Jump to content

sharkmouth

Members
  • Content Count

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sharkmouth

  1. Emotions can run high sometimes especially when limited to one form of communication and when writing in a second language.

    English is not my first language. I don't get the point alluded to here.

    I can see AICZ's point as I have similar feelings. I think it comes down to how much emotion (hope) you invest in a release and how you feel about what is actually made. If it's a model that I really want to build then I will spend more on correction bits and so on, I don't like it but that's the choice.

    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,

    • Like 1
  2. I tried to keep it civil! However, some are helpful. The difference between constructive criticism about the subject offered and whining over the company who made it is lost on some.

    Why is here a verdict: Highly recommended -when this kit is candidate to throwing in to bin with sorted waste ? Look on ARC, this really isn't MiG-23BN !!!!! Highly recommended is Foxhound from AMK, Su-33 from Kinetic or old but still good MiG-21 from Eduard, F-15E Revell, F-16CJ from Tamiya but this ? This parody and caricature of "Ground attack" Flogger really not :/

    Damm Trumpy !!!!! :( :( :(

    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),

    • Like 2
  3. 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,

    • Like 1
  4. And how does not posting the links change any of this.....You are still making the criticism, surely with the links at least your comments would have some support. :mellow:

    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.

    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! :D 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,

    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,

  5. the BTR-60 is looking most likely... will just have to see when the GB is

    Did you get it? If so, which one?

    Trumpeter SCUD, SA-8, SS-23

    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,

  6. 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.

    CMC433MiG23BigSet01.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet02.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet04.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet05.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet01a.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet06.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet07.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet08.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet09.JPG

    CMC433MiG23BigSet10.JPG

    Hope this helps,

    • Like 3
  7. I can confirm that it does NOT include the drooped flaps (see my post #31) - so you cannot build the Su-33 in takeoff mode. Deck crew and pilot figures are also not included - I presume you have to wait for the 'with flight deck' version for thiose parts?

    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,

  8. 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.

    Thats a fair point, but I like to have a little faith.

    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.

    Don't bother explaining to me please.

    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,

    • Like 1
  9. I could do that, but I'm sure there are others who are interested in seeing them too... so why not post it here?

    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,

  10. some of the BTRs look nice - taken with the BTR60PU for the radio mast variations, or the BTR-80 with AT gun... and like the fact that Trumpy give "full" interior....

    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,

    • Like 1
  11. Tamiya T-55 is well regarded... Buildable and accurate, as well as being an iconic symbol of the conflict.

    Buildable, yes... accurate, not so much as the kit is a mix of various batches.

    What needs to be done to the engine deck? And (more importantly, given my laziness) how hard is it?

    It is a 2 degree change which, if you don't see it, you won't miss it! :D 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,

  12. as the 80s NATO v Warsaw Pact GB seems to be a goer next year... dont mind if it is is a tank, APC, rocket launcher, MRLS...

    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.

    I'm quite partial to the T-62, myself -- Trumpeter's new one is pretty nice, and seems to generally be less expensive than their T-72s and T-80s.

    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.

    Trumpeters range of Soviet equipment is vast. It seems to be well researched and of a high quality, certainly worth the money. I think Mike has done some cracking reviews on here.

    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,

    • Like 1
  13. Then I'll be very interested to follow your build thread, and maybe change my mind.

    That is all I ask, make your own decisions as to how much work you want to put into the kit. You may not want to or you may see it as a challenge to conquer all or some of the issues. We modelers enjoy this hobby differently. My point is to not turn off others until you know what you're facing.

    Regards,

  14. Not insurmountable?

    Certainly, but not within reach of the average modeller, I think.

    To me look likes there's some kind of heavy surgery required.

    Anyway, I won't get the kit, at least for the moment.

    Better wait to see what happen in terms of correction possibilities, aftermarket sets or further A2G versions from trumpeter.

    Heavy surgery? Perhaps strengthening the inner upper interior of the nose while reshaping. The rest, not at all. Average modelers are a different breed from the average modelers I grew up with since we are different generations. Therefore, I won't use the term as I don't know the average anymore. I don't think the issues are insurmountable with basic modeling skills.

    Many modelers today have the skill but prefer to simply assemble. Certainly, not a way to improve model building but it does get one to the finish line faster.

    I do agree that, for the price, the kit should be closer to the correct outlines. Had it been the same price as the other Floggers, I would be far happier and even consider sending my corrected nose to a friend to cast a half dozen for me. At the current price, I won't be buying another.

    I will started a build log on another site I am helping run. I have started with the simple things which are common to all the Flogger kits so far. First will be the air brakes, then the intakes, the cockpit sill and MiG-23BN details on the fuselage (this all allows me to try a couple of times, if needed, on correcting the nose). Obviously, the nose will be last after the nose wheel guard, nose wheels and nose gear bay doors, and correcting the spurious load layout provided by Trumpeter. The instructions also have a couple of mistakes which only require leaving off parts (starboard air scoop on vertical tail, port pod on wing glove, and air to air missiles with associated launch rails).

    As for future air to ground variants, we already see what Trumpeter has planned in the sprues. I expect minimal changes such as new decals and only hope that they include new MiG-27 parts other than the intake ramps which are already seen on the sprue tree and marked 'not for use' in the instructions.

    TrumpMiG23BNxDetails05.JPG

    Regards,

  15. Well, I tried to keep them in line

    Together with a large dose of the acerbic comments one has come to expect from certain so-called experts.about Trumpeter products..

    I tried to keep it civil! However, some are helpful. The difference between constructive criticism about the subject offered and whining over the company who made it is lost on some.

    Regards,

    • Like 2
  16. There is a few sprues of air to ground weapons which may bumped up the price a bit.

    From the fighter series, Sprue tree A was swapped with one specific to the Ground Attack which includes the fuselage, nose, and specific instrument panel. The dial edges on the instrument panel are soft (rounded) but this is intentional so as to use a decal. Sprue tree E (specific to ground attack variant details) and sprue tree Q (ground attack variant canopy & windscreen) are also new tool. Sprue trees B, C1, C2, D, F, L, M1 (clear sprue tree included for light lenses), N, WB, and WC are unaltered from previous releases. Two sprue trees labeled WA with the R-23 are replaced with four sprue trees labeled WE with bombs and triple ejector racks (TERs). The last sprue tree (WE) was first seen by me in Trumpeter's Su-24 box.

    The box to house the MiG-23BN is a lot larger than the fighter variant boxes and too large for what was included (this is my opinion of course).

    Regards,

    • Like 1
  17. This weekend, someone may visit the aircraft to verify the flat spot of the nose in front of the windscreen edge. I noted, from my photos, a slight flat spot when viewed from the side which is not shown in any of the scale plans. The photo below is not mine but from a site which covers the history of the aircraft I wish to portray; Czech Air Force MiG-23BN 9863. This flat spot occurs in the skin directly in front of the windscreen where it transitions from the flat edge of the windscreen to the rounded shape of the nose (on the next panel with the oval shaped access panels).

    9863_111.jpg

    Other photos which don't really confirm or deny my suspicion. They are from the MiG-23BN walk around photo set on B-Domke.de:

    MiG-23BN_20+55_25772.jpg

    MiG-23BN_20+55_24950.jpg

    MiG-23BN_20+55_24966.jpg

    Regards,

    • Like 1
  18. Thanks Mike as I was about to post sprue images but yours are so much better!

    The kit (in the US) sells for $150USD. The other kit is resin from Tank Mania and more expensive yet. Color call outs are incorrect or do not take into account the country using it. Examples would be that the electronics are a metallic dull gray color (intentional US spelling as spell check auto-corrects it when I use the Queen's spelling) and the seats should be a leather looking brown except for some exports which seemed to have theirs in black.

    Regards,

×
×
  • Create New...