song Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Hi everyone, testing shoot Su-25. I`m waiting your opinion. ====================================================== Two seat version: Have a nice day. Edited March 19, 2010 by song Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Song, thank you for posting the pics. I will do some comparing now. Edit: What i feared judging from pics. Me sad panda. I will also compare the drawing to pictures. Edited March 19, 2010 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eastern Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Looks good for me, though... something tells me that the upper surface of the engine cowling a bit too curved. And yet, maybe I'm wrong, but the fuselage looks to be a bit fat. One more inaccuracy is that the lower portion of the cowling adjacent to the nozzle is nearly stright, whilst that of the real thing is curved. But it's not too that bad. But I wanted to know what the price will be? Cheers! Alexander. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Firecaptain Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Maybe that tail position does make it look a little too squatty...... Leave the gimmicky engine out if it already hasn't been axed and give us some decent intake trunking (looks absent in the pics) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) What i feared judging from pics. Me sad panda. :( I will also compare the drawing to pictures. Wow. Just to point out some major errors. The engines are short and positioned too low which makes the wings too low and if the fuselage length was judged by the distance between the engine exhaust and the vertical stabilizer, it also caused the rear fuselage to be too short. Hopefully, the rear bottom fuselage is not too deep and the rear of the engine nacelles is below the fuselage so it would be easier to fix. Also, the engine intakes seem to be too rounded, almost circle shaped. They should be vertically elongated. I will skip the canopy length because it seems almost acceptable considering these major problems. I was so looking forward to all these Soviet planes in 1/32. But, first that MiG-23 appears with its squared intakes and now this. I mean, I am definitelly getting the Su-24 because it looks the part, but I cannot buy the MiG-23 and Su-25 with such glaring errors. OK, if the MiG-23's only major issue is the intakes' shape, it can be corrected with some aftermarket parts, but this Su-25 engine position and rear fuselage is a mess. I thought things would be improving.. Hopefully it's not too late to correct these issues :( Edited March 19, 2010 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) I thought things would be improving.. Hopefully it's not too late to correct these issues :( If there are big issues, it's too late: Song's model is made from plastic, it isn't a prototype. I will also compare the drawing to pictures. Please do so. Drawings can be a poor representation of the reality. Edited March 19, 2010 by Laurent Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Please do so. Drawings can be a poor representation of the reality. I have compared the drawing against two pictures; On one pic the drawing fitted almost perfect, but on the other it was rather off. So, does anyone have nice sideprofile pics of Su-25? In high res if possible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Maybe this one? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-phot...3/4/1352432.jpg From the quick look over it, unfortunately, it seems to match the drawings which would make the rear engine nacelle and the whole rear part of the kit much too short. What a shame; I really like the details on this kit. I guess I'll have to go for the Eduard reissue of the KP/OEZ kit. Edited March 19, 2010 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B-1 Nut Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 ...... but the fuselage looks to be a bit fat...... I thought the exact same thing. I could tell by looking at the side view that it appeared too short in overall length. I didn't know where, but the line drawing pretty much confirms it. Does it bother me?.....no. But I figured if I, of all people, picked up on it at first glance, I'm sure those who know much more about the airframe will really be able to pick it apart. If it is possible to fix it at this point in the game, I'd sure do it.....simply because it is pretty darn noticeable even to an untrained eye. Trust me, I'm the kind of person who usually can't tell where something is wrong with a kit, but this one was kind of obvious to me. What seems weird to me is the nose and everything is spot on (when compared to the drawing), but the rear 1/3 of the model is so different. How is that possible? Is the model of one type of Su-25 variant and the line drawing is of another??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Roberts Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I'm wondering if when they saw the length measurements they used from the tips of the probes on the nose versus the tip of the nose over the targeting window. I agree that the kit looks good up to where the engines begin to edge up. Also the tail, is that a T-8 tail versus a operational one? Also did not the later single seaters utilize the taller tail that was first seen on the two seater? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eastern Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Aha, now, after Berkut's comparing, I figured why it seemd to look a bit fat, because it's too short!! Too bad! Too many problems to fix, I'll better give up the idea of buying that beast. :) Cheers! Alexander. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 If there are big issues, it's too late: Song's model is made from plastic, it isn't a prototype. Obviously it's a preproduction sample, but they might still decide to scrub it and modify the master model and make a new tool or whatever they do (yeah, fat chance, I know :) ). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Two Mikes Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mikeyc5usaf Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 i really hope its not too late to fix the rear end, i think everything else I can live with, but Im not even an Su-25 expert like berkut, and just looking at the first few pics I could tell it was dorked up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madcow Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 just looking at the first few pics I could tell it was dorked up. Same here... And if I can it's wrong without having someone pointing it out before, then it must be really bad. Like Mikey, I think the front side of the model is okay... The rear is waaaaay off. Ricardo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) What seems weird to me is the nose and everything is spot on (when compared to the drawing), but the rear 1/3 of the model is so different. How is that possible? Is the model of one type of Su-25 variant and the line drawing is of another??? Yeah. I have some trouble with aligning the drawing to the pictures of the real ac tho. The tail is so different on the drawing compared to the pictures so far. :) I fear the drawing might be not accurate. Although as i said, one pic fitted almost perfectly into the drawings. I need to check this more after work. Here: Also the tail, is that a T-8 tail versus a operational one? The tail isn't T-8 one, they got that right. Edited March 19, 2010 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Obviously it's a preproduction sample, but they might still decide to scrub it and modify the master model and make a new tool or whatever they do (yeah, fat chance, I know ). i really hope so... but the 2 last time i've seen a trum model gone at this point, they had did'nt change much... (remenber 1/32 mig-23, and 1/48 su-24...) it's sad that the fuselage length didn't match... since it's not a straight body, it will be very hard to correct... (it's not like just adding some millimetres...) maybe they wanted Zacto to have work for many years to come! :) isn't weird that the front 1/4 part of the body nearly match the drawing? ...and then something happened! by the way, thanks, Song, to post thoses pics! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JeskiM Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Looks like they may use the "in box" weapons set to lure in buyers. I see a bomb rack that I've never seen in any scale before....one that has been used (I think on the Mig-25 variants....I may be wrong....I don't have references in front of me) and the Mig-23 in Afghanistan. If they load it up with never before seen ordinance and racks....they could use it as a ploy to get buyers. As for the aircraft itslef; the main thing that stands out to me is how short it looks ..... I can live with some shape errors....but this one may cross my invisible line into deal breaker territory.....a real shame because it still looks like a good kit with good detail.....but let's fix the shape issue if it's not too late. - Matt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JeskiM Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 .....I am still crossing my fingers that the shortness issue isn't much of an issue....because I'd love to have a good 32nd of this ac. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Oh my. This was another kit I was expecting to see but if it looks like this... I mean like people have aleady said, no drawings, no photos are needed because it's all there to see! So clearly. Unfortunately. Song, with all due respect, maybe it would be time to step out the office, forget the wonderful world of internet, find a 1:1 example and MEASURE it. Also, if there are any problems with all the different versions and sub-types etc., please post questions here on ARC (or some other site) and I'm sure there are people who can help out. It would certainly be a time for a "perfect" Trumpeter model. This still isn't one. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eastern Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Oh my.This was another kit I was expecting to see but if it looks like this... I mean like people have aleady said, no drawings, no photos are needed because it's all there to see! So clearly. Unfortunately. Song, with all due respect, maybe it would be time to step out the office, forget the wonderful world of internet, find a 1:1 example and MEASURE it. Also, if there are any problems with all the different versions and sub-types etc., please post questions here on ARC (or some other site) and I'm sure there are people who can help out. It would certainly be a time for a "perfect" Trumpeter model. This still isn't one. That's great idea! We can get them a ton of refers so that they finally would issue a nice scaled copy of the real thing! I think it's one more argument in favour for the new Kit Review Section. :) Cheers! Alexander. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loftycomfort Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I'm not a Su-25 expert, but it looks alright to me. Terry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedStar Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 When I can see that there is a problem with a kit WITHOUT laying it over plans, then there's a problem. This kit has problems. With the Su-24 it took some work to ferret out the issues, but with this one, from the very first pictures, YUCK... THIS one is a disappointment. And what's bad is, even when the invariable scale down to 1/48 occurs, it'll still be wrong. I hate it when it happens, but this is a case where they need to delay the release and go back to the drawing boards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gaoyue Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Eduard 1/32 BF109E too long & too fat, did they delay the release and go back to the drawing boards? hehe! you all say it's very nice, why? JUST WE ARE CHINESE? Edited March 19, 2010 by gaoyue Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PNW_Modeler Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 wow....that back end is all sorts of goofed up, isn't it? 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.