janman Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I've been actively trying to find any news on the upcoming state-of-the-art 1/72 Backfire kit since it was announced. Was it a year ago or even two ..? I gotta say I haven't found much, even though I do a Google search once or twice a month. Yeah, got that right, I'm eagerly looking forward to see the finished kit. Anyway, I was browsing Scalemodels.ru and this computer image came up. I think I've never seen it before and I don't think it has been posted on ARC either. Can't say anything whether it's real or a hoax. It certainly looks like a CAD drawing of a Tu-22M2. The conversation doesn't reveal anything dramatic but here it is anyway: http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_4673.html They are talking about the possibility of M3, also by "analyzing" the photo. All in all, it's been awfully quiet on the Backfire front lately. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AnthonyWan Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) /gasp EDIT: Well they kinda slipped the Tomcat in under the cracks...who know's what else they're concocting Edited December 4, 2008 by AnthonyWan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Jan, Jan, Jan...Don't you remember the date when it will be released...? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Williams Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hope they didn't just use the ESCI kit as a base and simply throw some more detail on it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AnthonyWan Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) Hope they didn't just use the ESCI kit as a base and simply throw some more detail on it. :lol: On a slightly different subject, would that be a 'bomblet' rack hung under the intake? Edited December 4, 2008 by AnthonyWan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Williams Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Curious why you would think Trumpeter possibly using another kit as a base is ridiculous, given some of the accuracy issues in existing kits and their apparent research model consisting of looking at pictures and other kits and "improving" them. Yes, that is a bomb rack under the intake. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 On a slightly different subject, would that be a 'bomblet' rack hung under the intake? MBD3-U9 Multiple Ejection Racks (MERS) fitted under the intakes. Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Curious why you would think Trumpeter possibly using another kit as a base is ridiculous, given some of the accuracy issues in existing kits and their apparent research model consisting of looking at pictures and other kits and "improving" them.Yes, that is a bomb rack under the intake. Well, people say that the new f-14 is based on Tamya. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AnthonyWan Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Curious why you would think Trumpeter possibly using another kit as a base is ridiculous, given some of the accuracy issues in existing kits and their apparent research model consisting of looking at pictures and other kits and "improving" them.Yes, that is a bomb rack under the intake. I think the picture communicated my point the wrong way...I meant that Trumpeter using the Esci kit and re-doing it would be a bad thing seeing as that kit has so many issues that it would probably be easier to start from scratch. ...At least I think that's how I meant to put it My bad :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hope they didn't just use the ESCI kit as a base and simply throw some more detail on it. Given that the image posted incorporates the 'bulged' or 'bubbled' fuselage cross section and has a completely different parts breakdown... no, it has nothing to do with the ESCI kit. Whether or not the image depicts the Trumpeter kit, I can't say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hope they didn't just use the ESCI kit as a base and simply throw some more detail on it. As far as I've heard, that's not the case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Williams Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I don't expect that they would since the ESCI kit is known to have inaccuracies, I was just expressing a hope they wouldn't use that kit as any kind of a reference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Right, I've been given the go-ahead, so... I can confirm that photo in question *is* from Trumpeter, showing the CAD design of their kit. The image dates to early May, 2007. So that's, what, 20-odd months ago? (though the announcement was closer to a year ago) The CAD model depicted in the photo has a number of accuracy issues/niggles/nits/whatever - nothing "fatal", and as-is, it blows the ESCI kit out of the water, but issues nonetheless. These were documented and pointed out to those in the know at Trumpeter. So I can't say whether that depicts the *current* state of the Trumpeter kit, if that's what will be tooled/released, or whether they have revised, or plan to revise the tooling based on outside input. However, when ripping it apart, bear in mind that it IS about 20 months old, and an early CAD design which is subject to (and hopefully was) change. Basically, worst case scenario, as seen in that photo it makes the ESCI kit utterly irrelevant and would be *the* Backfire to buy, and it can only get better from there. This *isn't* like your standard 'test shot'. CAD models are done very, very early in the design process. Altering them is basically free - just the time of the programmer/designer to edit the file - meaning that if something is going to be altered, this is the most likely time for it to be done. "Test shots" happen waaaay down the line, after the steel tooling has been cut, and are done more from a production standpoint than a modelling one. Does the plastic flow properly, etc. That's why you'll often see honking great ejector pin marks, or loads of flash on test shots: they're dialing in the equipment. Small alterations CAN be made to the tooling, usually more along the lines of adjusting fit though (subtle stuff the modeller won't really notice). Adding, augmenting or altering parts, though, is pretty unlikely. First, it may not be physically possible - you can't ADD "recessed" panel lines once the tooling's cut. Or it may not be economically feasible - if they've accidentally tooled an extra MFD on the instrument panel, or spoke on the wheel, you'd have to tool an entirely new part to replace it, at a cost of thousands of dollars, and it just doesn't pay in the end. When you see a test shot, it's hard - and expensive - to correct, so the reality is, what you see is 99.9% sure to be what's in the box at your hobby shop. Looking at the CAD design, it's pretty cheap and easy to fix, and so a whole lot more likely they'll do it. Anyway, a few things worth noting... - it's coloured like a map - each part is a different colour, so you can get a feeling for the breakdown. (this should be fairly obvious, but bears repeating and again, you can see how different it is than the ESCI kit in this respect) - the fuselage 'bubble' is depicted - windscreen is shorter and more swept than ESCI. Part of the problem with E's kit isn't just fuselage depth, but how that impacts the windscreen position. Most corrections would have you slice a couple mm's out of the fuse, but the radome and windscreen LE are actually right, but the windscreen TE and aft is too tall. - seperate tail empennage to allow both M2 and M3 tails - yes, that's the "MER-ski" under the intake, with a load of dumb iron. Plus the underwing Kitchens. *PLUS*... look just behind the MER. - also, note the main wheel spacing. - the aux intake vents are seperate pieces (well, the VENTS aren't, but they're on a seperate piece...), which means it *may* be possible to do the 4-row vented plane. Or it could just be to get proper relief on the parts. - there *are* a bunch of minor niggles here and there in the pic, mostly not worth mentioning since they're subtle and have hopefully been corrected. However, if you're an accuracy nut and enjoy sniffing out shape errors, there are two big juicy accuracy issues in that pic. Again, noted and hopefully addressed, but if you're into Backfires... pop quiz! :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AnthonyWan Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 :mellow: So....all is well I take it? :D Thanks for that detailed information MoFo...I feel like I learned something today :) =Awan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonW Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Jan, Jan, Jan...Don't you remember the date when it will be released...? :mellow:Wait a minute. I thought 2058 was the release date for the Trumpeter 1/72 Su-27 kit? :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Right, I've been given the go-ahead, so...I can confirm that photo in question *is* from Trumpeter, showing the CAD design of their kit... - the aux intake vents are seperate pieces (well, the VENTS aren't, but they're on a seperate piece...), which means it *may* be possible to do the 4-row vented plane. Or it could just be to get proper relief on the parts. Excellent post MoFo - loads of interesting information. FWIW (and AFAIK) there was only ONE Tu-22M3 with the 4-row vents - 'Black 4504' fitted with NK-32 engines from the Tu-160 Blackjack. It was part of a program for a proposed 'updated' Tu-22M3 (possibly Tu-22M4) but the project is 'on hold'. 4504 now languishes at Ryazan-Dyagilevo - where I took these photos in 2005..... - there *are* a bunch of minor niggles here and there in the pic, mostly not worth mentioning since they're subtle and have hopefully been corrected. However, if you're an accuracy nut and enjoy sniffing out shape errors, there are two big juicy accuracy issues in that pic. Again, noted and hopefully addressed, but if you're into Backfires... pop quiz! :) I have stared at the CAD drawings for a long time - and the only thing I can see wrong is that there is no fixed 'base' for the tailplanes. What else am I missing ?? - care to put us out of our misery... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Great stuff, MoFo and Ken! I'm reluctant to add another large 'un to the stash, but I may find it hard to resist this kit... Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share Posted December 5, 2008 I have stared at the CAD drawings for a long time - and the only thing I can see wrong is that there is no fixed 'base' for the tailplanes. What else am I missing ?? - care to put us out of our misery... Ken You're not the only one, Ken! I didn't spot that though. I was going suggest the exhausts. It might be due to the angle of the drawing, but somehow they seem to be extending too far over the tail gun turrets. Also, is the front fuselage wide enough? I mean does it taper enough towards the rear? I'm glad about the deployable spoilers, slats and flaps. In any case I guess I should also be very glad that I can't spot any certain major mistakes (apart from the possible ones mentioned above). The choice of weapons pleases me as well. But what about the thing behind the MERs. Some larger caliber FAB..? A nuclear bomb..? Any rumours on the release date? Or perhaps facts..? DISCLAIMER: My intention was not to bash an unreleased kit that I haven't even seen in photos. This is just a modeller talking BS about a subject he loves. Those who are not counting rivets can ignore my post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Why are the airintakes to the engines so different from the pics of the real thing and the CAD pic? They´re slanted on the realthing but straight on the CAD, different versions? I´m not that at home with the Backfire..but it´s a good loking aircraft! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Why are the airintakes to the engines so different from the pics of the real thing and the CAD pic? They´re slanted on the realthing but straight on the CAD, different versions?I´m not that at home with the Backfire..but it´s a good loking aircraft! That's because the CAD drawing is of a Tu-22M2 "Backfire-B", and Kens pic shows a Tu-22M3 "Backfire-C". Different version with different intake configuration. HTH, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share Posted December 5, 2008 In all sincerity, does it have rivets..? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I've been actively trying to find any news on the upcoming state-of-the-art 1/72 Backfire kit since it was announced. Was it a year ago or even two ..? I gotta say I haven't found much, even though I do a Google search once or twice a month. Yeah, got that right, I'm eagerly looking forward to see the finished kit. :lol: Anyway, I was browsing Scalemodels.ru and this computer image came up. I think I've never seen it before and I don't think it has been posted on ARC either. Can't say anything whether it's real or a hoax. It certainly looks like a CAD drawing of a Tu-22M2. The conversation doesn't reveal anything dramatic but here it is anyway: http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_4673.html They are talking about the possibility of M3, also by "analyzing" the photo. All in all, it's been awfully quiet on the Backfire front lately. Silent prayer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GearDownPlease Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 ? Test shot parts photos ? ?! Test shot parts photos ?! !!! Test shot parts photos !!! They seem to have been mixed with the 1/32 Tomcat test shot parts photos, I'm speaking of the 10th & last photos : http://oaxserver.com/ipms_temp/testshots3.php 1/72 Tu-22 "àla 1/72 Tu-160 style" ? Yummy !!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share Posted December 5, 2008 (edited) Yeah, they are Backfire sprues. No doubt about that. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....howtopic=171350 And it's freakin' cool to see some hard evidence! Edited December 5, 2008 by janman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B-1 Nut Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I'll gladly take one.......whenever it comes out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.