CT7567

Sorry but this summary is not accurate. The first generation of Have Glass was a canopy film, HGII is a metallic (not dark) paint, and the overall dark gray is Have Glass V. See my post up-thread, with link for receipts.

To expand a bit and clear up your larger question(s), "Have Glass" is actually the code name for a series of programs to make the F-16 slightly more stealthy. The mods have varied but are best known to modelers for "Have Glass II" (usually without the numeral) or the more recent "Have Glass V." Read more about it here HGII is basically a metallic version of the F-16's standard colors. When new it's a very subtle, almost irridescent appearance (akin to the infamous "Raptor sheen" on F-22s), but when weathered - which apparently happened *very* quickly - the appearance was highly variable, usually looking very roughly like the airframe had been painted in standard colors with a heavy, mottled drybrushing of silver/aluminum. I haven't seen two photos of this finish look identical, but hand-brushing actually may present some advantages if you wanted to try it. Typical markings were the same as "normal" schemes, so pretty much any decals suitable for a unit that operated in this finish should work. Have Glass V, also referred to by a few decal manufacturers and other varied fans as the "Dark Viper" scheme, is the overall FS36170 finish (slightly darker and warmer than the previous FS36118 top color) that several posters above referenced. This was originally used on the F-35 and later migrated to certain F-16 units (mostly but not exclusively SEAD specialists, as was the case with HGII). This has a *very* subtle metallic quality compared to HGII or Raptors - to the extent you wouldn't be altogether wrong to ignore it and just use "plain" 36170 gray. Mixing small amounts of metallic or irridescent pigments into a satin clear coat over the gray are probably the best route to a hyper-accurate representation, but as you can see from the responses and links above, this finish is one that is tough to really nail down.

Quite a bit of variation in Syrian national markings depending on the timeframe: https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/sy^af-mk.html

I believe your supposition that the early jets were retrofitted with the updated seats is correct. Fortunately the headrest design for the two seat versions is significantly different (late model head box is wider and shaped differently), so if you can see the top of the seat clearly it's pretty easy to tell which is fitted. This shot of a FY 74 production F-5E is dated 1985 and shows the later seat in an airframe that wouldn't have received on the assembly line. https://nara.getarchive.net/media/an-f-5e-tiger-ii-aggressor-aircraft-parked-on-the-flight-line-6627b9

Don't have any firsthand knowledge of the correction, but my suspicion is that it addresses a similar - and rather subtle - issue of length/shape, similar to the 1:32 kit and correction by Zactoman detailed here: http://acc.kitreview.com/su27nosereviewjl_1.htm

Just picked up the U.S. boxing of this kit (No. 15995), which features identical plastic but - somewhat ironically - decals for two USAFE options, specifically the 48th Wing "D-Day" commemorative schemes with invasion stripes and checkerboard nose bands, with choice of yellow (494th FS) or red (492nd FS) trim. A few notes for consideration: - Overall fidelity of panel lines is excellent, on par with most of Revell's other "modern era" 1:72 kits such as the Tornado or F-16 (fortunately *not* the F-14) - Engineering is very clearly set up to allow for future releases of "albino" single seaters, with Strike-specific features including CFTs and pylons, rear cockpit, targeting pods, nose strut, and lower central fuselage plate (including main gear wells) all on a single sprue (E, appropriately enough 😄) - I wouldn't call it a "major" flaw, but as others have noted elsewhere the wing trailing edges are inexcusably thick. Sanding down the rear edges is fairly simple, but adding the corresponding taper to the cambered wingtips would be a tricky operation. - Another relatively minor fault is the AIM-9 "shoulder" rails, which are the LAU-114 type only used on the air-to-air types prior to fleetwide introduction of AIM-120s. To the best of my knowledge, all production F-15Es have used the later LAU-128 rails on ADU-552 adapters. The rails are available aftermarket from Hasegawa in Weapons Set V but this is an unfortunate miss by Revell to not provide correct rails considering they seem to have caught all the other Strike Eagle details accurately - While inclusion of a full load of three drop tanks is welcome, it's disappointing that Revell molded all three with integral pylons - fine if you want to load the tanks, but if you want anything else on any of those pylons,or just want them empty as is often the case, some delicate cutting will be necessary (and you'll likely be unable to salvage the tank afterward for use on another Eagle or an F-4 centerline). - Armament seems to be exclusively geared toward an early-service load, with AIM-7s, AIM-9Ls, and Mk 82 "dumb" bombs but no AIM-120s, AIM-9X, or JDAMS. LANTIRN but no Sniper is also consistent with this philosophy. - Speaking of ordnance, the quantity of Mk 82 bombs provided is somewhat odd: six total, so OOB you can only fill up one CFT or the other, not both. - Another time-dependent detail is the small intakes on the CFTs beneath the wings (part D75, one each side). These weren't present on the earliest production batches (as served in Desert Storm), so check your references to confirm if the parts should be left off. - Another small post-Desert Storm detail to remove for early aircraft is the GPS "dome" molded on the upper fuselage, just to starboard of the airbrake. Small and subtle enough that a few swipes of a sanding stick should take care of it if backdating is needed for your subject airframe. (I prefer having this feature molded in since it's been there for most of the Strike Eagle's service life). - The undernose antennae group seem to best match a modern F-15E, with a long, swept "sharkfin" style at the forefront and another "straight" blade in the 3rd position. Earlier configurations had the shorter, "square" blades in those two positions (as on the original F-15A-D models) so once again check your references.

If the difference between your 1:720 kit and 1:700 accessories isn't too much of a bother, and inferring that adding the second "frogeye" dome is no problem for someone already modifying various sponsons, platforms, radars, etc. then I believe your best option will be any of several Skywave/Pit Road Modern Equipment sets. Most of these heavily favor equipment used by the USN and JMSDF, and the 5" Mk 42 is included in sets I, II, III, and V (set IV is mostly European equipment). http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/misc/skywave/e1/skywave-e1.html These sprues were standard in most Skywave kits from the era, so if you have difficulty finding the accessory set(s) alone, you can also look for a kit that doesn't use the Mk 42 but includes it as spares (or cast your own extras after doing the frogeye mod).

PP Aeroparts did a pair (presumably the 100's?) as part of their Hawk update set. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/pp-aeroparts-ac740-hs-hawk-t1--230786 The same molds are now offered by Flightpath @DJPFlightpath https://www.djparkins.com/product.php?productid=17955&cat=283&page=1 It may be a false memory but I seem to recall C-Scale also did some in one of their conversion/update packages, but don't recall which set. At last check those molds are now owned by Hannants, with sporadic reissues in the Airwaves line.

Sigh... They couldn't do it in 1/72? 😁

If it's not blocked where you are located, Begemot Decals' website posts PDFs of their instruction sheets that includes FS595 colors and cross references for various paint brands. Being Russian (and not pushing their own paint brand), they generally provide reliable color guidance to at least give you a narrow range to search in your preferred paint line. http://www.begemotdecals.ru/showpos.php?lang=2&id=16

I can't confirm a release date but I know that the Testors boxing of the C/D was available by 1990 and the release of the A/B (#130) that includes a Greek option shared new/retooled parts that include the 'production style' pylons and tanks on Sprue B (the C/D stores and vertical tail were an additional part of this same sprue in that boxing, so while the release may not have been concurrent certainly the tooling updates were contemporary): https://www.scalemates.com/kits/italeri-130-f-16-a-b-fighting-falcon--145793 I can't verify from actual plastic but based on the instructions for various issues of #130 that Scalemates posts as "198x" the updated tanks & pylons were done the same time as the enlarged horizontal tail.

I don't recall specifics of Mr. Kinzey's evaluation criteria from the D&S volume but my general recollection is that he gives significant weight to the (perceived) "value," which you must consider it is based on (1) MSRP circa 1987, not the secondhand market in 2023, and (2) reflects U.S. retail at a time when Hasegawa kits were still relatively rare and reflected a distributor's markup and overseas shipping, taxes, etc. With those considerations the Italeri/Testors option was undoubtedly a "best buy" but I would dispute the assessment in today's terms (see my notes earlier in the thread for the comparison highlights). Also worth noting, the 1:72 "best kit" tabulation for the A/B/C/D Hornets listed in the D&S Aircraft & Armament of Desert Storm special (circa 1992) lists Hasegawa with no mention of Italeri - and though referring to the "production" kit(s) rather than FSD, the fundamentals of each tooling are the same. With both options for the FSD variant being OOP, availability where you are will probably be your primary differentiator between Hasegawa and Italeri, and/or as previously noted having the 2-seater option without kitbashing.

You are correct, the FSD wing change would be an addition not subtraction. And I agree 100% that since the FSD version exists, albeit OOP, in the OP's scale of choice, it would be highly preferable to start from one of those kits rather than making all of the changes to a production version.

Technically the slots in the LERX (Leading Edge Root eXtensions) are still there on production Hornets, they're just dramatically shorter - on the FSD birds the gap between the LERX and fuselage runs most of their length. FSD horizontal tailplanes also originally had 'dogtooth' notches. I'm not sure without a bit more digging but I believe not all the FSD birds had these (or some may have been retrofitted with the "un-notched" version). Other changes common to the FSD airframes and early A/B models (which may not be required depending on the vintage and accuracy of your kit): - No LERX fences - No reinforcing brackets at the base of the vertical tails - No external reinforcement plates on the vertical tails The first two of those are well illustrated here: https://aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0176.shtml

I don't have access to the kit(s) in my stash at the moment to confirm, but my recollection is that the Italeri/Testors "first generation" F-16A/B tooling in 1:72 included an accurate version of the Sparrow pylon as used early on by the YF/FSD birds. I'm not sure whether this is different from the "production" ADF pylon, but they are similar in general appearance. Note that Italeri later revised their F-16 tooling to (approximately) represent the C/D, with an entirely new sprue for the wing pylons so later Italeri A/B kits won't have what you need (Not sure of the date break point but most likely late 80s - for Testors boxings anything in the vintage yellow boxes should be good).

Italeri us your best (only) bet for the FSD two-seater in one box, but the basic Hasegawa tooling for their FSD single-seater was the basis for their production A/B/C/D family. The Hasegawa FSD kit was only released as a single-seater and IIRC wasn't designed for the optional two-seater parts yet, but it would be feasible with relatively limited modifications to kitbash a B or D with the FSD kit to get an early trainer. Speaking of borrowing parts from other kits, @theplasticsurgeon noted above that the FSD (and I believe also early production) Hornets used differently shaped drop tanks, which I've seen referred to as an "elliptical" style - oval in profile, vs. the later and more conventional cylinder with tapered ends. Been a while since I've checked the stash for these but I believe they are accurately depicted in the Fujimi kits (all of their boxings).

That Blue Angels boxing seems to be the old/new again Sunny/Entex mold - I hadn't realized it was ever in production during the Academy era. In fact scalemates has a listing for it showing a bagged kit, labeled as being manufactured specifically for the Blue Angels (???), circa 1987: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/minicraft-model-kits-1605ba-blue-angels-f-18-hornet--1432329 In any case as previously noted, anything but a Minicraft-Hasegawa is best avoided for the FSD birds. Agreed that Revell seems to be sitting on some quality Monogram molds of rare and well-done Snap-Tites (I have the Marauder in the stash). They seem to be content to keep reissuing the Tomcat and Hornet with stickers for the kiddo market instead.

I think the simple answer is "it depends." Generally when a photoetch manufacturer indicates their parts are for a certain kit, they are designed (size and shape) to fit that kit. Theoretically if every kit were an exact scaled down replica of the 1:1 original then the parts would be interchangeable for any other kit manufacturer. But as you're no doubt aware, every kit manufacturer does the same subject and scale a bit differently, so in reality there are subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) differences in the design of the parts. Cockpits tend to be subject to more variation than the overall airframes, since the differences in thickness of plastic and parts engineering have a lot more "allowance" for variations in the interior without being obvious. Without test fitting to a specific kit, there's no guarantee whether parts designed for Hasegawa will fit Revell, Airfix, or any other manufacturer's version. That said, for cockpits if you really want to make the parts work for the kit you prefer, since the photoetch parts give you the detail you want, it's generally possible to modify the kit parts or scratchbuild generic supporting parts that will work as a substructure for the PE. Worst case scenario would be if the PE you have is too large, in which case you'd have to shave the inside of the kit fuselage and/or trim the PE, but the variations in 1/72 should generally be only a matter or a millimeter or two.

None of the kits is perfect, especially judged by 40+ years of improvements in kit technology, but I would give Hasegawa/Minicraft* the edge if you can find their FSD tooling for a reasonable price. Having both the Hasegawa and Italeri FSD boxings I can say definitively that a build review for the 'current' version of production legacy Hornet from either manufacturer will give you all the major pros and cons for their FSD kits. In short, Hasegawa is preferable for recessed panel lines, slightly better fit (albeit with somewhat more difficult engineering in regard to parts breakdown), and generally better - though not outstanding - detail. *Minicraft's convoluted history as a reboxer of toolings "by others" makes the tale of the Hornet more complicated than most of ther line. When the FSD tooling was current they were reboxing Hasegawa kits, before Hasegawa products were widely distributed on their own in overseas markets: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/minicraft-hasegawa-01154-mcdonnell-douglas-f-18-hornet--136701 For most of the 80s-90s, Minicraft was partnered with Academy (not sure of the exact business relationship but I believe this was a global production setup, i.e. all products from that timeframe were co-branded). In that era I don't believe there were any Minicraft or Academy Hornets. Circa late 90s-early 2000s, Academy and Minicraft split and there were apparently some awkward products resulting from that divorce. The Academy/Minicraft B-24 family had been a beautiful co-production, but when Minicraft released its 'single parent' Liberator after the breakup it was clearly based on the same tooling but not the exact same plastic (along the lines of a vintage Academy clone of one of Hasegawa's kits). The Minicraft F-18s produced with their own branding revived the better-off-forgotten Sunny/Entex molds, thus becoming one of the worst available Legacy Hornet kits - while ironically former partner Academy was meanwhile creating their all-new F/A-18 family that have become the best in scale for the A/B/C/D versions. As to @tempestfan's comment to "never disregard a Monogram Snap-Tite" - this is sage wisdom, as certainly Revell never have 😄 The overall shapes are quite accurate, hence other than the many simplified details and several scale compromises to allow for snap-together construction, it's actually quite a good replica of the FSD airframe. Sadly that means it bears nothing but a casual family resemblance to the F/A-18E it's intended to represent from Top Gun: Maverick in the latest boxing: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-04965-mavericks-f-a-18-hornet--1260329

I'm not familiar with the term "pre-amplifier bulge" but the only difference between the C and J radomes is the IRST chin fairing attached beneath - which was actually deleted on some Cs and Ds. To be fair to the folks in "camp larger radome" I did find a narrative reference on Joe Baugher's site that refers to a "larger radome" on the D vs. the C as a visual distinction between those two variants, but note: A ) in context I am 99.99999% certain he used the term "radome" in reference to the bulged (D) vs. non-bulged (C) chin fairings, not the main radome, proper. B ) This whole discussion started with reference to the alleged size difference between the B and C, not the C and D. A little more Google-fu turned up this blog which is probably as definitive as we're going to get on the subject: https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-radome-road-to-32-inch-radome.html?m=1 Quoting the key passage: VARIATION 6: 32" Glass Fiber Nose Verified on BuNos: 145313b, 146817c and subsequent aircraft. This was to be the production standard for all future F-4(B,C,D,K,M,N,S) Phantoms starting with Block 3.

Sorry but either I'm not following your meaning "bottom line of the nose contour" with respect to the radome itself, or I'm afraid your pictures aren't showing what you think they might. The profile drawings you posted seem to illustrate most of the Navy variants but are, in a word, a bit of a mess. From top to bottom I believe what they are intended to show are the F4H-1F (F-4A), F-4B, F-4J, and F-4S, but none of them are entirely accurate and the radome shown for the B looks like a mix between the F-4A and the later variants. Early prototype and production Phantoms were a mixed bag with several variations in the forward fuselage, but they had standardized by the time of full production for the B-variant on the 32-inch diameter radome. You can see several photos of the earlier version (and some "production" noses still with early canopies & intakes) at @Tailspin Turtle's blog here: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/11/early-phantom-iis.html?m=1 The first photo you posted seems to be an N (or J with a B/N radome, the IRST fairing wasn't on the J, and the ECM fairings on the intake "shoulders" make the airframe a J or an N; also note the radomes being interchangeable supports the case that the radomes are all the same). The second photo is a D, identified by the pronounced "bulge" unique to that type, but that fairing isn't what we're discussing (and is usually a separate part from the radome in most kits). In fact the C version used the same "non-bulged" IRST fairing as the B-model, despite them being empty on the USAF variants. I'm reasonably certain the radomes themselves are identical - I think any difference you're seeing between the length and curves of the black portion, excluding the aforementioned chin fairings, is just due to differences in the viewing angle, distance from the camera, and type of lens.

OK, both of the above posts reference a supposed difference between the radomes of the F-4B and F-4C/D. Can either of you please clarify and quote a source for this? I know the prototype and pre-production F4H-1/F-4As had smaller radomes, but those are not available as kits and differ from the B. The radar equipment *inside* the nose radome is different between the B and USAF versions, and the undernose fairings vary, but none of my references on the Phantom describe any difference in the overall size or shape of the nose radome between the various "short nose" production variants (B, C, D, J, N, or S). Also, to the best of my knowledge all manufacturers that offer a B and also any later USAF or USN "non-gun/non-recon" versions share common tooling for the radome parts for all the relevant variants.

Great info but tose are the "first generation" ferry tanks I alluded to above, so not the same as what the OP is seeking for the "Harrier II" family. Digging a bit further, I believe the later drop tanks may actually be a variant of the USN/USMC 300 (US) gallon Aero-1 series of tanks. @Tailspin Turtle has, as with so many subjects Navair related, an informative blog on the subject, though on quick scan I did not see a definite confirmation these are precisely the same as the GR.5/7/etc tanks. http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/07/douglas-low-drag-external-fuel-tanks.html?m=1

Interesting note on the Jaguars, not a subject I know much about offhand but it seems an odd choice considering Nigeria's inventory has never had much US-manufactured equipment. As to the "devil's advocate" question/comment, I would argue that in actual fact most of what is "known" in this hobby is based on (at best) secondary or tertiary sources. I'm inclined to apply Occam's Razor and lean more heavily on all available sources consistently quoting British Standard paint colours for the RSAF Tornados, having a government issued copy of T.O. 1-1-4 that specs the FS 595 Asia Minor colors (and a copy of FS595 itself with the paint samples), and the fact that RSAF F-5s "known" to be in that Asia Minor scheme in all photos I have ever seen published are clearly painted in colors that, while similar, differ from the scheme on the Tornados, over the possibility - which I readily concede as a possibility- that the Tornados are actually wearing the same FS colors as the Tigers. To me the key phrase from your original post is "based upon the Saudi F-5s" (emphasis added). The gorgeous scheme your late friend designed for the Tornado clearly adjusted the proportions and patterns of colours in a manner unique to the Tornado airframe. Based on the evidence available to me from quite a long distance from either the United or Saud kingdoms, I'm inclined to trust that prior research has correctly documented the colours were also adapted, using the nearest British Standard equivalents to their FS antecedent.

The Tornado colours quoted by @Selwyn above are correct, obviously BS standards for UK-built IDS airframes. Saudi F-5s were finished in a very similar scheme but to US color standards for rather self-evident reasons. The "Asia Minor" scheme, aka "spinach and sand," uses FS 34079 dark green, FS 30140 dark earth, and FS 30400 tan. Unlike the Tornado's wraparound scheme, the F-5s had light gray FS 36622 undersides. The same scheme was worn by F-5s used by Iran and Jordan.