Jump to content

RMP2

Members
  • Posts

    2,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RMP2

  • Birthday 07/13/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cleethorpes, UK
  • Interests
    Cars, women, beer, music, planes, shooting.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,897 profile views

RMP2's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

2.1k

Reputation

  1. A superb model with a whole load of dedication, time, sweat and no doubt a few tears and obscenaties at times. Extremely well done and something to be very proud of indeed. I look forward to seeing more of it.
  2. Ted is still at least knocking resin bits up
  3. Top heads up, cheers for that
  4. I have a selection of aftermarket bits and decals for the single seater which may be suitable for yours. I will have a look later if they may be of interest?
  5. Brilliant, thank you all. Youve even covered decals before I asked! Perfect!
  6. I like to think I am fairly familiar with Lightnings and their colours, squadron markings etc. But I stumbled across this one this evening which is listed as being a Leconfield aircraft but I dont recall ever having seen the forward fuselage or tail insignia before. Or is it just a Coltishall serious zapping? Can anyone enlighten me or point me towards more of such?
  7. So nice to see an A-10 with a realistic load on it for starters, but you have nailed the scheme brilliantly too. The Tamiya kit gets some grief, but I found it a really nice build too, if requiring some extras as with yours and the result speaks for itself here. Really, really well done. Inspiring me to grab another one
  8. Re the wing fences - my understanding is that such things were fitted to keep air in place over the wings at lower speeds/higher angles of attack. They are very large on the 24 suggesting they are very much required - any idea why they would remove them on what appear to be otherwise very similar airframes?
  9. No worries. It went together well but is a bit basic detail wise. You might want to check colour scheme year against when Sidewinders were cleared for use as I don't think they were fitted in the early years
  10. I built this a few years back and painted it to represent an early model based in the UK. There was some talk about the scheme/s in the build thread I believe. It's here should it be of any help -
  11. The Tamiya intakes are supposedly a little small. But it looks like a Harrier and I also have one in the stash.
  12. Thanks for all the replies and thoughts. I appreciate the low level approach back in the day, but still query the likes of RAF Jags or Phantoms having nothing not even outboard pylons for recce missions with the idea being speed wins there, yet when doing low level attack runs they need them and the extra drag. It is all very confusing. It seems to me that it boils down to a risk assessment. Makes sense maybe. Probability vs severity of occurrence of issues. How I so love those little yellow to red coloured graphs and the goon who came up with them when I stand and look at a job at work... But then again - what use is a bombing run without a survivable prior recce run of a target area? Seems backwards to me. It also appears there has been different thinking through different areas - ala the US EA-6s, the USAF only really touched it with the EF111s and relied heavily on the Prowlers otherwise. In fact everyone did during the first Gulf War exploits. The Tornado F3 being briefly chosen to serve as an EF3 with ALARMs due to its better radar warning system was interesting, we nearly had a well developed Wild Weasel all of our own from a rather unlikely subject, but it seemed to fall dead in the water along with a pretty naughty missile if what I have heard is correct. Hindsight is a great thing of course, but to see RAF Phantoms retrofitted with chaff and flare launchers scabbed onto pylons for the Falklands as an example - why the hell not have them integrated into the pylons of everything from the drawing board? The RAF had been lobbing tinfoil around since the 1940s, so it wasnt exactly a new thing. With weapons technology advancing on all sides it just seemed a little slow to catch on re defensive measures even on the basic levels. The USSR where just as slow, but then perhaps they werent expecting the MANPADS... however, their reply to that was a hell of a lot of scabbed on dispensers, which was kind of a clue how best to resolve a pretty dire position. Point being - we now see very integrated onboard active ECM alongside passive onboard counter measures. Im still not sold on those towed radar decoys, they must be bloody terrifying to put faith in! And in regard to those - just lob a pod on a wingtip, Typhoon or Flanker variant, it saves a pylon drag if nothing else and you could always stick an AIM-9 on top of the wing instead of at the end of it... It all just seems to me a little slow to have caught on. I think that is where my confusion lies. Or - tech was moving that quickly it simply made sense to keep it offboard as noone was too sure what was around the corner. Things are certainly very different in approach and augmentation these days. Out of interest - I know of the SPS-141 type pods, but any ideas of the Russian approach to things these days? Integrated? Pods? Towed reflectors? I hope that isnt too rambling I just find it really interesting in retrospect and given that stealth isnt invisible and there is a lot of faith placed on that along with networking between aircraft nowadays - seems a truly black art to keep it all functional and viable. That and I really miss the wraparound camo schemes. That was A Thing.
  13. Marg would too tbf. She looks rather pleased with your efforts, so...... mmmmm Marg.... I cant help but think that something is missing, I just cannot quite put my finger on it
  14. Hoping things are good @Boltcropper and life isnt being silly. Would love to see some updates on this Oh and regarding a ladder - I have one of these for my KH Jag and it is a thing of lovelyness
×
×
  • Create New...