Andrew D Jolly Rogers guy
-
Posts
587 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Andrew D Jolly Rogers guy
-
-
Thanks for the kind words!
Got to splice the chopped door posts from the classic body onto the Super's convertible body. Always better to cut and graft too much, then cut it down to size. Then a bit of grinding and sanding to blend it all in.
-
2
-
-
Okay y'all, I must apologize for shelving this for a couple of years, but I've had a LOT to deal with, including a wedding, some health stuff, plus just got totally burned out on this due to the intensity of what I had to do to it (FAR more than I originally planned).
Time to get this thing done.
Major body modifications. Had to take pieces from the two Revell bodies and graft them to the Aoshima to reflect the correct vents, trims and such. Flat windscreen framing on the hardtop was too narrow, so I widened it with an insert of plastic, above and below. I'll worry about the windscreen itself later.
The hood was a nightmare, part of the upper section being scratchbuilt.
-
8
-
-
3 hours ago, Dmitriy1967 said:
They write about the Mig-37 that "On board it had 30 mm cannons, R-23 air-to-air missiles, as well as modern X-28 and X-25 projectiles and aerial bombs, even by current standards. "
Yep, makes it all the more fun
Basically, I need something roughly AGM-65 Maverick sized. Not a huge punch, I know. If not missile, then precision bomb for sure.
-
1 hour ago, MiG-Mech said:
For which plane exactly ?
Did / could you check Harpia's "Russia's Air-launched Weapons" ?lol...well...it's for the fictional-yet-really-neat-looking MiG-37. Making it a bit more plausible. Trouble is, I can't lengthen the bay, as it completely fills the space between the nosewheel bay and mainwheel bays, with absolutely no space in between the latter to go through.
Was going to add a couple small under-shoulder bays for defensive AAMs, but still the question of the main payload, without which the design has no purpose.
Tried looking at Dmitriy's site, but can't get it to translate, for some reason.
I don't have the Harpia book, for one project. I've been searching the entire Kh missile series without any luck. Almost wondering if I should leave the bays open and empty now....
-
5 hours ago, Pappy said:
KH-31
Pappy
That one was my first choice as a weapon, except it is twice as long as the bay I need it to fit into, at 4.7-5.3m/15-17 ft....As the bay in 1/72 is only 3cm, it would have to be about a 2.1m weapon.
Maybe I need to look into smart bombs instead?
-
Looking for suggestions for a Soviet/Russian guided air to ground weapon (preferably missile but I'm open to ideas) that would fit in a 1/72 3cm/1.25 inch weapons bay. Think this means something just over 200 cm or under 7 ft. Everything that I think looks interesting is about double that. Something from the 1980's through modern.
-
Other than the release entitled "F-117A Nighthawk w/GBU-27 Guided Bombs", are there any other releases of the Hasegawa F-117 which have a bomb bay?
-
-
12 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:
The trouble with this subject is modellers' fairly morbid compulsion to portray the ship on the morning it was destroyed. If happy to portray the ship just a week earlier at the very most, you can safely paint it Measure 1 and be confident it's correct.
I do understand what you're saying, completely, the morbidity of it. On the other hand, I think for many it's an homage, meant to honor the event that ultimately defines it. This, we modelers do with all sorts, both the good and the bad. I can't recall many non-July 1945 builds of the Indianapolis, and I wager most of the builds of the Hood are also from her final appearance. We also like to build fighter planes depicting them shortly after they score their aerial victories (good for one side only, naturally). I don't think it's because we like death, I believe it's more that we find ourselves reflecting on tragedy and feel compelled to honor it.
For me, I guess it's more personal since I had the privilege of serving the Arizona's survivors who were aboard for her final appearance. Plus I just think the darker look (either gray or blue) is just meaner, which I like (I know many prefer the peacetime light gray appearance, just simple preference).
-
1
-
-
Hello all,
Re: A-7D in the dark gray/dark green scheme, circa late 1980's. Says the dark gray goes back 6 feet into the intake, then "transitions" to white. Should I assume it to be a hard-lined difference between gray and white, or would "transitioned" imply a sprayed fog line?
-
On 4/16/2023 at 10:32 AM, Skodadriver said:
The one and only time I built the FLY kit (a -30) I took a strong dislike to it. I've never built another one and not taken any interest in their product line so I had missed their -40.
Well, I've got to ask what specifically it was that put you off the Fly....I had heard there were issues, including the tires, and considered trying to stretch the Eastern Express to the -50 instead...but figured the Fly might be an alternative since it already comes with two fuselages. Already wondering if I chose poorly....
-
Yep, I found a Fly which is on its way; already planning to make resin copies of the mainwheels from the Eastern Express kit. Probably I should have specified, apologies! Since the kit comes with a standard -30 fuselage plus the intended -40 fuselage, my plan is to use sections of the -30 to expand the -40.
EXTREMELY helpful info above, thank you so much!
-
Ok, at both ends, perfect; thank you! Now just a simple recalculation to 1/144 and that'll be it.
Thanks again!
-
Question, when the -40 was lengthened by 8 ft to the -50, was all the new length in front of the wing? Or was it added to both ends for CG purposes?
-
8 hours ago, drake122 said:
Honestly, translated to 1/72nd scale, those additional details seem quite pointless.
With respect, I'd think that it's up to the individual builder to determine how much detail they wish to attempt. What's "pointless" for one person may be someone else's total enjoyment. If you think my level of detail is pointless, then I'm sorry.
-
2
-
-
Ok, I should point out they're not just tubular-looking, they have a lot more to them. See:
-
1
-
-
Are there any aftermarket gun barrels that would work for a 1/72 Mirage F.1? Found the Quickboost ones for the Mirage III but they're 1/48. Have also found the Staghound metal ones but not sure they're correct for my build. Maybe I could cheat with A-4 guns?
-
Amazing to reach 101 and still be relatively mobile and lucid, especially considering he was almost killed at age 20 (7 December 1941). His powerful voice and very firm handshake have weakened very considerably, but he is still at it. What an amazing life he's had!
Now both remaining USS Arizona survivors are aged 101.
-
8
-
-
5 hours ago, Vaison said:
Try at http://www.larsenal.com/, a french manufacter, maybe in aviation/ 1-72...
Great place, thanks! Found stuff I wish I'd had for an earlier build. But no LRF1's....
So I think I'm reduced to needing the dimensions for scratchbuilding them. Could eyeball it, but always nicer to have a definite guideline....
-
I don't suppose anyone makes the LRF1 68mm rocket launchers in 1/72 as seen under the wings of the Libyan Mirages that defected to Malta a few years back? I've found them listed in 48th but not 72nd.
...and if not, anyone have the dimensions so I could try to make them?
https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/125561/508-libya-air-force-dassault-mirage-f1/
-
16 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:
Ooh, which squadron (assuming it will still be a USN bird)?
Cheers,
Bill
VF-74 in full TPS, with the lightning bolt in red. Somehow just struck me in my mind's way. Plus a few details which *might* have made its way to the bird, such as an F-14D-style chin double-pod, Tomcat (shorter) pitot etc. Maybe a few other things. Not sure whether to keep the fairing on the top of the tail or not....
-
1 hour ago, Navy Bird said:
For what it's worth, here is a photo of the Pete's Hangar conversion set when I bought it several years ago (this is before the sharp boat tail was added):
My recollection (which admittedly suffers sometimes) is that the resin wheels were not substantially different in size than the Hasegawa kit I used for my conversion, nor were they as nicely detailed. I didn't use any of these decals for my model of 151972 as the Phoenix Missile System logo is very inaccurate, and the font used for the tail numbers is not right. I also did not use the metal landing gear - Hasegawa's was much more sharply moulded, better detailed, and easy to convert to those used on the F-111B. I used the resin tail hook fairing, but modified it a bit, as well as the nose (which required a lot of reshaping) and the small pod that located under the nose. All in all, I was disappointed in this set, especially since I paid an arm and a leg for it as it was out of production.
Anyone that wants a copy of the artwork I did for the Phoenix testing program badge and the numbers in the correct font, just drop me a PM.
Here is a link to my conversion:
Cheers,
Bill
Holy mackerel Bill, that's a stunning and absolutely beautiful build!!
I'm actually going a different direction with mine, a what-if circa mid/late 80's....
-
Great to know; what differences are depicted in the Pete's tires vs the kit ones? Is it size, details or both that differ?
-
Thanks Bill!
I guess what I'm hoping for is the direction they would have gone, as this would be for a "what-if", doing an aircraft in fleet service (had there never been an F-14).
Hughie Hogg's VW Beetle (DOH)
in Work In Progress - Vehicles
Posted
Now the interior. The Classic's side panels seemed best, except I liked some of the details on the Revel Cabriolet better. Solution: graft the details onto the better panels.
The Classic's seat bottoms are terrific, but the Revell Cabriolet's seat backs are the closest to the real thing out of the 3 kit choices. Again, graft them together.