Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Giorgio N

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Giorgio N last won the day on January 2

Giorgio N had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,907 Excellent

About Giorgio N

  • Rank
    Blabber Mouth
  • Birthday 07/22/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

10,082 profile views
  1. You don't mention if you use an airbrush or not, in any case I'd say that there are plenty of better paints when it comes to reproducing natural metal finishes. AK has already been mentioned, and same for Humbrol Metalcotes. I may add the Vallejo Metal Color range, that can also be applied by brush. The metallics from the Vallejo Model Air range also look nice, although they can't compete with the more specific metallic paints. And of course there's the Alclad range, airbrush only. Maybe the first "modern" metallic paints but still popular. The above for proper natural metal finishes, if you're interested in reproducing aluminum painted subjects, then many of the above will be too shiny. In this case my favourite used to be the old Citadel Mithril Silver, that is however not produced anymore. Today I use Vallejo Model Air Aluminum, that however then needs a semigloss coat to tone down the shine a little. Another popular option is Metalcote Aluminum not polished
  2. All aircraft wearing this scheme receveid it between July and September 1949 at 109 MU at Fayid. It was not a squadron level job
  3. Think there's a bit of confusion in the use of the term RF-4EJ... my understanding is that the original proper recce aircraft, built by McDD were designated simply RF-4E as all other aircraft of this variant. At some point 11 of the original 14 aircraft received an update (new radar and sensors) and became known as RF-4E Kai. Again, no J in the designation, just RF-4E. The designation RF-4EJ and EJ Kai was given as Rick said to the F-4EJ and EJ Kai that were converted as additional recce aircraft using an external pod. These externally are hard wing F-4E, with the relevant Japanese modifications. While I've sometime seen the designation RF-4EJ used to indicate the original Japanese recce Phantoms, I believe that this is a mistake from which this confusione arises
  4. Don't know about the Provost, but TWU Hawks were in Medium Sea Grey over Barley/Camouflage Grey. The Provost may have well worn the same scheme. On the modelling side of the matter, unless the formula has changed my experience of Humbrol 28 is that it's a very light grey and as such looks nothing like Barley Grey (using the old name here...). Humbrol 167 on the other hand is supposed to reproduce Barley Grey and is so named on Humbrol's own website. I don't know where the match with 639 of BS381c comes from, this is Light Slate Grey, that is a medium grey-green. If the undersurfaces colour is indeed Barley Grey on the Provost, then you should be fine with Humbrol 167. Xtracrylics also offer this colour but I remember this being a bit too dark in the past. Lifecolor also offer an acrylic paint supposed to match Barley Grey but IMHO looks nothing like it, If you like them, Gunze has a good match, but these paints are acrylics of a different kind
  5. Yes the EJ was the original variant of the E for Japan. The Kai (meaning something like modified) is the result of a Japanese update program, with new radar, ECM systems and other equipment. Externally they feature antenna domes on the wingtips and on the fin cap and a few other different antennas. Minor details that however Hasegawa previously decided to reproduce with completely different outer wing panels and fin caps in their kits. Guess FM will follow a similar pattern
  6. FM kits have never been cheap and this kit is no exception. It seems cheaper than the Tomcat, however even in Japan it's still 50% more expensive than the Hasegawa F-4EJ. Said that, IMHO the quality justifies the price. I'll personally wait a bit to see what prices are offered by other Japanese shops, but I'd really like to add one of these to my stash. I already know that I may have to pay something around £40 to have one, it's not pocket money but if in return I get a great state of the art kit of the Phantom, so be it.
  7. If you're interested in a good fitting easy to build kit then I'd suggest not buying a Tomcat ! The shapes of this aircraft invariably result in an assembly that is more complicated than with other types. If however you do want a Tomcat, something that I fully agree on (no model collection is complete without at least one), then of the options you are considering the Academy kit is slightly better. It also generally better from all other aspects. As others have said before, if you can find a HB kit for the same kind of money, then it's a good option. Personally however I've never seen the HB kit going for the same money as the Italeri or Academy kits.. the one in the link above is at a great price and I'd nab it myself if the seller delivered to my country (he does not). At the same time on Ebay I've seen the original Academy kit going for £20 or less and Italeri kits going for a tenner. The Academy "Bombcat" issue is invariably more expensive and at that point probably not competitive with the HB kit.. at least if you can live with the shape of the HB intakes. If you add another £10 to your budget you could hunt for a second hand Hasegawa kit, that is superior to all except the Tamiya kit... but it's not an easy build. Not because fit is necessarily bad, but the wasy the kit is designed means having to swear somewhat to get everything together, and if fit and ease of construction are your main concern you may not like this.
  8. The MoD's opinion on the matter seem to differ... In 1965 the Red Top was considered for adoption on the FAA Phantom and a document on this evaluation stated how without a complete integration of the missile within the weapon control system of the aircraft the Red Top did not offer any advantage from this point of view over the Sidewinder. And we're talking Sidewinders of 1965... Where the Red Top had a clear advantage was in range and most importantly warhead lethality. Of course this came with a massive increment in weight over the Sidewinder. The fact that cost of the Red Top was much higher was the final nail in the coffin for the idea. The same document included diagrams for the Red Top all aspect capability against several types of targets. At low level it could track frontally a Buccaneer at M 1 at very short distance and in certain conditions. The AIM-9L on the other hand has proven to be able to destroy targets of different kind in different situations, from the South Atlantic to the Middle East. This does not mean that the Red Top was a bad missile, simply was a "son" of its age and its technology. From what I heard suffered several reliability problems in its early days and the info here about structural problems seem to confirm this. Yes, they were missiles designed as main armament for an interceptor so they had to be able to shoot down strategic bombers, hence the relatively large size of missile and warhead and also the complete integration of the missile in the aircraft fire control system. From this point of view they are closer in concept to the Soviet missiles of the same era than to something like the Sidewinder. Or to the Sparrow, even with the different choice of guidance system.
  9. IMHO it's not a matter of smoke and mirrors. The matter is the opposite and is that the F-35 is a massive and very expensive program tht started in the "internet era". As such attracts a huge attention from mostly people who know totally nothing of the way aircraft and their systems are designed, developed, tested and introduced. And who seem to know absolutely nothing of how an aircraft work when in service. Sure there have been problems with the F-35 and some will still need time to be sorted. However this is something that has happened in most combat aircraft programs before, with the difference that we don't talk about it. Only the Hornet and the Super Hornet have attracted some flak in the past, only to be forgotten once in service. And mind, none of their performance issues has been solved, simply their users have adapted and accepted certain limitations. The F-35 is expected to meet some stringent objectives, that may well never be fully met. But what too many don't seem to understand is that many aircraft from the past never ever achieved similar objectives through their whole career ! I constantly see here and in other internet sources the glorification of types from the past that would have never even been built if their program had to satisfy the kind of scrutiny that the F-35 program is witnessing. Do people here realize that some of your favourite aircraft types never ever managed to satisfy the original requirements even when built in hundreds ???
  10. Having limitations on an aircraft performance envelope in peacetime is actually very common so we're not seeing much new here. And in reality most supersonic combat types can keep their maximum speed for a limited time for a number of reasons, mostly thermal. Again, as often happens with the F-35 program, there's nothing really new when it comes to this kind of problems. The difference is that this program is under such a scrutiny that anything becomes a serious problem never witnessed before
  11. My understanding is not that it's not reparable but that the fix proposed by the manufacturer is not deemed worth the cost, meaning that the users believe that prefer to live with the (potential) issue rather than invest in an expensive modification. I have to say that some of the comments in that article sound quite puzzling... like mentioning how the USN has a "historical distrust of relying on long range kills". Is this the same USN that pioneered the Sparrow missile and later introduced into service the Phoenix ??? And then worked on getting more and more range from the AIM-120 ? Another point that I found interesting was the mention of supersonic speed to enter a contested area: which aircraft is doing this today ? With tanks and bombs under the pylons and the consequent drag ???
  12. Ah ok, I had identified the undercarriage and noticed how the sprue differed from the ones in my box and hoped that the whole kit was new. So it's only some parts, guess I'll just build the old kit
  13. Giorgio N

    Two Bobs

    Twobobs decals are generally very accurate ! Most of their sheets feature subjects for which the designers have plenty of information and often direct knowledge. Even more trues when it comes to USN subjects. Their sheets are printed by Microscale, and this means thin decal film and perfect behaviour using this company's decal liquids. However being "proudly printed in the USA by Microscale" also means that the designers have to keep this into account... sometime registration is not great with Microscale and to sort the matter sometime the more complicated designs are reproduced as two or even more decals that the modeller has to overlay one onto the other. That can be a bit of a pain compared to a single decal... One other good aspect worth mentioning of Twobobs decals is that their service is very good: I've bought decals several times from their website and even the only time there was a glitch (got the wrong sheet sent by accident once) they sorted immediately without asking me to do anything.
  14. Nice model, well done ! Tanks were at 90° relative to the wing on the C. I'm not aware of any change in this feature over time, in any case during the deployment of these aircraft to Vietnam the pylons were the "original style", There are several pictures of aircraft from the era, showing this detail well, some of which from the same unit of this aircraft. Can't remember what the Italeri parts are like, you may have to modify them somewhat to have them perpendicular to the wings Edit: this link for example have a couple useful pictures, and also one of "Smoke II" https://www.i-f-s.nl/udorn-aircraft-part-2/
  • Create New...