IF you read this Inflight; I'd like to add more Caravelles to my fleet, as the mould is pretty good., but PLEASE get rid of that hump in the front antop of the fuselage.... THIS IS NO 747!
__________________ Please NG Models, consider these for both 1:400 and 1:200: B707-320B/321, B727-200, MD-81/82/83
Last edited by European Collector; 03-14-2021 at 12:25 PM.
IF you read this Inflight; I'd like to add more Caravelles to my fleet, as the mould is pretty good., but PLEASE get rid of that hump in the front antop of the fuselage.... THIS IS NO 747!
Finally someone who agrees with the hump. I mentioned this on release of the early ones, and no-one seemed to notice, and for me is a no go. I'll keep my Herpa/Hogan ones.
I checked my Caravelles (got 10 of them, Dinky Toys, Western, Hogan, ARD, Inflight). None of them have a "bulb". See below pictures of the Inflight.
The Inflight models have issues, generally related to approximate markings on the wings. Coroguard on the fences, speedbrakes randomly located (for the intrados, it is in the flap!).
I am not saying a bulb does not exist on some, but to be convinced I would like further evidence with good pictures featuring a solid reference line. There is too much distorsion on lenses and software correction inferering.
I checked my Caravelles (got 10 of them, Dinky Toys, Western, Hogan, ARD, Inflight). None of them have a "bulb". See below pictures of the Inflight.
The Inflight models have issues, generally related to approximate markings on the wings. Coroguard on the fences, speedbrakes randomly located (for the intrados, it is in the flap!).
I am not saying a bulb does not exist on some, but to be convinced I would like further evidence with good pictures featuring a solid reference line. There is too much distorsion on lenses and software correction inferering.
you can feel it when you touch the fromt part of the fuselage.
But here you are....
__________________ Please NG Models, consider these for both 1:400 and 1:200: B707-320B/321, B727-200, MD-81/82/83
Last edited by European Collector; 03-14-2021 at 04:30 PM.
It doesn't seem like a production or design fault. It rather seems you applied the line incorrectly while the model is pretty tail-heavy, therefore the fuselage is not exactly parallel to the ground which seems to be the reference for your "measurement". The line must be parallel to the bottom of the fuselage to determine if there is some kind of a hump on the top.
It doesn't seem like a production or design fault. It rather seems you applied the line incorrectly while the model is pretty tail-heavy, therefore the fuselage is not exactly parallel to the ground which seems to be the reference for your "measurement". The line must be parallel to the bottom of the fuselage to determine if there is some kind of a hump on the top.
First of the model is not tail-heavy as you stated. Second, I have got the first JAT Caravelle in my collection, so I am able to judge what is right or wrong in this context.Look at the pic of the Austrian, maybe that clarifies the issue for you.
If it doesn't here is another one from an old thread...
__________________ Please NG Models, consider these for both 1:400 and 1:200: B707-320B/321, B727-200, MD-81/82/83
Last edited by European Collector; 03-14-2021 at 04:44 PM.
But here you are....
Attached Thumbnails
Inflight200 Caravelle-ufpxvo0n1594567162-2560x1440.jpg
If the issue is linked to some distorsion of the picture, adding straight lines with a software cannot provide any definitive evidence. The reference should be with the model, both on the picture.
Having said that, it is possible some models had moulding issues. Odd none of mine have, I might have been lucky. So far, because I am planning to add more SE 210, I love this airplane.
If the issue is linked to some distorsion of the picture, adding straight lines with a software cannot provide any definitive evidence. The reference should be with the model, both on the picture.
.
Sure this is a kind of evidence. You have model pictured on a horizontal level from a minimal elevated angle, a drawn horizontal line, corresponding with the lower edge of the picture and another horizontal line on the fuselages upper side. AND the fuselage describes a wavy look on top which is clearly visible....pardon my ignorance: how is this no evidence?
__________________ Please NG Models, consider these for both 1:400 and 1:200: B707-320B/321, B727-200, MD-81/82/83
Last edited by European Collector; 03-14-2021 at 05:09 PM.
I have herpa hogan caravelles that look fine. I inspected IF caravelles at Kempton ARD stand and they all have this obvious front bulge. It was bad enough not to buy, and I consider myself tolerant and not a rivet counter. It just looks wrong.
So no photo distortion, which is mythical, as it is evident in every picture of the inflight from various posters, I have seen.
Personally don't care about the other stuff.
I have herpa hogan caravelles that look fine. I inspected IF caravelles at Kempton ARD stand and they all have this obvious front bulge. It was bad enough not to buy, and I consider myself tolerant and not a rivet counter. It just looks wrong.
So no photo distortion, which is mythical, as it is evident in every picture of the inflight from various posters, I have seen.
Personally don't care about the other stuff.
I am with EC on this one.
Thank you. Much appreciated
If it wasn't the JAT I wouldn't have got it either btw. I see myself getting the Adria Airways version aswell, still it would be nice when IF gets this issue solved before.
But to be honest I don't see that. The Hogan mould was excellent - the front gear was smaller aswell, which also seems to be more accurate.
__________________ Please NG Models, consider these for both 1:400 and 1:200: B707-320B/321, B727-200, MD-81/82/83
Last edited by European Collector; 03-14-2021 at 05:28 PM.
If you add a straight line on a picture and it shows distortion, there is no way to determine if the distortion does exist in reality or is an artifact from the picture. Other references (the ground, the cheatline etc) are not accurate enough. We are talking about tiny differences. Visual inspection on a stand without proper reference tool or tactile inspection are too subjective for the purpose, they will tend to confirm the first impression of the inspector.
The only way to make sure the fuselage is straight or not is to make a direct, physical comparison using a solid reference, for instance a metallic ruler. As I did with the models I have home and pictured above for one of them. European Collector can easily do it if he has the JAT model at hand.
irrespectively of the bulb or not bulb question, I also tend to prefer the Hogan model. The mould has been lost, if my memory is correct. The nose landing is indeed better and markings slighly more accurate.
I really wish for a Super 10 or 12. Sterling flew these machines transatlantic.
I definitely see a "bulge" there. And not to pile onto the Battle of the Bulge but also, the area circled shows an abrupt/steep transition creating a different bulge. The taper should have started much further back. I understand this is harder to achieve in small scale, but to me this is more noticeable than the fuselage bulge, at least in this photo since I don’t have the model.
...
__________________ My California: welcome to the land’s woke, illegal sanctuary mecca!
Last edited by American Werewolf; 03-14-2021 at 06:07 PM.
I checked my Caravelles (got 10 of them, Dinky Toys, Western, Hogan, ARD, Inflight). None of them have a "bulb". See below pictures of the Inflight.
The Inflight models have issues, generally related to approximate markings on the wings. Coroguard on the fences, speedbrakes randomly located (for the intrados, it is in the flap!).
I am not saying a bulb does not exist on some, but to be convinced I would like further evidence with good pictures featuring a solid reference line. There is too much distorsion on lenses and software correction inferering.
and your picture shows exactly what we mean. the ruler at 16 1/2" is just touching the top of the fuselage, from there at 17" (above the AUS in Austrian) it dips down and starts coming backup at the raised fin.
and your picture shows exactly what we mean. the ruler at 16 1/2" is just touching the top of the fuselage, from there at 17" (above the AUS in Austrian) it dips down and starts coming backup at the raised fin.
I might be mistaken but... isn't that a matter of reflection of the white top on the metal surface of the ruler?
One problem is that the picture was taken from above - and not on level with the roof top line.
You purist-talibans are not complaining about 0.1 millimeter deviation from the perfect straight roof line aren't you?
Holy bajeezus...
it's not the measurement . but the subjective appearance.
It just looks wrong to have a bulge at the front. And as before having seen them and handled them, I can't live with that which is a shame as one of my favorite 'craft.
1Likes
Inflight200 Caravelle
Your Privacy Choices
