Jump to content

11bravo

Members
  • Posts

    423
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 11bravo

  1. 11 hours ago, Slater said:

    Oh certainly. AC-130's are fiendishly expensive. But they have come in handy over the decades.

    Against cavemen with AK-47's and RPG's.   Even then, they were restricted to only flying at night.    They have their uses but against a near peer state, those hugely expensive assets, with their superbly trained crews, are going to spend the conflict on the ground, in the US.   But - as noted above, since we are spending a ridiculous amount of our GNP on the military, we can afford it, along with weaponized crop dusters, LCS ships and dozens of other programs of dubious value.  

  2. On 8/4/2022 at 3:54 AM, Sierra Mike Sierra said:

    Great stuff! Would probably qualify as a doctoral dissertation.

    If you are a fanatic on those early F-4's, I'd also highly recommend Fundekals Wolfpack decal set for early "Operation Bolo" Phantoms.   An amazing amount of info on these jets is crammed into the instructions.  

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  3. On 7/15/2022 at 1:01 AM, RAGATIGER said:

    Hi there

     

    Well the question of today is related to the USAF Doouglas A-1E/H in Vietnam

     

    How it come an old USN type in process to be replaced (by A-7 Corsair and A-6 Intruders) then got used for the USAF in Sandy or Pilot Rescue missions

     

    I been looking for that uncesfully

     

    Regards

     

    Armando

    Ummh... In USAF service, the A-1 was also replaced by the A-7D in the SAR escort role.   The A-7 had the same attributes that made the A-1 ideal for that job.   Massive amount of firepower carried and extremely long range / loiter time.   It just took the AF a bit longer because they needed to develop the D model.   

  4. Wrapped up my underside weathering.  Last step was to grunge up the external tanks a bit since most of my pictures show the undersides as less than immaculate looking. 

    GWVHILc.jpg?1

     

    FJQjlNs.jpg?1

    Note the intentional sloppy paintwork and mismatched sections.   Unlike later in the war when the tanks arrive painted from the factory, these early tanks were overpainted green in the field when the switch was made to the SEA camo scheme and you see lots of strange looking tanks in service.

     

    Next up are the TER/MER (I'm building an asymmetric weapons load of external wing tank / 2 AIM-9 with ECM pod underneath / MER on centerline with 5 M117's / TER with a single M117 / external wing tank).    I added close to 50 extra parts for each of these, as the kit parts are extremely basic.   Note that the red numbers are intentionally mis-aligned, as it per my pics of the originals.   I'm going to be touching up those bolts on the sway braces, looking at the pictures made me realize they are less than optimum.

     

    0EeNUd0.jpg?1

     

    NTZPATm.jpg?1

     

    IQ9O65H.jpg?1

     

    Press fit of an M117 on the TER.   Still have much cleanup / paintwork to do on the bombs. 

    2a9LUfr.jpg?1

    • Like 4
  5. 17 hours ago, Planebuilder62 said:

    Have you tried googling Operation Bolo where ECM pods were hung off one of the outer pylons on the Phantoms?
    regards Toby

     My subject is post-Bolo, see a picture of her below.   My vague understanding is that a later version of the initial QRC-160 was developed that could be mounted on the inner wing pylon, as this one is (note the camouflage paint on the upper surfaces of the pod). 

    gf0cV24.jpg

  6. 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.

    IMG-0795.jpg

     

    CgiKUGm.jpg

     

    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. 

  7. 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?

  8. On 6/21/2022 at 5:05 PM, wellsprop said:

     

    Easily, Wildcat is a small heli, 13.5 m (nose to tail rotor blades) with the rotors folded, nh90 is 13.6 m folded. 

     

     

    Seahawk is 12.5 m folded. Like I've said before however, the Seahawk has no flotation gear, if you end up in the water, your day is going to be a whole lot worse in a Seahawk than a Wildcat... 

    And yet those helos keep selling.   Crazy to think that professional navies might know more than the experts on the internet, right??

  9. 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.

     

    DZkknRQ.jpg?1

     

    jdWzkK1.jpg?1

     

    ihTEIEx.jpg?1

     

    3SXNjce.jpg?1

     

    rDuD1a6.jpg?1\

     

    Thanks for checking in! 

     

     

    • Like 3
  10. 10 hours ago, billn53 said:

    I used a Flory wash on my ZM F-4J, and am very satisfied with the results 

     

    49385597852_c5a5aaf3b2_b.jpg

     

     

    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.   

    • Thanks 1
  11. On 6/14/2022 at 7:00 AM, billn53 said:

    I really like how you’ve done the underside and can still make out the USAF & star-and-bars. If anything, the weathering (especially below the engines) is too restrained. I knew a guy who serviced Phantoms, and he was always beating up my F-4 models for being too clean!

    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:

    PZvqPpc.jpg

    • Thanks 1
  12. 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. 

     

    MPsZFsO.jpg?1

     

    I3Gdhde.jpg?2

     

    REAxHha.jpg?1

     

    Ac5hCxP.jpg?1

     

    3KpJlzM.jpg?1

     

    Thanks for checking in! 

    • Like 9
  13. 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.   

  14. On 5/2/2022 at 8:05 AM, GiampieroSilvestri said:

    That Nato members (apart France) and the other American allies will mostly consider the US offering is logical but as I said technically and from what they can do there are better and more capable machines,not only Helicopters but also aircraft,tanks,ships,etc.from other countries than the US which was the point of my answer.

     

    Saluti

     

    Giampiero

    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.

    • Like 2
  15. On 5/3/2022 at 6:53 AM, spruecutter96 said:

    Am I the only one who thinks the F-35 has been a little "accident-prone" to date? I'm aware that ALL military aircraft suffer some losses, for a very large number of reasons, but still I'm wondering if all the Lightning's bugs have been ironed out, yet...

     

    Chris.  

    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. 

  16. 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".   

     

    z68YLKZ.jpg?1

     

    VTsDSn9.jpg?2

     

    yGNQIvO.jpg?1

     

    vxEfFiK.jpg?1

     

    IQn8gS7.jpg?1

    Also have some touchup painting to do, to clean up a few smudges that happened during the weathering process. 

     

    Thanks for checking in!

    • Like 4
  17. 13 hours ago, dov said:

    Sorry, @11bravo, I worked really in this industry.  

     

    The diseases caused by lead are difficult to understand in several ways.

    There are so many forms of it.

    We therefore had to take poisoning preventive measures.

    Annual medical examinations. Many other things.

    The workforce has been screened and treated for this since the 1920s.

    In the years of war, this deseas was already well known!

    Switching hit tanks by crews was also normal in Israel in both great wars. The cleaning included!

     

    Happy modelling

    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.   

  18. On 3/21/2022 at 1:27 PM, dov said:

    The color:

     

    The red color is a primer. This primer is called Minium. The primer contains lead oxyd. This is very toxic.

    I asume from production history: Just using the primer reduces manhours. But if crews got sick, this was a reason to change the production again.

     

    Unfortunately, you are mistaken on both counts.   Lead is a inhalation / ingestion hazard that takes a very long time to cause damage.   I promise you that there was no Nazi equivalent to the US's OSHA that shut down the painting of these tanks due to potential long-term health hazards with the tank crews.   I think Germany had much more pressing concerns.   

     

    Same for the inability to remove blood from the interior.   By late in the war, if a Germany tank was hit and had crewmembers killed, it was more than likely simply abandoned.    No one cared about how it was going to be cleaned out.    The reason for the switching of interior colors is very straightforward - They eliminated the white color to save production time/money.   However, this resulted in multiple complaints from the crew that they couldn't see well inside the vehicle when it was buttoned up (which was the original purpose in selecting this color).   As this was impacting combat efficiency, the original interior paint was quickly re-introduced. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...