WolvoWill

Of all the companies I'd most like to see do one, it'd be Revell - think Strike Eagle quality, with weapons and decals as good as the Typhoon. Plus you may even get change from £30 as well!

If you're wanting to make a det cord for a Harrier, i'd just use Orion models self adhesive vinyl offering - looks awesome, and is easy to fit. Can also be trimmed/cut to an approximate shape for other aircraft too - going to use this method when I get brave enough to tackle Aconcagua's Tucano! Here's what it looks like - not the sharpish of pics but you can see how good the detcord looks.

Looks a lovely build, been tempted to have a go at the conversion myself but looking at the size of the stash I'll probably just wait for the inevitable Revell release in twin stick form. Do you have any shots of it as a work in progress? Just to see how involved it is and how much work it takes?

I believe (based on what I've been told I hasten to add, rather than my own building/buying experiences) the first Isracast 'Sufa' conversion set was more comprehensive, and duplicated many parts already available in the Hasegawa kits such as the P&W exhaust and a 'seamless' representation of the NSI (small mouth) air intake. However fit of these parts was poor, so y0ou'd probably be better of using the kit parts, and the overall quality of the castings were poor. The revised set had less resin, and as such one would have to utilise the intake and exhaust from the hasegawa base kit, but the quality was better and as such it would be preferable to get this set. I love the Sufa, I wish Tamiya would do a twin seat Viper and then Wolfpack would come up with the goods to make a really good one . Thinking about it, I think Wolfpack Designs are doing a Sufa at some point anyway, maybe worth waiting? Based upon the quality of their products I'd expect their set to better the Isracast and CMK sets.

Its not really 1/48 though...that boxart is for the 1/72 kit, and if you look closely it even says 1/72 on it! And the kit number 00548 corresponds to 1/72 as well...

I've decided to build my Italeri Mirage F1 as an Operation Daguet (Desert Storm) aircraft, as the two tone sand/brown camoflage is attractive and will help brighten up my somewhat grey looking shelf! Does anybody know the humbrol equivalents for the colour scheme used by these aircraft during the conflict? Secondly, what loadouts were typical? I have used the provided SAMP bombs for another project - did the F1CR carry Mk82s, or even SNEB rocket pods, during operation Daguet? Cheers, Will

First up, Airfix's Hawk, with decals from Model Alliance (two sheets required to get the necessary stencils as well as 100sqn markings). Gloss black doesn't photograph well sadly, but am quite pleased with this - halfords gloss black and many many coats of future to get it smooth and shiny! It looks better in the plastic, honest Next, the Revell Typhoon. Ordnance is from Flightpath, this aircraft is ZJ930, the first Block 5 Typhoon delivered to the RAF, shown with a trials loadout of 6 1000lb free fall bombs. Built using the kit decals, but with the serials from Xtradecal (the 'AA' bit on the tail) and MA (fuselage serials). Finally, Revells Harrier GR9. Much maligned but with work it makes into a great model. Markings are for a GR9 detached to Kandahar in late 2007, and are pieced together from the kit decals, Xtradecal stencils/serials and the Model Alliance 'ISAF' sheet for the bomb markings. Weaponry is from Belcher bits (CRV-7 pods from the CF-5 weapons set), Shull24.com (Sniper pod, though the pylon is scratchbuilt), and the 540lbers were modded from the French bombs included in the Italeri Mirage F1CT. You'll notice the GR9 doesn't carry the 6 round practice rocket pod as early Herrick harriers did, instead it has two 19 shot pods. The GR7 was fairly limited by its weapons computer in that it with the big 19 shot pod, it could only fire all 19 rockets in a salvo, and with the 6 round training pod it could fire either a single rocket at a time or a three round salvo. For operations in Afghanistan this proved less than ideal - firing a full pod of 19 rockets at some targets was overkill and risked inaccuracy, and the training pods 6 round capacity meant only a few single shots or three round bursts! With the upgraded GR9 however, the pilot can select any number of rockets to be fired from the 19 shot pods, and the aircrafts computer will balance them (e.g. if you want to shoot 10 rockets, it will fire off 5 from each pod!). So when carrying rockets, GR9s will generally now carry two 19 round pods, as this enables more rockets to be carried than the mixed 19/6 round pod loadout seen earlier, and the pilot can now select the ideal number of rounds for any particular target, which was not possible in the GR7! All comments welcome, apologies for the less than perfect photos! I know I still need to add the lights to the Typhoon and Harrier but I'm waiting for some Tamiya paints for that, and I've just noticed that I've omitted to add the 'frogeye' vents to the GR9 :shithappens: EDIT: Actually it seems ZD347 doesn't have Frogeye vents - its odd as quite a few 65% LERX GR9s I've seen do appear to have the vents, yet theres plenty without

The RAF's Reaper does not presently carry any armament, according to folk I spoke to at Waddo. However when it does it will most likely be carrying Hellfire (AGM-114K and possibly M as well, the Thermobaric one ) and GBU-12 (500lb Paveway 2), since these are the weapons already cleared on it and in use with the USAF.

Great looking stand, really like the Rasberry Ripple scheme and to see so many models wearing it together is really eye catching! Is their a Tucano in the mix (Aconcagua?) or is that the Pilatus PC-9 operated out of Boscombe Down?

Didn't know there was any Waddo folks on here, I visited the base on Thursday (Station Int Cell and 23sqn SquintO ) as part of my OASC prep - still waiting for a date mind... Didn't know until I saw the thread here that it was 607 at Waddington either (have the book but I haven't read it yet).

I think its awful myself sorry! But I think Twobobs were planning decals for both the F-4F and the Tornado...

Aye thats true, that HobbyBoss chooses to copy other manufacturers does it no favours, the Rafale looks a dead on copy from the time i got to compare the two kits in their boxes, though I'm curious how the Hornet can be a copy yet still contain so many errors not present on the hasegawa offering . I'm curious as to the errors you allude to on the Revell SH kit? I wasn't aware it was as bad as you suggest, and would be grateful if you could elaborate as I have one in the stash The Revell Typhoon and SH aren't as good as the Rafale and Strike Eagle kits, a throwback indeed, can't argue that their not as good, but I'd still say they're pretty fair and still represent good value when compared to the Japanese competition. Personal preference though, we tolerate different levels of imperfection. None of the RoG boxing of the Strike Eagle I've yet come across this side of the pond had anything more than the pair of AIM-9Ls sadly, and I can't say I've actually even seen the ProModeller boxing with the GBU-15s and (poor) LAU-128/AIM-120s over here in the UK. As for the 'Beagle' name, its simply a contraction of 'bomber eagle'. Am guessing from your reaction though its a nickname used by spotters/modellers rather than being common USAF parlance? Do you folks call it a Mudhen or is that deemed derogatory?

I saw this thread and thought to myself 'no you don't!'

Great model and interesting paint scheme and markings - a bit different from the norm. Gotta say I think the Hind-A is one weird looking beast, the Hind-D is far better looking to my eyes - this looks like an Mi-8 thats had a close encounter with a greenhouse and carried it off into the skys stuck to its front end

Have decided to stick to Revell and Hobbyboss for my Hornets (I want to build a D, E and F for now). The Hobbyboss kits are flawed for sure, but this side of the pond they are that much cheaper that I can tolerate the inaccuracies. I really notice that the American members tend to be much harsher on the Hobbyboss kit because for you it costs the same as the Hasegawa - a lot! Where as with a bit of work I can generally buy 2 Hobbyboss legacy Hornets for the same price as one Hasegawa. As for the Super Hornets, Revells SH kit may require a bit more work in terms of parts clean up and dry fitting when compared to the Hasegawa, and you can't drop the flaps without a lot of work, but again, its soooo much cheaper than the hasegawa kit and not much worse in terms of detail/accuracy (both kits have smallish and different problems in that respect). As for Revell, part of me wants to reward a company who churns out top notch kits like their 1/48th F-15E, Typhoon, Rafale and SH and include a great decal sheet *and* ordnance load (okay, the Beagle is excluded here), and churns them out for less than £20 a pop, where as the equivalent Hasegawa offering would cost far more and come with less in the box.

Flightpath stuff is absolutely top notch in terms of detail, though experience and a fair deal of patience is a must as some of the photo etch stuff is very fiddly. Have not had a look at the big Tornado set, though I've seen loads of the WW2 sets, and have made up a fair few of the modern weapons (Paveways, CBLS, 1000lb FF, Pave Tack pod etc) and always found them worth the money. I too order direct from David Parkins rather than pay the premium from hannants - service is super fast every time!

Speaking to a bloke at Cottesmore yesterday it will apparently be rather later than this summer when the Typhoon is ready to go to Afghanistan, at least if you mean a capacity where it can be seen to replace the Harrier detachment rather than supplement it in some way. Harrier's are committed to Herrick until 2009....he was rather scornful of the chances of Typhoon being ready in time and whether it will be able to do as good a job initially as the Harriers are able to do now, though being a JFH bod he would say that!

I like it! If only we had a 1/48 T10 that was so buildable!

Quickly! Though I'd probably only buy 1 myself, having built 2 already.

For an F3 its fine as the centre of gravity is further forward, so it can taxi with wings fully back and won't normally tip onto its tail. However the GR4 (or any other IDS variant) with its shorter nose tends to topple backwards! I'm sure there are oddities though where it could just about stay on its wheels, Spike or someone else with experience of loading and fuelling the fin might have more knowledge here - for example a GR1/4 with 3 1000lb Paveways under its belly, with no/empty wing fuel tanks and empty outboard pylons *might* just have its centre of mass far enough forward not to tip on its bottom if you moved the wings back on the ground. . But chances of that particular load/fuel/weight configuration ever happening unless you did it deliberately are pretty slim I'd say!

Just placed my order

Jon, Firstly thank you for taking the time to reply, and also for offering to produce the addendum sheet for the 'Michelle' jet Thank you for your comments on other aspects of the sheet, am quite surprised at some of them (the CH-52D Chinook for example but if you got it from a walkaround then thats fair enough), and accept being wrong on the others. I can understand if you feel personally agrieved at some criticismas you've taken time to design the decals, but at the end of the day no company is above criticism - the likes of CA and Airfix you refer to get a lot of flak for various reasons, but people are still happy to buy their products regardless - I've bought plenty of MA sheets despite some of the errors as they cover decent subjects, and are often 'the only game in town' (see my Shiny Two Tornado for example). Its not criticism out of frustration or some kind of personal agenda, and I'm sorry if you feel this is the way it comes across (in truth i don't know you from ,and am not the sort to get properly angry against someone I've never met over a model aeroplane). My complaints are merely a desire to see improvements in a product that is already good but with just a little more effort could be significantly better, and I'm sorry if you take it as a deliberate or concerted slight against your character. Cheers, Will

Tricky question! For an RAF jet, 2 Storm Shadow and 4 ALARM is possible but unlikely to be carried operational - the idea of Storm Shadow is that it is a stand off missile, which allows the launch aircraft to avoid flying through enemy air defences as it can launch the weapon from so far away. As such it would not need any defence suppression weapons like ALARM as it would never fly within reach of enemy missile sites, instead launching the Storm Shadows from afar and turning home to safety. If it was such a long range penetration mission that necesssitated the stand off range of Storm Shadow and ALARMs to kill any SAM sites on the way, then carrying two Storm Shadow and 4 ALARM means no fuel tanks....so not enough fuel to do it anyway. Essentially whilst it could be carried, it wouldn't be a practical wartime loadout. Not sure on the MW-1 on a Germany Navy jet - yes it could be carried in as much you could hang it on the jet, but whether the Navy actually has it in their inventory I don't know! Potentially Luftwaffe only. I'd expect most of the stencilling to be common amongst the same type in the same country, though their could potentially be some small differences based on colour scheme. 7/9 ALARMs is a theoretical loadout rather than one that has been used operationally. Yes you could hang that many on a Tornado, but you'd have very short range indeed with that many draggy stores and no fuel tanks. Can't see it ever been used operationally except for maybe all out war with the USSR in Europe, with RAFG Germany Tornados from 9 and 31 squadrons carrying these loads to clear paths for other Tornados carrying nukes!

Sorry, i didnt' make myself clear! :-) I was trying to say this - if the sheet covers a USAF F-16CJ, and a Dutch F-16AM, then what is the decal saying 'USAF F-16A serial number' etc for, as it would be wrong/inappropriate for either jet as far as i know!

Hope so...will try and take some pics of the sizing issue tomorrow to better illustrate my point. A correction insert for those who've already bought the sheet would be even nicer, but who knows . Its a nice sheet (as every MA sheet appears at first glance, and believe me I own a lot and have the instruction books to prove it) but the errors that crop up I find soooo frustrating - simple instructional errors I can cope with, but when a decal such as this is sized wrongly it may as well go in the bin as it'll never look right! There are a few other decals on the Afghanistan sheet that i'd question too - stencils that read 'CH-52D' (whats that then?) meant for the Chinook for example, or a tiny serial decal for a USAF F-16A thats on their despite the only F-16s featured on the sheet being Dutch (and thus not having the FY-xxxx serial scheme) and an F-16C! Call me a nitpicker but if you're going to draw the artwork, at least make it accurate. Another example of an error that shouldn't be, the UK Air Arm update IV with the 11sqn markings for Typhoon ZJ931 has both squadron badges for the tail facing the same way....which means the birds are flying backwards on one side of the jet, which looks silly as well as being inaccurate for that aircraft. MS Paint offers the ability to rotate/flip images so after drawing the artwork mirroring it to face the opposite arcraft isn't a complex process. It wouldn't take a huge amount to correct the sorts of errors that keep cropping up in their sheets - I'd willingly check over instructions and cast my eye over artwork ***for free*** if it meant us more accurate decals. And I genuinely mean that, if you want an extra set of eyes to take a look at this sort of thing, then Jon Freeman or anyone else at MA, drop me a PM. Please don't think i'm slagging your work off the sake of it - I've bought lots and lots of your decal sheets, and love the subject matter you cover, but the accuracy issues are frustrating to say the least.