Tecnikit

Hello Tony, thank you very much !! We are open to almost everything. You never know what can be more successful until it is put into practice. We have a special page for that named "YOUR PROJECTS": https://www.tecnikit.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=page&id=30&language=en There we explain how users and companies can make orders. Each case is special and we can apply different conditions. We already work making parts for an important company that sells them under their name and for personal cases. But we need determined and concrete tasks. Anybody can send us an email in the CONTACT page to begin to talk about it. At this moment we are working in the PW 220 nozzle for F-16 and F-15 under this type of work under demand. Everyone who orders us custom jobs has a great discount. And thank you very much for the encouragement !!

Hi Thierry: Models ( in red models A and C that can be mounted from the same Italeri modelkit ) J79-GE-3/3A F-104A / F-104B J79-GE-3B NF-104 / F-104A / F-104B J79-GE-7A CF-104 / F-104C / F-104D J79-GE-11A F-104A* / F-104G / F-104J / F-104F J79-GE-19 F-104A* / F-104S (*) Re-engineering for certain squadrons or final destinations I have not studied in deep the others for which there is more information but at first glance are subtle differences. In some cases being small details, alter the perception of the form. As example the J79-GE-11 mounted in F-104A in certain late squadron has a reinforcement in the middle of the petals that usually stand out when painting. You can see that here: https://mtgoodsmk.xyz/product_details/106294926.html This other too from a J79-GE-7 in a F-104D. The J79-GE-7 was used too in the F-104C ( The alternative to the A model in the Italeri kit ) https://b-domke.de/AviationImages/Starfighter/8479.html The J79-GE-3 ( F-104A ) has them almost at the end so they do not cut the line. In general: - The petals can have rivets at the end or not. - Different structural reinforcements pieces on the outside and inside of the petals. - The piercing of the petals to the afterburner - Inside the closure and expansion mechanism pieces can be different. For example the parts of the mechanism do not match the photographs of the model 3: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-schematic-diagram-of-the-General-Electric-J79-showing-the-arrangement-of-internal_fig1_327105056 Otherwise I have not stopped to count in other versions if the number of petals is the same.

We have completed the correct nozzle of the F-104A of Italeri in 1/32, which is also correct for the F-104B, the YF-104 ( pre-production model ) and the NASA NF-104. https://www.tecnikit.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=65&products_id=239 It corresponds to the engine J79-GE-3, of which it is very difficult to find information. The J79-GE-3 was installed on these early versions of the F-104, when it served on the TAC (Tactical Air Command) as defensive supersonic interceptor against soviet intercontinental bombers. The problem with these models is that they had little autonomy due to the high consumption of the engine and were finally assigned to the National Guard. There they re-engineered with other versions of the J79. Later the F-104C appeared with the fuel intake in flight, so they returned to service in strategic command. We have focused on the nozzle of the model F-104A, because although it is a personal opinion, we like the F-104 with pure lines. And the fuel intake is a break in cleaning lines as aerodynamic and beautiful as those of the F-104. On the other hand, the F-104A, YF-104 and NF-104 are the vehicles that were used as experimental models for all types of tests. Becoming a milestone being the first tests with a production fighter flying to Mach 2. Finally, except for our mistake, the J79-GE-3 is the only engine that would correspond to the historical period in which the F-104A flew in the USAF. They were later re-engineered with the J79-GE-11 and J79-GE-19. But for a particular squad, and for their final destination in another country.

Specially designed for the F-104 A/C of Italeri in 1/32. The radar AN/ASG-14 T1. The only radar incorporated by the F-104 A. The AN/ASG-14 T2 is in development for the F-104 C. We hope you like it !!

Working on ....

If you can wait.... https://www.tecnikit.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=page&id=31

What you’re seeing in the images is what’s called aberrations. They happen when a part is printed at an incorrect angle, the printer or resin tank is dirty or damaged, the printer is damaged, or simply the printer.... does not reach the expected quality. Is more provable in DLP printers ( cheapers ) than in SLA. But SLA also happens, although not so obviously as in those photographs unless you do things very badly. As I think I said in another post, there is no perfect 3D ( at the moment ). But if happens, there are things you can solve with a layer of SURFACER 1500 and others not. All these causes have a common denominator. I say. Throwing those pieces in the trash and redoing new ones is money. Cleaning the printer and changing the tray is money. And of course redoing the part with a quality control that forces you to print again and again until the result is perfect again is money. I think some that would laugh, will understand now that not all 3D is the same, as not all cars are the same. In your case I would claim, and I suppose they will attend you. Sanding is not possible if the pieces have outgoing details as you would erase them.

Taking advantage that the model of the F-104 Starfighter A/C of Italeri in 1/32 is at a very affordable price, we will start to develop a monographic of parts of this fantastic and beautiful aircraft. https://www.italeri.com/prodotto/2906

We finally decided to expand the radar family to cover more versions of Sukhoi models. We added the NIIP BARS. Then now we cover radars for Su-27, Su-30 MKA, Su-30 MKN, Su-30 MKM, Su-30 MKI and Su-35. https://www.tecnikit.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=65

Next week !! We launch the Tikhomirov IRBIS E radars for Su-30 and Su-35. Each one with the specific adapter for each nose and with rack for the electronic equipment in the case of lifting cone.

I know the E is longer than the C for the avionic compartment. But more strange it seemed to me to read before in another post, that was made a change of wings. That landing gear is not a "creative" change like the canard or the tips on the wings of other Israeli models. It’s an update to another Dassault landing gear used in E models. Then, engine, landing gear... seems an important change following official Dassault engineering. The argentine article: "The SNECMA Atar 09B jet engine was somewhat deficient and caused the loss of four aircraft, which led to a massive replenishment with the Snecma Atar 09C throughout the fleet in the early 1970s." Later says: "Initially, the FAA had been interested in the Mirage III back in 1971 and a commission traveled to Israel to study it when the assembly of the Atar 09C engine was already underway." We "maybe" can deduce then that the landing gear ( that is the question ) was a change that came from this. About the illustration is therefore an IIICJ before the engine change. The text refers to the ATAR 9C probably as general data description marking only the ultimate engine.

Thanks Thierry. Understood. Although this phantom evolution from model C to E remains a mystery. It would require an investigation following the trail from the time they were received until it arrived back at the museum. Is it really a C ? Israel received E models. Here in Spain there are great photos of model E of the 11th squadron where I lived. Now they are in Pakistan. I remember being stunned every time I passed the road by the base looking them. I found a reliable source. Illustrated Aviation Encyclopedia. From Aerospace Publishing LTD. 1981. And it has the original C landing gear.

So I didn’t want to go into detail. These issues require a long research process. Information on the Internet is often invented or misunderstood. Even in commercially available models, major errors occur when trying to group sub-models into a single kit. In any case as I said, there is no problem in 3D making the original landing gear of the C. As I said also, I saw old photographs of the CJ with the original landing gear of the C. Here I send you in link one of the late 60s. However on the same page you can see another where the hydraulic pistons of the model E are already shown. The model C of the IAF Museum has a long history. The CJ were sold to Argentina covertly and in fact the one that exists in this museum was returned from Argentina. The story can be translated from this complete and good work. https://www.gacetaeronautica.com/gaceta/wp-101/?p=49281 Although I read that there was a process of re-engineering in the C, I did not investigate it. Dassault only mentions this re-engineering to the ATAR 09C that we have made in 3D too, only with the new version of the E. https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-iii/ However it is normal for the fleets to be updated. My advice is to choose a detailed photograph to guide you and go ahead.

Yes Pete. I don't see diferences. I thought I saw in some very old photograph the original train. It may be that as normal there was a process of evolution of the model C. Later there was also a re-engineering. In any case, that photograph of the real Mirage IIICJ is very clear. The same landing gear as E.

The 3CZ for South Africa takes the same original landing gear ( bottom of page ): http://kits.kitreview.com/mirageiiicjreviewsh_1.htm But in these photos of 3CJ for Israel takes the same landing gear as in 3E. https://www.primeportal.net/hangar/isaac_gershman/mirage_iiic/index.php?Page=2

I’m sorry for the delay, Pete. It depends. If you’re referring to the initial models of the Mirage IIIC, there are differences. The axis for retraction is simpler. And the hydraulic retracting piston is different and is propped to the wing. Not to the axis as in model E. I enclose this link for you to see an original initial model C: http://nabe3saviation.web.fc2.com/waMir3C.html But I’ve seen other models claiming to be C of other armies with E model landing gear. If you were interested in the original C model, we could do it. But it would take two to three weeks. Say me if you are interested. Tecnikit

I appreciate much more than you can imagine your ideas. I have my predilections about certain detail sets, but they don’t have to be better than others. For the Su-30 we plan to launch the radar with the same high level of detail that we already use for the Su-27’s radar. And also for the nozzles since we have made the previous version of the AL31 engine. This for example is the smaller piece of the kit of around 2 cms. The back part of the radar antenna. The idea you indicate is very good. But use 3d resins could be not for that work. Control surfaces are large and very smooth ( without complex details ). This involves using much more expensive 3D resin to make parts that could be much cheaper and equally well finished with standard polyurethane resins. The idea is that you pay 3D for imposible details with other techniques. Your job seems perfect for zactomodels.com Have you talked to him ?

Mike, the comment about the scartch is as example because of this. The control box with the starter system of the AL31 engine. Made quite a few years ago in scratch. Calculate the hours and the economic cost in hours for a modeler do it at home. Maxim, yes... but we have models to see the engine through the inspection panels .

Thank you very much Bill. Nothing like the scratch to understand the value of work .

Thierry is right. Not only you can not use our ATAR 09 kit for using GE engines. Our avionics kit behind the cockpit would be incorrect too.

Thank you very much for your comments. As I told you each model costs us months of work. We are finishing the BMW003 engine for some Me-262 models that will be ready by October. We will surely make variants of some of our current kits for the Su-30 or Su-35, since great part of the structures are the same. But we would like to make one or some Pratt & Whitney engines. The models we have in mind are the F-4, F-104, F-15 and F-22. We will take your comments in mind. The F-15 may be a good idea, but we are not sure whether to make the engine from the first models or from the updated version. As I told you, if you have specific ideas we will study them. And a firm order is always an incentive to start a new line of work. Tecnikit.com

First of all, thank you very much for your interest. I saw the discussion on Google and I think I can contribute something to the debate. Years ago who for me is a great craftsman of polyurethane resin in aviation parts, already had to intervene also in a couple of similar debates about the expensive prices. What I found very sad is that a so magnificent modeler, after explaining the cost of the resin, the failures that forced to repeat the models, the need to remake the molds because they were spoiled over time, etc... end his remarks with a tone in which he seemed to almost apologize. I bought him not just a detailed one. I bought him several. And I didn’t regret doing it. My model reminds me every time I look at her. But... I’ve always had the illusion of buying a kit of a Japanese Navy cruise ship made by an artisan in Japan. When he told me his model cost more than 700 euros, I realized I couldn’t afford it. But it didn’t even occur to me to criticize him or take it badly. His work was worth it. Injection model manufacturers sell thousands of units a year worldwide, while is not the same the sell of detailsets. And not all modelkits and detailsets have the same quality. Some of our pieces have taken months of research and 3D design. We have received congratulations from other manufacturers for the precision we seek and often get. All our family of jet engines for example, is at this moment the best in quality in the world. What price is correct fot this ? And for you ? We started by making parts for our own models. We calculated the costs ( we’re not in China ). And our most complex and accurate kits are the most expensives. Thierry Laurent has explained very well the complexity and the processing time. And we can see that he knows what this 3D printing is all about. I do not go into detail explaining the problems of aberrations produced by 3D, problems with supports, machine failures, clean the pieces... that is "the easy part". As regards the intervener who explains that there are cheaper resins, of course there are. But not for the machine and resolution between layers that we use. At 25 microns we need the double of expositions of laser and double time. One of our models requires 30 hours of printing time. About the fear of starting a climb, it should not because the qualities are not the same, as the modeler for whom we design is not the type of majority modeler. But that is other debate and my message is too large. I am very grateful for all the contributions you have made. I think all of you have correct points of view from diferent approaches. And yes, most of our kits are for Su-27. Give us time, we have just started . If you have assignments that we see might be of interest, we will study it. tecnikit.com