metromanbw

I'll differ and say Eduards cockpit stuff has been very easy to use and in general adds detail not possible by any other human touch. And no resin dust. Cheers to having different options for all.

Resin I'd like to see: 1000# GP bombs, JP.233, TIALD Pod, CBU-123 LGB, RAF main racks w/ MACE. I just got my Eduard resin wheels and they are a million times better than the kit parts. Will be getting their interior PE also. Cheers

I would like to slide in a sub-question about AIM9s - to mount a 4x configuration would I just simply need to find an identical set of launchers to rig on the fuselage side of the pylon, or was the inboard launcher wholely different than the commonly seen outboard? Clear detail pics of this mount/laucher config seem rare. Wanting 4x AIM-9 and 4X AIM-7 load. Cheers

Can anyone tell this Tonka-rookie whether 'hard' FOD covers were common/used, it seems my pics only show the 'fabric' covers draped? Just thinking/planning my assault on this kit - the 'fabric' covers seem easy enough to make myself from lead sheet or aluminum foil.

It's light gray not white, similar to 60s era and onward Light Gull Gray (But NOT the same). To me WEM comes closest on match. White only appeared on bottoms in the tri-color scheme. Cheers

After doing my 2nd I prefer attaching the separate intake/fuselage piece to the main fuselage (knocking out that seam working from both sides) earlier in the sequence. Also if you carefully trim off one of the tiny pins on the main landing gear struts they can be placed after the finish is applied like normal procedure, just use a stout cement and watch their symmetry. Really a lovely kit, bring on the gun-noses.

I'd be returning that to my retailer, or if not possible writing WP directly about getting a replacement. Failing that just lambaste them publicly.

I used the Aires Exhaust set and found it to be 85% worthless - because the majority of what you pay for is hidden. Why not just mold relative shapes for the areas 'back in the cave' and concentrate on detail that is exposed - in other words I found it to be less than satisfactory. And the fit was not perfect - How in the heck are these things allowed to get out of design stage without test-fitting the master for perfect fit? It can certainly benefit from more detailed wheels - as to the wheel wells, the kit parts pay lip service to the real thing: passable but you can do better (suggest -other- than Aires). Cheers

Thanks guys - I got a big 'A-Ha' moment today when I realized that ALL the pics I had been looking at from the left side were masking the LRMTS pod by the nose gear doors - hidden just so. I took me browsing pics of the same jet to realize the pod was there all along. So... now just to decide: "Debbie" or Emma"?

Hello - I am wanting to build my new Revell Tornado 48th as one from Operation Granby but am finding that when perusing pics I find some airframes with the LRMTS sensor under the nose and some without - could I get a laymans explanation on what the official designation was for the jets in either instance, with and without the sensor? WAS that undernose sensor -alone- able to designate for laser guided bombs or was that linked strictly to those able to employ through a TIALD pod? I have both the Italeri and Airfix kits if I need to locate 'donor' parts. Finally, someone be able to link a build article showing in detail the degree the desert pink paint wore off and how to replicate it? Thank you Brian W

You're gonna need a bunch of putty/CA and a few metal files to get that one to be a 3' model - Verlinden photo etch NOT conducive to bending, so those canopy frame parts are a bugger. -Badly- needs new cans and then what ya gonna do about the intakes? Best of luck, few return from where you're headed.