tempestfan
-
Posts
2,660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by tempestfan
-
-
6 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:
You might be thinking of the article on building an FA2 that appeared in one of the early issues of SAMI, written by Gary Madgwick?
Most likely not - I have only 2 or 3 issues of SAMI as this mag always left me somewhat cool. I am pretty sure it was SAM - seems I'll have to go digging to find piece of mind
Edit: Found it - with less than a minute searching ?!? It's in Vol. 20 #3 for May 1998. Drawings are by Mark Rolfe. Hope he did less guesswork on that one than on his DB605-engined Spit Vb
-
On 1/27/2023 at 6:12 PM, Jochen Barett said:
By the way, since Rettkowsky is gone (and Jonny Kliesch went fishing), where do you shop now?
Well, what interested me regarding current stuff I got from MTL (actually not only what interested me, but a heck of a lot on top...he had great prices), but apparently he is also a think of the past - pity that. I have not yet tried the reincarnation of Müller, and am not that ambitious to do. Otherwise, I guess I could do the occasional drive to DEL if I felt the urge. But anyway, with something like 6,000+ kits or so, I do not feel a particular necessity to add more at the mo
-
1
-
-
There was a set in SAMs, and I could have sworn it was by the late Mike Keep, but as I am convinced it was in one of the few post-Alan Hall issues I have, then it must have been by someone else. It would take some digging as I have absolutely no idea where it is...
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Jochen Barett said:
Put a pistol to my head and say "Paint your model!", I'd use a mix of RLM 71 Dunkelgrün (lighter than RLM 70 prop blades) and "late war dark green" (not the Braunviolett and not the bright green, the other one) for the dots over a deblued version of 76 (like bleached 77 with just a tiny dash of blue in it). Without the pistol? I'd build another 109 F "Gelbe 14" in 79/78
On the stbd wing in particular (outer part of flap), the intensity of the pale colour varies (to me that is), it's stronger around the dots and greyer in between. My take would be the dots are the original camou colours, over which first a "net" of the pale tone was sprayed to basically create the dot outlines, which was then filled in. I think also the fin hints that the pale tone was the topmost layer.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TonyOD said:
..and if so, what kind of bombs would they carry?
...or sometimes beer kegs?
-
2
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, CT7567 said:
You are correct, the FSD wing change would be an addition not subtraction.
And I agree 100% that since the FSD version exists, albeit OOP, in the OP's scale of choice, it would be highly preferable to start from one of those kits rather than making all of the changes to a production version.
I did not look in the usual places, but I'd hunch a fair share of them should still be around, as people tend to buy when new and then buy and built (or not) the improved production version.
Or so I've read
11 minutes ago, Blue Monday said:I have to admit that I know very little about fixed-wing aircraft in general. Helicopters are my main area of interest if I'm being honest with a particular interest in prototype and experimental flight test helicopters. However, I also have a keen interest in prototype airplanes and these FSD aircraft like the F-18, YF-16, F-14 prototypes, A-10 prototype and so on. I like the colourful paint schemes if I'm honest!
I think the posts that followed yours will probably answer your questions, and mine! It looks like the dedicated FSD kits that I listed in my first point is the place to start with the Hasegawa kit appearing to be the option for a single-seater while the Italeri kit is the only option for a two-seater FSD Hornet.
BM.
I overcame my laziness and fetched the D&S. Horses for courses (and I do not necessarily share the view of D&S reviews), but they are full of praise for Italeri's, but admittedly Hase is very close behind. I'd suppose you have a look at the usual places, and snap both a Hase and Italeri if and when you find one at an acceptable price. Can't go wrong with that approach. If all else fails, I should have an unboxed Italeri kit somewhere upstairs ("somewhere" with a fat underline) that a colleague smuggled out under his jacket when I worked at a big toyshop in 1990. Any criminal offences have lapsed, so no risk of fencing (had to look this one up - NATO isn't flattering all the time with its reporting names...).
Another publication you may find useful is Warbirds Illustrated #17, which has a lot of pics of F-18 and F-16 development aircraft. Which brilliantly leads over: I think there was only ever one real (good) YF-16 kit, the initial Hase boxing. Not quite sure but Academy may have copied this, but Aca's (#1620, photobox) copy may also have been an early incarnation of the Hase full-size kit - just checked Scalemates, and Academy copied the original Hase kit apparently - I'd love to have one of those for my collection! Hope this isn't incoherent...
Revell's H-222 is a marvellous kit IMHO, but it's full size and not a YF. Everything that came later is either a mix (Matchbox) or early production standard (Airfix, Italeri). And if you're looking for an(other) addition to your library, look for Aerofax Aerograph #1. I think this will tell you just about everything you wanted to know about early F-16 development (and a lot more you didn't). If you need someone to blame, blame it on me
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, CT7567 said:
Technically the slots in the LERX (Leading Edge Root eXtensions) are still there on production Hornets, they're just dramatically shorter - on the FSD birds the gap between the LERX and fuselage runs most of their length.
You're right - still, extending them to FSD size could be a mess; and I think the separate small one at the front did go completely. In any event, it would be less work closing them up than adding them in a backdate, I guess. The tailplane "notch" IIRC simply was covered up on later ones, but the outer wing leading edge was cut back (I think too much and should have a look in a book)8 - if the latter is correct, extending the leading edge would also require some surgery and filling to get a neat job.
Writing about this, I should have a built 1/48 Italeri airframe in some junk box. Somehow this thread gives me an urge to go hunting for it... Would make a nice desktop stand model.
-
3
-
-
23 hours ago, Hoops said:
Thanks SouthViper
Unfortunately that does not help me in 1/72 scale.
If you had the kit already, simply all measurements *0.6667. But it will not make much sense to buy a 48th kit just for the measurements if you do not intend to build it. Wait - you could
Edit: "*" instead of "+"...
23 hours ago, CT7567 said:I don't have access to the kit(s) in my stash at the moment to confirm, but my recollection is that the Italeri/Testors "first generation" F-16A/B tooling in 1:72 included an accurate version of the Sparrow pylon as used early on by the YF/FSD birds. I'm not sure whether this is different from the "production" ADF pylon, but they are similar in general appearance.
Note that Italeri later revised their F-16 tooling to (approximately) represent the C/D, with an entirely new sprue for the wing pylons so later Italeri A/B kits won't have what you need (Not sure of the date break point but most likely late 80s - for Testors boxings anything in the vintage yellow boxes should be good).
Italeri 130 itself was revised at least once when they extended the tailplanes to Block 15 size, and IIRC they updated numerous more parts, including replacing the "tip end" tanks with the "blunt end" variety, possibly also the Banana c/l tank. Not completely sure when this happened, but I think it was before they released the C/D boxing - possibly 1986?
-
That's a beautiful photo! Looking closer, the Airfix Seafire 47 rockets may do the trick (with a new fin section at least - I am ignorant about potential differences between RAF and FAA rockets).
-
4 hours ago, Duncan B said:
Fujimi/Italeri rebox every day. Such a shame that Airfix completed screwed up their chance to take the crown away from what is essentially a 30 year old kit.
Duncan B
So they did with the Skyhawk(s). And Sabre. It's really a pity that Fujimi essentially stopped doing new aircraft moulds after their Intruders.
-
2
-
-
I am not an expert, but IIRC the FSD LERX slots (above the splitter plates) and the wing dong tooth were deleted for production, among more intricate details. No M61 in the early ones at least. Not sure about airbrake, tailplanes and fins - if there were differences, then subtle ones. Basic airframe dimensions are idetical I think. Probably all doable by backdating a modern kit, but adding the LERX slots would probably be quite messy, depending on kit parts breakdown.
-
2
-
-
On 11/2/2022 at 8:20 PM, pigsty said:
I don't think so. The Panther D was definitely an improvement over the A, based on user experience, and the Panther G an even greater improvement over the D, as it included builder experience too. And the Panther was built in at least three factories at the same time, each standard replacing the one before it, so the letters weren't distributed among the factories.
Hmm. Two decent gags in four months, and a lot of head-scratching ... it's a mystery, ennit?
But if the D was built first and was better, then the A would rather be a retrograde step, not the D an improvement? --- I have no idea about the nomenclature and its reasoning, but I seem to recall reading the D had some simplifications (that may actually have made it better) over the A. I'd have to look at references, but the A may have been intended as the ultimate Eierlegendewollmilchsau true to German style and hence running into delays, with the D having a more practical strip-down approach, just as the preceding post suggests. The IX came before the VIII because the latter incorporated quite lot of airframe reengineering, while the IX basically was a V with a Merlin 60-series bolted on and a new cooling system.
-
7 hours ago, SafetyDad said:
Great pic- that's also a 188E? My screen is to small...
66 over white only if it's from an East Frisian Staffel - you know, the East Frisian national flag is a white Eagle on white background...
-
6 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:
There is a year between t5he MB kits and the Fujimi/ESCI ones - it might as well have been a decade such is the difference!Well somehow there actually is, as much of the kit was recycled from the 1973ish GR. 1
And few MB kits without a second set of wings were known for delicacy.
-
I am terribly sorry but it needs a lot of phantasy to spot the blister - if anything, in #2, possibly, perhaps, but nowhere near as pronounced as in the opening pic. And no, I am not distracted by the Danish lady that must be approaching her centenary if she is still around.
What's the object just below the wing root - a torn-out tank? It appears to have a marking at the side facing to the left.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CT7567 said:
That Blue Angels boxing seems to be the old/new again Sunny/Entex mold - I hadn't realized it was ever in production during the Academy era. In fact scalemates has a listing for it showing a bagged kit, labeled as being manufactured specifically for the Blue Angels (???), circa 1987:
https://www.scalemates.com/kits/minicraft-model-kits-1605ba-blue-angels-f-18-hornet--1432329
In any case as previously noted, anything but a Minicraft-Hasegawa is best avoided for the FSD birds.
Agreed that Revell seems to be sitting on some quality Monogram molds of rare and well-done Snap-Tites (I have the Marauder in the stash). They seem to be content to keep reissuing the Tomcat and Hornet with stickers for the kiddo market instead.
I had been looking for a certain thread around here instructing to avoid a "later" boxing of the Sunny kit by Aca/Mini in line-squadron markings, but failed - but I am certain it exists. Not that old, I think. @Giorgio N, do you recall? Scalemates is great at times and not so at others - the "full family" F-18 diagram must have used the same basic design software as that used for my attorney's mailbox - just one horizontal scroll bar, at the bottom, so you scroll endlessly down/top and horizontally ad infinitum, until the day you die. Rant over
That special BA boxing/bagging looks like something I should have a look for.
Indeed, insofar as it relates to having "Minicraft" on the box and/or is not Italeri/Testors
The question is on which moulds Revell are actually sitting currently - I have sincere hopes that most of the more modern stuff was relocated to Bünde. The big problem is that their long-time head of aircraft projects had a hard time telling a Mustang from a Phantom and a good kit from a bad (or so I was told). This probably did not help the new owners allegedly ditching the legacy Revell/Monogram/Aurora toolbank still in the US at scrap value. Atlantis is having a good time with the moulds apparently... repeat Helicopters for Industry a couple of times... Luckily I also have both the Mitchell and Marauder, but only once each. Let us hope...
-
On 1/22/2023 at 1:01 AM, MDriskill said:
The book Fleet Air Arm Camouflage and Markings - Atlantic and Meditteranean Theaters 1937-1941, by Stuart Lloyd, is excellent. It has the most photos of Sea Gladiators in one place that I've ever seen, and extremely detailed info on camo/markings changes over time.
Why is it that people always have to post about excellent books I was not aware of but need to have...
Ordered.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Mattlow said:
Forgive my ignorance, but is that trapezoidal plate standard on late (fighter) Gs? And it's about exactly in the place where I think the camera behind the cockpit would be located.
-
1 hour ago, Vingtor said:
Tamiya comes to the rescue, it seems. Their 1/48 Mosquito FB Mk.VI comes with 8 rocket launchers.
If you mean the parts at the bottom of photo #6, I don't think they're the right ones for a Vampire/other post war users. I'm not really sure whether the "rails" shown in your post are rails at all (in the sense that the rockets use them for initial directional guidance), or more of a steadying bar between the zero-length launchers.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, CT7567 said:
For most of the 80s-90s, Minicraft was partnered with Academy (not sure of the exact business relationship but I believe this was a global production setup, i.e. all products from that timeframe were co-branded). In that era I don't believe there were any Minicraft or Academy Hornets.
As to @tempestfan's comment to "never disregard a Monogram Snap-Tite" - this is sage wisdom, as certainly Revell never have
The overall shapes are quite accurate, hence other than the many simplified details and several scale compromises to allow for snap-together construction, it's actually quite a good replica of the FSD airframe. Sadly that means it bears nothing but a casual family resemblance to the F/A-18E it's intended to represent from Top Gun: Maverick in the latest boxing:
https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-04965-mavericks-f-a-18-hornet--1260329
I am pretty certain Aca/Mini did a BA Hornet, kit 1605, which should be in my 1987 Aca/Mini catalogue. Mind you, that one shows a number of kits that were only released years later (or never, possibly). EDIT: Actually it's the 1988 one - here is a picture of the catalogue showing the kit in all its glory, and I can't get rid of the feeling its nose wheels are slightly oversize, too, and it looking just as stalky as the Mono Snap. But those are feelings, and I may well be wrong...
You (or rather Revell) do not mean that in earnest??? But knowing them, I know they do... Well, Revell could have had a look at the Snap B-25 and B-26, which are both really quite good for Snaps, and have not seen the light of day sometime around when I left school. The B-26 still remains the only viable option for a low-tail B-26, if I'm not mistaken.
BTW, @Blue Monday, here are some build impressions of a slightly later incarnation of the Airfix.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, 71chally said:
Fujimi all the way, probably my favourite kit of any type.
It's best to go for the 2nd generation boxings as Fujimi added more details to the kits.
Agreed - I have a sizeable stash of Fujimi K/Ms bought whenever there was a good opportunity. And also agreed on the 2nd statement - kits H-6/7/8/9 are the original plastic; the moulds were extensively modified for the Royal Class boxings, and those moulds were used for H-17/18/19/20 (hope the nomenclature is correct). Sorry I do not have a correlation of the H-numbers to Fujimis newer numbering system.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Blue Monday said:
I am looking for some advice in relation to the F-18 FSD Hornet in 1/72. Can any of the resident Hornet experts say which kit in 1/72 is best for building one of the early and colourful F-18 FSD Hornet aircraft in the serial range from 160775 up to 160782 (Prototype No. 1 and FSD test ships 2 to 8)? Looking at Scalemates, quite a few kit manufacturers released kits with FSD markings from 1979 onwards.
- Sunny were the first to release a kit in 1979 with the same kit being released by Entex in 1980.
- Hasegawa were next to release a Hornet kit, again with FSD decals. This one seems to have an air data boom included, so would be useful in building ships 1,2,4,6 and 8. This was also released by Minicraft.
- Monogram had a snap-tite kit so perhaps this can be disregarded.
- Next up is Italeri with boxart that looks like a YF-17 in FSD markings! This kit allows a two-seater FSD aircraft to be built too.
- Esci were next with a kit that included markings for ships 5 and 6. Some comments I have read about this kit are less than positive.
- Then along comes Airfix with their F-18 FSD kit. I'd imagine this is similar in quality and detail to the Airfix Panavia MRCA kit. Also released by MPC.
- Idea released a two-seater FSD kit in 1984.
I can't help with accuracy, but looking for Detail & Scale #6 may be worthwhile.
1. Sunny kit also boxed by Revell (early 80s), afterwards mould went to (Academy/)Minicraft. Not impressive IMHO
2. Minicraft was US distributor for Hase for a long time, but apparently managed to buy a load of (mainly Japanese) moulds off Entex, including the ex-Sunny. Those moulds were manufactured at Academy for some time. Just to stress Hase and Sunny are different moulds. I only have the 32nd Hase Proto.
3. Never disregard a Monogram Snap-Tite
I do not think I have this, and I seem to recall somewhat large nose wheels on the built-kit boxtop - which IIRC also applies to the Sunny and Esci.
4. Italeri appears to be rather highly regarded even for their kits of production aircraft, which are an evolution of this mould. Has some nice details and is delicately moulded.
5. Esci is rather chunky IMO.
6. Airfix looks OKish, but to me looks like a somewhat unfinished/finished in haste tool, which was supposed to be released about the time when Airfix collapsed, but was delayed - at least I only have seen kits "Made in France" in over 40 years of collecting Airfix. Italeri is better detailed IMHO.
7. I'd not consider Idea - they were the Korean copying pioneers, and this most likely is a more or less well-done clone of the Italeri - if only for the fact that Italeri for some time was the only one offering a twin.
-
1
-
3 hours ago, Memphis said:
Thanks for your comments. This is what I love about discussion: everyone has their own opinion and their own evidence!
I think that the reason for the chaos with the nose dimensions is due to the unification of kits C and D. Variant D has an AN/APQ-109A station with an antenna that is larger than AN/APQ-72 or AN/APQ-100. But not only the size of the antenna determines the size of the radar radome. You also need room to rotate it for scanning. AN/APQ-100 added ground scan mode. This could give an additional downward shift of the station (if it really was, and it doesn’t seem to me). But the question was about D from B, so my words may be fair. But this's only my opinion. You can have other opinion and you may be right.
Wiki isn't the most reliable source of course, but in contrast to 72 over 50 it does not state any increase in antenna diameter of either the 100 or 109 over the 72, only improvements in the electronic components. I'll have a look into one of my various F-4 books later whether they say something; maybe the D&S on the C/D has something to offer, old as it is.
What makes me doubtful is that I do not see that a 1 inch increase in antenna diameter would yield any improvement (and why an inch?). In contrast, anything larger would have necessitated some redesign to the nose behind the radome I think to blend the larger diameter in, in particular at the sides.
1 hour ago, CT7567 said:A little more Google-fu turned up this blog which is probably as definitive as we're going to get on the subject:
https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-radome-road-to-32-inch-radome.html?m=1
Quoting the key passage:
VARIATION 6: 32" Glass Fiber Nose
Verified on BuNos: 145313b, 146817c and subsequent aircraft.This was to be the production standard for all future F-4(B,C,D,K,M,N,S) Phantoms starting with Block 3.
That looks like a great resource. Not that I need more webpages in my favourites I can waste my time on, though...
-
I think you should add the Airfix one to show us a real racer finish, @Rob de Bie...
Sea Harrier FA2 Plans?
in Aircraft Modern
Posted
PM inbound