Jump to content

11bravo

Members
  • Posts

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    MA - USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

11bravo's Achievements

Established Member

Established Member (3/9)

659

Reputation

  1. Hi Folks - I'm building an F-4C circa mid to late 67. Trying to figure out what I need to use for an ECM pod. The one picture of my subject aircraft shows a pod hanging under the inner starboard wing pylon, painted white with the upper surfaces green. I've got the GT Resins "ALQ-71 Short Tail" pod and the pod that comes in the Tamiya kit. I've yet to see a picture of an F-4C/D with the "short-tail" pod. Would I be better served going with the kit pod? I tried to read up on early war ECM pods but it's extremely confusing. Far as I can tell, the first pods (QRC-160) could only be mounted to the outboard wing pylons and were wind-powered by small blades on the nose. A bit later, the QRC-160 was upgraded to use power from the aircraft and could now be hung on the inner wing pylons, so the ram air turbine in the nose went away. This pod later morphed into the ALQ-71, which I think was pretty similar to the QRC pod. Bottom line - I don't think the short-tail pod is appropriate. If I go with the kit pod, do I need to make any changes to it? Any and all info is much appreciated.
  2. I don't. Airbus has a pretty skeezy track record in this area. I'm sure that's resulted in more than a few sales for them.
  3. Since it appears that all the passenger windows are on a long strip of clear plastic that affixes to the exterior of the fuselage, any idea how you are supposed to paint that section? Are you supposed to mask off a hundred or so windows?
  4. And yet those helos keep selling. Crazy to think that professional navies might know more than the experts on the internet, right??
  5. As my subject was an early F-4C in the "Navy" scheme, it had a full set of stencils on it's gloss white belly. Took me the better part of a week but I was finally able to then start the final weathering on the undersides. I used a mix of Flory Washes (love this stuff), some thinned black and brown enamel paint and a touch of pastels. Still have some touchups but I think I'm 90% done in this area. \ Thanks for checking in!
  6. Bill - that is one of the best weathered F-4 underbellies I've seen. Great work! It's surprising how many fantastic looking F-4 models have pristine undersurfaces.
  7. You are spot on. These aircraft got filthy. I've got more work to do once the hundred or so decals are in place. Here's the real thing:
  8. Quick update, painted the radome (I'll be weathering it further down the road, for now it's just a semi-gloss black), did some touchups to the camo scheme and started decaling the undersides. These early F-4C's retained their Navy style gloss white undersides, along with about 200 servicing / warning stencils. The only thing the Airforce did was to overpaint the large national insignia and "USAF" on the lower wing surfaces. On more than a few jets, you could still make out these marking under a thin coat of white. I did my best to replicate that look. I've only started to add all the servicing decals. Thanks for checking in!
  9. Paint corrections, touchups, etc. Getting very close to the final version of this very complex paint job. Note that the vertical stab is just resting in place.
  10. More work to show. Wings are now attached and I've added some details to the main landing gear bays. More to do in this area. I'll fix the overspray in the AIM-7 well! That's it for now, thanks for looking!
  11. I have nothing to back this up but I have to believe that there was zero interest in restoring these lines, given the circumstances at the time. On a related note, I have to shake my head when I see models of Luftwaffe aircraft with temporary snow camouflage and the builder then adds the missing stencils on top of the white.
  12. You do realize that simply quoting manufacturer's performance numbers doesn't really even come close to the full story about how "capable" an aircraft is? How critical is max speed for a typical mission profile these helos will fly? Any idea? How well are the Russian helos networked (which in today's world is absolutely critical)? Do they have the ability to sync information from and control UAV's? How well do the sensors perform, especially in night/adverse weather? Again, do you have even a clue or do you just believe that the only way to determine which aircraft is "better and more capable" are top speed, range and rate of climb? Even just looking at your cherished performance numbers - Are those figures you quoted in an operational configuration or "clean"? How much fuel did they have onboard? The Tiger has better performance numbers so therefore it must be "better" than the -64? LOL, you may want to have a quick chat with the Aussies. They apparently came to a different conclusion than you did. I'm afraid all you have done so far is demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the subject.
  13. The RAF loss was due to human error. Can't blame the aircraft for stupid humans. The book is still out on the recent USN loss at sea but there is a good chance that one may be pilot error. Keep in mind, at this stage there are a large number of F-35's flying. I wouldn't get too spun up about the mishap rates at this point.
  14. Thanks for the great feedback! I'm now starting to work on the wheel wells. First up is nose gear bay. The Tamiya part is pretty basic. I added a bunch of hydraulic lines and the red avionics cooling air cover (along with 4 tiny little wingnuts). Once the nose gear is installed, I'll add more lines and it should look pretty "busy". Also have some touchup painting to do, to clean up a few smudges that happened during the weathering process. Thanks for checking in!
  15. I currently work in the environmental remediation industry and trust me, I know all about the short and long term effects of exposure to lead and how to mitigate them. It's just that in 1945, occupational health and safety just wasn't a priority in Germany. No one cared if a panzer crewmember might get sick from exposure to lead 10 years after the war. And yes, cleaning up operable tanks that had taken crew casualties was (and still is) somewhat common. However, that had nothing to do with the reason why Elfenbein was re-introduced.
×
×
  • Create New...