Jump to content

Trenton guy

Members
  • Posts

    603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trenton guy

  1. MOAB is indeed an air blast weapon, as it's acronym suggests, not a penetrator. The USAF has another weapon known by the acronym MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator). Jure provides a very good explanation as to how it works and why it was the right weapon for the job. I seem to remember that Osama Bin Laden was bombed in the same mountain valley cave complexes in late 2001. Weapons were more conventional. The desired outcome, as we all know, was not obtained.
  2. When it was announced under the previous incarnation, whose name escapes me at the moment (I know, I know !), it was to be a full kit. Here's hoping, or perhaps I should say "double hoping".
  3. I haven't been able to find the article on the carriage of Red Beard but I did find the photo I had in mind on the Wikipedia page for Red Beard (nuclear weapon). I realize the perils of quoting Wikipedia by the photo caption says the whole beam, brace and baffle contraption was winched up into the Canberra's bomb bay. Looks like it could be at tight fit but I have never seen a nuclear capable mark of Canberra with a bulged bomb bay.
  4. High planes kits are difficult and time cosuming but I persevered with their Beaufort and was rewarded with one of the nicest builds in my 65 year collection. Perhaps I'm not demanding enough but I think the Dragon Sea Vixen yielded a very nice model that looks very much like a Sea Vixen. A resin cockpit to replace the fictional one supplied and a resin nose to correct the front end shape are absolute necessities but, otherwise, very nice,IMVHO.
  5. It seems to me that I have seen photos of an arrangement for the internal carriage of Red Beard on Canberras. A rather complicated frame which was loaded with the bomb and which included a large ( relative to the bomb ) perforated airstream deflector which was needed allow clean separation of the weapon. Might have been in "Aeroplane". My impression was that this was the standard fit for the nuclear armed Canberra marks. I have nuclear armed F-101A and a similarly armed CF-104 in the collection. I have plans to add such a Canberra with an open weapons bay but have been put off by the complexity of the carriage arrangement. Wonder if the recessed external carriage was ever standard?
  6. Clear fuselage is an excellent idea, PROVIDED they include masks. Cutting your own little uniformly oval window masks is not something that can actually be done by human hands.
  7. And I have on pre-order with HobbyEasy, stated release date is March 9. Here we go then
  8. Three on sale with a delivery date in mid-May. Extra processing needed, perhaps manufacturing? Suspect this would be a pre-order.
  9. Spent a year in Vietnam, 1968-1969. Saw a lot of Cobras. Never saw a black one. They were not in the Central Highlands or Binh Dinh province, which is where I was.
  10. Amazing! Thanks for all the help guys. I'm on my way with a C-141A. Britmodeller forever! Bill
  11. Looking to shorten the Roden C-141B to make a C-141A. All my references indicate that the stretch to be removed is 23 feet ( +/- 2") but none reveal how much before the wing and how much aft of the wing. Does anyone have information regarding how the stretch was divided up? It would be much appreciated.
  12. Last March, I sold my collection to Dean Sills of Deans Hobby Stop, a used kit dealer in Oswosso, Michigan. Dean is an all round great guy and advertises in SAMI and, perhaps SAM. The collection included two Bilek MiG-19's. His website doesn't reveal a lot so I'd suggest you reach out to him by e-mail.
  13. Forgot to note that the turtle decks behind this pilots seat would need to bo separate parts to accommodate the various marks but that should not be a serious problem
  14. What great news, BUT....... what a missed opportunity! The "Achilles heel" of nearly every P-40 kit (that is not a P-40N) is the rear view panels, left and right, behind the canopy. It is virtually impossible to get a good tight join between the clear panel and the adjacent fuselage areas without glue or filler or paint leaking behind through capiallary action, thereby ruining the model. You have to accept an unrealistic gap rather than tight panel line of the actual aircraft. This problem is easily solved with clever mold design. One just has to use the basic shape of the "N" for the canopies of all the earlier marks (from the "E" on) and provide the canopy framing of the various marks with engraving. Besides yielding a much more buildable model for those of us of average ability, this approach results in a simpler and less expensive mold since the same fuselage piece can be used for the M and the N and the M canopy can be used all the way back to the E. This mold design approach was used for a 1/48 kit many years ago by a short lived and sadly forgotten (by me, at least) Japanese firm. I hope is not to late for SH to make the change and get rid of the raggy joint that you can see on the test shot. SH is one of my favorite companies and, based on recent issues such as the Barracuda, the kits will surely be very nice. With just a little change in mold design and a set of masks SH could solve the eternal problem of the P-40 kit, that miserable rear quarter panel join. Let's hope they do..
  15. Unlikely that this is based on the old Pavla tooling. AZ has those tools and they were to be the basis of the Announced AZ model. AZ has brought a number of Pavla kits to new and improved life but I think it would be hard to match the quality of recent Sword work going that route. This proposed release is consistent Swords apparent areas of specialization, badly needed RAF/FAA subjects (2 seat Lightnings, 2 seat Harriers, Gannet AEW), similarly needed USN subjects (Skynights, Banshees, and Towgars) and the IJAAF and IJNAF. The Ki-102 is a seriously handsome bird and can't wait to get my hands on this one. Think the AZ/Pavla one will still follow.
  16. I thought politics was supposed to be kept off Britmodeller. Just British politics, I guess. Although, I must say that V-2 proposal was the most entertaining post I've seen in a long time. With Trump, if you can't laugh then you have got to cry.
  17. There is no Azur kit, although I believe one has been promised.
  18. They are indeed some good looking F-80's. Is it me or are the Airfix wing tip tanks larger ( and too large). Also the Platz T-33 was engineered with a F-80 in mind. All but the forward fuselage sprue are labeled T-33/F-80. Too bad Plarz are in no rush to complete the set..
  19. Great news that this is still in the cards. I scored a recent re-release of the Neptune fron HLJ, at a reasonable price. Currently on e-bay for $22 and $30.
  20. While in high school, I subscribed to a magazine called "Our Navy". I had earlier cone into possession of about sixty issues , courtesy of a neighbor who had learned of my interest in all things naval, so the publication had been around for quite some time and was pretty authoritative regarding the U.S. Navy (it may even have had some official sponsorship). The switch to the gray/white aircraft scheme was very well covered. I recall the introduction of white wheel wells coming some time later ( but before I left for college, and ended my relationship with Our Navy, in September, 1959). It was indeed described as facilitating the discovery of hydraulic leaks and fatigue cracks, both pretty difficult in those perennially in shadow darkish green wheel wells. So the green wheel wells seem to have survived the introduction of white undersides by a year or two. Not totally surprising when one recalls the many of the early white undersides were field re-paints. As to the rest of the story, I flunked the Navy's eye test. 20/20 was a pre-requisite to command a ship in those days. Didn't seem to be much point to a naval career that did not include commanding ships. Ended up in Central Highland of Vietnam Nam with the U.S. Army.
  21. Nice job Sword! Innovation and imagination beat high tech equipment.
  22. The AZ kit is the way to go, but there does seem to be a problem. Based on most published dimensions and the original Detail and scale plans (published in D&S #1) the AZ kit is over span. The Dragon span is just right--a case for cross kitting. Both may have slight wing sweep errors but nothing that serious, in my view. Why is a fully accurate MiG-17 the impossible dream. Come on Eduard!! ps. I believe the Trumpeter plan is for a MiG-19,sorely needed as well.
  23. Vacuform canopy--really! I thought we left those behind long ago. Wonder if the T.2/T.4 canopies will fit or perhaps those from the Italeri two seater.
  24. I think the nose looks fine but some posting earlier did not. It was suggested, years ago when the Italeri kit was new, that the intakes were squashed in the vertical dimension. Never formed my own opinion. I'll probably get the Trumpeter kit and compare with my original issue Italeri ( which is coming out again) before deciding which to build.
  25. Nose doesn't look nearly as bad as the Hobby Boss 1/48 rendition to me. I have seen neither in the flesh yet, so hope remains.
×
×
  • Create New...