Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dhdove

  1. The A-7 began dropping LGBs over Vietnam in 1972.



    Thanks Murph,


    My mistake, my lack of knowledge of ordnance meant I mistook dumb bombs for smart bombs!

    So possibly GBU-10 Paveway then? Would the laser designator be on the same aircraft?

    Sorry to be so ignorant!


    PS for those of you who are as confused as me apologies, I've edited this post to death!

  2. Hi guys

    Hope you can offer some advice. My latest US Navy Cold War project is the above kit in 1975 VA-86 "Sidewinders" USS Nimitz version.

    The kit instructions aren't exactly clear re external payload and positions.....

    ....I believe the drop tanks go on the inboard station as shown on the box art and most contemporary pics, the instructions show them outboard.

    GBU-10 Paveway wasn't in service in 1975 I believe, so that's out and no FLIR to go with it I guess? I think these would apply to the other markings option of VA-195 "Dambusters" 1982?

    I also believe that in 1975 the USS Nimitz was on North Atlantic/Mediterranean duties (possibly it's maiden voyage?) so the aircraft weren't active at that time in the Vietnam War.....which had pretty much ended anyway.

    My thoughts are

    Fuse rails 2X Aim9-L

    Two drop tanks on inner stations

    AGM-65 (single) on the central station

    But what on the outer stations? The kit instructions show the drop tanks but I believe this is incorrect.

    The kit includes a variety of options

    Drop tanks X2

    FLIR X1 (too modern I think)

    GBU-10 X2 (ditto)

    MK-82 bombs X12

    MK-20 bombs X12

    AGM-65 X8

    AIM9L X2

    Can I put AGM-65 X3 on the outer rails? Or, would it be more accurate to put the three AGM-65 on the larger (and stronger) central station and the single on the outboard?

    Sorry for the detailed question but I don't want to just glue any old ordnance onto this baby! It would be nice to have it right.

    I have already fixed all the rails to the wings prior to painting but I guess I could leave some empty if that's an accurate representation?

    Thanks in advance


    PS here's a teaser of the tub with Aires Zoom fitted, sorry about the IPad focus......


  3. Having recently finished the Monogram Panther I've been searching for a Cougar to keep it company. All I could find until today was this......


    Which made me chuckle but not open my wallet!

    Now there is an alternative and I for one can't wait, I've contacted Wonderland Models and put my name down!

    The debate in this thread over whether it is actually buildable has been most entertaining but hasn't put me off. Admittedly I've never built a KittyHawk kit before so I may be in for a shock but nonetheless I'm going for it!


  4. Hi Tony,

    just joined this nice community :) Yes the Panther looks quite good and I liked the cockpit details. After all it's a very

    old kit.

    I got myself one from Revell, the photo recce version. But it's the old Monogram one, it's written on the molds :)

    used some wire for the ejection seat handles, but no aftermarket parts. I wanted to build it oob, just relaxing...

    But the Revell decals are from Cartograf and seem to be excellent. Let's wait and see :)

    What aftermarket version are you decal leftovers?

    I will post some pictures soon

    PM sent re decals.


  5. Very nice Job. Building one too at the moment and it's fun :)

    Hi Phil

    Just joined? Welcome to you!

    Good luck with your Panther, I really hope you enjoy making it as much as I did.

    Whilst these old kits aren't as sophisticated as the newer ones and are lacking in some detail I love their simplicity and ease of construction (assuming that they actually fit together that is!). I had little trouble with this one, it went together pretty well.

    I'm not a Panther expert but it looks good to me. I would advise that you get some aftermarket decals tho. The originals in my kit had decayed and the adhesive turned to milky mush when put in water......

    I'm happy to give you the other decal option from my aftermarket set tho it would mean a different colour scheme for your aeroplane.

    Good Luck


  6. Hi All

    My latest addition to the US Navy Cold War jet collection. Bought from an exhibitor at the brill IPMS Gloucester show earlier this year.


    This 1990 kit went together well and I had fun building it, it's simplicity added to my enjoyment.....tho once again I made a rookie mistake. Having spent a long time getting the fuse internals right and thinking several times about putting the nose weight in I glued the fuse halves together and.....Oh Yes, forgot the nose weights! However the models design rescued me. Folowing advice from the net I'd left the nosegear off and it comes complete with the nosegear bay front bullhead. So I drilled a large hole and sloshed Contacta Clear (all it's good for) in there and dropped my Copperhead 1500 weights in the hole and sloshed in more glue....eventually just glued in the nose gear to cover it all up and hey presto!


    A first here, after rejecting Tamiya Sea Blue as what appeared to me to be dirty grey I tried my first pot of Revell Aqua Color, 350 Lufthansa Blue. What lovely paint, hand brushed easily and covered well, sprayed beautifully tho it's very gloopy so I thinned it with 60% Tamiya thinners and it went on superbly., I'll certainly be buying more of that.


    Also tried another new product, "Microscale Micro Crystal Clear" used as a canopy adhesive. At Last! A canopy glue that sticks and as a bonus does dry crystal clear......result!


    Also tried a new technique for me, dry brushing.....I like it! Did the cockpit and instrument panel details and it worked well, another tool in the armoury thank you everyone.


    I knew the twenty five year old decals would be rubbish and they were. I bought some Eagle Strike decals for US Marines VMA-223. These decals were great but very thin and VERY fragile as I quickly found. Also, they were VERY tightly packed onto the A5 sheet. Once I learnt how to treat them they went on beautifully and have produced a most colourful aircraft, tho I painted the leading edges as I could not get the decals to form around them, TBH I think it was expecting a lot.


    Apologies again to all you weathering fans.....I'm afraid this ones straight out of the paintshop too......


    So, a most pleasurable build and I'm well pleased with the end result. I think I'm getting a bit of a thing for these simpler historic kits :-)

    Next up, right up to date, much more detail and something to test newly developing skills, the HobbyBoss A-7E Corsair II, VA-85 "Sidewinders", definitely one of my all time fave aircraft BAR NONE.

    Happy Modelling and comments and more advice are most welcome.


    • Like 6
  7. So I'm hoping to finish my 1/48 grumman Panther tomorrow and I've used my new magnifying visor for the whole build.

    It's great!

    I accept it hasn't got glass lenses and I am being careful not to damage the plastic lenses, but otherwise I'm sold.

    If any of you feel that you can't quite see as much as you want to (or as much as you used to!) this is definitely the way to go.

    I can see things now I've never seen before!

    Five stars!


  8. GDumbrell

    It wasn't a criticism of your model, rather info on Bulldog undercarriage.

    When you get your diorama built, best get it into the maintenance hangar for main gear shock strut servicing!

    I don't think nose weight in the model is an issue. If the gear is correctly glued and set it should be strong enough to take a little weight in the nose. Note that the legs are not bent, just splayed.

    As you may have gathered I'm a bit of a Bulldog enthusiast, I've worked on them for thirteen years now :-)

    They are really well screwed together aeroplanes and a joy to fly and throw about the sky! (+6 -3.5G fully aerobatic)

    In any event, thanks so much for your first post, I'm so pleased to see the Dog get some attention, it is a little known and much underrated aircraft.

    V Best


  9. Very nice GDumbrell! That's a great model for a first try, certainly a lot better than my first example! I built one of these earlier in the year for a GB on this forum, but I built the Swedish example. You've done a fine job on her, however, the main landing gear look like they are sitting too low. But apart from that top stuff, look forward to seeing more! :)

    You should put your buses up also in the vehicles section. I'm sure the lads and ladies woukd like to see them. :)

    Kind Regards


    Well spotted Dazz!

    Bulldog main gear shockstrut is a combo hydraulic fluid and Nitrogen unit mounted horizontally under the seats and connected to the top of the main gear on a cantilever arrangement. The hydraulic fluid provides the shock absorber effect by forcing the fluid through restricted orifices in a butterfly valve inSide the tube and the Nitrogen provides the spring effect giving "ride height". Inflated to 400psi normally it will allow the aircraft to sit pretty much level fore and aft when on the ground.

    As the pressure goes down over time the main gear spreads and consequently the tail goes down.

    In fact many Dogs in private ownership can be seen today with spread gear and sitting tail low because the main gear hasn't been correctly/recently serviced....as a guide for kit builders if the wheels are at the correct angle on the legs then they will be at 90 degrees to the ground if the legs are at the correct angle in relation to the fuselage and the fuselage will not sit too tail low.

    (However Dogs always tend to sit slightly tail low on the ground because as you step out of the cockpit and exit via the rear of the wing root walkway your body weight behind the main wheels extends the nosegear slightly. This is accentuated on early Swedish Dogs as they have a step behind the wing thus increasing your weights moment. This attitude tends to remain like that till the engine is started for the next flight and pulls the nose down down into it's correct attitude compressing the nosegear.)

    In this models case the main wheels are well off the vertical to the ground.

    If anyone wants actual numbers I could look up the main gear track in the book and you could measure it to scale.....

    Sorry, was that "too much information"?


  10. I'm trying to get to grips with Pre-shading, but have fallen into the trap of too much top coat so far.

    I do think it lends a sense of "scale" to the model but I don't really think real aeroplanes look like that?

    I guess it's a bit like the scale colour question, which whilst I understand the concept and theory I haven't attempted yet......so real colours look different on a scale model, but when painted "the wrong colours " it looks realistic.

    I suppose that's the joy of this hobby, you're always learning.

    I feel my models can be criticised in as much as they only ever look like the day they came out of the spray hangar.

    Pre-shading, post shading and weathering give a sense of time passing and use in service and life in the field. But there are vast differences between WW1 biplanes operating from grass fields and US Navy Cold War jets kept as clean as possible due to potential salt corrosion. I don't have any "scrap" kits to practise on so every new build is an adventure!

    For me, enjoy the experience of the build, try some new techniques and if you like them, great! If not try something else next time :-)

    I model for fun, for myself. I love to post here and love to receive advice and try out suggestions from more experienced members, but.........I'm not looking to win competitions.



    • Like 1
  11. As a returner, fings ain't what the used to be!

    I used to exclusively hand brush with old school Humbrol (and Airfix!) enamels and never had any kind of problem. I never dreamed of using primer....who did! I don't think anyone did? Or even thought to do so!

    Now I have an airbrush, which is a wonderful piece of kit and I have used mainly Tamiya acrylics to airbrush, but still paint cockpit interiors and detail parts, undercarriage, missiles etc. by hand with a brush using enamels. Thankfully I still have many old Humbrol enamels left in my paintbox.

    I read the horror stories about rubbish Chinese Humbrol enamels and yes, they were no exageration........ But I also read that production back in the UK had solved these problems.

    WRONG! It's just not the same paint anymore, it takes a lot of mixing, it separates fast after mixing, and upon use it just doesn't cover like it used to. It's a shadow of what it used to be both literally and figuratively.

    I have used Vallejo, nice range of colours but boy is it soft! Even on primer it will rub off if you look at it. Get the lacquer on before you dare even touch it.

    BUT.... this week I bought my first Revell Aqua Color acrylic (Lufthansa Blue semi gloss for my 1/48 F9F-5 Grumman Panther......BTW no I'm not painting it Tamiya XF17 Sea Blue=dirty mucky grey)

    What lovely paint this Aqua Color is!

    Very thick and gloopy, great colour density, brushes on beautifully neat, covers well, sprays on beautifully (tho thinned minimum 60:40 Tamiya XF-20 thinners:paint, otherwise I think it would block the nozzle rapidly!) Lovely coverage.

    I think that this is the way I'm going to go if the rest of the range matches these results. Also comes in a brilliant square pot of innovative design.

    I think it may be the way forward if the other colours match up and from the research I have done even the metallics get rave reviews.....

    It's such a shame that Humbrol enamels are a shadow of their former selves, maybe acrylic technology is starting to overtake environmentally friendly (and totally flawed) modern enamels?

    Here's Hoping.

    Just my two penneth worth :-)


  12. :lol: No - they are a pigment of my imagination. One of the perks of having the keys to the forum :wicked:

    Yes, they're great if you mean the swing-arm pivots? Very firm, but maybe tweak them every now and again just to make sure. One of mine fell off once, but I found all the parts. They have a sprung washer keeping them tight, which makes the job easier. If you mean the lock that holds the band in position to match the size of your scone, that's superb. Never had cause to mess with it in 6 or more years, even though the Boy likes to play with it when he visits me in the workshop :)

    Thanks Mike

    Yes, the visor pivots, that's good news.

    Hmmmm sprung washer.....I can feel a mod coming on......


  13. Welcome back to the hobby and well done with your first build which is a credit to you. I'm also a returnee and finding my way with a new airbrush and attempting to emulate some of the fantastic builds on here.

    Maybe you should think about a theme for your builds, it cuts down the choices which are so vast as to be mind boggling. I've gone for US Navy Cold War jets. Also a scale, I've gone for 1/48.

    Re Humbrol filler I really haven't been impressed, two tubes down the road it doesn't seem to be very well mixed and oozes runny grunge now and then. I gave up on it and bought some Tamiya filler from Japan (couldn't find it in the UK). It seems far superior, finer and of a consistent consistency!

    I really look forward to seeing your next build, well done!


  14. Mike

    Do you have an optivisor?

    How are the visor friction locks?


    PS do you really have over a million posts.................?

  15. REVIEW

    So, I've used my new Rolson Magnifying Visor a couple of times and here are my thoughts.....

    The major plus - the magnification is brilliant!

    Not just for painting but I'm finding I wear it more and more, pretty much for everything in fact. I know I won't be modelling without one in future - I'm seeing things I just COULDN'T see before. My detail painting has improved immeasurably.

    Despite being plastic the optics are good tho I'm a little worried about cleaning them especially if I accidentally get adhesive or paint on them.

    I wouldn't want to go bigger than 2.5 tho as the focal length is just adequate at about seven to eight inches or less.

    I may go down one to 1.8 and see if it's still enough detail in exchange for a slightly longer focal length.

    It's a big plus that with the Rolson you get FOUR sets of lenses of varying power thus allowing you to try out different settings.

    The bad point and it's a big one......The friction locks on each side which allow the visor to be lifted in the up position are VERY poor. They need tightening every time the visor is moved and I'm really not confidant as to how long they will work for, being a cheap design. Bear in mind I have not fitted the batteries for the light into the lifting part of the visor to reduce the weight of the visor.......

    Maybe that's why you pay more than twice as much for an Optivisor? If their design is of better quality and proves to be robust then I'd say it's worth the extra money, even if it is more than double.....you're only going to buy once after all. I suspect I'll end up buying twice before I'm done.

    Perhaps an Optivisor owner could comment?

    So overall - a huge YES to magnified modelling but the jury's still out on whether the Rolson is good value for money or just cheap and maybe nasty.



  • Create New...