Jump to content

Viper Enforcer

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Viper Enforcer last won the day on August 16 2012

Viper Enforcer had the most liked content!

About Viper Enforcer

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 02/16/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    High Desert CA

Recent Profile Visitors

612 profile views
  1. Still feel our original Revell F-4 Intakes are the best; just saying Jens, note that Curt is no longer working SHM orders. F-15 wheels; you should have the message by now. Thanks for the praise on the A-6 Exhausts. We had a dozen sets of the A-6 wheels at the Nationals, but I should have brought more. A few tweaks still need to be made to the A-6 Exhaust. If all goes well, the A-6 Exhausts will posting on the website the end of September. Should have the product pages all updated by then. Yes, production has been quite limited and for a while over the past year and for s few months were nil. While we are bringing the website up to date, it will be a little while more before it is fully up an operational. New host, merchant account, and some formatting has been long over due. I will also be processing all orders so that means there will be longer turn times to getting packages posted. Most of the items will be brought up to an "in-stock" status on a gradual basis, so not all items will be in stock or production at the same time frame. We are also discontinuing a few items. Also, all SHM future announcements will be made through the website and Hyperscale only. Mike V
  2. Ah, DPR, I remember him. I used his 48th F-16D conversion years ago. I wonder what happened to him. Did you have his Sniper Pod too, or did he ever make one in 32nd? What HTS pod did you use? Ah, you use the Brassin Sniper Pod. It's a very nice looking Sniper Pod, but something is off with the Brassin Sniper. The pylon adapter is more than twice as thick as it should be. The side thickness on the real adapter is about an inch. I dry fitted it to a 5R pylon I made and it doesn't look right. Shame, as the pod is well cast. Looking forward to seeing more photos of this build, though do post more of the Sniper Pod and HTS Pod. Also, if the canopy going to remain closed, as you noted you still had to installed the WAR HUD. Mike V
  3. Nice work on your Tamiya Viper. It's such a nice kit. Block 40 and 50 are pretty much the front Viper standard these days. Been a long time since I was at Misawa; but back then we only had Block 30s. Curious what make Sniper pod that is, as the pylon adapter is too wide. BTW, Jake is right about AGM -88s in service being light gray. I was on the HARM program back in the mid-90s at Edwards and every HARM I've seen on a jet including Flight Test today, they are painted light gray; not white. The one photo you posted of the HARM on that Cannon Viper only “looks†white, as it's easy to be tricked from camera exposure. The one close-up HARM shell posted is just an airshow prop. We had one here that was displayed along with an AIM-120 painted white and GBU-10s painted gloss green. Mike V
  4. Oh yea, you hit the nail square on the head with that "unwritten rule". Dissapointing yes, but same here: it's not enough to sway me from getting one. Mike V
  5. Ironic as that first photo is one of the ones I went back and referred to, along some walk-arounds I have. But if you're saying all you need to do is scribe a relief to show separate trailing Edge exhaust panel to make it look not so thick, that is hardly the case. The actual F-5's trailing Edge exhaust is real thin sheet metal between the exhaust TE and the liner. The kit Exhaust in scale is about 2 inches or so thick and simply scribing a line segment at the end is going to change that dimension. Again, I do think there will be AM soon to correct the Exhaust issue, so not a big deal in the scheme of things. Mike V
  6. Obviously they are starting with one of the latest F-5E configurations out the gate. Overall it looks pretty nice. Detail looks well done and I really like how they made the front windscreen as part of the fuselage. I never liked the traditional “F-5 model separate clear windscreen†that had to be very carefully attached, else it be glue marred; not to mention the “stress fracture†that can occur from the sprue attachment. It was also a PITA to blend! I'm so not a fan of the open gun panels. Most of the time these are not a clean fit and require a lot of time to get a streamlined. One area of the Hasegawa F-5 that was always a disappointment was the overly thick NLG strut forks. On this kit the NLG forks are not as thick as Hasegawa, but still too thick for the scale. I am sure it was a stability compromise, so hopefully Ernie can make these is brass with a more accurate/to scale thickness. Can't make out the main wheel detail, but from what I can see it looks decent. I'd like to get a closer look at the wheels and gear. I can see the cockpit IP detail is quite soft and bland; something the Hasegawa kit still prevails in as far a kit stock goes. Of course we still need to see the rest of the cockpit parts. The Exhausts look quite unconvincing with a very thick TE and oversized riveting. I'm sure they will most likely be corrected by AM sets soon after this kit hits the rest of the modeling populous. Mike V
  7. I got the F7F Nose Strut and the 48th MiG-25 Gear from Ernie a couple weeks back. Nice castings.
  8. Behind Enemy lines; Would have been kind a of good movie if it weren't for Owen Wilson ruining it; lol Ah, I see. I went back a read post 36 and it seemed a bit tongue in cheek. "Close enough" isn't good enough for me and many others in this age of the hobby, especially for some the retail prices they are asking. Just about every shape errors in any kit is fixable,though the definitive questions for each modeler are: "Does this major shape error bother me enough to fix and if so, is it worth the time to get the end result"? Every serious modeler who buys this kit will just have to weight those options. Also, someone mentioned that models are suppose to be mere "representations" of the real subject. If that were the case, then a Lego built F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would suffice as that's essentially a "representation" of the Super Hornet. Scale models are "Scale replicas" of the real subject and therefore should be as accurate in scale as possible. I was thinking a long the same lines; The Revell SH should generate more aftermarket accessories that can cross over to the Trumpy SH. Mike V
  9. Spare parts locker; who's saying that? We still need to see the final product and even then if it still retains all the shape errors called out, I am sure it's going to have decent sales. As mentioned previously, I don't mind addressing simple shape errors and replacing with more detailed parts, but having to fix major errors that should have been identified during R&D kind of spoils the enthusiasm of a new release like this. I really do hope they fix the problems called out thus far, but I am not betting on it. Mike V
  10. My experience from working with a few manufactures, is that what you see is primarily what you get shape wise from the built up test shots. Mold tweaks or more likely, “touch-ups†rarely involve significant retooling, as the cost is typically prohibited post R &D. Touch ups typically consist of minor tweaks and additional polishing. In other words, they should have gotten the shape right in the first before cutting tool. Also note that in order to correct the spine/canopy cornering, the mold (being negative) would need to have material added to round the corners and that's a lot more involved that “removing materialâ€. However, some companies (Great Wall's 48th F-15 with its initial grossly inaccurate forward fuselage comes to mind) do go back and make retooling efforts at great expense, but it's quite rare and Revell really hasn't done this to any significance stretch. Example, Revell's 2nd Gen 32nd F-4 has some major shape and detail inaccuracies, but when they retooled to make the F-4G, they only “half-way†corrected the nose, yet neglected the canopy, Intakes, wheels, nose struts, etc… If the spine of Revell's upcoming SH is still way off as it is on the buildup example, then sure; one can take time to sand it down, though trying to keep it symmetrical from side to side is going to be a challenge. But to me, that's beside the point as in this day and age of the hobby, major shape inaccuracies like this are inexcusable. The spine is not the only problem, as the Exhaust Nozzles /Exhaust area, LERX, wheels, are probably going to need corrections and/or replacements. I also know there will be more issues that will be identified once it gets into modeler's hands. However, the price is the one thing that will probably make this a successful run for Revell, though it's just a shame that Revell has significantly missed the mark 3 times now on such a popular modern subject! Thanks for posting the additional Revell SH photos. Mike V
  11. Yea, the Revell 32nd SH kit is not panning out to be that great shape wise. Weird if the Trumpy kit ends up being better overall shape wise.
  12. Another hit Ernie, way to go. See you this weekend; more brass prospects Mike V
  13. Thanks for pointing these areas out. The LERX is one of the common concerns I've heard on this kit. It's kind of hard to make out the wing airfoil- wing root issue you at calling out, but once in hand I will be sure to look over this area. Right on, thanks for your observations on Revell's upcoming 32nd Super Hornet and also posting the photos. I always appreciate those initial critical notes on a new kit as it helps establish a baseline. Again, still need to have one in hand, but every bit of good input helps. Yes, the canopy frame and spine cornering issue is quite significant. Yes, the spine does look off and the nozzle are strange looking, though it looks like they make the nozzles in the Primary mode, full open. The nozzles look generic and most likely will need a decent replacement anyways; like just about all SH Hornet kits. Yes, the nose wheel looks bad and I wonder how accurate dimensional all the wheels are. I'd like to bump them to my SH wheel/tire dimensional data. Hard to tell on the LEX, though one of my main concerns was the “arc†angle of the aft fuselage sides where it rounds to the Exhaust. In both Revell's 48th and 72nd scale kits, this area was severely hosed. Trumpy's kit is basically the Hasegawa 48th scale kit scaled up. Trumpy scaled up Hasegawa's kit but didn't enhance the detail, as it's quite plain and of course as you mentioned, not an easy build. Though not without its problems, the 48th Hasegawa SH was a hell of a lot more accurate than Revell's. That's reassuring as the Revell 48th SH was quite the disappointment. Other than the weird looking radome of the 32nd SH build up shots posted here, the canopy and spine cornering does stand out significantly. While I am concerned about shape accuracy, if they blow it some areas I won't loose any sleep over it. Revell's upcoming Super Hornet is like any "consumer product" subject to review and criticism. The consumer/modeler will make up his own decision on whether to not only buy the kit, and if one does, gauge if any inaccuracies are worth addressing. My preference in this hobby as it has always been is I want to know what's wrong with a kit accuracy wise so I can address those issues as I see fit or use that info to opt for another kit of the same subject if available. It seems that the retail going to be around $75 (preorders I have seen), which would be a good deal for a kit this large and also considering the Trumpy kit goes for $150 on average. Thanks Dave
  14. Photos of parts and odd angles of the build ups are not really a good gauge for shape accuracy. Parts in hand is another story
  • Create New...