Jump to content

1:48 Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II - Warthog by GWH


Greg B

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Test built on display at the All Japan Hobby Show 2023

Source: https://twitter.com/ModelArtInc/status/170764220251895026

 

F7-LDhc-Rb-AAArxwa-jpeg.jpg

 

Source: https://www.facebook.com/gustav.jung.7/posts/pfbid02NiK2DzPeKdGNwcdQx7zhAgJkWhAry3ZJa2P7wevJy2TcrEWdgDVEG4Bg2MrwiF6ml

 

384774815-6609259502501875-5195320587967

 

384766199-6609259842501841-9193464323057

 

384753783-6609259675835191-1474330520520

 

V.P.

Edited by Homebee
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/14/2023 at 5:30 PM, Zacharias said:

Engine fan rendering, over-complicated and with bad execution, fan blades are done in two "levels" ( 2 x 14 blades ) interlaced and with significant misalignment and with big gaps between "dents" in "spinner" and blades roots.

And wrong size and shape of depressions for screws holding spinner "cap" to the spinner base.

And atop that all those screws are utterly missing in 1/48 scale!

And there is a huge hole in the spinner, where did that hole came from?

Are those guys in GWH using some decent photo-reference or what?

From CGI it seems that fan is (again) placed too shallow, but I will wait for actually built kit before I make my final verdict.

All in all, it does not look good, so many errors just around engine fan, where else will surface other bigger or smaller errors?

 

 

Most agreed Zach. According to the CAD renders and part pics, you called out just about everything I saw wrong. Also, Exhaust nozzles are proportionally small.

 

But no matter. Not one manufacturer has gotten the A-10's TF-34 geometry or details right!

 

But some AM have.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hole in the spinner is a bit strange, on the CAD there is none. The test build from AJHS doesn't seem to have it either. The fan looks deep enough to me. To be fair, the engine looks very good, the best in kit form so far, certainly much better than Academy's. AM fans have their issues too, most just have straight edges of the fan blades for example, which is more noticeable than a bit misplaced "dents" on the spinner to me.

 

The width of the windshield side frames itself seems to be OK, but from most photos I saw, many have painted seals, some have no seal or no painted seal. With painted seal the frames look noticeably wider indeed. However the center flat portion of the windshield looks too narrow. The cross section of the canopy looks spot on, much better than Academy's.

 

Probably not as perfect as Tamiya's latest kits, but this still looks to be the best A-10C overall. Will mostly likely be expensive though, more than Tamiya's latest kits.  

Edited by delide
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one photo with unpainted seal and hence narrow looking frame I talked about, which seems to be rare. The problem is that if we were to paint the seal too, the center portion would then appear too narrow. Personally I can live with it.

15w_dj2017_mcsallybaf_0056_live-wr.jpg

Edited by delide
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in fact does that mean ... "I can live with it"?

 

Of course you can live with much more then that (much more glaring errors), you will not get hurt or suffer some wound ... but why, really why so many people (modellers) are so easily ready to live with "this and that very noticeable error" when we are talking about extremely expensive +100€  new plastic kits? Helloooo, that is +100€ of your money!!!

 

Why do so many people agree to dance to that ugly false tune? It's beyond me.

 

Really, what kind of money do we need to pay these days to get a new plastic kit of some aircraft, tank or ship where I will not be able to find some glaring mistakes in the first five minutes of looking at it?!?!?  It is not only a matter of money, it is above all a matter of principles! Most of manufacturers are treating us like fools these days!

 

I am not talking just about manufacturers of plastic kits. Many resin and 3D manufacturers are selling "correction sets" that are containing their own share of errors, and the end result is that after you spend 25€ to 50€ on some let's say A-10A or C resin or 3D "correction" set for A-10 engines (I will not mention any specific brands here) you will end up with wrong shape (cross-section) of inlet "lip", too thin inlet "lip", wrong diameter of "fan spinner", wrong shape of fan spinner, too shallow placement of fan, utterly wrong angle of engine pylons, and list goes on and on.

 

Yes, surface details on modern kits are great, almost perfectly executed ...  but way too often all those oh-so-great-looking details are placed all over those wrongly shaped major, dominant parts and components of those "marvelous" new kits.   

Edited by Zacharias
  • Like 3
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zacharias said:

What in fact does that mean ... "I can live with it"?

 

Of course you can live with much more then that (much more glaring errors), you will not get hurt or suffer some wound ... but why, really why so many people (modellers) are so easily ready to live with "this and that very noticeable error" when we are talking about extremely expensive +100€  new plastic kits? Helloooo, that is +100€ of your money!!!

 

Why do so many people agree to dance to that ugly false tune? It's beyond me.

 

Really, what kind of money do we need to pay these days to get a new plastic kit of some aircraft, tank or ship where I will not be able to find some glaring mistakes in the first five minutes of looking at it?!?!?  It is not only a matter of money, it is above all a matter of principles! Most of manufacturers are treating us like fools these days!

 

I am not talking just about manufacturers of plastic kits. Many resin and 3D manufacturers are selling "correction sets" that are containing their own share of errors, and the end result is that after you spend 25€ to 50€ on some let's say A-10A or C resin or 3D "correction" set for A-10 engines (I will not mention any specific brands here) you will end up with wrong shape (cross-section) of inlet "lip", too thin inlet "lip", wrong diameter of "fan spinner", wrong shape of fan spinner, too shallow placement of fan, utterly wrong angle of engine pylons, and list goes on and on.

 

Yes, surface details on modern kits are great, almost perfectly executed ...  but way too often all those oh-so-great-looking details are placed all over those wrongly shaped major, dominant parts and components of those "marvelous" new kits.   

No need to get offended man, I can see where you came from. I just literally meant I can live with this issues personally, to me it's not as disturbing as wrong canopy cross section for example. And I have to as I can not fix it, since I want an 1/48A-10C, in my eyes this is the best one so far, so... I understand you want kits without glaring issues, so do I. I am not going to give you the "there is no perfect kit" line, I don't like it either. But a kit without glaring issues is indeed extremely rare, personally I only see Tamiya capable of doing that and consistently, but they are not the most productive one, I guess research takes time. Until Tamiya release one, I am going to go with GWH. I believe they outsource tooling, so an other external company is going to earn money additionally, that's one reason why their kit is expensive.

 

Aftermarket and 3D manufacturers have the technology, but research is often lacking indeed. Also the designers need good eyes to catch the proper shape, IMO they must be very good at drawing, however most people are just no good at that. We will have to live with that, or start designing and producing ourselves.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Zacharias said:

Why do so many people agree to dance to that ugly false tune? It's beyond me.

Because life is too short to get too wound up about it.  Is it wrong - yes.  Is it a careless error - probably.  But it's there, that's how it was made and that's almost certainly how it's going to come to us if we buy it so I feel that there is no use for me to get bent all out of shape about it.  No judgment about how you are receiving it and responding, just answering your query quoted here.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Zacharias said:

What in fact does that mean ... "I can live with it"?

 

Of course you can live with much more then that (much more glaring errors), you will not get hurt or suffer some wound ... but why, really why so many people (modellers) are so easily ready to live with "this and that very noticeable error"

Because people are different and there are different perceptions about what is a "noticeable error" and what not. A good example is the rear fuselage of the ZM F-4. Even in direct comparison with the correction, I'm hardly able to see the difference from most angles. Still, for some a "fatal flaw" which warrants to replace a large area with a resin part (which is absolutely ok, btw.).

For me, it also depends on the subject. For some types I simply care more than about others and so sometimes I'm willing to tolerate more "errors".

 

And why errors happen? Sometimes it is also a question of economics (yes, I know modellers don't like to hear this).

Take the new tooled Bf 109 in 1/32 Revell did a few years ago as an example. A lot of talk erupted because the gun throughs in the cowl were too close to each other although they had a few of the most reputable subject matter experts on board as consultants. So how could that happen? These subject matter experts explained later on that they were well aware about this error and pointed it out to Revell but the management basically told them that this project spent already enough time with research and the CAD-work had to be finished now, error or not.

So often it is simply that an error is caught too late, a certain deadline is reached and the result has to be transferred to the next department (tool shop, ...) in order to meet the project milestones and keep the project within budget.

 

22 hours ago, Zacharias said:

It is not only a matter of money, it is above all a matter of principles! Most of manufacturers are treating us like fools these days!

Different people (and companies) have different principles and some care more than others but accusing "most manufacturers" of treating modellers as fools is a bit unfair and over the top, don't you think? A very bitter view of our hobby.

While for sure there are companies which just go their way and don't interact with modellers directly (via forums or other social media) nor care about any feedback there are a lot of companies which try to get feedback from their customers. While sometimes improvements are not implemented as fast as we would like in their products, it would be far from the truth to say most manufacturers are screwing their customers on purpose.

 

Sorry for the off-topic rant :lol:

 

Cheers

Markus

 

 

 

Edited by Shorty84
Context added.
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2023 at 10:28 AM, Ad-4N said:

It looks like, to me, the under nacelle wing fuselage faring is separate?  Is that the case?  If so we could make a YA-10 with the original wing?  

Hardly. The YA-10 had a completely different shape and cross section. The YA-10 is about as far away from production variant as the YF-17 was to the F-18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2023 at 10:57 AM, delide said:

Aftermarket and 3D manufacturers have the technology, but research is often lacking indeed. Also the designers need good eyes to catch the proper shape, IMO they must be very good at drawing, however most people are just no good at that. We will have to live with that, or start designing and producing ourselves.

 

The most entertaining part starts when the company has all the documentation needed (sometimes even from the aircraft manufacturer), the designer correctly transfers it to the model, and the kit or aftermarket detail is declared 'bad' because maybe the reviewer doesn't have that documentation, doesn't design himself and has no idea about the physical limitations of injection moulding or 3D printing, but that doesn't stop him from knowing better.

 

I have already seen "reviews" of those Airfix models, which were based on scanning the aircraft in a museum, that they have... totally bad shapes. I've seen many "reviews" with rant on "too thick plastic", although technologically you can't go below a certain level, and in the case of the fuselage walls, which have to support the weight of the model, physics doesn't allow you to make them too thin. But nothing is impossible for someone who doesn't have to do it.

 

Quite often such reviews contain insults to the manufacturer and designers, sometimes even the reviewers go so far as to use terms like 'scamming money'. Of course, each of these models has 'flaws that make it impossible to complete the build'.

 

What can we do about this attitude? Not much, I am afraid, because it is probably as old as modelling. Simple solutions like "if you don't like it, don't buy it" don't work, and even when they are said directly by company representatives.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

The most entertaining part starts when the company has all the documentation needed (sometimes even from the aircraft manufacturer), the designer correctly transfers it to the model, and the kit or aftermarket detail is declared 'bad' because maybe the reviewer doesn't have that documentation, doesn't design himself and has no idea about the physical limitations of injection moulding or 3D printing, but that doesn't stop him from knowing better.

 

I have already seen "reviews" of those Airfix models, which were based on scanning the aircraft in a museum, that they have... totally bad shapes. I've seen many "reviews" with rant on "too thick plastic", although technologically you can't go below a certain level, and in the case of the fuselage walls, which have to support the weight of the model, physics doesn't allow you to make them too thin. But nothing is impossible for someone who doesn't have to do it.

 

Quite often such reviews contain insults to the manufacturer and designers, sometimes even the reviewers go so far as to use terms like 'scamming money'. Of course, each of these models has 'flaws that make it impossible to complete the build'.

 

What can we do about this attitude? Not much, I am afraid, because it is probably as old as modelling. Simple solutions like "if you don't like it, don't buy it" don't work, and even when they are said directly by company representatives.

I'd disagree about aftermarket items, I've bought some 1/350 3D print sets for example, for the same item there are different dimensions from different producer, or a set with obviously wrong proportion compared to photo, so it's not about limitation of the technology. Some do design by official drawing, but I don't think many do so. BTW I don't know if Tamiya got factory drawings or scans for the F-35, but if they don't, it goes to show that it is possible to do a great job too. Zacharias did have good points about the issues he sees, although not big ones to me, it does show there are still room to improve, but yes, otherwise I wouldn't go further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

The most entertaining part starts when the company has all the documentation needed (sometimes even from the aircraft manufacturer), the designer correctly transfers it to the model, and the kit or aftermarket detail is declared 'bad' because maybe the reviewer doesn't have that documentation, doesn't design himself and has no idea about the physical limitations of injection moulding or 3D printing, but that doesn't stop him from knowing better.

 

I have already seen "reviews" of those Airfix models, which were based on scanning the aircraft in a museum, that they have... totally bad shapes. I've seen many "reviews" with rant on "too thick plastic", although technologically you can't go below a certain level, and in the case of the fuselage walls, which have to support the weight of the model, physics doesn't allow you to make them too thin. But nothing is impossible for someone who doesn't have to do it.

 

Quite often such reviews contain insults to the manufacturer and designers, sometimes even the reviewers go so far as to use terms like 'scamming money'. Of course, each of these models has 'flaws that make it impossible to complete the build'.

 

What can we do about this attitude? Not much, I am afraid, because it is probably as old as modelling. Simple solutions like "if you don't like it, don't buy it" don't work, and even when they are said directly by company representatives.

The entire Airfix vulcan thread would like to disagree with you! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe my question seems very obvious but I would like to know if someone has actually build the model or all the commentaries are based in some photographs with all the variables that might alter a photo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mascota said:

Maybe my question seems very obvious but I would like to know if someone has actually build the model or all the commentaries are based in some photographs with all the variables that might alter a photo?

Those photos were provided by GWH.

What "variable" could alter a photo of spinner with a nice, prominent hole in it while that hole should not be there??? Or what "variable" could remove screws from spinner where screws should be present? And if those photos does not represent that new product in the right light, then why GWH provided them at all, in the first place? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mascota said:

Maybe my question seems very obvious but I would like to know if someone has actually build the model or all the commentaries are based in some photographs with all the variables that might alter a photo?

When we get to that stage it's too late to correct anything. If that is a test shot and not a 3D print it might be too late.

 

And GWH has a history of getting it wrong at the start.

From memory, MiG-29 9-12 was revised 2-3 times, P-61 took 5-6 fixes to get to the definitive boxing. Something about F-15 engine humps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dragonlanceHR said:

When we get to that stage it's too late to correct anything. If that is a test shot and not a 3D print it might be too late.

 

On the contrary. Companies make test shots to find any imperfections on the sprues and there is some time for corrections or improvements. Most often, however, only technical imperfections are corrected at this stage - uneven or too shallow lines, issues with plastic flow and so on. Other things are corrected very rarely.... because manufacturers usually don't receive feedback other than this.

 

spacer.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I get the actual plastic in my hands I'm not getting out the calipers.

It looks very nice but does invite accessories like an ALS ammo loader, LOX trolley and MJ-1 jammer with a Maverick.

 

Wondering who'll be doing new decals?

 

Tony

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

On the contrary. Companies make test shots to find any imperfections on the sprues and there is some time for corrections or improvements. Most often, however, only technical imperfections are corrected at this stage - uneven or too shallow lines, issues with plastic flow and so on. Other things are corrected very rarely.... because manufacturers usually don't receive feedback other than this.

 

spacer.png

 

Or like some others they receive excelent feedback and choose to ignore it, and then oh so quietly chage their tooling. And sell the same kit subject 2-3 times to their fanboys, more expensive each time :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...