Jump to content

1/48 - Douglas A-4E/F/M Skyhawk family by HobbyBoss - A-4E/F & M released - Black Dog detailing sets


Homebee

Recommended Posts

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 :D Interestingly the continued use of the roundel and Sqn crests has been approved by the RNZAF.

 

17309936_1426955640688882_36018934308794

 

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 by Calum
Corrected info
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • 1 month later...
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.

:coat:

 

Bad boy.

Would also like to see some sprue shots.

René

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DIO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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...

3_114.png

 

 

Source

http://www.wings-aviation.ch/21-USNavy/000-Navy-Aircraft-neu-e.htm

Edited by Laurent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 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 by DIO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by Giorgio N
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :yes: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DIO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...