Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

71chally

Members
  • Content Count

    3,865
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,968 Excellent

5 Followers

About 71chally

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "...and the stripes (not provided as decals) are yellow only on the underside of the wings so the aircraft's serial is readable, implying that they were otherwise white although most models depict all of them as yellow..." I've never heard or seen of Suez stripes being yellow & (black) only on the undersides and white otherwise. Suez stripes were yellow all over for the allied aircraft recognition. The way the stripes went over the underwing serial varies, sometimes the stripes ended in a box to show the serial, sometimes the stripes went all the way to the serial, and then there is this example of the stripes obliterating the serial. https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=142978726%40N08&view_all=1&text=skyraider I would go with the boxart
  2. Wow, that is some difference! Mine should be on the way soon.
  3. I hope you're right, the world is desperate for a modern tool 1:48 Hind!
  4. Only a guess on my part, but would think that they would have used the same 'post-office' red that was used in the roundels, being a red that was already kicking around in stores. Certainly appear the same shaded in photos. The nose legs were generally painted red, but at least one had a standard coloured leg.
  5. Other way around, the ailerons have a thick trailing edge. The fixed trailing edge was pretty standard thickness. And yes, the upper fixed parts of the airbrakes are painted in the camo colour, unsure about the bays but would guess it was all sprayed together with the upper wing.
  6. Nice review and it is indeed a lovely kit. I cannot reiterate this enough, and hopefully to the benefit of other modellers, Phase III mods and the addition of Vipers were quite separate, indeed WR975 portrayed in the kit is actually an MR.3 Phase III and XF703 is a Phase III (Viper). On your review sample the red in decals look almost like the wartime brick red, however in the hand they look like the proper bright red.
  7. Amazing, I've been into Harriers for along time and studied god knows how many pictures, but haven't seen the GR.3 with the spine aerial before! Some great posts on here!
  8. The Fujimi Phantoms' recce pod is way underscale, one fix is to use the Matchbox pod which is to scale but more simplistic. The Airfix FGR.2 kit comes with the pod. I've not seen an aftermarket pod, but someone (possible AIM?) did do the photo flash / tank unit.
  9. That looks to be a new 1:72nd line of S51s / Dragonfly's. The one shown is the bonkers US military H-5H version with the bulges in the sides to house sideways loading casualty stretchers, one of which was placed right behind the engine.
  10. I find these fascinating aswel, only 2 Sqn (from 1970) and 41 Sqn had them, and as said above only up to 1976 when Jaguars took over the role. 30 Phantoms were configured to use the pod, and I would guess about the same amount of pods built. The pressurised EMI pod featured linescan and sideways looking radar technology as well as the cameras, and sometimes a photoflash pod was carried on the port side pylon. This was basically a modified fuel tank with flash equipment in the nose and tail. I have seen it said somewhere that none of the equipment was reused. There is a pod preserved somewhere, I think in the RAF Museum reserve collection at Stafford, and I have seen pictures of a nose section kicking about. I suppose you could do a WIF build, but essentially Phantoms from the late 1970s on were air defence.
  11. It's interesting to note that the very early AV-8As delivered had the same instrument panel and cockpit as the GR.1, they also lacked the dorsal aerial, and had the Mk9 seat fitted. I seem to remember reading that this was to get deliveries to the USMC as soon as possible. I'm guessing the 'baseline' in Johns superb manual extracts above refers to the change of cockpit equipment.
  12. The GR.1 and AV-8A are essentially the same aircraft. The biggest external difference was the large dorsal aerial, and ejection seat is different as the USMC used the Stencel seat. Best to use good references when you are building it. the current release of the Italeri kit is boxed as a GR.1 but is based on their AV-8 kit and has that big aerial, and possibly the right seat, it's a nice little kit. The modern Airfix GR.1 would also be a very good basis and is also boxed as an AV-8A option. The Esci, Italeri and Fujimi kits are much older but are still very good representations of the Harrier, they all came in GR.1 and AV-8A boxings.
  13. ...oh serials, you did say aerials! @Branky would they include the very early SAAF roundels?
  14. Superb work there!
  15. I always recommend buying the Frog originals over any of the Novo etc repops, they are so much better in molding crispness and plastic quality - sometimes hard to belive they are the same kits.
×
×
  • Create New...