Jump to content

Giorgio N

Members
  • Posts

    15,616
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Giorgio N last won the day on January 2 2020

Giorgio N had the most liked content!

About Giorgio N

  • Birthday 22/07/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Italy

Recent Profile Visitors

16,121 profile views

Giorgio N's Achievements

Blabber Mouth

Blabber Mouth (7/9)

12.9k

Reputation

  1. Without considering the many schemes used during exercises (and there were a lot...), the F-104Js carried 3 schemes: 1) Natural metal, with different tones in different areas, particularly around the tail 2) Aluminum paint over the fuselage, with the exclusion of the rear fiselage and tail area that remained in natural metal (with the exception of a few panels), introduced around 1970 3) Grey FS 16473 over the fuselage, again with the exclusion of the rear fuselage and tail area that remained in natural metal as above. The grey scheme was used by aircraft of 207 Squadron but later grey aircraft were seen in other units. With all three schemes, the top of the wings was in white and the bottom in grey FS 16473.
  2. Someone did exactly this a while ago: http://hsfeatures.com/venomtm_1.htm After reading this article I bought myself a Frog Sea Venom and a Heller Vampire but then never went ahead with the project. Later I found an Aeroclub Venom FB.1 so I abandoned the idea
  3. The document doesn't mention the missile position but there's a possible hint as states that the aft rails are extended first in a combat cycle. As the IR missiles were usually fired first (doing the opposite would have risked having the IR missiles deceived by the exhaust gases of the preceding SHAR ones), makes sense to have them on the rear rails.
  4. Pictures of operational aircraft I checked before building my Meng kit all seemed to show SARH front and IR rear. I have checked a couple of books to see if this was mentioned as a standard procedure but found nothing so I just followed the pictures. This was also the configuration generally used on the later F-106 Regarding the firing procedure, the MG-10 fire control system was originally set to fire triplets of missiles of the same type. I suspect that the aircraft later modified to carry and fire the AIM-26 may have seen this changed to couples as this would make more sense considering the kind of mixed load but I haven't found any confirmation
  5. They indicate the position of the rear fuselage frame
  6. Would these be enough ? https://www.super-hobby.it/products/Grumman-TF-9J-Cougar.html
  7. Unfortunately not surprised, Italeri are not new to similar errors. Another decal accuracy issue is in the British roundels in their first issue of the Sea Harrier, that are closer to the A type than to the proper postwar type. I'm sure that digging deeper we'd find more errors...
  8. Well, actually not really! WW2 types pale in comparison with the availability of camo schemes and markings of postwar types. Most WW2 types carried 3 or 4 schemes at best, there have been postwar types carrying 20 different schemes. Same for markings, both in variety and wow factor. Beside, in the end even with a varied choice of markings modellers seem to favour the usual 4 or 5, forgetting all others.. Range of types and versions? Again no comparison, many more different types were built after WW2 than during and the variety in design and configuration was much wider. The truth is that WW2 is culturally more popular for a number of reasons that go well beyond our hobby, it's become so ingrained in our personal and national conscience that everything WW2 attracts huge interest, the rest doesn't. Since our hobby is worth peanuts in the bigger scheme of things, we modellers just end up following the trend
  9. The decals in an Italeri issue of the Esci harriers will sure be better in terms of useability as they will be newer. The latest issues are also generally pretty good in terms of film and adhesion. Where Italeri decals do not shine is often in the accuracy, particularly when it comes to the stencils. These are often too big compared to the real things, quite noticeable for example on the red lines around the engine panels, that are very typical of the Harriers. The Airfix decals on the contrary are very good in every respect but as others have said their Sea Harriers are pretty inaccurate. Fortunately there are or have been a number of aftermarket sheets on the market. others have discussed the Modeldecals sheets and I can add the set that Xtradecals dedicated to the Falklands Harriers and the couple made by Microscale/Superscale. Sky Models from Italy also made a sheet with many aircraft that unfortunately are not always accurate. It is however interesting as includes a number of less seen options, like the Belize based 1473 Flt. GR.3s, the Falklands based 1453 Flt. GR.3s and the early Harrier Conversion Unit GR.1s. The sheet is OOP but worth buying if you see one at a decent price. Regarding using aftermarket items made for the Airfix kit on the Esci/Italeri ones, when it comes to the Sea Harriers there's quite a difference in width, the Airfix kit having a wider cockpit. The intakes are also designed quite differently so it would be very hard to use these. External parts (pylons, pitots) are of course much less of a problem.
  10. I can only agree on the positive comments regarding the Esci first generation Harriers, very nice kits and proof that things like crisp moulding and good fit have been around for many, many years... Regarding aftermarket, IMHO the weakest area in these kits is the cockpit that is very empty. The seats are also not representative of the real things, being more similar to a simplified Stencel seat of the US AV-8As. A resin MB Mk,9 for the GR and Mk.10 for the SHAR would sort the matter... keeping in mind that IIRC no resin Mk.9 on the market really represent the variant used on the Harrier but are all Jaguar seats. In any case I used a Pavla Mk.9 on one of my Harriers in the past and looked convincing enough. The problem in using an aftermarke seat is that the rear cockpit bulkhead is not correctly angled in these kits, so the resin seat may not fit in the correct place. I can't remember any resin cockpit for the Esci kits, I have vague memories of a Heritage white metal set but this would likely be hard to find. Eduard has a PE set for the Sea Harrier though and this should be easier to find. One other area that would benefit from aftermarket or scratchbuilding are the intakes that represent the side auxiliary intakes in the closed position, good for an aircraft in flight but not a parked one. Pavla had a set with the upper auxiliary intakes correctly open but it's unfortunately out of production (also included resin exhausts). Don't know if there's anything else around. IIRC Heritage also did a similar set but this is also long OOP Other bits: Master makes brass pitot tubes for all variants, I feel that the Sea Harrier in particular would benefit from one of these. On my Sea Harrier I'm also considering replacing the pylons with the Quickboost parts made for the Airfix kits, just because these are more detailed (and would correct one problem, the presence of a bulge unde the outer pylon that would only be present when the pylon is not in place... easy to sand the bulge from the wing but then the pylon would need filling).
  11. Sorry Rob, I misunderstood your post. The BL-22 pylons of the S attached directly to the fuselage undersides and are independent of the central pylon. Here's a drawing of the pylon from the parts catalogue: I'm looking at the section of the catalogue describing the fuselage, there should be the attachment points shown. However the fuselage section is several pages long and finding the right details is not a quick job...
  12. The information I have is different: they were certified and all units had them in store. However they were never used for the reasons I mentioned and were intended as "war use" only.. although they may have well not even been used in such a case. In any case all the official documents I have related to the 104S (flight manual, maintenance manual and parts catalogue) include the BL-22 pylons. With the exception of the ASA-M manual of course. I agree that the BL-22 pylons were only really used for show and there are a few pictures showing them with various loads. One shows them loaded with BL.755 cluster bombs even if this load is not in the list I have of weapons allowed on these pylons...
  13. Some are better than others. I seem to remember that the Sea Harrier and Hunter titles are brilliant, others less so (and some much less so...) Manufacturing limitations however do not affect the overall shape. When this is incorrectly represented on a model it's always because something went wrong during the research phase, be it using wrong information or misinterpreting correct information. Where the various technological limitations hae an effect is in the representation of the smaller details where things like minimum thickness etc. force the designer to modify things to make a kit possible
  14. I checked and have a copy, just send me a PM !
  15. I hope someone has and will comment ! Having the set already I'd prefer not to buy another one I'm aware of the Aerocraft sets but I'd like to use the set I already have. Buying the Aerocraft sets would mean adding another £18 (£12 for the intakes and 6 for the exhausts) to what is already a quite expensive kit. That makes sense if someone really wants an S.1 but since I already have the Heritage set I'd prefer to be be able to use this.
×
×
  • Create New...