CT7567

You (and Modeldecal) are most certainly correct - as seen quite clearly here: https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/tornado/gb/sally_t_3.jpg Thanks for the correction, and the note about ordnance carriage.

OK, I think it really boils down then to how accurate you want to be, how much (or little) aftermarket you want, and how creative you can get 🙂 None of the regular squadron options you get OOB with 04705 operated GR.1As or otherwise served a recce role in the era the markings and kit represent. However, as alluded to above the Granby GR.1As were very "plain Jane" markings-wise, and having ZA447/EA "MiG Eater" in the decal options, you would have everything but the recce-specific mods and correct serial to do ZA370/A. Or if you're up to a quick and simple custom decal, ZA372/E "Sally T" had only the name in black with no other artwork aside from mission marks - see dstorm link in my earlier post for photos of both options. Unfortunately it appears the GR.1A/4A conversion and detail set from Flightpath may be OOP, but you might contact @DJPFlightpath directly to see if he has any old stock or expects new production soon. Not sure of other options for conversion but the IRLS shape seems fairly straightforward to approximate with some appropriately sized bomb/missile scraps, and the SLIR windows are basically flush "airline style" windows, rectangular portholes with radiused corners.

Again, not diagreeing with the "wouldn't it be nice" sentiment, but you do understand that food manufacturers put the ingredients and nuttrition information on labels because it's required, right? I think until we have a Federal Department (or Ministry if you prefer 😁) of Scale Model Labeling, we'll just have to suffer through researching on scalemates. 😒

There are a couple of different releases of the "new tool" Revell 1:32 Tornado (and a few more with RAF options that just aren't labeled as such on the box), so specifying a kit number would help verify your options strictly OOB. I'll let others with more vast knowledge confirm, but I believe the RAPTOR pod wasn't carried until the GR.4 conversion, which has several detail differences from the GR.1, but aftermarket conversions (and likely decals) are available. Before the GR.4 update, the recce-dedicated Tornados in RAF service were the GR.1A variant. This has both cannon removed with the muzzles faired over, small SLIR windows on either side of the lower forward fuselage, and an Infrared Linescan (IRLS) in a streamlined belly fairing (not to be confused with the Italian/German ECR, which has more of a "canoe" shaped fairing). I believe Flightpath/David J. Parkins offers a 1:32 GR.1A conversion/detail set. The reconnaissance squadrons in the RAF Tornado fleet were 13 and II (AC), virtually any marking schemes for either being valid for GR.1As (check serials though, as I'm sure they had a few "vanilla" GR.1s and/or trainers at times). During Desert Storm/Operation Granby both squadrons deployed to the Gulf with GR.1As that flew operational missions (both unarmed and armed IIRC). They were relatively few and most did not wear the flamboyant nose art their brethren have made (in)famous, but that may work to your advantage if you want to depict a GR.1A early in the war when they wore basic codes and minimal stencils that are common to all Granby Tonkas. Photos of several examples can be found at the following link (note "comments" column identifies GR.1As): https://www.dstorm.eu/pages/en/gb/tornado.html If your heart's set on the RAPTOR, keep in mind the GR.1As were upgraded to GR.4A standard (retaining the recon mods and adding the GR.4 features). Around this time the internal equipment was largely supplanted by pods such as RAPTOR, but I'm not sure about decal options for this era (or whether any other squadrons began regular recce operations that might give you more options).

I don't entirely disagree, but part of the problem is how you define an "older or newer" tooling, particularly from a manufacturer's standpoint. Remember that most kits are still marketed to a general public that has far less knowledge of a given kit and its subject than the participants in this forum (I was amazed the new US boxing of Revell's F-15E refers to it as a "new tooling" because a casual customer would have no idea what tooling even is!). If you produce a kit that sits on a shelf for 5-10 years (increasingly rare in any brick & mortar retailer), how long is it still "new"? If you reissue a kit with a new sprue, or upgraded parts, but otherwise 1960s vintage plastic, can you call it "new and improved"? And if doing so makes it less likely that someone might buy the same plastic in a different box with new decals that was released three years *after* the "improved" kit, you can see why it's against the manufacturers' interests to try to be overly descriptive on this subject.

Offhand and going from memory, just in 1/72 new kits in the past 20 years include the E-2, V-22, F-35, Typhoon, Su-33, Su-35, Lancaster, B-24, B-25, B-26, and some fairly substantial parts updates including the F-15E/SG and F-16E/F. Not the same volume of new releases as manufacturers like HobbyBoss, but then Hasegawa has a much larger back catalog of existing toolings so there aren't as many subjects they need to add.

The J/K was Hasegawa's "first generation" Phantom, while the E/EJ/F tooling was the second (originating circa 1972). Although superseded in quality by the 1980s wünderkit, and not in the current catalog, the '72 tooling has made periodic reappearances well into the 21st century. To be fair, the older tooling does generally appear at a much more affordable MSRP, and I suspect having it as a "budget" option is at least part of the reason its retirement has never been permanent.

AMC era but this photo shows the "tape strips" in some but not all areas (most possibly overpainted?). At the root you also have a clear view of the profile of the slat relative to the wing.

Great photo! I would interpret that shot as showing not physical "ribs" but more likely (based on what's visible and already been discussed about the wing upper surfaces) as surface-level marks from the tape strips - adhesive residue, and/or lubricant from the normal slat operations that accumulates along each strip. Note particularly that the edges seem "soft," even accounting for the less-than-perfect sharpness of the image, and they all widen/lighten significantly toward the trailing edge.

ICM makes both 1:48 and 1:72 Foxbats, so knowing the scale in question may be relevant to your answer. This should cover what you need to know with respect to the genunine articles: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234964801-mig-25p-vs-mig-25pd-visual-difference/

Link to the "Euro wing" C-5A photo mentioned above: (Link to off-site photo) In addition to the unique upper wing finish, this is also a pretty good illustration of the OP's "slat strips" showing color variation on the leading edge that was still in its original white finish. I'd say that makes it certain they aren't finished to match the wing color(s).

Not quite. The C-5 depot maintenance is at Robins (note single "b") Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Georgia in the middle part of the state. Both city and base are named for General Augustine Warner Robins, the official name of the depot being the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC). The C-5 production line was at Lockheed's (now Lockheed Martin) plant in Marietta, GA, northwest of Atlanta. Likely source of the confusion is that the Marietta plant is co-located with Dobbins AFB (now Air Reserve Base). Not only is Lockheed/Dobbins the birthplace of every C-5, but also F-22s and C-130s (the latter still rolling off the line!). As far as depot vs production line being the source of the off-spec paint colors, I think that's the basic gist but I'm not sure it was WR-ALC responsible for the oddball colors. In fact when the C-5As were re-winged, the new upper wing sections were pre-painted in (nominally) Euro I. I'll have to dig up the photo/link later, but there was at least one wingset installed on an A-model with the rest of the fuselage still in the classic MAC white over gray scheme. IIRC, the replacement wing panels were in the "schwarzgrun" variant colors.

The diagonal stripes (sometimes on top as in this example, sometimes on the fuselage sides) are usually red/white/blue "command stripes" designating a squadron CO's assigned aircraft. These are also seen on at least one of the Combat Lancer/Harvest Reaper jets on the initial Vietnam deployment, but don't seem to have been used far past the first few years of service. In answer to your earlier question about blue vs green tail stripes, the photo you posted has some pretty severe color distortion - almost a sepia tone. Some quick and *very* unscientific adjustment gives a lot more credence to blue as a possibility:

Waited to reply on this since I'm just speculating, but I agree it seems to be protective finish similar to the strips on either side of the fuselage in line with the propellers (which is a known detail on other types to protect against shedding ice). I don't believe the 'handing' of the propellers would account for such a large area on the rear empennage on only one side, making the cargo door the likely reason. Noticing the protective finish also seems to be common for military operators but not civilians, my hypothesis is that this protective panel is for possible shedding of ice/debris when the cargo door is opened in flight for paradropping (at least in most operations I'm aware of, civilian skydiving transports aren't spending long periods at altitude and frequently have the drop door open, or even removed).

Technically the BRU-3s predate MERs, although the differences are subtle (and I gather in context you may be referring more to the general use of "bomb racks"). You have to remember that post-Vietnam, for all US services use of PGMs (Paveway LGBs and EO-guided weapons) became both much more reliable and comparatively cheaper. The mission of "carpet bombing" with large quantities of unguided ordnance virtually evaporated as a primary mission, particularly for any newer attack/ "fighter-bomber" types that generally had much better nav/attack systems coupled with proportionally smaller carrying capacity. USN/USMC attack doctrine still had some use of the MERs on Intruders, since those were by definition the air wings' heaviest hitters, but generally those wouldn't carry a full load (partly due to clearance & weight limits). By no means an expert but to the OP's question my recollection is that there are some detail differences between different MER versions based on the type of ejection systems and other mechanical changes, but for modeling purposes (as long as they are fundamentally accurate) the variant differences would be something only an ordnance troop would spot.

I'm pretty certain that decal and the original 'zap' are both based on the first publicly released photo of the F-117. In November 1988 the program was acknowledged for the first time (up to then having been speculatively referred to as the 'F-19' in enthusiast and mainstream media), but the only image of the aircraft provided was a front 3/4 view that was heavily distorted by the telephoto lens and obscured details like the intakes and exhausts. (Several companies released wildly inaccurate models based on this early image). I expect the guys that painted it on ZA474 chose this very intentionally since at the time any other images would have still been classified, and hence gotten them in more trouble than the hapless RAF crew!

+1 on the tissue & glue approach. You do have to be mindful of selecting tissue that doesn't have any added lotions, scents, or inappropriate textures (unless you really want the cockpit to be "lilac fresh" 😄)

Their OG Tornado sheet happens to cover ZA474/FG in 1:72, but that unit & airframe didn't make the cut for the corresponding set in 1:32: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/xtradecal-x005-72-tornado-gr1-f2-f3--149130 Not a familiar brand to me, and sadly not offered in other scales, but Paulus Victor does a set for both ZA474 with the zap and a contemporary F-117 in 1:144: https://paulusvictor.com/index.php/decals/

Actually I would say that for at least the port wingtip rail, it appears likely that it is finished in the newer "Have Glass" color of FS 36170. I say that because both rails on the port wing and the drop tank seem to be significantly darker than the 36375 stores (the only "known" quantity visible). Also note despite being in effectively identical lighting conditions, the starboard rails are significantly lighter than those to port. I believe the right wing rails are 36270 (supporting 36375 as the main upper gray). Tanks are typically in 36270 (for Hill Gray II) but can also be seen in 36170 for the Have Glass scheme (aka "Dark Viper"), with some swapping between schemes seen.

Looking a bit further, that IG account linked above has several more photos of this airframe. Unfortunately I don't have any way to provide a direct link, but particularly the post from November 23, 2022 has a high-resolution set of the lower starboard side. This shows what *seem* to be the ventral fins and the vertical panel behind the wing root as darker gray than the primary upper surface color (even accounting for shadows). [Edited screenshot per fair use] Since both of those details are FS 36270 in the standard Hill Gray schemes (I or II), I took another look and realized something obvious I missed on the first photo: the main bodies of the CATM rounds on the wingtip rails are known to be finished in FS 36375. Doing a quick "cut and paste" isn't 100% definitive but suggests 36375 as a close match for the primary upper surface gray:

This one is deceptively tough, as despite the lavish scheme it doesn't seem to have been photographed all that well (and something like 2/3 of the return hits on a web search are DCS skins or other replicas). This Instagram post is probably the best daylight image of the real thing I've seen, and gives some details that aren't immediately obvious in most shots. There is also a time lapse video and some stills out there from when she was in the paint barn, just be mindful the lighting in those may distort the normal appearance of some colors. Since this is a USAF show bird, it is likely (though by no means certain) that the colors used are standard FS 595 stocks. Without doing any digital evaluation, I'd ballpark the green as either FS 34088 or 34086. For the gray, my best guess is FS 36270 (the standard underside/forward fuselage color in the current USAF scheme). At first glance it looks lighter than the typical impression of 36270 on a line bird, but that's distorted by the heavier amount of light reflected on the full upper surface when all (or most) is in the same color - compare to Norwegian F-16s that wear overall 36270 and you'll see what I mean. Further supporting this case is the nose: that appears to be the same color as the standard scheme - namely a close approximation of 36270 but with a different sheen and variable weathering that makes each one slightly different but the average seems to fall roughly in the ballpark of FS 36176. The main gray on Patsy is slightly lighter, which would line up with 36270.

Assuming you're referring to the leading edge of each engine nacelle, I believe since the white over gray MAC days those have always been finished in corogard (or whatever equivalent coating the boys in Marietta used to meet USAF specs). Depending on weathering, lighting, and other factors it can sometimes have a warm tint that might be called "yellowish," but it's normally fairly subtle. @Tailspin Turtle has a great overview on the U.S. Navy's application here

A couple of things I ran across referenced (without any designation) a proposed re-engining with the TF-41 - aka the Spey). If that were ever realized would they be delivered in an oddly blue-green shade of natural metal? 🤔

Your post above references Google, which isn't what I meant by "public media" - rather I was referring to contemporary newspaper, magazine, or journal articles at the time any "F-100E" might have been an active proposal. Of course it's possible at the time the proposal was classified and/or only a private business matter, but that would have been extremely rare for an updated model of frontline fighter to get as far as having a designation suffix assigned but not be public in any way. Whatever the story is, it must be particularly obscure or I'm sure some aviation writer/researcher would have found evidence *somewhere* that would have made it to the webiverse by now.