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. :)

Murph

Members
  • Content Count

    421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

176 Excellent

About Murph

  • Rank
    Just happy to be here

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Outer Limits

Recent Profile Visitors

757 profile views
  1. Early production A/B models used the Escapac seat before they were replaced by the ACES II seat. BTW, the same thing was true of the A-10. Early C/D models also had the "turkey feathers" fitted to the engine nozzles. They were removed from the fleet in the late 70s/early 80s when the USAF got tired of filing "Dropped Object" reports, because they kept falling off inflight. Regards, Murph
  2. The first 16 A-7Ds had the Navy style refueling probe. Regards, Murph
  3. You would have to scratch them, it looks like an M117 750 lb bomb or an SUU-30 CBU might work as a basis. Both are available in Hasegawa weapons sets. Regards, Murph
  4. I've seen light gray FS #36622 (the gray from the USAF Vietnam scheme) quoted as a match. Regards, Murph
  5. Jari, Thank you very much. Some interesting information in there; it lists the Mk-20 CBU, which I didn't know they used. Regards, Murph
  6. Jens, Outstanding pictures, thank you very much! Those look like the LAU-105 rails originally used on the F-15 and on the A-10. I've never seen those rocket tubes on the inboard pylon before. Regards, Murph
  7. Jens, What type of AIM-9 rail did they use? Since they were carrying the AIM-9B or AIM-9J, I assume it would a USAF type rail. Regards, Murph
  8. Julien, That was one of the first places I looked, but then I saw an AIM-9D/G/H mounted on the Danish Draken, so I stopped using it for accurate weapons load reference purposes. Regards, Murph
  9. What is this 1/48th scale of which you speak? While we're at it, does anybody have a clear picture of the adapter the Danes used when mounting an AIM-9 rail? It appears to be close to what the Swedes used. I've seen museum examples of the rail mounted directly to the pylon, but I don't have a lot of faith in them being accurate. Regards, Murph
  10. That was my thought, but they appear to have a tapered shroud on the aft end, which most LAU-3/As did not have. Regards, Murph
  11. Any idea what designation was of the rocket pods that the Draken carried in Danish service? The pictures I've come across show them typically painted white and fitted with a rounded cover on the front end. Regards, Murph
  12. FWIW, In Vietnam USAF F-4Ds stopped carrying anything in the forward AIM-7 wells in order to keep the ambient light hitting the seeker of the GBU-8 as consistent as possible. The final configuration they settled on was two AIM-7s in the rear wells, an MER on the fuselage centerline station with a pair of AN/ALQ-87 pods mounted on the bottom stations of the MER, the GBU-8s on the inboard wing pylons, and two wing tanks. I don't think the Israelis used the AN/ALQ-87 pod, and during the Yom Kippur had very limited stocks of any ECM pods, not to mention a total lack of faith in them till they got crushed by the Egyptian and Syrian SAMs, so I suspect if you put a pair of AIM-7s in the rear wells, left the fuselage centerline clean, hung a GBU-8 on each inboard wing pylon, and mounted a pair of external wing tanks you would be good to go. Regards, Murph
  13. While some of the G model errors were basically inexplicable, Modelcollect went to the trouble of actually cutting new molds to correct the SALT treaty mods and the much more important nose and tail problems. What other mainstream manufacturer has done that? The ESCI/ERTL/AMT/Italeri molds, with all their problems, go on and on without change. Just like Celine Dionne. Personally, I'm willing to give an armor kit manufacturer moving into aircraft kits some leeway to make mistakes and figure them out, especially when they are doing new molds of subjects, like the B-2, B-52, and B-1, that I don't expect any other of the remaining "big" manufacturers to cover and which I would have to spend an aftermarket fortune to correctly model with the existing kits. From reading the online reviews of the Modelcollect B-52H, the consensus seems to be that it is very well done, using the basically correct "core" of the B-52G kit they initially issued, while responding to and correcting many of the issues the modelling community has pointed out. Watching the "back and forth" play out on some of the modelling sites, I've been impressed by their reacting to the issues raised, answering questions on the various websites, and spending more money on sunk cost molds, when almost all mainstream (aka not aftermarket) manufacturers just generally nod their heads, move on, check the cash flow, and "respond" by changing the decals on later reissues. Personally, I'm looking forward to their D model; I only have room for one B-52, and it will be their D version (actually marked as an E with a SIOP load) unless they suddenly unlearn the lessons they've been taught, minus the ACES II seats they seem to have included for the pilot and copilots in the B-52H. Regards, Murph
×
×
  • Create New...