Jon Bryon
-
Posts
946 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Jon Bryon
-
-
Oooh, if done well this could be fantastic! Only problem is FMK have terrible UK distribution - had to get the AT-3 from Japan ☹️
Jon
-
3
-
-
Thanks everyone for your kind comments. I appreciate you all taking the time to write a reply.
Cheers
Jon
-
1 hour ago, TEXANTOMCAT said:
Lovely work! IIRC it was released in the UK under the Pro-Modeler sub brand though. Randomly one of those local sell em cheap and pile em high shops near me had a stack of them along with (randomly) the Pro Modeler TA154
TT
Sadly the E model was never boxed by Pro-Modeler or released in this country. The G model was in a Pro-Modeler box and released widely.
Thanks for the comments
Jon
-
31 minutes ago, Scimitar F1 said:
Could I ask what type of foil?
Sure, it was Reynolds Heavy Duty Wrap.
HTH
Jon
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, franky boy said:
Stunning work Jon!
I’m not surprised it nearly drove you mad with all that masking, never mind the foil. I never new the Thunderjet appeared with a frameless canopy.
James
Thanks James. The F-84B/C/D/E all had frameless canopies, although they were retrofitted quite quickly to the E.
Cheers
Jon
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Scimitar F1 said:
That is a fantastic example of modelling. The foiling is absolutely spot on - is there a WiP somewhere and how do do you apply the foil?
Will
Thanks Will. The WIP will be in SAM, although I don't know how much they've included. Foil is applied with Microscale Foil adhesive.
Cheers
Jon
-
Hello all,
I finished this in mid-summer and my understanding is that it's about to be published in this month's SAM. It's Revell's 1/48 F-84E, a kit that was never released in the UK and I had to source from the US in 2003. It's a very good kit for the time with decent detail and fit; this is built from the box with only seat belts added. The finish is kitchen foil (aside from some extremities and canopy, which are paint), the chequers are all masked and painted, and the few large decals are by Aeromaster. The stencils are from the kit and were disappointing due to the carrier film.
Foil is a nightmare. This is the third aircraft I've tried it on, and I keep saying, 'never again'. I wish I kept to that
Comments are welcome and there are tons more photos at https://jonbryon.com/revell-1-48-republic-f-84e-thunderjet/
Thanks for looking
Jon
-
53
-
3
-
-
I've just ordered this. For those in the UK it came to £68 plus change including standard shipping.
Jon
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Sabrejet said:
Oops - my mistake! However a similar situation arose in FEAF: though non-drag chute aircraft were operated for a short time, the weather and generally shorter runways had the same effect. Incidentally my view on the photo is that it's shown without a drag chute at that point.
Good to know - thank you.
I agree with you on the photo, but was hoping someone else might persuade me I was wrong
Cheers
Jon
-
Thanks both.
The 45th TRS were, I think, based in Japan, so this won't be a USAFE jet. They seem to have had both types:
I think the only way I can resolve this would be a decent photo of 52-7366. What's frustrating is that a better quality version of the photo in my original post is probably out there somewhere...
Jon
-
1
-
-
Hello all,
I want to make this aircraft from Caracal using the 1/48 Tanmodel kit:
This is 527366 'Cilda' from the 45TRS.
My question is: Is that a large drag chute housing under the rear fuselage, or the earlier, slimmer and smaller ventral keel? I've found photos of 45TRS aircraft in this scheme with both types of lower rear fuselage and I can't make it out in this image with certainty. I haven't found any other images of this aircraft. I've emailed Caracal, and he doesn't know, and also tried to contact the son of the pilot who provided the original references, but without success.
Anyone have any good opinions on the matter? If it's not the drag chute housing I'll find another airframe - I've just scratched one for the Kinetic kit and don't fancy doing another!
Many thanks for your consideration
Jon
-
3 hours ago, Pete Robin said:
It's all got a bit confusing these days.
Passed my test in 1980 having previously no need to drive for some years. On the old paper style licence it had the usual classes etc. and also stated that I could drive 7 1/2 ton truck. Whoopee. Happy Days etc. Until I renewed my licence the last twice (photocard type). Not only have they removed the 7 1/2 ton allowance, they removed motorcycle entitlement entirely. Not even a moped. But I can still drive a tractor😁 and an invalid carriage.
It's not gonna make me loose sleep and I certainly don't intend getting on a motorcycle any longer but it goes to show that the DVLA are deliberately confusing us all.
Don't take for granted what you may have had, it disappears into the ether.
Regards
Pete
That doesn't sound right. You should still have C1 and D1 entitlements. All car drivers also got B+E added this year as standard, including retrospectively.
Jon
-
The above is correct, and remember that despite common practice, L plates on the front are compulsory, and if absent the bike is liable for a seizure and the rider for driving otherwise than in accordance.
Jon (black rat)
-
1 hour ago, JeffreyK said:
The frustrating thing is, they already hand made tooling for the Annetra kit - test shots exist already. What went wrong then?
J
1 hour ago, Stephen said:I don't know about vaporware considering test shots had been made but it is frustrating.
I know. It's been ages since they showed those shots. I don't really want two Hips, so the question will be: buy Trumpeter or hope for Anetra?
Jon -
I assume this will be a scale down of their 1/35 kit. Does anyone know how accurate that is considered to be? I guess the Anetra kit is vapourware.
Given the long-announced Mi-4 still has yet to be released, I also assume this will make an appearance sometime later than November...
Jon
-
Hi Arnaud,
I seem to recall in the past you might have been working on intakes for the Revell 1/48 Eurofighter. Did you ever produce these?
Thanks
Jon
-
2 hours ago, GiampieroSilvestri said:
From what I saw on the French modelling page the base kit is Kinetic kit number 48050 Mirage IIIE/O/R/RD/EE/EA with a Mirage 5 nose taken from the Italeri/Esci model.
Saluti
Giampiero
Interesting. I have 48050 and there are no wheels in it that look anything like those in the photo.
Jon
-
21 hours ago, GiampieroSilvestri said:
To show the problem with the wheels here is a picture taken from the French page showing the smaller wheels with the wrong aluminium wheels of the Kinetic model and the correct size wheels of the Heller kit with the right aluminium wheels.
Saluti
Giampiero
Of the three Kinetic Mirage kits I have, none have wheels that look anything like these. What kit exactly are the smaller tyres from? Because they're not from the Mirage 5, Mirage IIIE or F-21 kits.
Jon
-
20 hours ago, Steve McArthur said:
Radial Tire
Main 750x230 R15 Do=29.1-29.95inch, Df=16.90inch, W=8.8-9.35inch
Nose 435x190 R5 Do=16.75-17.50inch, Df= 6.42inch, W=7.25-7.70inch
Or Bias Ply
Main 750x230-15 14 Ply Do=745-760mm, Df=429mm, W=220-235mm
Nose 450x190-5 10 Ply Do=445-465mm, Df=163mm, W=185-195mm
This is super useful - thanks.
I have 3 Kinetic Mirage kits and have measured the main hubs and tyres. Note that not all Kinetic Mirages have the same main wheels.
1. Wingman Mirage 5F
Resin wheels - Do = 14mm (I measured 14.02, but don't trust that level of precision) *48 = 672mm (i.e. tyres are around 73-88mm too small, or 1.5-1.8mm too small in 1/48)
Df = 9.5mm 8 48 = 456mm (i.e. hubs are around 27mm too *large*, or 0.5mm in 1/48)
Plastic wheels - Do = to all intents and purposes the same as the resin wheels
Df = 8.65mm *48 = 415mm (i.e. hubs are around 15mm too *small*, or 0.3mm in 1/48)
2. Kinetic F-21 Lion
Plastic wheels - Do = to all intents and purposes the same as the plastic wheels from the Mirage 5
Df = 8.83mm *48 = 424mm (i.e. hubs are around 5mm too small, or 0.1mm in 1/48)
*NOTE THAT THE WHEELS FROM THIS KIT ARE NOT THE SAME MOULDINGS AS FROM THE MIRAGES!*
3. Kinetic Mirage IIIE (original IIIE/O/R/RD/EE/EA boxing)
Plastic wheels - these are the same plastic from the Mirage 5F kit above
I'm not going to worry about the differences in hub sizes. I would like to get tyres of the correct diameter.
Does anyone have any aftermarket tyres they can measure? I'd love to know if companies like ResKit corrected the diameter issue.
Thanks
Jon
-
On 8/20/2022 at 10:49 PM, VMA131Marine said:
I see this argument a lot and I still don’t understand why people make it. Most people want to make a model of a particular subject so the fact that Tamiya makes perhaps the best jet aircraft model ever with their 1/48 F-4B Phantom is quite irrelevant if the subject you want to build is a 1/48 Buccaneer or indeed any of the innumerable subjects not covered by the Tamiya range.
I am sympathetic to your point and that is the way I approach modelling: for me, it's subject driven.
However, it's pretty clear from the online communities I participate in that a lot of people are not like me (maybe a significant minority) and choose kits on the basis of quality first and subject second. I see lots of Tamiya F-4Bs being made on YouTube, FB, etc., by people who would never have done so were it made by Airfix rather than Tamiya, The same for the P-38. There were acceptable kits of these subjects before, but the number being made has exploded now there's an exceptional kit available. If Tamiya did the impossible, and made a 1/48 Buccaneer, my bet would be a significant number of people who never had any intention of getting one would suddenly be rather interested...
Jon
-
1
-
-
On 8/1/2022 at 6:08 PM, Sabrejet said:
52-6500 was assigned to the 405th straight from production (8 July 1954), and the photo dates from around that time period, when it would not have had the drag chute. Circa 1955, the 'U.S. AIR FORCE' script was painted on the fuselage, as seen in the second photo. Aircraft built to this standard were often retrofitted (at Farmingdale, IIRC) and so you will often find these machines fitted with drag chutes later in service.
I wonder if I can ask for your opinion on an RF-84F and the drag chute housing? I want to make 52-7366 from the 45th TRS (USAF) from around the 1955-1957 or so timeframe. This aircraft is on the 1/48 RF-84F sheet by Caracal with the polka dot markings.
I can only find one photo of this aircraft that shows the rear fuselage, but it's small and blurry. I *think* it doesn't have the large drag chute housing, but can't be sure. I'd love it if it did since I could make this using the Tanmodel kit, but I'm pessimistic. Anyway, I'd love a second opinion:
Many thanks
Jon
-
A UK seller on eBay has sold a few. He has one left last time I looked.
Jon
-
I'd be grateful if they released the IM canopy separately as I have the original release. Special Hobby did this for the MPM L-39. Not holding my breath though 🙂
Jon
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:
The problem here is that it does not matter what a modelling company does, I may...
The problem is that it doesn't matter what anyone does. No one has come up with a meaningful definition of what a 'type' is beyond arbitrary nomenclature. What's the parts commonality between a Mk.I and Mk.24 Spitfire? I don't know, but given the nose, tail, rear upper fuselage, canopy, wings, etc., are all different, it can't be that much.
That's what the discussion is about: what is a type vs a sub-type. You have your opinion and I have mine, but that's all it will be: an opinion.
Jon
1/48 - Dassault Mirage 2000-5DI/EI - Freedom Model Kits - release in 2023 (?)
in The Rumourmonger
Posted
Well the test will be whether they get the canopy right. That's the bit no one's done correctly so far, if memory serves.
Jon