CT7567

Great subject choice! As sad as I was to see the Starfighters finally go, it was great to see the F-16 in Italian livery. Not sure what the issue is with the Italeri roundels - proportions or register (centering)? The modern versions do have that strange thin white ring, which looks even weirder in full color vs the pastel "low viz" version. Can't recall if Italeri's version includes it but don't miss that in the ADF configuration the "bird slicer" aerials are mounted both in front of the windscreen and below the intake (see HERE for a shot of your subject with the lower array clearly visible). Also note on the B-model ADFs, the distinctive bulges on either side of the base of the vertical tail were not present - so one less difficulty, as only the rare Fujimi and the limited edition Hasegawa have captured that feature well (Italeri does provide it as an add-on in some boxings, but an apnb; ,plique part has no hope of capturing the ADF's uniquely smooth curves in that area).

No telling for sure until we have plastic in hand (see: Dragon/Cyberhobby 1:700 CVN-65 Enterprise), but Flyhawk seems to have some momentum here and it would be extraordinary if this doesn't reach shelves soon.

Actually after CG-51 Thomas S. Gates. First 5 Ticonderogas had the twin arm Mk. 26 missile launchers, CG-52 Bunker Hill and later got the VLS system (the VLS ships are occasionally referenced as the Bunker Hill sub-class). Judging by the sprue layout they'll not only do a Mk.26 version, but also have potential for future Spruance variants and Kidd class (all of which shared the same hull design).

I think the "Fake MiG" scheme is probably the coolest (and certainly amongst the most popular adversary Skyhawk subjects amongst modelers). But my personal favorite is the variant of the "Heater-Ferris" [sic] multitone gray, more famously applied to Phantoms, a Topgun F-5E, and other types. Details, along with several other schemes, can be found here: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/aggressorsda_1.htm

Sorry if I got anyone overly excited, but the resin kit in 1:72 from Fantastic Plastic linked above is currently sold out. I would suggest contacting them directly about a potential re-release, as I'm sure there is significant interest.

While browsing on an unrelated topic I happened across another option that is probably both better quality and more useful (by proportion of the sheet): Warbird Decals does a generic SR-71 data/common markings sheet in 1:72 that is currently available: https://warbirddecals-com.myshopify.com/products/warbird-sr-71-common-markings-stencil-data-decals-1-72-048-w-multi-options

As good as the Airfix "new tooling" GR.7/9 is, it would be a shame to sacrifice one for this project given how little would remain. Per the info Giorgio shared, the YAV-8B is essentially an AV-8A with AV-8B forward intakes and wing. A couple of specific details to note: The YAV-8B had a unique configuration of intake bypass doors (the small square doors arrayed around the semicircular main intakes). All other first and 2nd generation Harriers have a single set, the YAV-8B has a second set immediately behind the first. Also, because this was the initial flight test of the enlarged "second generation" wing, it did not have the full sized leading edge root extension (LERX) fairings, but only the smaller "bolt on" style similar to what would later be termed "65% LERX" (on RAF Harriers). I would suggest using either the "new tool" Airfix AV-8A/GR.1 or Italeri/ESCI, and transplant the intalkes and wing from whatever AV-8B you're most comfortable scrapping. Italeri/Testors is probably the least expensive/most widy available, and i don't believe the parts you need differ in any meaningful way in any of their single seat "Harrier II" boxings. Airfix and Hasegawa are better source kits but have different parts for the UK variants (including different LERX) so you would have to be picky about the boxing amd/or make some additional mods for the YAV-8B.

OOP quite a while but the resin kit from Fantastic Plastic may be easier to find for less crazy money than the OG Monogram. https://modelermagic.com/kit-alert-172-earth-defense-directorate-thunderfighter-from-fantastic-plastic/

Great notes on the issues with CE's set @e8n2, thanks for that info. Re: Printscale, their own website is actually the best resource to search their product line as they post images of sheets and full instructions for all of their offerings (the bulk of the line is under the "wet decal" heading for waterslide sheets). It appears they only have one SR-71 sheet available, 72-435, which isn't the best source for YF-12 markings (but has the advantage of being currently available). https://www.printscale.org/product_1036.html

Though OOP, Caracal's sheet* is probably still your best/most widely available option. The only other aftermarket YF-12 sheet I'm aware of is the much more rare Cutting Edge release, from shortly before that company ceased to be https://www.hyperscale.com/2008/reviews/decals/ced48292preview_1.htm Microscale did two sheets for early/mid-life SR-71s that could get you in the ballpark, but I don't think they were re-released by Superscale so no telling how hard to find or in what condition. 72-464 72-465 *Keep in mind that although Caracal titled both of their Blackbird sheets as "SR-71/YF-12," only the "Part 1" sheet has options for the interceptor (even the NASA options on part 2 are all SRs).

When you say "diameter of the turret," can you clarify exactly what measurement you're looking for? AFAIK all AH-1s with the M197 mount directly under the nose: A cylindrical shroud was used on early Army variants with this cannon, which the twin-engine versions (J/T/W/Z) seem to retain even with the latest "Zulus" (J variant pictured): The OV-10D NOGS turret has an adapter fairing below the center fuselage (similar in shape to the shroud) with the turret itself (base of rotation) mounted to the bottom of the fairing. The 1:72 Airfix OV-10D (which is otherwise pretty awful) includes a belly fairing nd turret for the NOGS M197 - I don't think this has been offered in any other kits or aftermarket to date. If using that kit just for the turret, I would also plan on investing in a metal barrel set from Master.

The only source I've seen for a Vietnamese scheme is the RVHP kit instructions, which seem to match the profile above - so either it's reliable, or they're equally fictitious. My kit is in deep storage at the moment, but I found a partial shot of the instructions online:

Add to this list Hasegawa's 1:72 Sea Harrier FRS.1 - which apparently confined the proportional issue to the forward fuselage, because the GR.3 with the same aft fuselage & wing doesn't seem to have the same problem.

You certainly achieved acceptable results there, but by most standards the PM kit ranks just slightly above the Starfix on quality and accuracy (as noted above, both are technically F-5Bs to begin with). As long as the Talon was in service with the USAF and foreign operators, it still amazes me that Sword's limited run kit is still the best (only) real option out of the box.

The leading edge tape was my first thought also, but I believe in this case the decal instructions are referring to the trim color (fin cap) which for VA-115 would have been 33538 yellow.

I didn't think any Block 50s wore the 3-tone scheme (at least not in USAF service), but regardless of Hill I (3-tone) vs Hill II (2-tone), the vertical tail is always FS 36270. In some variations there is a small area of FS 36118 on the leading edge of the base of the fin, and occasionally you'll see some weathering that makes the leading edges appear lighter, but 36270 is the correct main color of the tail.

I'm assuming this was (mostly) tongue-in-cheek, but like much of what we do there's always some degree of extrapolation invoved - hence the qualifier 'exactly' in my original post. There are no public photos of Have Blue's cockpit, but it's a safe assumption it didn't have a wicker seat pan or a flower vase on the dashboard 😄

No worries, I guess we just differ in our definitions of "details" - my point was the 117 pit is different enough that you wouldn't really gain much using one for this purpose.

Other than a general configuration (seat, stick, panel, side throttle & consoles), it's doubtful Have Blue's cockpit had too much resemblance to the production F-117. Remember this was a technology demonstrator, not a true prototype. Seat in the demonstrators was the Stencel, vs. ACES II for the production fighter. The XSTs also lacked any mission equipment (FLIR/DLIR, etc) so the instrument panel wouldn't have had the F-117's MFD screen. Sadly both XSTs were lost and buried in Area 51 so unless the Skunk Works declassifies some more vintage photos we'll never know exactly what they looked like.

Agreed, haven't seen this before but either a sensor to detect incoming fire (e.g. IR signature of a missile exhaust plume) or semi-active countermeasures ("strobe" type effect to spoof IR seekers, similar to the ALQ-144 and other IRCM gear)

The consensus from subject matter experts such as @Flankerman is that the Hobbyboss Mi-8/Mi-17 family is the best by far in 1:72. Zvezda's kit is a decent model but has some major accuracy issues, most notably the windscreen. There are a multitude of detail differences between all the variants of "Hip" so you may need to find aftermarket parts if you want to model a specific tyoe/operator.

In 1:72 a resin conversion was done by Lone Star out of Japan (no relation to the US operation of the same name). http://lonestars.web.fc2.com/LSR7212.htm

PDF copy of the instructions is available on this kit's scalemates page (link below the product timeline): https://www.scalemates.com/kits/academy-12402-a-10a--103340

I don't think you'll get a definitive answer on that without taking your model to a wind tunnel 😄 If the canard is fixed, I would assume that the lower mounting location is generally feasible.

Depends in part on how the missile departs the airframe. Some types (AIM-9, AIM-120) are rail-mounted and their motor ignites before release. Others (AIM-54, et al) are "drop-launched" such that they separate from the airframe for a brief period before their motor engages. For somewhat obvious reasons, larger and heavier missiles tend to be fall in the latter category and are mounted on the bottom of the airframe (or pylons below the primary fuselage/wing).