# might have found an inaccuracy



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

The grille inside the mk.II viper seems to be closer to the outside of the nose than the kit's seems to depict about by at least half.

see attached.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

The kit is based on the CG model, not the full-sized set piece.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

In any case, it's a very minor, insignificant "innacuracy". I think that people would be willing to let it slide by. Unless they suffer from OCD or something...:tongue: (a joke)

Bryan


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

actually, I was pointing it out to keep from having to sand in the nose as far as you already have to do. I still can't find a way of getting in there without scratching up the whole insides.

Can't get the leverage enough for the popsicle stick trick. Rifling files would just scratch and I can't get my finger in there.


----------



## GunTruck (Feb 27, 2004)

*Flexible Sanding Twigs*

http://www.loyalhannadockyard.com/DETAIL%20SANDING%20BLOCKS.htm

About halfway down the page.

I've been using these flexible sanding twigs for a long time and love them. They can get inside that intake trunk for you. They come in different grits to make your modeling life easier...

Hope this helps!


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

bookmarked with my thanks!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I love the sanding twigs, but a quick caveat ... make sure to work them side-to-side as well as front to back. In sanding some seams with them I've cut little grooves that then had to be refilled and sanded back.

Nothing against the twigs, just my technique.

Oh, yeah ... one great thing about these is that if you work toward the tip and fill them with whatever you're sanding, just cut off the end and you're good to go.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Paulbo said:


> The kit is based on the CG model, not the full-sized set piece.


I actually heard the other way around, by someone involved in the kit.

Hmm.

Its actually a detail I'm not worried about.

Paul, on the MK. VII I'm pushing for more realistic Landing gear cavities. But as Frank points out, its not on their CG model and more detail means more expense.
I suggested a gear well the correct size at least that you could perhaps do a detail 'skin' to lay in for those like me who like to do gear down.
Heres hoping and input from others might help.


----------



## Moebius (Mar 15, 2007)

We had access to both sets of details, 1/1 and cgi. Some things are mixed, but I think the majority is from the cgi version.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

still don't understand why the fuselage couldn't have been a top to bottom mating rather than a left-right.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

There! You got the last word...


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

no, someone's welcome to reply to that.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Magesblood said:


> still don't understand why the fuselage couldn't have been a top to bottom mating rather than a left-right.


Moebius would've had to add two inserts for the side detail (extra parts = extra money) and they'd have had to add additional pieces to the front so that the inner scoop could be at the proper angle (extra parts = extra money).

I'd say it was a tooling / economic decision.

(And before you ask why these additions would be necessary, look up information about how metal molds, not rubber ones, are made and work.)


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

I understand the first two things you said, Paul. The third I'm a little fuzzy on. Doesn't matter. I'm not interested in the how and why. It's been sufficiently explained.

Do you actually work for Moebius?

Does anyone agree that it might have been easier on the modeler if it was molded as I suggested?


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Enough,It was answerd.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

dude...?

Mods, lock it up please. Falcon has spoken.


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

For my 2 cents, the guys at Moebius are modelers so I'm confident that they made the best decision in the design of the molds for economics and modeling reasons.

They rock every which way!

Andy
:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Magesblood said:


> dude...?
> 
> Mods, lock it up please. Falcon has spoken.


I am not a "dude"


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

You're a girl!? 

Anyhoo, I don't even see why the vertical fuselage break is a problem - I've built a thousand airplane models that way - and I can see why it was better done this way.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Moebius said:


> We had access to both sets of details, 1/1 and cgi. Some things are mixed, but I think the majority is from the cgi version.


Copy that. Straight from the horses mouth.

Thanks frank.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

John P said:


> You're a girl!?
> 
> Anyhoo, I don't even see why the vertical fuselage break is a problem - I've built a thousand airplane models that way - and I can see why it was better done this way.


Yeah, I don't see the advantage to top down either.


----------



## Big Game Nerd (Dec 17, 2009)

I don't mind either way. The way this one puts together reminds me of the older version as well. Kind of nostalgic, so it brings up nice memories. As for the landing gear housing, I am building my own boxes and detailing them as I see fit. Using common sense and reference from some F15/16's I think it will turn out nicely.


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

Well, this has turned into a waste of time. Question posed and answered. Thread closed because it was getting snarky.


----------

