Re: AM Vindicator.

Rufus wrote in news:GEzEe.200262
$xm3.38917@attbi_s21:
Just picked up mine!
>
How are your fuselage sinkmarks?
Reply to
Gray Ghost
Loading thread data ...
No sink marks at all; some ejector pin marks as follows:
External - none. Internal - two between the cockpits, two aft of the aft cockpit, and a couple on the interior of the wing fillet. All are mirrored on each side.
The two in between the cocpkits won't be visible as they are coverd by a decking that fits between the cockpits with a plate aft of the pilot's seat with what is presumably a life raft on top of it. The others won't be visible either - all are very light, but I probably won't even touch them, as they won't show once the model is completed. If I've missed my guess and the two forward ones do show, a small amount of sanding will cure them. Very minor...insignificant in my example. From the look of it, the ejectors have been engineered into the kit in places to make it this way. I'm satisfied.
What is more bothersome is that even though it appears that decals are provided to build any Vindicator in VSMB-3, only the markings of Capt Flemming's aircraft are depicted in the instructions...so you're left to your own research if you'd like do another aircraft. That's the only fault I can find looking over the kit in the box...
Other than that - another true work of AM art. Masks are provided for the canopy, choice of flat or round tires, a KILLER job on the cockpit and engine parts, extended or retracted landing gear options, etched seat straps. Very nice finely engraved panel lines. Very nice looking kit...VERY nice.
Reply to
Rufus
The only real boo-boo I've noted is the framed fuselage section just aft of the pilot's sliding canopy section. This framing is on the canopy clear parts but actually it's part of the fuselage. Looks sort of funny but shouldn't be too hard to remove. Just have to be careful.
Look closely at the parts and you'll see what I mean.
MB
Reply to
Milton Bell
FWIW The general opinion seems to be that the kit is correct and the framing is there. On the real aircraft it looks like they simply replaced the glass with sheet metal in certain areas of the canopy.
Bill Shuey
Reply to
William H. Shuey
Hmmn. looking at these photos of the restored Vidicator that I've been able to find, it looks to me as if this is actually a fixed greenhouse section that has been painted over - similar to the noses of some B-25 gunships. Hard to tell, though...see what you think:
formatting link
In shot 10 you can see framing beneath the sliding part.
Note: pic 7 looks more like an SBD to me....
Reply to
Rufus
Rufus wrote in news:WUAEe.200438 $xm3.171646@attbi_s21:
Well that's interesting. There is a discussion in one of the M2 forums where everyone has seen the sinkmarks. Some are worse than others. Photos were provided. There are vertical sinkmarks that appear as if there is a frame or something inside. The folks seemed very discouraged.
Honestly I haven't opened one yet. I would like to add one but I was concerned about this report. Otherwise it's another AM Masterpiece.
Frank
Reply to
Gray Ghost
FWIW I have the -1 and the -3 sitting on the table. The vertical sink marks are there and I suspect a little bit of Milli-Putt or Mr. Surfacer 500 will take care of the problem just fine. I think some people are just getting into a pissing contest here.
Bill Shuey
Reply to
William H. Shuey
Maybe they are/were looking at test shots. I saw some pics somewhere that made it look as if the wing parts were seriously warped...also not the case in my kit. The wings are nice and straight.
If I got lucky, then I hit the jackpot. My kit is just fine. A little research and some Eduard etch and I'm on my way to my AM masterpiece.
Reply to
Rufus
If that don't want theirs due to the sink marks, give them to me; , I'll accept the donations.
Reply to
Bill Woodier
Since posting, I've done a bit more looking. The Pensacola Vindicator was the subject of much rebuilding, with the turtle and fixed canopy no exception. Apparently, the sheet metal was covered with framing that was identical to the parts on the transparent aft section. The framing is only the metal thickness ( 1/16-3/32?) above the turtle or, with a coat of paint, hard to distinguish. I'll have to get my AM kit out again and see how much relief is molded into the clear parts.
I found some photos of the replacement canopy section on HyperScale. Just got to Plane Talk and do a search for Vindicator.
There is a pretty nice photo of a -3 in "Carrier Air War in Original WWII Color" that "suggests" framing on the sheet metal section.
I'm still not concerned with the sink marks. Mine is pretty evident but no worse than some other good kits. Just more of Model Building 101.
MB
Reply to
Milton Bell
Grand Canyons and the clear parts suck, even Future would be useless on the set I got.
Reply to
Ron
The sinks are right over a locator rib. On my kit they're about .025 wide and .015 deep.
Soft cowl flap detail with a rough surface on those parts, piss poor sprue attachement points on a few delicate pieces and sht for clear parts....no shit would actually be better than what I got.
Reply to
Ron
My copy truly is the worst piece of styrene waste I've seen in the last 20 years...discounting the French injection molded aircraft. I wouldn't dare use a solvent based filler to fix the vertical sinks, they're bad enough the filler might separate the tail from the rest.
Reply to
Ron
Got $30?
Bill Woodier wrote:
Reply to
Ron
I will have to agree on a second look that the clear parts in mine aren't up to what I'd expect, but other than that I can't find much (if anything) wrong with the rest of my kit.
If Squadron produces a vac canopy for it, I'll certainly buy one...and then I think I'll have a nice example.
Reply to
Rufus
Falcon "down under" already makes a vac canopy for the old HIPM Vindicator. Since Squadron sources theirs from Falcon, I would expect one to be available at some point.
Reply to
Wildcat
I shouldn't even have to think about replacing an AM kit canopy with vac given their past quality.
Having not heard from AM after sending them an e-mail last Wed., they've seen the last of my money. I expected them to at least hold to the level of the old AM's quality, they fell far short and their customer service now has the prefix dis.
Reply to
rwsmithjr
AM was at the Nats from Wednesday of last week, which may explain why they haven't replied yet.
Dave
Reply to
Dave Williams
Yeah...I'll have to agree also that even though I'm reasonably satisfied with my example that this may be the last time that I buy into an AM kit sight-unseen...
Reply to
Rufus
After all the chest thumping from Habovik and company a couple years ago on the net and their claims of "more, bigger, better", putting out something that's not even close to their previous kits with clear parts as bad or worse than 1970's Monogram kits....well they're to blame if they go belly up.
Reply to
rwsmithjr

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.