1/32 Su-25 frogfoot

[Erikztm]

I love these new Trumpeter kits. They may have some issues, but I am extremely pleased that we finally have some exiting new kits in 1/32. I was just wondering if the nosewheel on this Su-25 kit is correctly offset as it should be. As for markings; the Czech display scheme with the frog on the tail will make me buy this one immediately.

[LSP_Ray]

I like what I see so far, too!!! What is the source of the drawings, they look very good.

 

For markings, any thoughts on the Czech aircraft with the raging bull on the tail? I have 1/48th decals for it by Mike Grant, will post pics when I get home.

[Ads]

Really like the Czech markings with the lady on the front

 

looking good mr songmeister!

Ads

[Royboy]

Really like the Czech markings with the lady on the front

 

looking good mr songmeister!

Ads

 

The proposed markings for this model are really good.

Could I also suggest a really good artwork for the single seater which had a multi coloured 'splodge' camouflage and a Giant Frog on it's tail also from the Czech AF.

This would make a really great set of decals if they were all combined on the decal sheet!

If I can find a picture I'll put it on this thread.

[micheal]

great looking model, thanks for sharing and working on such unique subjects, I am really looking foward to both this and the Mig-23. As for markings how about Ivory Coast for either the single or double seat plane.?

[DavidJMason]

Dear Gentlemen of LSP,

 

Last week Trumpeter sent me a test shot of their new SU-25K Frogfoot kit. They were particularly interested to see if the overall dimensions were correct. Apparently there has been some discussion over on ARC that there are some flaws in the new SU-25K kit.

 

I dug into my references and came up with a variety of sources from the RUSJET web site: http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw.html These drawings show the Su-25K and Su-25UB along with a scale in meters.

 

Measuring the length of the SU-25K from the tip of the nose (not including the air data sensors) to the aft part of the drag chute housing (not including the ECM antenna) I came up with 14.25 meters (1425 cm). I also measured the engine nacelle from the most forward edge of the inlet to the most aft edge of the exhaust and came up with 6.1 (610 cm) meters.

 

I then went to the scale conversion web site: http://www.wwmodelclub.org/extra/sd_scalecalc2.htm and converted these values into 1/32nd scale. I came up with 17.53 inches for the fuselage length and 7.5 inches for the engine nacelle length.

 

Turning to the model I measured the fuselage length to be 17.4 inches long and the engine nacelle at exactly 7.48 inches long. So yes the ARC modelers are correct. The Trumpeter kit is .13 inches too short. I used this same methodology and found the wings to be .05 inches too short.

 

I have notified Trumpeter of this defect. Their response was that the mold (which is made of metal) is exactly correct but when the plastic cools after it is injected into the mold it shrinks just a little bit hence the .13 difference. They said that no one ever measured the cooling shrinkage factor before so they had no empirical data to go by. Now that this study has been done they can scale up the master mold so that when the completed product shrinks it will be perfectly in scale.

 

Many thanks to the ARC modelers for bringing this to Trumpeters attention.

 

Dave Mason

IPMS Philippines-Bert Anido Chapter

[Av8fan]

Thanks for posting that information Mr. Mason.

 

If I get this kit in 1/32, then I have to have the A-10 in 1/32...

 

Oh geesh..it never stops does it???

[RacingMonk]

Dear Gentlemen of LSP,

 

Last week Trumpeter sent me a test shot of their new SU-25K Frogfoot kit. They were particularly interested to see if the overall dimensions were correct. Apparently there has been some discussion over on ARC that there are some flaws in the new SU-25K kit.

 

I dug into my references and came up with a variety of sources from the RUSJET web site: http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw.html These drawings show the Su-25K and Su-25UB along with a scale in meters.

 

Measuring the length of the SU-25K from the tip of the nose (not including the air data sensors) to the aft part of the drag chute housing (not including the ECM antenna) I came up with 14.25 meters (1425 cm). I also measured the engine nacelle from the most forward edge of the inlet to the most aft edge of the exhaust and came up with 6.1 (610 cm) meters.

 

I then went to the scale conversion web site: http://www.wwmodelclub.org/extra/sd_scalecalc2.htm and converted these values into 1/32nd scale. I came up with 17.53 inches for the fuselage length and 7.5 inches for the engine nacelle length.

 

Turning to the model I measured the fuselage length to be 17.4 inches long and the engine nacelle at exactly 7.48 inches long. So yes the ARC modelers are correct. The Trumpeter kit is .13 inches too short. I used this same methodology and found the wings to be .05 inches too short.

 

I have notified Trumpeter of this defect. Their response was that the mold (which is made of metal) is exactly correct but when the plastic cools after it is injected into the mold it shrinks just a little bit hence the .13 difference. They said that no one ever measured the cooling shrinkage factor before so they had no empirical data to go by. Now that this study has been done they can scale up the master mold so that when the completed product shrinks it will be perfectly in scale.

 

Many thanks to the ARC modelers for bringing this to Trumpeters attention.

 

Dave Mason

IPMS Philippines-Bert Anido Chapter

 

Call me crazy, but isn't that a very basic test that perhaps Trumpeter should have done?

[song]

Thank you to Mr Mason, i put my compare in ARC .

[LSP_Mike]

I'm of the opinion that more accuracy, and basics are better. Plastic tires, not vinyl; clean intake trunking, less seams, and especially ejector pin marks. No sprue attachments on trailing edges.

Since I have(like most here!) Revell, Hase,tamiya, Trumpy, ET AL kits, the state of the art to me: wingnut wings kits. For engineering, accuracy, detail, fit, and just plain well thought-out details. Trumpy has some great ideas, and is producing cool kits; they seem to have little niggling issues though.

[Allok]

Call me crazy, but isn't that a very basic test that perhaps Trumpeter should have done?

Mmmm. I was thinking the same thing.

Perhaps they only just noticed it. It only becomes an issue when nit-pickers like us to point it out. The've probably been scratching their heads for a while. You can only imagine the conversation... "But when I measured it, it was right!"

At least it's not as big a deal as the Fontera milk fiasco.

[Radub]

The biggest problem with the ARC "analysis" is that someone took a wrong drawing and superinposed it on top of a photo and then drew trenchant conclusions from the result.

The methodology was wrong, so there is no wonder that the result was flawed.

Pohotography is inherently flawed.

Here are some examples of how photography can mess up reality.

These are a couple of photos from Airliners.net. One of the images was made 50% transparent and superimposed on top of another photograph. Then, the photo was rotated and uniformly adjusted until the length was the same.

Although it appears that these are two photos of the same aircrfat on the same day, somehow the photos of the aircraft do not match. Shall we jump to the premature conclusion that the aircraft became "fatally flawed" all by itself? Look at the engines.

Radu

[Radub]

Same method, freakier results.

Too many variables induced by angle, light, lens optics, distance from subject. etc. make photographs unreliable.

Just my 32 cent.

Radu

[tomp.]

As Radu says using photographs and drawings as reference is an untidy mess. I've been working on and of for years on 2 Beaufighters and the drawings I have disagree and do not definitely resolve any questions. And photographs vary widely between individual aircraft of the same type. Fortunately the Internet allows more photographic scrutiny. I've been buying more Trumpeter kits over the last year as they now available at deep discounts, Usually about 1/2 off MRSP. I've been building plastic kits since the mid 1950's and I must say the quality Trumpeter turns out puts older kits to shame. However the vinyl tires in 1/32 or 1/24 kits are a problem. I have the 48th RA 5C and it comes with plastic tires.

[Zactoman]

The biggest problem with the ARC "analysis" is that someone took a wrong drawing and superinposed it on top of a photo and then drew trenchant conclusions from the result.

The methodology was wrong, so there is no wonder that the result was flawed.

Pohotography is inherently flawed.

Here are some examples of how photography can mess up reality.

These are a couple of photos from Airliners.net. One of the images was made 50% transparent and superimposed on top of another photograph. Then, the photo was rotated and uniformly adjusted until the length was the same.

Although it appears that these are two photos of the same aircrfat on the same day, somehow the photos of the aircraft do not match. Shall we jump to the premature conclusion that the aircraft became "fatally flawed" all by itself? Look at the engines.

Radu

Well when you choose two photos with obviously different focal lengths and angles and overlay them of course you get results like you showed.

Here I took the two photos that Mr. Song posted as well as 9013 (the Frog) and overlayed the three of them:

The drawing that was overlayed was the drawing Mr. Song posted here. The same drawing that they tooled the kit from.

 

With some known dimensions and enough photos a fairly accurate drawing and/or model can be made. Of course you have to study the photos and take into consideration things like focal length and angle...