Flying Penguin

LOL Remind me to check again when it's not April 1st

Looks pretty awesome Great idea!

True, mine is an F.1A so it just needs the whole thing moving back and pins removing, however this picture of an F.6 seems to show the cable ducts running back to the same point as with the F1A, which would suggest that the overall length could be wrong for the F.6 if, unmodified, it goes forward to the correct point as the rear section is common between kits. I don't have my F.6 kit to hand to check but it's something I'll be checking v. closely when I get to it. Cheers, Jamie

Add to that that the cable ducts on the fuselage sides fit about 1cm too far forwards as I discovered having glued them in, cue a large amount of cursing and repairing the surface having cut them off! Otherwise a pretty good kit. Cheers, Jamie

As an alternative, Mike Grant does 1/72 instrument face decals in either WW2 or 70's jet flavours: Link Have used their bigger brothers on 1/48th projects and they are pretty good. Cheers, Jamie

Thanks for the advice. Kev, you mention that the F-DCAL ones are too light, do you have any recommendations for sets that would be good? If there's something readily available I'll just grab a set or two. I've checked Hannants and there are lots of Boeing window decals but few Airbus ones... grr... Cheers, Jamie

Hi All, Having spent an unhealthy amount of time as SLF on British Airways A319/320's in the last year with work, I figured one should be on my display shelf and picked up the Revell 1/144 A319 boxing with the BA markings. Now having done the initial "holy #### that's a lot of windows", I did a little digging and decided I'd fill the windows and use the decals, so far so good. Then I looked at the decal sheet and thought "oh bugger", the window decals seem to be simply an outline oval in silver.... So is there any efficient way to get the window effect like this... ...without resorting to aftermarket decals? I'm aware that there is an F-DCAL sheet, but I was hoping to get a second opinion before dropping more than the kit cost on new decals for the same scheme! Also, can anyone make suggestions of good WIP threads? I'm looking for examples of where people have detailed the exterior of airliners, rather than internal detailing, where I've been able to find some good info. Edit: Finally, is the Extra Tech etch set worth the hassle?Link Thanks, Jamie

Oh wow... That is awesome! Do you mind if I ask what reference and colours you used for that scheme? I've got a 48th scale one that is looking for a scheme and I think I'm in love.... Cheers Jamie

In general terms, a fighter designed in peace time needs to at least survive in sufficient numbers until it's used. There is no point designing a fighter in peace time that has a wartime equivalent attrition rate in a training environment. It was seen as acceptable to rush construction of certain types in WW2 as their expected lifespan was measured in weeks and months, not the years and decades a peacetime fighter might have to survive to be useful. And more specifically about the F-104, it's one of the factors, not the only. Its combat record as a fighter wasn't exactly stellar and the bribery issues throw questions up about its export suitability... Either way, it gets my vote for one of the worst. Jamie

But in Vietnam the F-104 acted at least partially in an air superiority (traditional fighter) role, in the Indo-Pakistan wars it was a fighter, in the Taiwan straits in 1967 it went fighter to fighter, I seriously doubt that the commanders made such a pure distinction. It's not possible to define what is the "fighters" as opposed to the "interceptors" measuring stick without serious analysis of the tactics of every user of a type as the lines are so massively blurred by most users. Cheers Jamie

No, I think the misunderstanding is the other way around, I was comparing Canada with Germany, attempting to show that the much talked about "Luftwaffe issue" wasn't a Germany specific problem. Any comparison with the A-4 in any service is irrelevant, no matter how bad their loss rate. Anyhow, comparing a carrier based aircraft to a land based one isn't exactly a fair comparison given the hazards of carrier ops. Regards, Jamie

Hawker or Hawker Siddeley? If Hawker Siddeley, then I'd give it 10/10 for awesomeness in the fighter role, even if it would have been naff against anything but an Argie 707... Cheers Jamie

Can't argue with any of that, it's all 20:20 hindsight, but to be regarded as the best fighter, you have to combine design genius, clear focus on and massive over capability in intended role, superiority over opponents encountered, being the right fighter for the situation, some charisma, some pilot skill and quite honestly a heap of luck... Same the other way, which was the worst suited for the context it found itself in? Cheers Jamie

But either way, the question was about fighters, not strike aircraft. Yes, but most didn't go through the iterations to get there, therefore, at some point, they must have been a generation behind, ergo, not on the bleeding edge, which was my point. And Italy in particular, F-16A's weren't exactly cutting edge in 2003 when they got them were they? So it wasn't a terrible fighter because it was long lived in the strike role? Everything wears out, my point was that they were happy to be a bit "behind the curve", not that they were still flying Fokker Triplanes! But the Lightning was still in its primary role. Does that mean it was better or worse or just that we were even further behind the curve? I'm not going to speculate, but then again it did get a longer career "in the air defence role" than the F-104 in most operators hands. Cheers Jamie

You could probably say the same of the poor sods that flew the Me-163... My point was more that the myth of the Luftwaffe suffering massive losses is a bit overblown by comparison to other users who used it over a similar time frame. Cheers Jamie