Calum Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) On 3/8/2017 at 7:09 AM, Gary West said: Meow! Now try watching the linked video........as I said, you then paid to carry out (amongst other things) DACT with your F-18s! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lefkB4-XgoM&t=406s Actually Biggles is quite correct. The original contract was for 800 hours of flying each year 400 to paid for by the RAN 400 buy the RNZAF IIRC, but all was initially allocated to the RAN. Any of those hours not used by the RAN could be utilised by the RAAF or Army, which they did. So whilst we did do some (a lot in some years) of training with the RAAF it wasn't the primary role of the contract and a lot of it (most) wasn't DACT. Much of it was fighter controller training . And whilst the RNZAF certainly got a deal with the ex RAN aircraft and spares, the aircraft needed quite a bit of work when we got them as they had suffered harder lives operating off the carrier, despite being lower in airframe hours than the RNZAF A-4K . For exampleall suffered from more corrosion than the A-4K's And to be honest the A-4G's, like the A-4K's, were at the end of their useful lives particularly with respect to their avionics (As Biggles points out there is a fair bit of exaggeration in that video). Lots of the spares became useless after we upgraded them to Kahu in the late 1980's. Any ex RAN ATWL/ATC wouldn't recognise them after that. After Kahu the aircraft became quite useful again, with some systems even better than the Hornet, but like all aircraft, there were still some deficiencies that would needed to have been resolved if you wanted to use them in a real big shooting war (The RWR being the biggest one) Anyway to get back on topic here's a EX RAN RNZAF A-4K still flying for Draken in the USA. Because they had lower hours all the single seaters that went to Draken were ex RAN aircraft. Still looking cool with the Kiwi on the side and the 75 Sqn and 2 Sqn crests on the tail Interestingly the continued use of the roundel and Sqn crests has been approved by the RNZAF. Hopefully the HB kit will offer something over the Hasegawa kit because it can be improved on, But I'm not confident looking at the test shot Edited April 29, 2017 by Calum Corrected info 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAVY870 Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 7 hours ago, Calum said: 874/ NZ 6216 is at Omaka Museum 880 / NZ 6255 is at Nowra Draken got 6 of the ex RAN aircraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 1 hour ago, NAVY870 said: 874/ NZ 6216 is at Omaka Museum 880 / NZ 6255 is at Nowra Draken got 6 of the ex RAN aircraft Yeah I should have said all the Draken Single seaters were originally RAN A-4G's . They now only have 1 ex RNZAF T bird (ex NZ6252) with ex NZ6251 crashing earlier this year/late last year. I wonder if they'll want to purchase some more T birds for conversion training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted April 29, 2017 Author Share Posted April 29, 2017 (edited) Released - ref. 81764 - Douglas A-4E Skyhawk http://www.hobbyboss.com/index.php?g=home&m=product&a=show&id=1325 V.P. Edited May 1, 2017 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boman Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Anyone know of any inbox reviews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIO Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Is it available anywhere to buy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIO Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) Just pre-ordered mine! Edited May 4, 2017 by DIO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat911 Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 Has anyone seen any sprueshots? I'm a little worried that they may have molded the slats into the wing. Mark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerbannog Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 2 hours ago, madcat911 said: Has anyone seen any sprueshots? I'm a little worried that they may have molded the slats into the wing. Mark Either that, or it is 1:53 scale. Bad boy. Would also like to see some sprue shots. René Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIO Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) deleted Edited May 5, 2017 by DIO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat911 Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, DIO said: That's the AMK Tomcat. We're discussing the Hobby Boss Skyhawk. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIO Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, madcat911 said: That's the AMK Tomcat. We're discussing the Hobby Boss Skyhawk. Mark Actually I might be a little obsessed with the damn Tomcat! (Sorry!) Edited May 5, 2017 by DIO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIO Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Just to clarify: based on my experience so far, I don expect this to be error free. But i can't help myself when it comes to A-4... I must have them all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 IIRC, experimental camo schemes were used in 1966/67 by USS Constellation & Kittyhawk air wings. They had A-4E for sure... but I'm wondering about the dorsal bump presence so early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurent Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Antoine said: IIRC, experimental camo schemes were used in 1966/67 by USS Constellation & Kittyhawk air wings. They had A-4E for sure... but I'm wondering about the dorsal bump presence so early. It's just a profile but it's puzzling indeed... Source http://www.wings-aviation.ch/21-USNavy/000-Navy-Aircraft-neu-e.htm Edited May 5, 2017 by Laurent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 Yesterday in northern Germany V.P. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) Sprues Source: http://hobbyboss.com/index.php?g=home&m=product&a=show&id=1326&l=en V.P. Edited May 10, 2017 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIO Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 (edited) No separate slats :-( No separable flaps :-( Front wheel molded on the gear :-( Three part main intakes (why?) Simple, but not necessarily bad pilot seat Main landing gear wheels look terrible. Hope I am wrong but easy to replace anyway! Edited May 11, 2017 by DIO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom726 Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 Do I spy (what looks like) a 400 gal tank? Weapon sprues look just like the ones from the A-7 series, i.e. pretty useless (300 gal tanks and mk82s waaay wrong) No separate flaps :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 (edited) On 5/5/2017 at 8:03 AM, Laurent said: It's just a profile but it's puzzling indeed... Source http://www.wings-aviation.ch/21-USNavy/000-Navy-Aircraft-neu-e.htm Here's the picture, confirming that the aircraft had no hump when wearing the experimental camo. As the kit seems to allow one such aircraft to be built, then it's only a matter of not following the instructions. At least I think the part for a humpless aircraft is in the sprues. http://a4skyhawk.us/content/151074-boom-powell-2949 In general I can't say I'm impressed by what I see, looks quite a simplified kit. If it's cheap then fair enough, if it comes out at a high price then it would be a disappointment Edited May 11, 2017 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAVY870 Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 Main gear wells wrong shape Main gear legs far too long Engine face and CSD housing amusingly bad Ahh sod it, theres too many damn things wrong with it and its too early in the morning. Stick with Hasegawa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boman Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 13 hours ago, Phantom726 said: Do I spy (what looks like) a 400 gal tank? Weapon sprues look just like the ones from the A-7 series, i.e. pretty useless (300 gal tanks and mk82s waaay wrong) No separate flaps :-( Weapons and drop tanks are from the A-7 kit series. The "Sprue G" however does look like it has the 400 gallon tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIO Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) On 12/5/2017 at 5:50 AM, NAVY870 said: Main gear wells wrong shape Compared with Hasegawa's, and honestly cannot really see that. Unless Hase is also wrong (which I doubt) On 12/5/2017 at 5:50 AM, NAVY870 said: Main gear legs far too long 3 Cannot see that either. But even if it is, should depend on the load ;-) On 12/5/2017 at 5:50 AM, NAVY870 said: Engine face and CSD housing amusingly bad 3 I agree to that. But this is not something "wrong". It is standard Trumpeboss attitude if you are asking me! Edited May 13, 2017 by DIO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boman Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Anyone seen what price this kit will be at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAVY870 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 5 hours ago, DIO said: Compared with Hasegawa's, and honestly cannot really see that. Unless Hase is also wrong (which I doubt) Cannot see that either. But even if it is, should depend on the load ;-) I agree to that. But this is not something "wrong". It is standard Trumpeboss attitude if you are asking me! Interested to what you based your comparison on. Hasegawa in hand to Hobbyboss in hand or Hasegawa to photo. Gear well looks too small and the area aft of the MLG is far too flat. Load out affects the compression of the oleo, it doesnt make the strut structure longer Hobbyboss have got the gear leg too long, same problem as the 1/32 Trumpy kit has Couldnt care less about the last bit, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now