Jump to content

bushande

Members
  • Posts

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bushande

  1. Just to tease, I caught these two old gals not too long ago during an unforgetable trip. The exact serials in the image will have their 50th birthday next year (should they make it that long.).
  2. It is indeed a very good modelling job with a great finish that does the original justice. However, I hope I am not too much of a killjoy here but if you somehow can you might want to try and rectify an error. I wondered why the wings would bend so prominently upward and then realized that you attached the wings the wrong way, i.e. upside down. Just in case you plan on building another Tomcat you might want to have a check. But all in all a very nice finish.
  3. Thanks for the positive feedback. Please always consider; everyone thinks he wears the crown of wisdom alone and his opinion is the only one that should prevail but of course it is in the end regardless of how thorough one delves into a subject just a personal and ultimately subjective view that doesn't weigh more than anybody elses view on things. As for the Hasegawa 1/48 kits ... Well let's say it this way: I for one have not sold a single one of my old Hase-Kits when those shiny new ones came out and I certainly do not intent to do so! The Hasagawa Kit is an older molding which has it's more or less known shortcomings. It has long been considered THE Tomcat kit to go for but of course that has long changed. Nevertheless it will build into a beautiful and very close to the original rendition. However I still do think that the kit, esspecially since there are now easier to handle options available, is only something for the modeller that a) knows the original rather well in terms of modelling relevant issues, b) does not fear some serious modelling labour and C) has no problem with kits that don't go together easily. I would put my personal suggestion at the end of the post if you don't mind. In terms of issues of the Hasegawa kit I can at least tell you, what I will/would do The general shape of the fuselage is VERY close to the original (at first glance and my humble estimate I would still think closer than what GWH achieved but only in nuances one would harldy recognize.) BUT: The bulges of the Phoenix pallets are way off! The way they are rounded is not accurate and it shows. Pretty much every other manufacturer has done this better (except for Hobbyboss which have messed up the Phoenix pallets completely by making them prominently far to flat.) I would either attempt to sand that area to shape using reference of the original (I don't consider this a hard thing to do), or I would use aftermarket or if possible / available, use one from another kit. If you have or can get ahold of an old Revell/Monogram kit (usually cheaper than aftermarket or maybe a fellow modeller will let it go for cheap); their Phoenix pallets are wonderfully shaped. The rear of the fuselage, more precisely the edge behind the wings where the broad fuselage kinks towards the root of the horizontal stabilzers is somewhat too edgy or hard pronounced. It should be somewaht rounder / softer and the competition has rendered that nicer. But it is a very easy fix. All it takes is some sanding paper and five strokes along the edge to round it off a bit - five minutes of work and you are done. The panel lines were state of the art in their time but admittedly are not completely accurate. Most people won't notice that - for years modelling folks have built that kit as their go-to option without ever changing the panel lines. But I for sure will rescribe certain areas, especially around the wing root and the LEX-area. Again nothing I would regard as a huge thing. Most modern kits, definitely Tamiya and GWH, have done a better job in that regard though. The nose- and main- gear looks a bit too scrawny. It will however hold up the kit nicely but I for sure would attempt to use one of those neatly detailed and somehwat more accurately thicker aftermarket gears and adjust the fitting to the Hasegawa kit. If you want to depict the flaps and slats deployed you have to consider that Hasegawa made a mistake there. However, in all those years hardly any modeller seemed to have noticed. The slats are o.k. but the flaps are about two millimeters too broad or wide. If you want to show them not deployed, i.e. in the wing it is no problem, as the part will be kind of inserted into the main wing body resulting in the correct size. But if you want to show the deployed the flaps will be a bit too broad as said. Most modellers never noticed. Those who did, just sanded the flaps to the correct size and rounded the inner edges off again. It is just sanding but certainly takes a few minutes of work. I think Hasegawa considered the Tomcat's flaps as traditional fowler flaps that move out of the wing body when deployed but actually the Tomcat's flaps simply kink down when deployed and don't move out of the wing. Because of that misconception by Hasegawa at the time I think they just estimated that the flaps should be broader when deployed, hence the way they designed their kit. So in a nutshell: If you want to show the flaps undeployed, leave it all as is, if you want to show the flaps deployed, either sand about 2mm off the inner long edge or just put your royal rear on it and pretend its not there hahaha. Hardly ever will it be noticed. The cockpit is nice, but I personally do not like the IP coaming. It is too high and not well shaped. I would either reshape it myself (in my eyes a not too easy but feasable fix) or just use the well available after market stuff which is nicer in any case in my eyes. Ultimately one simply has to say that the Hasegawa kit is not an easy build. It doesn't go well together and I would definitely suggest to try and find older build reviews of other modellers to study their endeavour to get a sense of the spots that don't go well together and the methods to deal with it. For example, the join between the forward fuselage section and the main fuselage right behind the cockpit is dreadful. It most times will leave an obvious step that is tough to smooth out. I would recommend to rather glue each half of the forward fuselage separately to the upper rear fuselage, insert the cockpit (!!! AFTER thourough dryfits of the cockpit into the fuselage itself !!!) and then but the two halfes together. This will leave a slight gap between the two halves which can easily be closed however. The intakes are nice but are also somehwat complicated to put together. It will take time but is not as fiddly as the duselage issue. Final verdict: Hasegawa still has its merrits and I do like the kit. It is significantly cheaper that the more modern (and arguably nicer) kits. I would definitely not build the kit OOB however. I think the kit needs and also deserves aftermarket stuff, at least the cockpit. But it is not a kit for the inexperienced or casual modeller. If you just want to do one more Tomcat for the shelf, if the Tomcat doesn't mean a lot to you or if you strive for an easy build, then the Hasegawa kit is not for you. Reg. GWH: I can only regurgitate what I wrote before: If you don't intent to depict a Tomcat in a setting that requires the spoilers to be raised I just cannot see why one would chose that kit over the competition as long as it is more expensive or even equally priced as the competition. If I was you, I'd go with the late F-14A launch kit from Tamiya and buy some aftermarket GE110 engines. The kit offers a late Block-135 Alpha, i.e. the last Block of the Alpha version. As of Block-140 up until Block-155 it was all Bravos. The only major difference between them would be the engines. Everything else, i.e. ECM bumbs, weekly / daily doors around the engine nacelles, the gun port vents, the GRU-7A seats, the cockpit (except for some minor stuff hardly noticable in 1/48) would be similar. But if you really want to have something different from your early VF-84 build in terms of kits used I'd rather go with GWH. It may be more expensive but the flaws it has are easier to correct than dealing with the Hasegawa kit. But should you not be afraid of the labor required for the Hasegawa kit I still think it would build into a nicer (even if ever so slightly) rendition of the Tomcat. Hope that helps a bit.
  4. Watch out, LOOOOONG post! If I may give it a try .... I was able to look at the sprues and a finished presentation specimen at a model fair. Before I dare going into details, please bear in mind as a caveat first: I am one of those huge huge Tomcat nuts that are passionate about the jet and to me shape accuracy is paramount over details. In case of the Tomcat that amounts to an outright "anal" approach. I do find it rather within my meager capabilies to add or correct details but rectifying shape erros usually presents a lot harder. So if the Tomcat is just another jet in your eyes or you value details over accuracy please do take my comments with the necessary and proper ease, if you will. After having a closer look at the GWH model I have come to the conclusion for myself that (despite the certainly understandable argument made in the post above mine) the cost argument does very much play a role, at least in my eyes. I plan to eventually get one of these but really only one and ONLY if I should get it for waaaayyy below the 100 Euros threshold. I am writing from Europe and over here the prices for the kit seem to circle around the 110-130 Euros range. Quite frankly the extra plastic is not really worth the in my eyes rather high price for a 1/48 kit. I am one of those who builds multiples of this particular type and I will still rather go with the Tamiya and (might I say in my particular case I will even prefer the old Monogram/Revell kit (yes you got that right, no typo!)) over the GWH. As said, I do want one but really just one. Should you plan to build just one Tomcat I would still suggest you ponder to rather stick with Tamiya, of course, depending on what your plans for your build are. Why is that in my eyes: Compared to the ORIGINAL (not another kit!), the GWH does indeed have shape and detailing errors (which kit doesn't) which - to be frank - the other ... well ... cheaper, or at least evenly priced options simply don't have (except for the Hobbyboss crutch - as a scaled down 1/32 Trumpeter not really an option for the serious Tomcat lover and sadly also in many cases the controversial AMK kit ( as much as it is loved my some, many including me cannot really stand the much - and also the not so much discussed errors of that kit but once again to each their own)). But frankly what was found on the GWH kit is nothing really big; nothing that the non-Tomcat afficionado will or should care that much about. The thing is, it is just pricey and for that significant UP in the price one should also expect a significant up in the plastic and honestly, I at least don't see it. O.k., so what is it specifically as far as I am able to reckon: The GWH kit has a nose shape, that leads to the Alpha probe sitting slightly too high in comparison to the original. You can see it when looking at it from the side and facing it up front. I think nobody except the Tomcat nerd would really care however. Some panel lines are inconsistent, ie. certain panels have the wrong shape The panels around the heat bleed grids side of the tailfin roots are entrenched into rather strong raised panels which simply never appeared on the original where that area should be as "flush" as the rest of the fuselage. is it a big deal? NOPE! A little sanding and it is done. Would you expect that from a 1/48 kit that costs you a three-digit amount? Well ... actually not I think. The shape of the PTID-display and the other center displays in the cockpit is wrong. Again only something the Tomcat nutts will see. The shape of the A/C bleed grids on the belly next to the intake lips are wrong. Come on .. it is on the belly side! Again only something Tomcat lovers will spot. As already mentioned, no a2g ammo in there. Again, not an error! The The B in F-14B doesn't stand for Bombcat mind you and before 1991 (when the first unguided bomb tests on squadron level were executed (they did test runs in the VX- squadrons and with the pre production units already in the 70s and 80s though) i.e. by Alpha Tomcats mind you!) and before 1995 (when lantirn was introduced to the F-14 fleet) all F-14s including the Bravos were strictly a2a. However if you want to depict a bird during its latter years post 1995 the likelyhood of mixed a2g / a2a loads was way higher. However, a kit commanding such a price should have included at least some bombs I think but there is great aftermarket to be head. Once again however ... it is easier to fork out more cash for that stuff if the kit would not cost you a premium. The GE-110 tubes are a tad too long. Again something only diehard fans will notize and there is good aftermarket stuff. Buuuut ... same principle as in the point above applies. The wing seal bags look too wrinkly for an operational bird. A unit during maintenance when hydaulics are shut off and partly drained or a museum bird would feature that but not birds sitting on a carrier deck or a ramp. Again no big thing and easy to correct but unnecessary. The spoilers and slats (in my eyes the only thing that the kit has over the competition except AMK) are wrongly detailed and shaped. Again only something the diehard fan would notice. The gun vents provided are a NACA vent (which looks correct) and an older style two-grid vent which has nothing left on a Bravo-version and is wrongly detailed anyways (sporting an extra grid section that never went with the earlier two-grid version and was only featured together with the NACA vents) i.e unnecessary extra plastic that is wrong anyways. However a correct NACA gun vent is in there at least. You see, it is just small stuff that shoudln't rule out this undoubtedly nice kit but I confess, that at least for me, the price kills it given these albeit small errors. Just as a side note (not to be taken into account really unless you are a total Tomcat nutt who wants to build multiples and takes joy in taking cheap old kits and laboring to get the max out of them over a longer time) This is also the reason why I would even choose the very old Monogram / Revell kit. Yes, I know a bold statement. The shape of the old revell mummy (apart from an easily correctable nose tip and the fact that it is a crude mix of all veriants of the F-14 that only die hards can sort out) is almost dead on except for stuff that the average modeller can easily correct and I for one am not afraid of rescribing a kit but to each their own. Thing is, Revell is dirt cheap and leaves you with a lot of cash for necessary aftermarket and with that and a lot of spit and love can turn into an awesome rendition. I just have the impression that the expensive GWH would also GREATLY profit from some in my eyes necessary aftermarket and that is also the CRUX for me if you understand. Anyways just as a further background as far as I was able to gather: You have to take into account that GWH is a Chinese company that thank goodness apparently carefully watched the "drama" that unfolded for AMK around their kit and did their best to consider what modellers wrote and lamented about the competition (good on them I say!). However, I would think that given them being Chinese, they most likely only had plans, drawings and images to work with, whereas according to a product statement from the Japanese competition Tamiya, they received a license from Northrop Grumman and were also allowed to laser the original via the gate guard at NAS Atsugi and also a museum bird in the states. May it be as it is, it seems general consensus that the 1/48 Tamiya kit really is the most accurate (albeit not most detailed) representation of the original. I confess I hold the same view. For some that means spit, for folks like me it is crucial. If I can get a more accurate kit for less I will go that route. As said, in my eyes missing details are easier done than a wrong shape. It depends on what you want. .... In my eyes the only thing the GWH Tomcat has over the Tamiya competition are the opened spoilers (at least in case of Tamiya's late F-14A carrier launch kit) and given that this detail on the GWH also has its admittedly small issues it just doesn't justify the extra cash for me. I feel the GWH is still a nicer (i.e. more accurate) kit than AMK which I at least ruled out for me permanently but to each their own! Unless you want to depict a Tomcat upon finals / touchdown / 2 seconds of the carrier trap procedure or during maintenance why would you buy a more expensive kit offering more plastic that you actually won't need and - granted - just in details features more errors than the competition?! Again, I don't want to chime into any kit bashing. I am just trying to give a maybe more profound info according to my measely view on the matter. It is a nice kit and a great addition to the range for the modeller to choose from, no doubt. But as far as I am concerned, I will only attempt an acquisition if I manage to grab one for a considerable amount below the 100 bugs threshold. I recently grabbed a Tamiya Tomcat for 60 Euros and would still choose that over the 100+ bugs GWH any day. Hope I haven't stepped on anybody's feet now?!
  5. Yes, the main wings leading edges are of the same color as the tail's and the canard's ones, however, not the entire slat!!! - just the very thin area of the leading edge!
  6. Just to clarify things a bit: The AMRAAM - C is not intented to replace the Meteor in terms of numbers (as that argument has come up before) or serve as an alternative but is merely supposed to be the medium-range augmentation of the arsenal in addition to the Meteor which is still meant to be the German Typhoon's long-range active homing missile (with IRIS-T being the WOC for WVR both optic and IR). Had Germany sought another long-range alternative they would have ordered D-versions, which they didn't. I talked to some folks in my old home base, which houses Fighterwing 74 and they essentially confirmed that approach. Proof to the point: Just back in 2021 fleet level integration of the Meteor was conducted by Fighterwing 74 .... in ADDITION to the AMRAAM mind you! (Source: Luftwaffe.de)
  7. Many thanks for the kind getback and happy if the thread is of some help for other Tiffy builders. After all, that is the actual purpose of the forums, right?! I am currently sitting on a 1/32 version of the Ghost Tiger using the only truly usable kit, i.e. the Revell one (the Trumpet Eurofighter is nothing but an unsalvageable caricature of the original) and believe me it is a pain! There is literally not one single piece out of the kit that doesn't need some kind of work, detailing or other tweak. I'm working on that thing now since late 2021 and still nowhere near the finish line. But it's no use lamenting. Revell's big Eurofighter is the only option for 1/32 if you want to be serious about the Eurofighter.
  8. Wow, this is awesome and most interestingly a rather rarely seen color/camo choice of VF-143 Alphas during Dragon Hammer ’88. You hardly see models with this camo of the Pukin’ Dogs. I hope some time in the future, God willing I’ll be able to do a larger version of this albeit with Dog-107. I still have a large panel with the three stripe banderole and the stars’n bars that was washed ashore after the original crashed into the Pamlico sound in Sep. '88 and hope to put a model of the original beside it. Great model indeed!
  9. Please excuse my late reply and many many thanks for the kind feedback. I'm surprised it is still of interest after all that time. I am currently working on the 1/32 version and the amount of rework and correction necessary hasn't degreased I'm afraid.
  10. Aaawww, crap, read your reply a little too late, I'm so sorry for that hickup and being so late. Maybe you can still do some modifications to your model but even if not, you have created a lovely rendition that does the Tomcat legacy justice. I do have several images of all the prototypes. I just need to look them up. I'm afraid the image you used as a reference seems to be of 157981, i.e. the 2nd prototype which already featured some further modifications compared to no. 1. One can tell by the prominent chin pod, which no. 1 didn't have at the time and also the stencil placement. Here are the company images that got signed by Bob Smyth, the test pilot. Albeit, scanner doesn't work at the moment, so I can only show you some cell phone snaps. Bad quality but what might still be visible are some little things that you might take into account reg. your build. I hope it is not too late but what you can see is that the stenciling on the prototpe no. 1 was different to later prototypes and the serial birds, espescially the placement of the yellow warning stencils and the missing nose pod. No. 1 only had a small probe unde rthe nose. There are also additional antennae on the top of the tailfins and the early tailfins also didn't feature the L-brace stiffeners that you have on your model but rather smaller trapece shaped braces. The L-braces came to the fleet around 1980/81. The speedbrake was also differently shaped and the prototypes featured two instead of just one formation light on the side of the engine nacelles. There are a lot of more subtle differences in panel layout etc. I do have a few good and more detailed reference images of the first prototype and also the other ones on my hard drive but I'm sorry, life has it that I only rarely find the time for the hobby and the forum, only every few weeks but I'll see if I can still find some good reference in my archive if it is not too late?! So sorry for the late response. Anyways, your rendition looks gorgeous!!! These are the autographed images of 157980s only two flights: nd this is the titanium block I got from her wingbox after the crash. I also do have really large panels but these are from 157989, i.e. prototype no. 10. I hope I can still grab a larger panel of 157980 in the future from Bob Santiago, the flight security manager or the first prototypes.
  11. Great progress. She is coming along really neat. Congrats on getting the overwing fairings so nice. Love the modified chinpod.
  12. I just recently finished a 1/32 Tomcat just using paint masks done with a Silhouette. I could go as small cutting the names of the crew on the canopy rail and even the little “F-14D” writing above the BuNo which is about 2 millimeters high and a millimeter wide. It was tricky and I needed a few tries but the Silhouette could do it. I think larger and even down to middle sized 1/72 markings should be feasible.
  13. Please excuse my rumbling right in advance but I’m afraid this will be yet again a rather lengthy post. There is just so much about these fascinating old birds as I believe. The edition of the tanks look … and most likely are … just the same as the USN received from ROHR-aviation (sub contractor for Grumman) in the late 70s/ early 80s, i.e. without the winglets but also without the rear caps, hence the slightly rounded bulb end. The issue with the early tanks, to my knowledge, was (along with other issues on other parts such as the canopy and air inlets etc.) in large parts due to major miscommunication and hick ups between Grumman and it’s sub contractor ROHR. During trials with the prototypes it was found that the little winglets at the end of the first batch of tanks caused the tanks upon emergency drop to float in the air just that fraction of a second too long right under the intake trunks to seriously damage the ventral fins and thus were ordered to be omitted. However, due to stated hickups between Grumman and Rohr, production for follow up lots of external tanks (just as one of the many issues that lead to Grummans almost bankruptcy, were it not for the Persian Shah to save them in the last minute) was reduced to the bare minimum up until about 1978. This led to the earliest squadrons equipped with F-14s having to use the old finned tanks despite the unfavorable findings well into 1975. Early USN birds you would find the finned tanks on would be VF-1, -2, -142, -143, -211, -213 along with some rare occurrence in the training and RAG squadrons -101, -124, and the main test unit at the time VX-4. However by about 1974 / early ’75 Rohr managed to produce at least some sets of unfinned but decaped fuel tanks. The Shah / Iran and its MELI bank due to being the major funders of Grumman between 1974 and 1976 (until congress and the Navy found a solution to their dispute and eventual financial commitment to higher prices with new lots after their initial fixed price contracts (which led to Grummans financial problems due to the short super inflation after the oil price shock of ’73)) was given priority in just about everything reg. deliveries for the Tomcat ranging from the newer TF30 versions over newer automated control surface systems down to just about every depot level spare etc.. Anyways due to the shortage caused by the problems with Rohr only few sets of external tanks were available to the Navy just as well as Iran. I was for quite some time in good contact with the weapons training officer of VF-1 during their work ups and first cruise from ’73, ’74-’75 and he told me the squadron just as well as the sister squad. VF-2 each had only three sets of tanks and were ordered to only use them on long range transits. They later even had to share in with other freshly equipped squadrons such as -142 and -213 etc. They had to make use of the old finned tanks longer than anticipated just because the first lots of defined sets went to Iran and rework of the finned tanks was only possible on shore at NADEP level. I do have very few images of early VF-1 and VF-2 Alphas with tanks strapped on but they were definitely present even though 90 percent of the time you would see their birds without them. I confess it is mostly assumption just with about everything regarding the Persian Cats but I would still profoundly guess that despite Iran’s priority in the Grumman delivery schedule they just had to deal with just the same shortage problem and thus I just think, while Iran definitely received external tanks, there were not many sets delivered until relations broke up in ’79. Considering that Iran managed to apparently keep its Tomcat fleet in quite decent shape over the decades and managed to reverse engineer most if not all major components, I do not see any reason why they wouldn’t be able to just reengineer a predeveloped / proven in-service component that is physically available to them. It’s rather a question whether the Iranian airforce has found it an issue critical enough to devote a share of it’s budget to it. Nonetheless Iran indeed has tanks and it is not totally off the charts to put them on the one or other IRIAF F-14. However, I concur, apart from about two or three images in my archive I have not seen Persian Cats using them which I guess has just the same reasons as stated above for the USN, also today. Iran solely uses their Tomcat fleet over home turf for air defense along the Western borders and forward QRA. Iran is plastered with airfields their tanker fleet albeit not huge is still fully available and their net of GIR stations and the Tomcat’s still relatively short spool up time of 7 minutes compared to the long spool up times of Russian types allow for short instances without the necessity to use up flight hours just loitering. Why add the additional drag limiting maneuverability to the plane you want to use for explicit air defense and partly even point defense without any greater need?! The mission set for these birds is to quickly go up, try to fight from the distance, be able to half decently fight it out on short range and make it back alive in case someone would penetrate Iranian borders. No need for any long loitering. I seriously doubt there is a Software problem. Remember this is still late 60s / early 70s tech; the connection between tanks and airframe is purely mechanical. Range is not a problem for the Tomcat even without tanks. That airframe is huge with plenty of internal fuel (just as the Flanker for example) and again, these always have solely been used within the confines of Iranian airspace apart from some very very few and questionable exceptions. I think the lack of any number of images showing Persian cats with tanks is a combination of both stated issues, i.e. the apparently rather short supply, limited funding and will to fill that gap and the perceived limited added value of actually using them. Do they actually ever use them? Would they never use them? Who knows?! I think the truth is as always somewhere in the middle of these extremes. Of course it could also be all naught because these old ladies are so worn down that they can only be used for some empty propaganda flying without the ability to pull any larger number of Gs anymore (although my personal impression standing in front of them and seeing them doing some quite spirited maneuvers leads me to believe otherwise but what do I know?!). In February of this year they pulled out the elusive F-14AM splinter 3-6049 / 160347 with a full 2-2-2 weapons compliment albeit with tanks just placed beside together with the first F-14A deliverred to Iran in early '75 3-6001 / 160299 standing right beside it and still being operational (making it the now longest flying F-14 ever). Still looked awesome! I for one will build my Persian Cats without tanks but with magnets to flexibly put them on and off just to make the case.
  14. I wrote something about the tanks over in the other thread (a little bit too much I fear, sorry haha.☺️) The external tanks in the image are just the standard drop tanks the US Navy used as well and the markings visible resemble those used as a standard by the USN in the late 70s / early 80s, i.e. the same stencil warning arrows just in yellow over light grey. Regarding the use or rather the lack of use of dumb MK bombs: As you stated, there were tactical trials and Iran was even earlier than the Navy trying to use the Tomcat as a Bombcat in the 80s due to their war efforts. While the Navy played with the first (unguided!) trials in the early nineties, Iran tried the Bombcat concept already around ’85 to ’87. They already had the BRU-32 bomb ejector racks delivered by Grumman and as tested one of the prototypes – I think it was no. 11? … need to check my references. I think also one of the earliest production lots was used for bomb trials after the loss of another prototype - I think it was 158616 but need to check (the Navy later replaced them by BRU-93s). So Iran already had the necessary equipment and training right from the start. I think on one case they even tried to hurl a massive 3.5 ton!!! bomb towards Iraq – nothing short of crazy! There were a few live bomb missions over Eastern Iraq, however using dumb bombs on the Tomcat would have necessitated in sending them off deep over Iraqi ground with questionable success potential but high risk of loosing some of their prime air assets hence the undertaking of using the Persian Cat as an unguided bomber was quickly shelfed again. There were other approaches such as putting M-117 bomb heads on AGM-65 Mavericks calling them “Yasser” but all that was shelfed rather quickly. Iran did indeed also have larger MK-84s. I do have some neat little images of 3-6020, 3-6030 and 3-6023 all in their old desert sand camo equipped with MK-84s under the belly, empty Phoenix shoulder rails but loaded with AIM-9Ps and the crew just manning the planes. Looks awesome!
  15. That is indeed an awesome project. I still have two original Grumman company images of the first and last flight of 157980 signed by Robert Smythe, the test pilot who flew her on her only two flights and I also have a thick block of titanium removed from her wingbox after she crashed, which I received from Robert Santiago, the chief flight engineer on the first test flights. Will be watching this with great interest.
  16. Sorry to hijack this thread with the wonderful image above but since the issue came up here: That Iran wouldn't have received any external fuel tanks is actually not correct I'm afraid, as stated a bit more in detail in the other thread already: Here's the image again that proves otherwise:
  17. I know it is actually not about the Iranian lot and I don't want to unnecessarily hijack this thread but there is A LOT of misconception regarding Iranian Tomcats here in this thread I'm afraid. I hope my remarks won't come off as too snippy (please excuse if that should be the case) but as said, there's an awful lot of misinformation out there on the web regarding these elusive birds. They indeed received external fuel tanks and they also still have original AIM-54As left and they were not of the earliest blocks with the unreliable early TF-30-412 engines but received Block-90 and Block-95 Alphas and were the first to get the newer more reliable TF-30-414 engines. And their AWG-9 radars were also not more primitive than what the USN birds had. Really lots of silly nonsense floating around on the internet reg. the Persian cats. I have managed to sneak into Iran a few times just a few years back between 2015 and 2019 before the situation deterriorated to the current state of affairs and managed to see and photograph some of their Tomcats. I actually planned on another try end of this year but the current upheaval and the drastic measures of the regime forbid any attempt for the sane person (according to the traveller information of our German foreign affairs ministry the Iranian regime has started to randomly arrest foreign travellers in order to use them as bargain material in case of European sanctions). Anyways I had the chance to see and touch their Tomcats up close not too long ago and ever since the USN retired theirs I tried to follow up on these "Black Sheep" of the flock and frequently try to keep tabs on the state of their fleet. I have plenty of close ups and a halfway decent walkaround including the Phoenix (ATMs as well as live ones). A few years back I managed to spend a few days at the Grumman history center in bethpage and also was able to snatch away a nice original Grumman program management plan for the whole Iran deal with info about all the deliveries by Grumman among other things. Forget what you read about them on FB and the like; 90 percent of what Western posters state is flat out BS to make us all feel better about them still flying the bird. They did indeed receive tanks! As said I do own an original Grumman IIAF programm management plan (official document) and there are at least two images of a modern blue/grey IRIAF F-14 with gull grey tanks set right to it ... Just because they don't make much use of them, doesn't mean they don't have them. Here is one of the admittedly very few images of a Persian Cat with all the equipment. I circled the external tanks for reference. The blue/grey camo indicates a modern image. The tank still has the old light gull grey color. They either received them right away (most likely) or they manufactured them themselves (probable) or just both .... I think you hardly ever see an IRIAF bird with ext. FTs just because they don't need them. These Tomcats are exclusively used for air defence over domestic Iranian soil. An aquaintence who did two tours to the Persian gulf told me that they often saw them on their SB radar but they never went feet wet. On one occassion they seemed to do a mass radar sweep with as many as 40+ AWG-9 signals on at the same time but he only ever saw that once. Why use draggy tanks if you only operate within your own air space saturated with ample air refuel capacity, lots of bases around you and enough ground based intercept radars of old school so you can limit your loiter time. Your job is just to do air fighting from a distance if all goes well, why limit your maneuverability with something you don't need for above reasons and that just adds drag?! There's more but I can't find 'em right away. Here are images of the Grumman delivery list to Iran: I circled everything relevant .... That the Iranians wouldn't have gotten what they paid for or that essential stuff wasn't delivered is as much a modern myth as the one that Grumman engineers sabotaged all of their Tomcats on their way out upon the revolution. Only minimal equipment was not deliverred to Iran. In fact the level of Tomcat-related equipment delivered to Iran was so high that members of congress started to worry and launched petitions to limit weapons export to Iran, albeit only with limited success. What they could prevent was the sale of AWACS which would have boosted Irans capability way too much coupled with their Tomcats. All in all, their Tomcats are nice and regular Block-90 (serials 160299 / 3-6001 to 160328 / 3-6030) and Block-95 (serials 160329 / 3-6031 to 160377 / 3-6079) airframes with the Block-90 serials brought up to Block 95 standard by Grumman in Iran right after delivery even before VF-84 received their Block-95 birds as the first within the USN. They are exactly identical to the USN machines. There really wasn't much left out according to Grumman. The AN/ARA-62 ILS system was left out (just needed for the boat and only works there actually, doesn't read civilian or land based ILS), the KIT-1A, KIR-1A and KY-28 Secure Voice system was left off (again, only a USN specific system) and the APX-81-M1E IFF interrogator was obstructed to just interrogate Soviet built aircraft. There was one ECM suite left off but at that time the Israelis (which were on very good terms with the Shah in the 70s) took care of that and had that covered for Iran. Apart from that no differences to the US lots, i.e. with all the regular bits and pieces of USN birds including fully operable AWG-9 radars, down to the hook and launchbar and all that other stuff people think they wouldn't have. In fact Iranian Tomcats were the first ones to receive the newer more reliable TF-30-414 engines since the Shah paid for the upgrade and the Block-95 serials were the first to receive the at that time new automated slat/flap flight control. All Tomcats I saw were in really good shape including 3-6001 / 160299, the first Tomcat delivered to Iran in early '75 and by now the longest flying Tomcat of the whole fleet of 712. No dents, bumps, rough spots or whatever. The worst I saw had a neatly weathered paint job but the airframes itself looked really good. All in all I would say they do keep the old gals in pretty prestine shape. Just for interested parties: The stories about Grumman employees sabotaging the fleet apon their flight from the country after the revolution are overblown fairy tales. The entire fleet was spread across the whole country (which is about as huge as central Europe) with units stationed at Mehrabat (Teheran) in the North, Shiraz in the South and Khatamy (today Babaie) airbase (Esfahan) in the middle of the country. In no way would have a sabotage of the whole fleet been possible. Grumman employees at Mehrabat sabotaged some IFF and emitter boxes by (I kid you not) urinating on them causing oxidation and pulling some plugs and they managed to manipulate the targeting system of 16 Phoenix missiles. Until the war broke out in late 1980 it was all fixed, again with Israeli help (remember: The enemy of my enemy is my friend etc.). Regarding their use of missiles and depletion rates: Well they had 8 years of war to put the Tomcat to test and make use of them. The Iran / Iraq conflict was essentially a test field for the great powers to see how their equipment would fare against each other; Iran with Western equipment and Iraq with mainly Russian and French stuff and the Tomcats just had plenty of chances to wreak havoc among the Iraqi fleet. Accoridng to the IRIAF there were about a 200 air engagements per year on average during the war so plenty of chances to score aerial victories. When mission readiness rates sank due to attrition in the mid 80s just around "half time" of the war, the Iran contra affair re-sustained and even increased about everything for the Tomcat fleet up until the early nineties well after the war had ended. Originally the Shah had ordered 714 Phoenix missiles of which 276 were delivered when the revolution broke out and deliveries were halted. By 1986 the Phoenix stockpile was essentially depleted and only about 24 F-14s were mission ready with only about 12 or so FMC but the Iran contra affair gave Iran allegedly about 500 AIM-54As plus enough stock to revive most of the fleet. Today the IRIAF cklaims it has about 100 AIM-54As left in useable status with refurbished thermal batteries and fixed propellant boosters plus their derivative of the AIM-23B (M-90) Fakour. Just recently some photos emerged that seem to indicate that Iran also managed to reverse engineer the old AIM-9Ps and also develop an AIM-7 derivative. Contrary to what is generally stated in the West images indicate that there are quite a few units that can still carry the MIM-23 Hawk which seems to still be in use occassionally until the other derivatives are supposed to replace that arsenal. I tried to keep tabs on which serials are still left and think ... well ... hope I have a pretty accurate serial list of what is still there. All in all they should still have 63 airframes available with at least 57 in working order (2 losses before the war, 9 losses during the war (five losses to SAMs, three losses in air combat, one loss due to unsuccessful defection), 2 losses in the nineties and 3 losses out of four known incidents between 2000 and 2022 including the most recent one from June 2022; (one serial slid along the runway in 2008 similar to what happened to a VF-101 bird in 2001 and got refurbished until 2012)). According to the US-DIA the IRIAF tries to maintain about 42 airframes operational at any given time (three squadrons worth plus training machines) with the rest being either in overhaul or mothballed. Apparently they run through a repeating cycle of mothball storage - overhaul / pot. upgrade? at Mehrabat and Esfahan - frontline service - rear service - withdrawal to storage and repeat. As far as I can make out the IRIAF has about an overhaul rate of 1 to 2 machines per year. Here's little me with a "living" Persian Cat:
  18. Had a check: In 1/32 the MLG wheels should have a diameter of about 2.42 cm. Revell's wheels are 2.65 cm and the ResKit wheels are 2.4 cm. hence Reskit it is! Thanks again for the input gentlemen.
  19. Ha ha, that! .... I can agree with. They are nice technology and an improvement over flat PE pieces but would I use them all the time? Nope!
  20. An excellent rendition indeed. The weathering looks superb. May I ask, why the redfox cockpit was such a disappointment for you?
  21. Many thanks for the replies, it is much appreciated! @dove: Will be 31+00 i.e. tranche 2. There's a lot more to correct and add than just the GPS. @DeepSea: Good hint. It might very well be that they are based on the horrid Trumpet pos. @drake122: Not helping. I'm doing this model for me and not for others. The particular serial and livery I want to do is very near and dear to me and I just want this to be as accurate as possible. I couldn't care less what others might say about it. @MVW: THANK YOU! Awesome info. I just converted the meassures and will have a check once I get back home and to the modelling desk. Will report back as soon as I have made a comparison. Thanks a lot again chaps.
  22. G'day gentlemen, the title says it all ... I just realized that the RESKIT wheels for the Revell eurofighter are of a smaller diameter than the kit's wheels. I'm working on a 1/32 rendition but I suppose it is about the same in 1/48 and 1/72 maybe. Wondering which size is correct. Any opinons and input would be appreciated.
  23. No drones or the like. Was used as a hypersonic testbed by NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Phoenix/phoenixmissile.html
×
×
  • Create New...