Airlinercafe Home Page

Stop being a lurker - join our community and get involved. Sign up and start a conversation!
 

      Author Message

      Andrew


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 838
      Location: Toronto sometimes
      Occupation: Corporate Pilot
      Age:

      Post #26283, posted on 02-20-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Hi Guys,

      I have a bit of verbage when it it comes to 757 kits!

      With recent discussions on new 757 kits I thought I'd re-visit a review of a 757 kit.With all the Time and effort I had to put into the Mincraft kit I'd much rather spend $150 for a proper kit.

      Here we go.

      A few years ago Mincraft announced they would be doing a 1/144th kit of the Boeing 757. Most of us were thrilled as the previous kits by Minicraft, example being the B-737 which were fine kits tooled in Korea. Just as the MD-80. I'm not sure which came fist.

      Unfortunately Minicraft went with chinese tooling for the 757 and the kit was total botched or in plain words a real garbage kit. Some may claim it looks like a 757 but it is a very poor kit.

      Unfortunately it's my favourite airliner so I was determined to build one. I did build a couple of the Mincraft kits trying to correct all the problem areas and got fed up with it.

      I'll go into the details here:

      The RR engines don't fit and pylons are incorrect shape and angle. The cowlings need major work to fix the intake and exhaust sections.

      The wings and tail planes are horrendous with thick trailing edges and don't match the fuselage joint.

      The whole wing box or wing fairings are mounted on the fuselage incorrectly so you will never rig the landing gear/wings/tailplanes/rudder correctly.

      The top of the tail fin is thick and gossly incorrect.

      They give you main gear which is botched as they are made for one side.

      As I said I did build the Mincraft kit. But for the cost of the kit and the amount of work and time to correct it I feel it's not worth it.

      For further reference I'll refer you to my review a few years ago:

      757 Build

      To sum it up I welcome any new kits of the 757 anything is better than a Minicraft 757.

      As they say "Fil Yer Boots"


      cheers

      Cheers
      Andrew
      CYYZ

      Author Message

      BruinPrideBand


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 593
      Location: DCA
      Occupation: International Aviation Law
      Age:

      Post #26296, posted on 02-20-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      I agree...... I am two years into a minicraft which is destined to become a delta widget. I have saught to fix every dang little thing wrong with it. Amazingly it looks something like I want it too.... and yet... not a drop of paint has been applied yet. The short of it, I WILL buy at least one of kurt's 757s no matter what the price. The thing just looks like a work of art in raw resin.

      I do have a question. Will it still be available say a year from now? Or should I buy one now and save it for later?

      Chris

      "Sorry Goose... But it's time to buzz the Tower."

      Author Message

      Ben Brown


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 216
      Location: Raleigh, NC
      Occupation:
      Age:

      Post #26308, posted on 02-21-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      To add to your list:

      One wing's airfoil is thicker then the other by about 1.5mm, which causes the model to sit at an angle on its landing gear, since the struts mount to the inside of the upper wing half.

      Fuselage is too long at the wing to fuselage fairing. If the drawings I've found are close to correct (we all know ablout "accurate" drawings!), then the leading edge of the fin is the correct distance from the nose, and the trailing edge is the correct distance from the tip of the APU exhaust, which makes the fin 5mm too broad in chord.

      Ben

      Author Message

      Andrew


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 838
      Location: Toronto sometimes
      Occupation: Corporate Pilot
      Age:

      Post #26330, posted on 02-24-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Thanks for the info Ben,

      I'm going to re-examine the errors in this kit.

      Cheers
      Andrew
      CYYZ

      Author Message

      bugs3144


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1507
      Location: Georgia
      Occupation: Retired aircraft mechanic and inspector
      Age: 76

      Post #26331, posted on 02-24-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Bottom line is if you have the extra 150.00 to spend on a model airplane that is going to sit on your shelf or occupy a box spot, then go for it. I will spend less on the mc kit and use the extra money to buy groceries and gasoline. This is not meant to belittle Kurt or anyone else that makes a "perfect" 757 or any other airliner. I just have different priorities for my $150.00.

      Frank
      ATL

      Author Message

      actech80


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 118
      Location: Georgia
      Occupation: Aircraft Maintenance Technician
      Age:

      Post #26333, posted on 02-24-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      To add another note to this discussion , which is just my own honest opinion , there have been several of the airliner kits from MC that have been quite a disappointment for many. The 727,757,777 just to name a few were wanted,needed,and highly anticipated by many of us who have a love for aviation and model building. The thing that troubles me is why money was spent in the developement,and production of a model airliner kit,which would ultimately be purchased by many who know a lot about airliners ,yet the final product simply was not right. Sure no kit is perfect but some of the discrepancies we've all seen in these kits is just unbeleivable. The thing that bothers me most about MC is the fact that their MD-80 and DC-8 kits were incredible,yet their line of airliner kits is not consistant. I know that the actual makers of these kits were different but you would think that MC would stick with the manufacturer that produced the best product.

      Roswell

      Author Message

      skippiebg


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 930
      Location: Sofia
      Occupation: interpreter and translator
      Age: 64

      Post #26342, posted on 02-25-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      actech80, I think much of the answers as to why we get poorly shaped kits lie in the difference between "chargeable time" and "marginal time."

      Chargeable time, you get paid for. Marginal time is your own free time (free both in terms of being leisure, and in terms of not being paid-for).

      Researching a shape can take years of leisurely (but cumulative) on-and-off attention, as pretty well all of us modellers know. But businesses cannot afford even to think of paying for years of chargeable research time. So they budget, say, a month or 2000 bucks (whichever runs out first; and that is absolute tops -- halve it, or worse, if a half-way canny accountant is sitting on the board) for research -- and hope for the best once the timescale and budget run out.

      Result: misery on our part. Frankensteinian 707 flightdecks, frog-eyed 757 flightdecks and poor model sit, hugely thick 727 wings and tailplanes... you name it!

      The penny did drop at Minicraft and they did give us a fair MD-80 (odd notch at base of fin notwithstanding) and a cracking DC-8. I believe much of the more recent shape research was done in "marginal time."

      Back in 1992, I drew a 737-300 in six projections, with skin detail and over 600 cross-sectional views. This took me over two months. I had been declared redundant and was temporarily unemployed at the time, so the drawing was done in my marginal time. Had I charged for it, it would have cost a good 5-6000 pounds Sterling (10-12,000 dollars US at the time; the euro hadn't been invented). (There were expenses, too -- such as two trips to airfields where I could look at 737s from close-up -- but I'll overlook them.) I got offered 300 pounds by a magazine which wanted to publish them, and as a result the drawings are sitting, sight-unseen by anyone, on a rather dusty shelf...

      Now, If I'd done 300 pounds' worth of work, I'd have shot-up one of those 1/800 scale three-views we see in aviation magazines to 1/144 scale on a xerocopier, I'd have tarted it-up with some (mostly imaginary/commonsense) skin and cross-sectional detail, and -- hey presto!, here's a drawing of a 737 done in a day.

      I am now rather too employed, but nevertheless am drawing the Tu-134 in much the sort of detail I did for the 737. This "marginal time" exercise has so far lasted over a year and shows every sign of going on until May or June. I am also drawing the L-1011 and this rather huge machine will be ready sometime in the summer, having been started in mid-2007. Il-18 and Il-62 drawings are also dragging along at low rates of advance...

      What price all this?

      None! It's all marginal time -- another way of saying "a labour of love." Well -- at least it annoys the wife a tad less than the smell of solvents, the paint-stained fingers and clothes and the hum of the compressor...

      Though I am nobody's advocate, in this context, Kurt Lehmann's prices appear starkly reasonable.

      Peter Skipp, LBSF/SOF

      Author Message

      XRadar


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1411
      Location:
      Occupation: Keeping the skies safe
      Age: 126

      Post #26348, posted on 02-26-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      skippiebg :
      ... I had been declared redundant and was temporarily unemployed at the time, so the drawing was done in my marginal time. Peter Skipp, LBSF/SOF



      Hey! I finally found someone that actually worked at the Department of Redunancy Department!

      Keep em separated!
      Steve

      Author Message

      47 driver


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1477
      Location: florida
      Occupation: Loonie spotter
      Age: 100

      Post #26353, posted on 02-27-2009 GMT-5 hours    

      Pete you mean like this L1011 drawing ?Wish I could find a 747-400 drawing like this .
      Anyone know how to make this drawing into 144 scale so I can get the revell kit done correctly ?
      Al

      If it has wings I can crash it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Author Message

      actech80


      Upper Deck Member

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 118
      Location: Georgia
      Occupation: Aircraft Maintenance Technician
      Age:

      Post #26355, posted on 02-27-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Hey Peter, Thanks for the explanation on how these kits are developed as far as drawing accuracy. I guess the only problem I still have is that if it takes four or five years to produce a reasonably accurate kit of an airliner using marginal time , then I'm sure most of us would be okay with that. We all have projects many years down the road so its not like we must have all these kits today. I am more than happy with the MC MD-80s and DC-8s that I have but I am not looking forward to building the 757,and 777 based on previous talks on the forum and elsewhere. I have NO intention at all of looking at the 727.



      Roswell

      Author Message

      skippiebg


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 930
      Location: Sofia
      Occupation: interpreter and translator
      Age: 64

      Post #26358, posted on 02-27-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Hi, Roswell -- yes, five years to do a kit is a reasonable timescale from our viewpoint; however, it is not acceptable from a conventional business viewpoint. (Having said that, injection moulded plastic kits can take up to two years each to do, but that involves doing a lot more than just research -- and an awful lot of waiting for the job to get to the bench.) Injection-moulded kits will be made by smaller and smaller entities (and in smaller and smaller numbers...) and such entites are more given to thinking out of the box. Minicraft is a very small company, while Daco is practically a one-man band. (Also, I'm not sitting here drawing these 'planes just for the hell of it...) So here's hoping for better things in future

      ---

      Al, yes -- like the drawing you show but (I hope...) better.

      "Wish I could find a 747-400 drawing like this."

      Boeing do have precise and free outline drawings on the airport compatibility sub-section of their website. You need vector graphics software to open them (I think Google Sketchup, which you can download free, allows you to do so). The skinning pattern you can copy from the Revell kit which may be mis-shapen, but has plenty of surface detail.

      "Anyone know how to make this drawing into 144 scale so I can get the revell kit done correctly?"

      1. Split the drawing into its parts (top, front, and side views), because each view is likely to be in a slightly different scale from the others;

      2. Measure the Revell kit's length, then dry-assemble it and measure its span. (Hint: the dimensions will not be 1/144 scale -- only "thereabouts");

      4. Mark each part of your drawing with the Revell kit's length or span, as appropriate (the span on the front view, the length on the top view and the side view). Take the drawing to a high-street printer and ask him to "shoot-up" the drawings to the marked dimensions. He'll know what to do (most likely, he'll scan the images into a computer and manipulate them in Corel or Photoshop).

      This will cost you, like, ten minutes and, say, up to ten bucks a shot. You will get back several large (A3 size) sheets of paper, each showing a view from the drawing (front, side, top) to the same scale as the Revell kit. You may also order a CD with the drawings on it, so you can print out extra copies at home.

      The drawing you show is quite rich in detail. This is the drawing to which the prototype for the Doyusha 1/100 and Otaki 1/144 L-1011s was made (yes -- it is the same prototype!). The drawing has quite a lot of minor problems with which I can bore you and others, but would prefer not to. (You are likely to find that once you get the top view to have the right length, it will have the wrong span -- and once you get it to have the right span, it will have the wrong length. Worse, the fuselage diameter will be wrong in both cases. Still... next I'll be telling you it has the wrong number of rivets on the wing!)

      I hope this is of help

      Author Message

      skippiebg


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 930
      Location: Sofia
      Occupation: interpreter and translator
      Age: 64

      Post #26359, posted on 02-27-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Quote
      XRadar :

      Hey! I finally found someone that actually worked at the Department of Redunancy Department!



      XRadar, I may be a pretty poor modeller, but (though I say it myself) I did for redundancy what Revell did for the 747-100 or Minicraft did for the DC-8! I am, of course, dundant nowadays, which is another way of saying that I was disappointed then, but am appointed now

      Author Message

      47 driver


      Members

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 1477
      Location: florida
      Occupation: Loonie spotter
      Age: 100

      Post #26369, posted on 03-01-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Pete , are you going to sell any of the L1011 drawing's when you get finished with them?
      Al

      If it has wings I can crash it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Author Message

      skippiebg


      Contributors

       Online status  

       
      Add As Buddy
      Posts: 930
      Location: Sofia
      Occupation: interpreter and translator
      Age: 64

      Post #26373, posted on 03-01-2009 GMT-5 hours    
      Al, I am contractually committed to keep that work private. It's actually part of a very long story going back to 2000. In a word, I feel bad about it, but the answer has to be no, or I'll lose my shirt.

      Having said that, the drawing you already have is really very good and you can happily use it to accurise the Revell L-1011.