CT7567

Appreciate any clarification you can provide. For what it's worth, in the captioned photo the underside color seems (IMHO) to be LAG. I say this partly by comparison with the "known" underside colors in the later Hemp/LAG scheme, and also with respect to the contrast between the underside grey and the "known" Dark Sea Grey upper color. I know from the V-fleet that DSG and MSG can often be confused for each other, but even with the underside largely in shadow there's a very marked contrast between the lower and upper greys in the shotnof XH174.

Quite an intriguing question you've raised here, @Rob de Bie. As my Skywarrior references are limited I'll defer to experts like @Tailspin Turtle on the definitive answer, but it seems to me there are a few potential explanations for the "blanked windows" on the port side of some apparent EA-3Bs that wouldn't require their presence on every airframe. First, it looks like most if not all of the photos posted thus far of EA-3Bs with the port window blanks are museum birds or gate guards. If the pedigree of the BuNo on display hasn't been confirmed, it's possible it was a TA-3B converted for display of a more exotic/"combat" type. Purely speculative, but it seems more logical than building new EA-3B airframes with windows that would never be used (note a "common" fuselage for Version production would have plugged these on 2 of the 3 types, as the RA-3B also lacks the "airliner" cabin windows). Another hypothesis is based on well-documented "discrepancies" in the P-3/EP-3 fleet. Particularly where the VQ Sigint types were concerned, the Orion fleet was notorious among spotters for using duplicate or spurious BuNos and a multitude of non-standard antennae & equipment configurations. As the EA-3B squadrons performed much the same role as the EP-3s (and "undercover" P-3 variants), it seems plausible there might have been false BuNos and /or antenna mods made to some Skywarrior variants at some point. Again, entirely speculative but seems more likely IMHO than Douglas punching holes in a fuselage that they'd just have to go back and fill in.

Is this an older or non-standard scheme? I had thought the green/grey Canberras wore Dark Sea Grey and Dark Green over Light Aircraft Grey?

Digging through Scalemates and other online resources, it seems you are correct. Rareplanes' Jet Ranger is indeed a complete vacform kit, with the somewhat unusual approach of molding the full fuselage halves in clear plastic. Interior and detail parts are molded separately on a small sheet of white styrene. I think I conflated Rareplanes' kit with the similar M&E Miniatures conversion. That kit also provides fuselage halves in clear (injection molded) plastic, with a separate tail boom (possibly resin or limited run injection mold). M&E refer the modeller to the Matchbox Kiowa for detail parts (interior, skids, rotor, etc). In 1/72 Italeri has done the OH-58D and AH-58D (Model 406 with differing armament & equipment fits), OH-58A (military 206), and Jet Ranger (civilian 206), all of which are above average kits, though with room for improvement. Depending on the type you want to model (e.g. tall skids vs low skids), cross-kitting may be needed to cover all the features.

Assuming you mean the 1/72 OH-58D, it's an original Matchbox tooling. First release circa 1987, issued as recently as 2015 in a Revell Germany box. Scalemates page: Matchbox OH-58 For the record: 1) This kit is pretty typical Matchbox quality, so the Italeri/Testors kit is preferable unless you just want a nostalgia build. 2) The Matchbox Kiowa represents the OH-58D (Bell Model 406), which is an exclusively military version. Compared to the civilian Jet Ranger (model 206/OH-58A) the D-model has an entirely different engine/transmission, and four-blade (vs. 2-blade) rotor, amongst other differences. Before Italeri issued the earlier version, there was a Jet Ranger conversion for the Matchbox kit (by Rareplanes IIRC) that provided full fuselage halves in clear vac-formed plastic.

From circa 2000 to present the 688s have not carried Harpoons, primarily because the perceived need for a long range anti-surface weapon was limited (and maintaining active stocks and firing qualifications offered some degree of cost savings). Basically like most decisions the U.S. Navy has made since the end of the Cold War, sacrificing a capability for money to waste -- er, "invest," in other programs. Fortunately the Harpoon stocks still exist, and since the capability to fire them (torpedo tubes and weapons software) hasn't been altered, there have been some reports in the last year or two that the powers-that-be may finally re-equip the SSNs with Sub-Harpoon. Harpoon may return to SSN fleet

No, but she did go "up, up the long delirious burning blue." Nicely done Streak Eagle. This one's on my long-term build plan.

Nicely done! Which kit is that? I see it has the "full length" airbrake with the external rib.

The prototype and very early service F-15s wore the short-lived "air superiority blue" scheme before the Compass Ghost Grays became the standard. This was FS 15450 gloss over 35450, so essentially a monochromatic light blue (with a grayish tint). This may be what the early Airfix instructions called for in lieu of the later grays, and/or might be mistaken as a low-contrast/monochrome version of Compass Ghost. As discussed in a recent thread over on ARC, the distinction between FS 36320 and 36375 is fairly subtle, and both are cool (slightly blueish) grays. In practice, for various reasons the contrast on some F-15s is slightly sharper than the official FS595 colors. IMHO, @Enzo Matrix's rendition above has it spot-on.

Unfortunately the early G/H photo I posted isn't the best clear angle to show the "kink" clearly. This isn't as clear a picture but illustrates the point better: You also just have to think about it logically: there was no change made to the internal radar itself when the EVS and ECM updates happened, so why revise the cover? If they enlarged the radome in some way, why make all the ECM antennae external blisters? Couldn't see your image post. Don't know how your interface may differ, but on mine there's a big button just below the text box labeled "Insert Image from URL." As long as you have a direct image link (vs page or frames), and rights to use said image per forum guidelines, easy-peasy.

Fortunately (?) I've only dealt with this as a theoretical problem thus far, as all my "heavies" are in the unbuilt stash, but I have a few ideas that may be of some help. If you can acquire a TV stand or other pre-manufactured shelving that suits your needs except for glass/clear acrylic, why not buy it and add the enclosure yourself? Another trick to display larger models in a case with only limited shelf area is to mount them vertically on the rear wall of the cabinet. Obviously this takes a bit of unconventional thought about the weight and strong (or weak!) points of your models, and whether/how often plan to change up the display, but it gives you some versatility and variety.

If I'm following your question correctly, you're asking whether the B-52G and H nose contours were modified when some or all of the "warts" were added as part of the various avionics upgrades made in the 1970s? Based on my references and studying various photos online, I'm confident the answer is no, but a bit of clarification is in order: the nose contours of the G/H *are* different from the A-F "tall tail" models. On the early types, the line of the forward windscreen continues straight down, curving downward at the tip of the nose then curving back to the "chin" area. On the G & H model, the radome is slightly larger and the extended length is noticeable by a slight kink in the profile, changing angle at the base of the windscreen. The rest of the shape is otherwise very similar to the earlier versions, but the "chin" area is slightly deeper and the contours differ to accomodate the aforementioned radome enlargement. From the time they entered service starting in the late 50s (G)/early 60s (H) up to the mid-70s the G and H radomes remained "as built." The Electro-optical Viewing System (EVS) was the first major update to the fleet, adding the two large bulges to the lower chin radome. Photos of this configuration are relatively rare as the additional ECM and OAS upgrades with additional bulged antennae were added soon thereafter, but the "EVS only" updated airframes have the same upper nose contour as the original G/H versions. B-52A - F nose contours: B-52G/H nose "as built": Post-upgrade B-52G/H nose configuration:

Great selection, thanks for sharing! I noticed in the background of the E-1B shot what appears to be an F-16N -;any chance you have a clearer pic you might share?

Potential bar bet material (whenever they re-open): is there such thing as a single-seat T-38 (that isn't an F-5) 😊 I suspect this would've been well before @Old Viper Tester's time, but you're correct about the reason for the back seat being blanked off. From the tail number, this is airframe 58-1195, which a bit of Google-fu indicates was the fifth pre-production aircraft (so theoretically, a YT-38A). This bird and 58-1192 were used by the USAF Flight Test Center for Category I stability & control tests at Edwards circa 1960. At least two other of this quasi-prototype batch also had the single-seat mod at one time, including 58-1194 and the first prototype 58-1191 during spin tests. My first google searches turned up one photo showing 58-1195 with the blanked canopy, unfortunately I didn't get the bookmark and haven't been able to relocate the link 😕 Interstingly, later in its life 58-1195 (and some others including 58-1194) was converted to QT-38 drone configuration and used for target testing by the U.S. Navy at NAS China Lake. It appears the rear pit was still blanked off at this time:

Even with a robust ckear coat and gentle masking, trying to mask over any decal is problematic at best - it's far too easy to pull up the decal since its adhesive is weaker than any paint. It's hard to tell for certain from Syhart's instructions whether the yellow pinstriping is at the edge of the yellow/silver demarcation, or if there's a slim area of black outside the yellow trim. In the latter case I'd suggest painting the silver and black, then applying the yellow decal trim. If the yellow is the color separation line, you may have an extra problem beyond just masking accurately: if there is black paint beneath the yellow decal it will likely show through the lighter color, so unless you can align the decal very precisely you may see a "two tone" effecr in the yellow stripe. For this reason, my suggestion would be to first paint the yellow area, then mask with very fine line tape, followed by masking and painting the two main colors (with the fine line already setting your demarcation).

The only "special" scheme I'm aware of Pave Lows ever wearing was the temporary desert scheme they adopted during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Two color brown and sand, with a small set of "invasion stripe" white bands around the tail boom. These are truly historic aircraft as they acted as pathfinders for the Apache attack group that fired the first shots of the war, taking out key radar & C3I sites. Pave Low markings have always been minimalist. The only aftermarket I'm aware of have been various sheets from Wolfpak decals, most if not all of those being in the late-service overall FS36118 gray scheme.

Such a small thing most will never notice, I'm sure. And I don't know which markings you have planned (obviously pre-Falklands), but maybe you can explain it away as a little known, unsuccessful trial mod of bi-directional intakes for rapid yaw 😆

It may be just an optical illusion, but am I seeing correctly that the drooped auxilary intake doors you've added are "hinged" at the trailing edge of the openings on the starboard side (vs leading edge on the port intake)? May well be too far along and too small an issue if I have spotted a glitch. Overall you're doing great justice to a classic kit!

I don't have a sample of AS-16 to test and confirm the actual color, but Tamiya clearly intends for it to match FS36622 light gray ("camouflage gray" in Testors parlance). This is the very light gray color - often mistaken for white - used on the undersides of the USAF Southeast Asia (Vietnam era) camouflage scheme. Flat Light Gull Gray is FS36440*, the warm light gray used over white on U.S. Navy types from the late 50s to the end of the Cold War. 36440 is significantly darker than FS36622, although both colors are similar hues (warm, with an almost brown cast in certain light). Though the colors themselves are not accurate matches due to monitor differences, this comparison gives you an idea of the magnitude of difference between FS36440 and FS36622: Colorserver FS36622 :: FS36440 Even if you're purposely using lighter colors than the FS595 standards for "scale effect," a Phantom painted FS36622 will still appear too light (IMHO). If you're using all Tamiya AS sprays, this would be further exacerbated by the fact Tamiya's Insignia White AS-20 is actually a very light gray (darker than the intended FS 17875, which is a slightly "off" white). Bottom line, if you need a spray can match for FS36440 I would recommend Model Master (get it while you still can) or your best match for British Standard Light Aircraft Grey as a close equivalent. *I've used the FS number for matte Light Gull Gray (36440) in this response. In reality, gray over white Phantoms wore gloss Light Gull Gray FS16440 (the first digit of the FS number denotes the finish). For practical modeling purposes, the matte and gloss versions of LGG are the same color, with differing gloss or matte finishes. From a modeling standpoint the only difference would be whether you need any additional clear coats for decaling and/or final preferred finish. Technically there are some very subtle differences in hue between 36440 and 16440, and the standard for the color itself is reported by some sources to have changed over time, but all that is extraneous to your question.

Just going from what's currently available (in stock) at the H, there are sheets from Xtradecal and Model Art that have what you need: Model Art RAF Serials Xtradecals RAF Black Serials Modeldecal Sheet #36B is another option (albeit OOP).

Sounds like spares from another kit will be your best option for the "slime lights," but there were dedicated aftermarket sheets done by Revell (Promodeler), Detail & Scale, and CAM Pro that covered these for various types - all long OOP, unfortunately. Also, some of Superscale's sheets for the EF-111 and F-111 included the strip lights - though ironically not their EF-111/gray F-111 data sheet. Again, all OOP but options to look for on the secondary market. As @72modeler noted, Hasegawa's "old tool" F-4E/F/EJ family includes a pair of baggage pods in each boxing, if you happen to have one handy. Otherwise PJ's resin is probably the quickest route. Re: finishes, I'm not yet converted to a "modern" (read: post Model Master) paint line, but a couple of notes on the paint colors: First, FS36495 light gray is a color you should find in several lines that is a much closer match to FS36492 than light gull gray (36440). If you're OK with spray cans, Tamiya light gray surface primer is a pretty close match to the two, closer IMHO to 36492. Also, with all due respect to Scott Van Aken's build article, I'm 99.9% sure that the color he used on the vertical fin leading edge is actually FS36375 light ghost gray, not FS 35237. Note this is a low contrast difference with the leading edge slightly lighter and warmer than the overall Dark Ghost Gray 36320 (same two colors as the "compass ghost" scheme worn by the F-15 and various other types). FS35237 blue gray is best known as the darkest shade in Navy TPS schemes (where it appears much darker over 36320 and/or 36375 in those schemes).

The AIM-9s in this kit represent the AIM-9L/M version, dostinguished by the "double delta" planform of the forward fins. Notwithstanding the photo posted above, by 1984 most combat rounds would have been FS36375 light ghost gray. The white body seen in the photo may be a training round or "old stock," the latter all the more plausible as VF-301 was a reserve unit. As the AIM-9s are made up of "off the shelf" components you can sometimes see a single body with different sections in white or gray. Regardless of the body color, the nose (guidance section) and forward fins of the AIM-9L are actually a dark anodized steel color, not black. I'm not sure about the Sparrow variant in use at this time (F or M) vs what's represented in the kit, but the bodies would have been either white or FS 36375 gray and the nose sections are an off-white ceramic (color can vary from pure white to a light gray or beige color, depending on age and exposure).

I'm not sure how much the structural integrity will be a concern if you cut out the entire canopy and glare shield area, but the big advantage of that approach is moving the major seams to joints you can reinforce, fill, and sand without having to be as concerned with the finish as you will with glazing the individual windows. Also worth noting, the side windows have a pronounced outward bulge so you'll probably want to use those parts from the conversion regardless how you handle the rest. Progress thus far looks great, I look forward to your continued progress.

You are confusing the "Aegean Blue" scheme with the later F-16 multi-tone gray scheme (sometimes referred to as "Ghost"). The Aegean Blue scheme was worn by French and Greek Mirage F.1s, and adopted as you describe by a select group of F-4Es. Colors were overall blue-gray above with aluminum/silver undersides. Radome and front of the gun muzzle fairing remained black. This scheme is seen in the video posted (although the colors seem to be filtered strangely, the blue seeming more gray/green than reality). Heavy fading/weathering may sometimes make this scheme appear to have multiple colors on the upper surfaces, but if the radome is black and the underside (gear doors, etc) are silver-gray then it's in the Aegean Blue scheme. I suspect the reference above to "Aegean Blue" being adopted on Phantoms circa 1983 is correct. The multicolor scheme used originally on Greek F-16C/Ds was the same three-color camouflage first worn by some U.S. Navy F-16N adversary trainers. Main colors are FS 36307, 36251, and 35237. In Greek service these colors fade heavily so it's rare to see photos that closely match the FS standards. The F-16s were first delivered in 1988. The upgraded F-4Es remaining in HAF service all adopted this new 3-tone camouflage starting circa 2000. Over time it has been informally referred to as "ghost," or "Aegean ghost," but despite inclusion of FS35237 blue in the scheme, it is *not* the blue-gray over silver scheme known as "Aegean Blue."

Are these decals from Twobobs, Printscale, or some other source? I can see your concern with the shades of the "Langley stripe," but TPS colors are usually tough to depict between actual FS colors, weathering, and "scale effect." One other note: I see you've added a pair of AIM-54s on the rear pallets with Paveways (GBU-12?) forward. Was this based on any references? I've read elsewhere that there were issues with balance/CG when the aft pallets retained a load landing back on the carrier, and even at the start of OIF/OEF three AIM-54s seems like a heavy air-to-air load for what would have been primarily strike missions. Very nice job, I'm looking forward to picking up one or several of these kits myself sometime soon ☺