CT7567

This isn't entirely accurate. The dorsal airbrake of the F-15 underwent several changes over time, but they don't correspond precisely to the sub-types. Prototypes & Pre-production/FSD airframes (FY 71-72 serials) originally featured a "short" airbrake design - trailing edge ending at roughly the same point as the aft end of the curved fairings that blend the wing root and house the gun (starboard) and IFR receptacle (port). For the bulk of production A/B (73-0085 through 77-0168) the airbrake was extended aft, ending approximately at the point where the engine "bulges" begin. Initially the enlarged airbrake had an external "fin" running its full length. At some point during A/B production the airbrake fin was deleted, and a "finless" version of the long airbrake seems to have been used for most A/Bs and all C/D production. Some A/Bs were also retrofitted with the later airbrake, however the early version could still be found on a few F-15A/Bs at least as late as the early 2000s. It's thus possible to find A/Bs with all three airbrake types, but if you have a specific serial number you can at least verify whether it has the short or long version. Finned/finless would require a photo to confirm, but for all but the very early airframes the odds favor finless. Another more definitive difference between the A/B and C/D - albeit one not easy to determine in most cases - is the main wheels. Early Eagles featured main landing gear wheel hubs with 12 holes, originally painted black. For C/D production a revised wheel design was used with 8 holes in the hubs which were typically white.

I'll let others with better/more complete info chime in on the various detail colors (or should that be colours for a GR.1?) but the gray/green camouflage was Dark Sea Gray and Dark Green. I don't have the full BS4800 numbers committed to memory (they don't follow an intuitive logic the way FS595 or RAL do), but 638 is the correct "last 3" for the gray. A great resource for cross-matching BS4800 and various color systems from many nations/eras to available hobby paints is the IPMS Stockholm site: IPMS Stockholm Color Cross-Reference (UK Colors) Scroll down to the "postwar" section for what you need.

Seems a little later than '77, but it's your model 😄 In 1982 during the height of the original toy line's run Kenner re-released the X-Wing with "battle damage" stickers. A battle-damaged TIE followed in 1983: Battle Damaged X-Wing Battle Damaged TIE

For some additional colors & markings info you might want to check out Begemot's 1/72 Forger set. They post the instruction manuals online, which include fairly detailed notes on the various options included on their sheets. Begemot Yak-38 1/72 Decals

This is probably a decent placee to start, but you may also get some helpful info from the auto subforum - since the "candy apple red" you're shooting for is a traditional car finish (as was the inspiration in the first film!). I'm not enough of an Iron Man fan to give you an exact match, but I can offer a few general suggestions. First, the type of model you have will drive some considerations about the finish. If it's a plastic or resin kit you're pretty free to use any paint you prefer, but if the kit is molded in a soft vinyl material you have to be more careful about compatability of paint. Since the red finish is a metallic color, a spray finish will give you much better results than brush painting. If you look closely at a metallic paint you can see the individual "flakes" of metallic pigment that are suspended in a translucent binder. Depending on the exact finish, there may be several of these translucent layers over a base color and/or primer. Unless your model is extremely large it probably won't be necessary to do more than a 2-coat finish, since the "layered" appearance doesn't really scale down. In addition to checking the other forums here, I'd suggest two other sites: Starship Modeler Probably the single best sci-fi specific modeling site I've found. Things tend to focus on the major sci-fi media franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek) but there is an abundance of other work including superhero models like yours. Replica Prop Forum (aka The RPF) This is a great source of techniques and reference info from people building both scale models and 1:1 props and costumes from all sorts of movies and TV shows. You can try looking under both the modeling subforum and the costuming section, as several folks have researched the finish to build their own full-size Iron Man armor. Hope all of the above is helpful, and you come back here to share what you've found and how your model progresses!

The ESCI F-16A represents an early production model (Block 1/5/10 with the small stabilators, Block 15 for later tooling with the enlarged stabs). Aside from the general lack of detail in the cockpit, the kit seat is a Stencel (only used in FSD airframes) rather than the ACES II of production Vipers. As others have already noted, the shape of the decking aft of the seat is more accurate in Revell's kit but this did not vary significantly beteren versions in the actual aircraft.

No need to be overly harsh on yourself, you just pressed on cutting plastic - which is what it's all about, right? Apparently in early "captive carriage" tests of the M-12/D-21 pair, there were aerodynamic covers placed over both the nose intake and the exhaust of the drone: Per the Wikipedia article these were abandoned for later launch tests because there was no safe and reliable way to detach them at Mach 3 🔥😨🔥 (those who know the program's history understand already that "safe and reliable" for this mating was unfortunately never really achieved). If you'll pardon a bit more digression while on the subject of the D-21, for those who haven't seen it, the late great Phil "Bondo" Brandt built the B-52 "Senior Bowl" drone mother ship in 1/72 as published on Hyperscale circa 2002: http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/seniorbowlpb_1.htm

If you're stockpiling aftemarket for this build, you may want to check out an imminent release from Caracal Models. Their latest decals include a couple of Blackbird family sheets, as well as stencils. The "early" set includes an M-21 so you can stick with your build plan. http://www.caracalmodels.com/cd72088.html (No affiliation with said company or their products other than having been a satisfied customer in the past)

"Not so bad" is quite an understatement from the quality of your clear cast part shown here! Can you elaborate on your process and materials? It appears you have a 2-part silicone mold, I'm curious what clear resin product you're using and whether you're using a pressure chamber or other methods to get such a pristine part.

Jure is correct - while the early B-52s (A through D) shared J57 engines with the G, there were various detail differences that make the F model's nacelles unique to that variant. I can't speak to quality or accuracy, but in addition to the Golden Dragon set linked above, a conversion was also done by Buff Master Designs: Buff Master B-52F conversion I understand BMD and Golden Dragon may be related companies but have confirmed that their products are different, at least in some cases (late B-52 external tanks).

Haven't built this particular kit but I can offer some general advice on weighting/balancing (with advance apologies to my Physics instructors for any inaccuracies in terminology): The farther away from the center of gravity (CG) the weight is added, the less actual weight (force of gravity) you need to add to achieve balance. Basically, the balacing force (torque) is equal to the weight multiplied by the length of the lever arm (distance from CG). In most models you don't have to be too picky about this, but in subjects where space is limited (e.g. glazed nose WWII bombers) or total weight is critical (resin kits with unreinforced gear) paying attention to where the weight is placed can be just as important as how much to add. The best way to be sure you add enough weight before permanently closing up the fuselage is to temporarily tape together all the major components (including gear legs where applicable). Make sure you add anything large enough to affect balance, such as the rotor in your case. If you're really scientific (or anal-retentive) about it you can use a scale to measure the precise amount of weight needed to achieve equilibrium. As to the JGSDF camouflage, the pattern seems to be "hard edged" so your masking technique probably isn't as important as choosing the sequence of colors that will require the least amount of masking. Since the black areas are essentially small "slivers" compared to the brown and green, it makes sense to paint and mask the black areas first. Between the green and brown is probably dealer's choice as they cover roughly equal areas - you may decide which to do 2nd based on whichever of the two will be easiest to mask off based on the areas of the airframe they cover.

I was indeed using the term "semi-public" in comparison to Farnborough, not referencing the attendance in Finland. That's awesome that you got to be there for such a historic display - the late 80s/early 90s were a relative golden age for the variety of types that might be displayed in one place before the post-Cold War drawdowns and return of more adversarial relations. Speaking of the Finland display, I recently read an interesting story that at least one of the Moldovan MiG-29s famously purchased by the U.S. to keep them out of potential enemy hands turned out to have been one of the same aircraft that had been part of the Rissala airshow in 1986! https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/ I've always thought Fujimi was the best *kit* of the pre-Farnborough Fulcrums - the optional open and closed auxiliary intakes are a feature I wish the later kits would copy! As for accuracy, Hasegawa is not as noticeably "off kilter" as some, but IMHO is very clearly wrong. It's simply inexcusably they've continued to repackage the same plastic for 30 years, especially considering they've invested in multiple separate and increasingly accurate toolings of the Flanker in that time (Su-27, Su-33, Su-35).

Getting the "black on gray" print to blend may not be easy, particularly if the paper is very thick. Printing on clear decal film would be the "best" solution, but since you're trying to keep things simple you may not want to spend the time and cash to special order decal paper. A good alternative, especially since accuracy of the typeface isn't critical, would be to look for generic black number decal sheets made for either military kits or railroad models (check your nearest railroad shop as they often keep these in stock). There are a multitude of these in different sizes and typefaces from various manufacturers, one example linked below. One sheet is expensive relative to a £10 model, but can be useful for numerous future projects. Microscale Black Letters & Numbers

Luigi - Given the wide range of readily available and high quality aftermarket decal sets, I would question the wisdom of buying any of the pre-Farnborough kits even at a bargain price just for their decals. Many of the "special" schemes are dependent on the shape and proportions of the airframe so would not be usable on a more accurate kit anyway. Although the Airfix MiG-29 kit is certainly not perfect, it is **tremendously** more accurate than any of the pre-Farnborough toolings. Italeri and Trumpeter are both unquestionably better in terms of accuracy as well as detail and fit, but the Airfix kit is far from "unbuildable." My list of "best" (post-Farnborough) kits wasn't meant to be exhaustive, just the "top three." I believe there are multiple reboxes of the Italeri (e.g Bilek) as well as other "derivative" toolings (e.g ICM) of varying quality.

There was an array of "not quite right" kits of the Fulcrum A released after photos were published from the MiG-29's first semi-public display in Finland in 1986. Unfortunately while the available pictures were good enough to show general shapes and layout, they lacked any definite scale reference and weren't sufficient to show details clearly. Still, because of the high level of interest in this new Soviet "superfighter" the kit manufacturers went forward with their "best guesses" - not knowing there would be a chance just two years later to examine the MiG in great detail at Farnborough. Unfortunately the legacy of that rush to market has lingered ever since, as manufacturers have continued to re-release and re-box most of those inaccurate kits. In fact I don't know of *any* companies that had their own "first generation" tooling that have issued a corrected kit (a few that reboxed inaccurate kits have since issued accurate toolings of their own). The '1st Generation' kits, generally to be avoided include: - Hasegawa - Fujimi (also reboxed by Testors) - Hobbycraft - ESCI (also issued by AMT) - Nakotne (reboxed by Mastercraft and Zvezda - note Zvezda's later 9.13/Fulcrum C and SMT are all-new and excellent, but as of 2019 they haven't done a Fulcrum A of their own - Tsukuda (reboxed by Revell and ACE) There was also a MiG-29UB two-seater of the Tsukuda/Revell/ACE lineage. Of all the above kits, this version is by far the "least worst" with respect to shapes and proportions. The best "post Farnborough" 9.12 Fulcrum A kits are: - Trumpeter (most recent tooling, consider current best kit) - Italeri (also boxed by Testors) - Airfix

Singapore was a customer for the air-launched Harpoon anti-ship missile (AGM-84), which the Block 52 F-16s are reportedly wired for, so that would be the weapon of choice if being used in that role. Note that Singapore's premier strike assets are actually their F-15SGs, which should also be Harpoon-capable. Factoring range/payload/loiter time as well as targeting capabilities, the Strike Eagles seem a more likely first choice for ship killing. Although nothing is public concerning their internal equipment fit, Singapore's Block 52 F-16s feature the enlarged spine originally developed for Israel and speculated to house ECM/"wild weasel" electronics. The Israeli "hunchback" F-16s definitely operate as multirole strike assets so a Harpoon-armed ship killer for Singapore is by no means ruled out. Assuming some degree of commonality in armament and role capabilities with the Israeli Barak and/or Sufa, some likely options from Singapore's known arsenal include AGM-88 HARM (SAM radar killing is a valid role at sea as well as on land), AGM-65 Maverick (potential ship killer though lacking range and punch compared to Harpoon), or various unpowered PGMs (e.g. Paveway or JDAMs - not sure which specific models Singapore uses currently).

It can be hard to distinguish the 3-color vs 2-color Hill Gray schemes on US F-16s, especially from odd angles or poor lighting. The best spots to look are the area between the nose cone and the leading edge root extensions, and the upper area of the intake (above/forward of the position lights). In the 3-color scheme there are demarcations in these locations between the lighter undersurface gray (FS 36375) and the medium gray (FS 36270) on the same airframe surface, ergo easiest to distinguish. On the later 2-gray scheme as in your post, there's no color change because FS 36270 is used in the areas that were light or mediun gray in the earlier scheme.

From the base and description of the construction it seems like Dragon's version. Well put-together, any chance of more detailed photos?

The two pairs of missiles shown in your link are GAM-87 Skybolt air launched ballistic missiles - which were carried in tests but never operational. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt For an operational load in the era you want, Hound Dogs are probably the only realistic option (there may have been an early test with AGM-69 SRAM in the NMF/white scheme, but I believe by that time the fleet had adopted the SIOP camouflage scheme). Since there's no mainstream 1/48 BUFF kit (Sanger's vacform is the only other I'm aware of), understandably there are no aftermarket AGM-28s in the scale. The Hound Dog pylons were used well after the missiles themselves were retired so depending what variant and era are depicted in the HPH kit, those might be included. Contacting HPH for detail would help answer a lot of your questions as to what's in their kit vs. what you'll have to scratchbuild.

Sorry if I wasn't clear before, technically "the" JRs still exist as VFA-103. Although the previous Jolly Rogers, VF-84, are probably the best known today by virtue of their Phantoms and especially Tomcats, they aren't the originals either. The Jolly Rogers tradition has belonged to VF-17, VF-61, VF-84, and most recently VF- and later VFA-103.

The photo below makes the "B" identification definitive. The upgrade from B to N added ALQ-126 ECM fairings at the forward "shoulders" of the intakes, which are clearly not present on 151477 with the Omega tail zap: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_kok_collection/36928926211

After converting to Tomcats circa 1977, VF-84 was disestablished in 1995 (the U.S. Navy doesn't seem to care one bit about history & tradition when deciding which units get the axe during force reductions). Fortunately the "Sluggers" of VF-103 successfully petitioned to take on the Jolly Rogers' traditions, which they have carried forward to the F/A-18F Super Hornet since 2004 as VFA-103.

Haven't seen it in the flesh but per Scalemates the Zcvezda Foxbats are reboxes of the Condor kits (Zvezda having released the MiG-25P and MiG-25PU trainer). As reported above, Condor's kits are predecessors to ICM's version, and are probably a close 2nd in quality/accuracy.

All the above responses are assuming the true Hasegawa MiG-25, but recently a few reboxes were released with ICM plastic: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hasegawa-02213-mig-25pd--1004481 https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hasegawa-02221-mikoyan-25pd-foxbat--1023904 https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hasegawa-02304-mig-25rbt-foxbat-russian-air-force--1196610 The 1/72 ICM Foxbat family is probably the best currently available, but In most cases you can find better pricing on the original boxings vs. the Hasegawa rebrands. As others have stated, the original Hasegawa tooling is a "good for its time and the publicly available information" kit. Captures the general look & feel well, but misses most details. Notably the "intersecting circles" configuration of the ginormous exhausts isn't depicted, with the model instead having two complete exhaust nozzles in a conventional layout (this was an area that was obscured in most photos of Belenko's aircraft, and I don't think I saw clear photos of the real thing until well after the end of the Cold War). All that being said, if you're not too concerned with accuracy and don't pay "current" Hasegawa prices for it, it can be build into a decent model. Here's a fairly recent example: https://modelingmadness.com/review/viet/rybak25.htm

One other feature unique to the early prototypes is the lack of bypass ducts on the top surface of the intakes. This is noticeable on production aircraft by the 'step up' just aft of the wing root (the aft edge of which is actually an open slot to the rear). The original intake design is a continuous plane out to the leading edge.