Air Hockey Propellers

Super details and weathering. Couldn't tell it apart from the real thing if it were against a real background. Do they normally carry just two missiles?

If you really like this heli, I'd encourage you to find a non-italeri kit.

Thank you very much. Very interesting insight and it does make sense. Wow, an Apache on shipboard use? Those blades don't fold in any way. But those Apaches are obviously not Navy so I guess they're not stored on board. I did see the article of the Chinook being stowed in HMS Queen Elizabeth but that was a one time thing I guess. And there seem to be rumors that the US wants the Marines to adopt the Chinook instead of the 53s at the detriment of the Marine's lift capacity... Also, I now understand that the Chinook blades fold but manually. Given that it's a new subject for me, I wasn't sure that a manual folding option existed. I do know that there are automatic folding mechanisms back when I was studying the Sea Knight. I was actually quite amazed that they can confidently do that in such thin rotor blade supports. Indeed, if you don't use them they can break down. Yet another reason why you wouldn't want automatic folding blades for land based operations. All in all I can see that although the aftermarket kits for folded blades (automatic or manual) say they can be used on helicopters with land based markings, that was probably not the case in rel life. Personally, I have serious space constraints so I'll do the sacrilege of building my USAF HH-3 and CH-53 without the rotor blades, as if they were being prepared for transport... I just don't have the space or the delicacy for the full setup. Anyhow, it's certainly more realistic than folding the blades, for sure.

Good to know it's documented somewhere. That makes sense indeed. ...So those aftermarket parts for folded blades on USAF helis are surely compatible but inaccurate. And I guess it's pretty much safe to assume that all helicopters with more than two blades (including Pedro) intended to land on war ships or belong to the Navy, or Marines have folding blades. And although for the army, the Chinook seems to have foldable blades from model A.

It's a general topic but hopefully we can create a sort of database on which helicopters have and don't have folding blade mechanisms. As for myself, I am building an Airfix HH-53C Jolly Green Giant. I've read that the Navy version of the H-53 had folding blades (implying that the USAF versions did not?), I've read here from someone who said he had never seen USAF verions with folded blades, but I'm still doubtful as the aftermarket part that allows for folded blades indicates that it's meant for the HH-53C (USAF) version, too. Same question for the USAF HH-3 I'll build next except I have even less information. Anything you know with or without absolute certainty is welcome, thanks!

Guys, I found the Airfix one on a local auction site. The upper corners look less boxy than the Fujimi but the difference is so subtle I wish I had the Fujimi kit to compare them. I want to fold the blades and there seem to be just two aftermarket parts for that. I'd like to use the detail set that only includes hinges because I'll also use them on a USAF HH-3. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/df-helo-stuff-df80672-rotor-folds-h-3-ch-53-mh-53e--977325 Is there a topic covering this already here or anywhere else to any of your knowledge??? I'd love to see the instructions for the afromentioned detail set... And these HH USAF helis did have folding rotor blades in real life, right?

Did someone mention Vietnam? I just voted. If it's the Navy, it's the Navy in Vietnam! Believe it or not, I was just about to start a topic asking about the most representative US Navy ships to fight in Vietnam and their best scale models. I searched "vietnam" and "ship" and found this post. Should I start such post anyway? So far I can only find Tamiya's 1/350 carrier, New Jersey, and 1/35 PBR. As you can see, I'm making a Vietnam collection and once I finish all those aircraft, I will build the M48, the M113 and a ship. Other Vietnam models I will build over the years unhurriedly. And yes, I know, the A-7 and F-5 in my collection are not Vietnam examples but they're close enough.

Thanks for the tip. It's amazing how just a slightly softer curve can make such a difference to the discerning eye. I also liked the rivets on the fuselage instead of the recessed panel lines. Too bad Airfix doesn't produce them anymore, but better getting one second hand than somehow modifying a Fujimi until it looks right. Hello, pardon my ignorance but what's the dog house? Thanks to you both for your replies.

Hello everyone, Between Italeri's and Fujimi's 1/72 offerings, I rather Fujimi because the clear parts are far more realistic. However, I have a problem with the upper sides of the fuselage since they seem to be too boxy on the model. I'm not imagining this, right? I mean, has anybody ever noticed this before? If so, has anybody attempted to make modifications? I have seen modelers obsess over far less noticeable fuselage shape errors on other aircraft so I guess my question is not too farfetched. Images taken from the internet.

It should be a nice project to build a 1/72 YS-11. It just looks so classic. And yes, they were both in separate museums in Aichi, Japan. I already sent a message to the walkaround moderator to see if they can be included in the section. Too bad I didn't take more pics, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMC_YS-11

The real example was taken in the Kakamigahara museum and the scale model pics at the Aichi museum of flight.

Hello there, I've just bought the Hasegawa 1/72 Huey and I would like to know what you mean by the inaccurate front end...

https://www.italeri.com/uploads/news/m33hofTevksUE0AvH2udA168GpOPUL98Eq0JrDo6.pdf This one? Where do you get your info from?

One sure way from telling an M from an MR is the lerx pylon that goes all the way to the top of the wing on the MR version (there must sure be a technical name for that). So is it me or are the right parts are missing in this kit. Talking about parts B4 and B17...

Despite what many have said in this forum topic, I'd say that the Fujimi kit is the best in 1/72 because: 1) it represents the intake and exhaust parts so you can see the intake blades. You instil the blades for the exhaust but as in the real thing, you won't be able to see them after the kit's finished. 2) The canopy frames are not those ultra-thick-in-real-life types that Italeri is famous for. 3) it comes with slats which are harder to replicate than flaps if you want to take it to that level 4) It comes with two detailed MERS and 12 Mk. 82s 5) Very subtle recessed panel lines 6) Pilot figures with separately molded arms, and heads with oxygen masks with tubes. 7) Good cockpit detail, as in surface differences (how was it you called those?) on the instrument panel 8) Crisp landing gear 9) Decent Fujimi quality decals Cons... Some say it's not accurate but the finished model looks absolutely fantastic. No flaps down option but they are hardly ever parked that way. No folding wings No stairs for dioramas but then again... And finally, the absolute worst thing about this kit (drum roll) IT'S DISCONTINUED. We should make an "owner of great but discontinued models club". I've never done a nose job on a plane and I wouldn't recommend one either. And sometime this year, I'll buy Hasegawa's offering to see for myself just how bad it is. It's the only thing that's available until the 1/72 Trumpeter offering shows up for good.

Hello Jonathan, ...eight years ago... well, do you have any pics of these experimental camouflage? I once saw one, just one, Skyhawk with and olive drab upper side like that used on the Huey.

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2804557302 It's a Chinese website. Careful you catch a virus.

Hello there, has anybody built the Trumpeter one yet? Any information on how you can buy it... internationally?

Thank you very much for the reference photos. I did also notice shortly after my first post here that my Fujimi a-7D kit has Mk. 82 Snakeyes to be attached in MERs. Comparing the snakeyes from both kits, Hasegawa's are too long. No wonder, they'll never fit. This makes in the second non-technical limitation error from Hasegawa's (the first calling the Strike Eagle in Euro One camo F-15E instead of YF-15E.

On the topic of weapons' load on the A-6... and similar aircraft: Is it possible to put Mk. 82 snakeyes one in front of another on a MER? In other words, can I pack a MER with six of 'em? My 1/72 scale hasegawa weapon's pack says no for what, half a millimeter? But I beg to differ. (half a millimeter is around 3cm in real life in that scale and I've already pushed the rear bomb all the way back and the front bomb all the way ahead.

Could you please elaborate a little more on this?

I'd like to give 'em a call, see if they can rebox those great fujimi kits that are sadly discontinued (I'm thinking the A-4, A-6, A-7, H-3, H-46, and why not, the A-1, too!)

Hmm, why would Revell box an Academy kit?

I totally agree with you. I will use the word more carefully. There can't be too many "iconics" at the same time!