Jump to content

Jens

Members
  • Posts

    1,854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Jens

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denmark

Recent Profile Visitors

6,140 profile views

Jens's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

1.1k

Reputation

  1. I have now been through 300 pictures of SL F-4Es, and 68-338 is a one-off it appears. The Hasegawa instructions are correct; the entire lower surfaces are FS36270, with the only exception being the leading edges of the wings (as can be seen on the slat actuators). The inner wing pylons are FS36270 with FS36118 leading edges too. It flew with tanks in either FS36270 or FS36118 depeding on the period. HTH, Jens
  2. There were three basic variations of the Hill scheme. Hill Grey I was FS36270 and FS36118 upper surfaces with FS36375 lower surfaces. Hill Grey II was FS36270 and FS36118 in almost identical patterns top and bottom. However, there was a third variant with only FS36270 lower surfaces - some sort of interim scheme. I will go through my references to see if I can determine which version 68-338 had at the time. Jens
  3. You mean you hope SAC releases another useless set of soft copy of the kit undercarriage that can be bent into nose weight lumps instead? 😜 Jens
  4. The fuselage shape IS fixed on the long-nosed Z-M kits. I was talking about the MENG kit. Jens
  5. It's nice to finally see an F-16B, however, the one pictured on the box (ET210) is a block 10, so it should have the smaller tail planes. Also, I believe Kinetic still hasn't corrected the fin base shape issue for the A/B. So close, yet so far away. Jens
  6. How would three unrelated builds help? It looks like you're just trying to increase the number of views on your own threads. And now to the original question... The Hasegawa F-4E/F-4EJ kits are dating from the 1980s but they still hold up pretty well. They are more simple than Z-M and Meng, but they are also cheaper. So far, Z-M has only released the early hard-wing F-4E. To build an F-4E from around 1970 and later you will need the Hypersonic slatted wing conversion. The Z-M kit, however, is the best of the three, having better shape, surface detail and internal detail than the other two. Meng has released a slatted-wing F-4E, but it is best suited for an earlier slatted-wing F-4E (i.e. up to and including FY69 airframes). The Meng kit ranks second with better details than the Hasegawa kit but somewhat heavier surfaces detail than the Z-M kit. Also, I am not sure the Meng aft fuselage doesn't suffer from the same shape issues as the short-nosed Z-M kits. HTH, Jens
  7. I don't have my J35D kits at hand, but www.1999.co.jp has confirmed my memory of the parts being identical in the J35D and J-35F/J kits. So yes, you can build an early Danish Draken from that kit. The fuel tanks and all pylons are incorrect for at Danish Draken though, and depending on the timeframe you would or would not need the RHAW updates. All of that can be found in the Maestro range IIRC, but I would source the fuel tanks from another (Danish) Hasegawa kit - I have heard that the Maestro tanks are either too short or too long. Jens
  8. That would have been an RF-4C from the 10 TRW. The colour scheme would be the South East Asia (SEA) scheme consisting of FS34079, FS34102, FS30219 and FS36622. It most likely looked something like this: https://www.airhistory.net/photo/194405/64-1081 HTH, Jens
  9. I believe the D models had untinted windshields because they had a HUD installed. Jens
  10. Airfix isn't wrong. At least not when it comes to the RDAF Mk. 90B MRH. I just checked my reference pictures, and the bolts are there on the real thing. It might be a BEPR blade MRH. I doubt it's unique to the Danish ones. Jens
  11. As for the new Kinetic F-16AM, please note that the tail fin base in incorrectly shaped (way too much box shape) for an A/B and AM/BM model. Jens
  12. I just measures the resin parts in my kit, and the attachment tap is 1.2 mm. The pour stub is smaller though, so perhaps you just measured the wrong place. As for the centre of the hole it should be in the centre of the original exhaust pipe. Otherwise it would not fit the manifold. These two things can hardly be called errors from Eduard. Jens
  13. What is it precisely you claim is a fault here? I only see things an unaware modeller will make a mistake about. Jens
×
×
  • Create New...