ChrisL

The F-16 sold well and also scores well on the innovation front - it blazing a trail with respect to fly by wire and relaxed stability.

The 54 Squadron scheme included in the kit (which is the sharkmouth option, which means it appeals to me) is from 1979 and the Phimat and AN/ALQ-101 are specifically marked as not suitable for it, so it presumably pre-dates their introduction. A little bit of Googling provides contradictory information as to whether GR.1 Jaguars (such as the kit's 54 Squadron option) were wired for Sidewinders - Air Vectors thinks they were but Wikipedia states that the functionality was added as part of the GR.1A upgrades. The other kit option is a 41 Squadron GR.1A from 1987 so I think it also pre-dates the introduction of the over-wing sidewinder rails. Stephen - thanks for the heads-up about PJ Productions!

Thanks! I also saw in another thread someone had built this kit splitting the supplied bomb load between the outer and centre pylons, with the fuel tanks on the inner pylons. On a different thread someone else mentioned that early Jaguars could carry AIM-9G Sidewinders on the outer pylons. I've got some AIM-9Ds from a Hasegawa weapons set which are externally the same as the Gs, so perhaps I could use them, plus the fuel tanks, plus a couple of bombs on the centre pylon. Are there any good sources for appropriate 1/48 RAF pilots?

I picked up the kit today. It turns out that the Revell instructions (in a stapled booklet made out of nicer paper than usual) seem to suggest making the wing fences by cutting down the Sidewinder rails. I'm a bit uncertain about the stores options for the 54 Squadron markings. The only outer pylon options provided are a PHIMAT and an AN/ALQ-101, which are marked as only for the 41 Squadron example. Would the Jaguar fly without outer pylons fitted at all or with empty pylons if they weren't required for stores? In the latter case are the PHIMAT and AN/ALQ-101's pylons (moulded integrally with their pods) suitable for the earlier Jaguar?

I felt very excited about cracking out my Hold 'n' Fold, given I've barely used it since I got it, but in the end I didn't really use it for the AT-AT. The pieces were very inclined to fold where they were supposed to so the Hold 'n' Fold was more or less surplus to requirements. Sharp and blunt tweezers and a model knife with a blade whose end had snapped off were my main tools. Various cylindrical things (paint brush, machinist's scribe, model knife handle, razor saw handle) did prove very useful for forming the round sections though.

Nice work with the TIE Advanced, plasmahal. It was a relatively fun build, but it did take a bit longer than I expected - there's a lot of bits to fold, bend, connect and secure. It got a bit tricky once it came down to joining major completed parts together as folding down tabs without applying too much pressure to already assembled parts wasn't as easy as the early stages. Then again, it usually takes me months to finish a model kit and this took a handful of hours this afternoon so it gave a nice feeling of accomplishment!

A friend gave me a Metal Earth AT-AT kit for Christmas. This is a couple of sheets of photo-etched steel that assembles into an AT-AT. I've not much experience with the PE you get for model kits but this seems to be designed with a bit more of an eye for ease of construction. The fold lines are perforated so are very inclined to fold (or break, if you fold them too much...) and the kit's parts have tabs and slots so it all holds together without requiring glue or solder. Unless you accidentally break one of the pieces along a fold line. So even after my little error I was still able to put it together quite easily this afternoon. The finished walker is about 2.5" high by 3" long. I enjoyed making my AT-AT and Metal Earth (http://www.fascinations.com/metalearth) have quite a range including licensed designs from Star Wars, Star Trek, Halo and Mass Effect as well as real-world designs. I'm quite tempted by a Normandy SR-2. Edit: Removed duplicate picture, added missing picture.

Very nice, more fighters should be painted bright yellow. What stand have you used for the build?

I like that very much.

On first look I thought it was that one, but it's actually this: Same model, slightly different (presumably earlier) boxing and decals.

I have a very old Hasegawa Eagle stashed away somewhere that should be painted in air superiority blue/dayglo orange. I was never very certain what was a good paint match for air superiority blue - what did you use?

Modelling the undercarriage during retraction is a great idea and it and the build in general have been very well exectued. Nice one.

I want one. Edit 1: Nice Mint Sauce avatar too, by the way! Edit 2: A Google for "decepticon waterslide decals" showed some promising leads - probably more costly but potentially less grief than doing the Decepticon logos by masking and painting?

Games Workshop certainly sold purple paints back when I was playing with Space Marines. They did (and probably still do) a lot more bright colours than your typical "serious" model paint producers do. I'm not sure about the ordnance, maybe dress up the drop tanks or some large bombs with various bits nabbed from the other weapons?

Phew, I can probably live with a few inaccurate panel lines.

What are its issues? I asked about it in a thread last year and the feedback I got was that they'd finally added in all the bits and pieces that were missing from their older F-15E kits.

The latest Hasegawa F-15E boxing ("Tiger Meet 2005") finally has all the bits and pieces necessary to convert their classic F-15D kit into a Strike Eagle. Older boxings give you something that is somewhere between an F-15D, the Strike Eagle demonstrator and a proper F-15E. There is a bit of surgery involved in order to achieve this, though.

They may not be popular with many, but I find the inclusion of only one pilot with a two-seat aircraft a little disappointing. Still, it's better than none though.

I think it's high speed silver on the silver/orange scheme, not NMF.

Well if it turns out to be a 1/72 Victor, a 1/24 Gnat or (dreaming now) a 1/24 Sea Hawk my reaction will be:

Nice! Egg planes are awesome.

Given that nobody is competing against Airfix in the 1/72 Vulcan stakes I imagine the only reason they'd contemplate retooling the Vulcan is if the moulds are giving up.

The yellow spinner is definitely a good look. The PM kit is not complex, nor packed with detail, but it goes together pretty well - the T.20 goes together better than their FB.11 does too, for some reason. Less work was involved in getting this kit to look generally sound than there was in doing the same for the old-school Airfix kits I've built. There are various things about it that don't stand up to basic comparisons to reference photos found on Google (I mention some here: http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=510254&sid=d6598f789035803afe6e25c2722546f7#p510254, early in the build's long gestation) but overall it looks more like a Sea Fury than anything else and I'm happy with it.

Very, very impressive. I don't think I'm ever going to build anything that ends up looking as good as that.