work pretty hard to have the disposable income to buy it). Where is it constructive? By telling me to buy other kits whose subjects don't interest me (Foxhound & Su-33) or I already have? Is this person implying I am stupid to buy the kit as it obviously doesn't meet his/her standards? Or is he/she stating they can't be bothered to use modeling skills to correct it (something which I enjoy doing)? So, his/her way of modeling (simply assembling) is better than my old fashion way of correcting it? He/she makes a decision for me as to what I should buy or toss out? As I wrote before, The difference between constructive criticism about the subject offered and whining over the company who made it is lost on some. Sad really (and the reason I haven't posted any sprue shots of my latest acquisitions),
  3. I am sure you could also fix the lower airbrakes very easily. Glue shut. Use stretched sprue tree to fill the side which is too long, sand, polish, scribe in the correct outline and done! Regards,
  4. Well, it certainly challenges one but the end result is something to be proud of! Regards,
  5. Not really. On the armor side, they have a core of people who provide references and even Miguel Jimenez (ammo of Mig) helping them out with paint schemes and so on. Their modern Soviet armor kits are considered top of the line. Duplication has occurred in the case of the Scud (R-17 on MAZ TEL), Patriot Missile, and T-10. Meng held off on their Scud with Trumpeter releasing theirs first. A look into the box and one sees it is full of details. The build is not difficult and very little is inaccurate. Meng is releasing their Smerch while Trumpeter announced it... it works both ways. Trumpeter had the Patriot complex and Dragon announced theirs. Trumpeter, due to the complexity and price point targeted, decided to split the truck from the trailers. Dragon will sell a simpler kit as the complex. The T-10 is a three way release with each company having a different take. I had three T-90 tanks in my possession (Meng, Trumpeter, and Zvezda), I kept Trumpeters simply because the turret version is the one I needed while the other two were indeed nice, separate mud guards and other tiny details edged them out. I'd hope that Trumpeter would release a ZSU-23-4 Shilka but instead, we see Hong and an announcement from Meng. Seeing the Hong kit, it looks great on the sprue trees but fit is not the best. This is from someone building the kit (not me) as I am holding out to see how Meng looks. Regards,
  6. AMK is releasing a MiG-25 even though there is the recent Kitty Hawk kit out. Poor kits is an opinion based on fidelity (accuracy). Many of these companies produce well engineered kits now which fit well enough to satisfy most of their target audience. This is what keeps them in business. Those modelers to whom fidelity is of utmost importance are in the minority. My personal opinion is that they should be heard but that may mean that the companies 'listening' will spend more in development and not recoup their funds as quickly. Being first out is a great strategy to claim the most of a modeler's funds if the subject is of interest. Regards,
  7. Andy, when you start your Cold War GB build and ask for assistance, I will if I have any to offer. This is open to anyone who would want more detailed information for their build. I only ask to see the information put to use. As for the links that I sent via PM to the two who requested the information, they were easy to find in a web search. My only advantage (over those I sent them to) is that I knew of the existence and location of the information. When Procopius and Neu start their builds, they can share what was PMed to them as it is readily available via web searches. I will then offer them what I may have (for example, I took many photos and measurements plus kept manuals of Russian vehicles from my time at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds FMIB motor pool). Regards,
  8. He asked for them, I offered them to him. That simple. I also stated, as seen below, that I don't want others to be turned off due to my AMS. Since I offered, and sent, information to the two people asking for it (one on the T-62 and the other on the T-55), they can post what I sent them or keep it to themselves. Hopefully, they've noticed that I didn't link to any of my product reviews related to the subjects although they would not be hard to find. Regards,
  9. Did you get it? If so, which one? Agreed except that the SS-23 is from Hobby Boss (Trumpeter R & D though). All three are expensive too yet worth it to me. Regards,
  10. Radleigh, I have all the flogger kits (I am the one who posted images on another site where people pointed out that the production kit needs a nose job). Shape wise, the fighters are quite good. As Harvy5 stated, Ciro Models have some updates but only the canopy will be my repeat purchase (I bought two of their 'Big Set's). The Big Set includes the vacuum-formed canopy which corrects the windscreen. It also includes resin replacement intakes which correct the upper outer radius which was too small (too sharp a corner) and also hollows out the landing lights and correctly thickens the lower surface of the intakes. By the way, Aires (under Quickboost) also produces the replacement intakes with the added benefit of the landing light lenses. The third part of the big set is a replacement lower rear fuselage to correct the outline of the lower airbrakes in the closed position. To use this set, one must cut the kit fuselage and mate the resin item. Also included is a replacement parachute housing bullet as the one in the kit is too rounded. Both of these last two corrections are not difficult to do oneself. Hope this helps,
  11. Trumpeter and Hobby Boss aren't new. I am aware of this since I first was informed of Trumpeter by Wasan Plastics back in 2000. They've had great success doing what they do despite the whining of many. This has encouraged quite a lot of new companies (which I was referring to) to follow the same route. Many of these companies produce interesting subjects that have excellent production values but less than stellar engineering and fidelity. Meaning, the parts look great on the sprue trees but don't fit very well and/or are inaccurate. Since I build armor as much as aircraft, I see this in the relatively new companies such as Hong, Takom, and Panda. Kitty Hawk (sister company to Panda) also had kits that looked great on trees but suffered from what I mentioned. Luckily, they seem to have come around. Regards,
  12. In the case of Trumpeter, a company some seem to vehemently detest the existence of, it has been stated many times that their research and development is limited to whatever is provided to them. So, GIGO rules apply (Garbage In/Garbage Out) many times but there have been those where great references where available to them and they did well (Me-262, Intruder, and much of their newer armor kits). They do not send teams to museums so the availability of real subjects is irrelevant unless someone (meaning an enthusiast) goes to visit the subject and provides the information. This last part means that an enthusiast who is unfamiliar with what is needed may end up offering less than prime references (although well intended). In a case like this company, each subject has to be viewed on its own since one is unaware of the quality of information they availed themselves of and one should also look at their history. There are very few occasions where Trumpeter revised their molds. It has always been in response to feedback from enthusiasts but they no longer seem to care. Could it be because the sales of the subject wasn't worth it after the added expense of correcting the molds? Other times, they quietly make changes such as their 72nd scale Fencers which aren't merely scaled down from their 1/48th scale kits. My point is that people should rightfully critique a subject released by a company but not merely the company. Trumpeter's MiG-21MF is a great disappointment to me but not their MiG-23 series (even after all the work required to bring it up to my (not Jennings', Berkut's. Ya-Gabor's) standards). I build these models for myself and my enjoyment may come from different aspects than others. I have no issue correcting something when it is the best kit available of the subject. Regards,
  13. It is unreasonable to actively criticize the manufacturer if one is aware of the way they do their 'research and development.' Many of these new companies do not send out anyone to the 'real ones around to measure' but reply of information sent to them. This means that each subject should be treated on its own merits. These companies are the perfect example of GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. People who care about a particular subject usually are hoarders and will buy every variant available to them especially if listed as limited run. These particular kits often cost more than competitors that don't get so granular into production batches. Regards,
  14. My post quoted Mike's referring to the Trumpeter MiG-23BN he recently reviewed. Of the series, the BN is the least accurate out of the box. It is buildable but you'll need to look at that list and decide what you're willing to do and/or ignore. Regards,
  15. Ken, since you built your J-15 on the deck, I didn't build mine. Would I be able to just use the J-15 and make the small changes to it for an Su-33? Or are the carrier blast shields too different? As for deck crew, I don't think anyone will notice the race change. Regards,
  16. This was my dilemma on another site. As far as I know, no one is producing a correction so I started researching what must be done. Before I could do that, I asked people to let me know what they see was incorrect. As it stands, the small errors of the previous MiG-23 kits (asymmetrical air brake outlines, too small an upper radius on the intakes, missing weld (yes, weld!) lines, and many more) , are compounded with an incorrect canopy (the sill is too deep at the front and slopes upwards to the correct level at the rear) windscreen is workable but the nose is 'Romanesque' instead of mostly straight. Airbrakes, if modeled shut, an easy fill and scribe task. Use stretched sprue tree as the filler. Correcting the intakes is tedious but possible. Aires and Ciro Models make replacements if you prefer to pay and save time. Weld lines... stretched sprue trees but I used Gunze Sangyo's liquid putty. Canopy & cockpit sill. Two approaches but I took the harder one. A) Glue shut, fill sill line and rescribe at the correct height from the rear to the front keeping it parallel to the thrust line build up sill with plastic and replace canopy with one from the MiG-23M kit (which lacks the periscope brace). Nose wheels should be larger, Armory makes them. Nose wheel mud guard needs to be made from lead foil as the kit one is nowhere near that used with the ground attack variant. I will (haven't started this yet) cut off the top of the nose and build it back with wood and skinned in sheet plastic. Of course I can go on but you might not be reading this far! Regards,
  17. I sold off my KP kit since I knew this kit was coming. There are more discrepancies than just the nose and large amounts of photos and measurements provided to Trumpeter were in the specific problem areas such as the engine section shape, nose, etcetera. Thanks for illustrating the nose issue with a comparison of the kit offering to the real item. Me too, but knowing it is Hobby Boss releasing it when the information was sent to the Trumpeter contacts makes me worried as I have no idea what they have done with the research provided to them by me and other enthusiasts. Jeroen, while I understand your stance, it looks like you're trying to silence Laurent. As you can see above, he offered constructive criticism by showing the available kit and what it should look like. unlike some that simply bash the company and offer nothing other than to say you should bury the model, his sharp eye for shapes makes Laurent's posts something I look forward to. Feel free to look at some of the posts I started (with sprue shots) so you can see the difference between constructive and divisive criticism. The latter does nothing but alienate people against the brand instead of staying on the kit subject at hand. In anticipation of this kit, I sold my KP kit with the extremely rare The New Tiger Models flaps and slats sets. Now I see it will be in a Hobby Boss box. The last time this happened to me was with the Cadillac Gage Commando armored cars. The information I sent was accepted and then silence. The kit comes out from Hobby Boss with errors which would have been avoided had the CAD development team shared with those that provided the research material. After all, once the material was accepted, is it not obvious that the kit is in development? So why not share the CAD images? Instead, we end up with error which could have been avoided. Based on this experience, I do not know how these Fitters will come out. Regards,
  18. If others are interested, then you can post them. On more than one occasion, I was bundled with 'nit pickers' who had nothing good to say about kits. As I stated, I can reply to your PM and you can make it public if others express interest. Regards,
  19. The BTR-80A (with the cannon) is technically after the Cold War. The BTR-70, BTR-70 Afghanistan, BTR-80 Early, and any of the BTR-60s are a good choice. More affordable but just as nice are the BRDM-2 series of which all were in Cold War use. Regards,
  20. Send me a PM and I will gather some links for you. Regards,
  21. Look at their BRDM or BTR-60/70/80 series. Well researched, all wheels, good fit, a bit expensive but definitely worth it. Regards,
  22. Buildable, yes... accurate, not so much as the kit is a mix of various batches. It is a 2 degree change which, if you don't see it, you won't miss it! Add 0.76mm to the top plate. Lots of other things to tidy up. If you REALLY must know, PM me as I don't like to turn people off kits due to my AMS. Regards,
  23. If using Europe only as location, you'll have lots to choose from! (Brands in parenthesis are what I chose when the subject interests me) Warsaw Pact Ground Forces: (Tamiya) T-55, (Trumpeter) T-62 of various models, (Trumpeter) BTR-60, (Trumpeter) BTR-70, (Trumpeter) BTR-80 Early, (Trumpeter) BMP-1 of various models, (Trumpeter) BMP-2, (Trumpeter) BRDM of various models, (Trumpeter) PT-76, and much more (mostly from Trumpeter) NATO Ground Forces: (DML) M48A3, (AFV Club) M60 series, (DML) Abrams of various models, Leopards, Chieftains, (AFV Club) Centurions, (Academy) M113 series, (Takom) Luchs, and much more. While nice, I didn't trust the vinyl tires so I had to replace them. At the time, I provided research material so I also gave feedback and newer tank kits went away from the vinyl tires. I also corrected the engine deck angle but that is up to the modeler. Their research quality is based on who provided it which, fortunately, has been very good lately. I reviewed mostly armor kits for over a decade and provided feedback directly to the companies to (hopefully) improve. As such, I have lots of references for the kits I reviewed. Regards,
  • Create New...