Vladan Dugaric

ESCI 1/72 F-4 family has a mix of Air Force and Navy Phantom features: * Navy main wheels * Air Force refuelling probe door scribed on spine and no Navy refuelling probe door on right side of forward fuselage (easy to scribe) * Navy catapult hooks under intakes (easy to fill on Air Force Phantom) * Air Force cockpit with right rear console and no panel to cover refuelling probe compartment for Navy Phantom, as well as Air Force stick in the rear cockpit * Short nose intake scoops (as Giorgio mentioned), some work required to make faired in long nose scoops * When boxed as F-4S, port side air intake grilles around nose wheel well are not correct (but most manufacturers reused a common part there; they need filling and new ones need to be opened forward of the old ones) * F-4S and F-4E/F slats are identical parts (they should be somewhat different; again, most manufacturers did not make them specific to S or E/F/G models), also missing wing fence for slatted models (easy to make, F-4S having a longer fence than F-4E/F) Other errors: * Exhaust flame holders have 6 instead of 7 spokes and are about half the depth they should be * Wing pylon sway braces are wrong shape * Sidewinder missiles are not very good, Sparrows need cable ducts (easy to add) * No centre fuel tank * No Navy main gear trunnion covers on the top wings (easy to make) * No Navy antenna bumps on underside of wings and intakes (easy to make) * No option for open speed brakes (most 1/72 Phantoms have them shut) * No open blow-in doors on the underside of the belly (when landing gear is down, they are always open; most 1/72 Phantoms have them shut) * Sidewinder pylons are not accurate; they should connect to inner wing pylons a bit higher and to the rear, and they should cant slighlty down; shape and size is also wrong The kit looks very similar to Fujimi Phantoms, with a number of parts changed and some simplifications. Some parts are identical. It is likely that they were both tooled by the same company around the same time in 80s, or that one is a somewhat altered copy of the other. This also applies to ESCI and Fujimi Harriers and A-7 Corsairs. Other than those issues, ESCI Phantoms have very crisp and thin panel lines, they are easy to build due to not being split into many sub-assemblies to cater for multiple versions with minimum of parts, and are good in dimensions and shape (in other words, it looks like a Phantom).

Also, both boxings contain all parts for a single-seater A-4M and twin-seater OA-4M, as well as a common canopy mask sheet which covers single- and twin-seater. Only decals are for the version on the box top. With aftermarket decals, either box is good for any of two versions. Vladan

AIM-9B/D/G/H have front fins with swept trailing edges. Both Hasegawa and Italeri are incorrect, due to molding limitations (if all 4 fins have swept trailing edges, two fins that are perpendicular to the split between mold halves would be stuck; that is why some manufacturers make two fins separate parts, while the remaining two, parallel to the split between mold halves, are integral to the missile). Academy's new 1/72 F-14A has AIM-9D missiles with two fins correct (with swept trailing edges) and two incorrect (with straight trailing edges), due to the same molding limitations (fins that are parallel to the mold split plane are correct, fins that are perpendicular to mold split plane are incorrect). Italeri tried to mold the blunt front of the fins, but it is too pronounced. Hasegawa has the straight leading edge going into missile body, which is not correct. Also, Italeri missile looks like B model, as its nose is not tapered but straight, with hemispherical seeker head. Hasegawa missile looks like D/G/H, with tapered nose. As fins are too thick anyway, it would be best to cut them off and make correct fins from card. Good pictures of AIM-7D can be found on Zactomodels website: https://www.zactomodels.com/html/AIM-9/Sidewinders.htm Vladan

That seam is supposed to be there; this is the edge of the outer movable ramp:

Be advised that B-58 had early 24-petal nozzle with long petals. F-4A/B/C/D/N had early 24-petal nozzle with short petals. F-4E/F/J/S/EJ had late 16-petal nozzle with long petals. Nozzle in your photo is late F-4 16-petal model. Neither of the two Aires (early/late) exhausts is accurate for B-58. Italeri kit nozzle has 20 petals, which is also incorrect. Vladan

Well, Peter's login for this forum is airscale, so that should give a hint

Before you paint the windshield, you should be aware that Skyraider did not have metal strips between the side panels and the armoured glass. They were butt-joined, and there was sealant between the panes, but no frames. The correct way to represent this would be to scribe thin lines where the frames would be, then use gray wash in them. Also, the centre armoured glass panel is too narrow on Italeri's model, as well as having a curved armoured glass (it should be flat). The outer sides of the framing are approximately the correct width for the centre panel (the inner lines should be sanded and polished). There are good pictures and drawings on Tommy's website: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2015/11/whats-under-ad-skyraider-canopy.html Vladan

It says B-25(something) Mitchell in text above the photo. It also looks like a B-25.

It is the same kit as the original J. ZM said that they will not modify it, but the upcoming E will have corrected hips. Vladan

Guilty as charged!

Aires just repackaged their existing late J79 set for F-4J/E/EJ/F/G/S. The nozzles for F-4B/C/D are shorter and their petals are not quite the same as on B-58. B-58 had longer nozzles with 24 petals. I am sure someone (Tailspin Turtle?) knows a lot more about this than I do. Vladan

Pay attention to the engine nozzle exhaust petals. The resin set has 16 petals per nozzle (which is late, long nozzle J79). B-58 had early J79 with short nozzle with 24 petals per nozzle. Vladan

You may want to remove the aluminium dry brushing from the propeller, as Spitfire Mk.IX had a wooden Rotol propeller, which would not show bare metal from wear.

Just a note: Spitfire Mk.IX did not have head rest cushion on the armour plate behind seat; you should remove it if it is not too late.

Tamiya acrylic paints are lacquers; they dry by evaporation of solvent, so it is safe to let some of the solvent evaporate. If too much thinner evaporates, you can add more thinner, as it will dissolve even fully dried paint. Enamel paints dry and cure (chemically react with oxygen from air), and cured paint is then not soluble in the thinner in the paint; that makes the paint somewhat or entirely unusable, depending how much of it cured, when adding thinner to gloopy paint will not dissolve it any more.

Also worth noting is that extra parts exist even in F-101B boxing (where they are not needed, but they can be used for the F-101A/C boxing where they are not present).

Looking at position of intake relative to fuselage panel lines and wing root, it looks like the type IIIC intake of the two seater has been shortened on the outside to make it more swept, with a longer and more slanted splitter plate front. Of course, this argument falls apart if fuselage panel lines have changed from single to two seaters. Only accurate measurements can answer that definitely. Some cutting may be needed, but not much and it is not clear exactly where. I haven’t cut parts from sprues yet. The issue of piano hinge on single seater intake remains (it should be almost vertical, and it is parallel to the splitter plate leading edge on the KH part, making it slanted). In another thread (on ARC I believe), it was mentioned that most single seater drawings have two seater intakes, so it appears that accurate information about single seater intakes is not easy to come by.

Nobody seems to have noticed four unnumbered parts on sprue D1, that are not on the sprue drawing in the instructions. These parts look *a lot* like intake extensions for single seat Voodoo models. They are not mentioned in the instructions, but it looks like they were meant to be glued to the front of the F-101B intakes to make them squarer and longer. The rivet lines would not be accurate for single seat intakes, as there would be lines parallel to the B model slanted intake face then another set of lines parallel to the A/C model intake face, but they can be filled and rescribed.

They haven't included the new clear part; the clear sprue is the same as in the original ESCI version, with some damage repair to windscreen, so the frame on it has been mostly polished out (which is not a bad thing, as the frame was too thin anyway). They did include the new exhaust nozzles, which are a big improvement on the original ESCI ones. These have some depth and an incorrect afterburner spray bar part which has 8 spokes and 1 ring, instead of 7 spokes and 3 rings. There are also no inner nozzle petals, but the outside is pretty good.

Stratos 4 series is really quite good. Watch it, you may be surprised by what you find below the surface of what appears to be an average Anime. The characters are animated in traditional Anime 2D cell style, big eyes and all you normally find in Japanese animated films. However, the story is pretty good, bordering hard science fiction. Airplanes have been animated by aviation enthusiasts who put a lot of thought into detail. All aircraft except the titular Stratos 0 (which got renamed to Stratos 4 later in the series) are real (with some modifications), and Stratos is a mix of Concorde, Tu-22 or Tu-160 and B-58. Spacecraft are either real (Soyuz rocket and capsule) or fictional (space station, though somewhat similar to ISS, but much bigger and with more advanced parts, as well as Comet Blaster spacecraft, while fictional, are based in part on lifting body experimental aircraft/spacecraft). This part was done as computer generated 2D wireframe which was then animated by hand, giving very realistic shapes and movement, with a huge amount of tiny details done right (such as correct movement of control surfaces during flight). Surprisingly for a Japanese animation, the English flight terminology has been done very well and pretty much correctly. Space station interiors and exteriors are all 3D computer animation. Soundtrack is simply amazing, with lots of references to The Right Stuff, Apollo 13 and several other well known and loved film scores. Plus there is an entire episode which is a full plot reference to The Right Stuff with plenty of in-jokes. There is plenty of character development, and the story is not of the good versus evil type, so there are no villains in the true sense. There are also several subplots which lead to entirely satisfying conclusions (in both Original and Advance series), but all in all this is a seamless set of episodes which should be treated as one series. Then, there are cats. That itch to go to space. With one full episode dedicated to them. Plus appearing in all other episodes, as comic relief and as commentary on humans being silly. All the locations are all real, and are accurately reproduced in painstaking detail. The only exception is the space station. The main location is Shimojishima island, but there are scenes on Okinawa, Tanegashima (the real Japanese space launch centre) and Japanese mainland. There are some dark themes in the story line, which have been offset by quite a lot of humour, as is done in many literary and cinematic works somewhat similar to how Star Wars offsets dark themes by comic relief. However, in Stratos 4 the same characters change between comic relief and serious scenes, some more than others. Series 1 and 2 (OVA = Original Video Animation) have been both subtitled and synchronised in English (though, there is Japanese soundtrack to choose should one be inclined to do so), and English synchronisation is well done by voice actors and actresses that do a lot of Anime synchronisation (so their voices may sound familiar to those who watch Anime). Series 3 and 4 only have Japanese soundtrack and English subtitles. Subtitles are not particularly accurate, so in English soundtrack version it is noticeable that subtitles are only approximate to what is being said (though the meaning is the same). In late 2015 there was a Blu-Ray release for Japanese domestic market, but it probably does not have any English soundtrack or subtitles. Unfortunately, Studio Fantasia which made the series went bankrupt around that time, so there is very slim chance of international Blu-Ray release. It can be found on DVD, various streaming sites for Anime, and even on YouTube. Soundtrack is available on 4 CDs, and it can also be found on YouTube. Quite a lot of useful info about Stratos 4 can be found on TV Tropes and some basic episode information is available on Wikipedia.

It may be the old Revell's 1/32 Mirage IIIE (original 1983 boxing #4741), although the label "Cooperation" indicates rebox of Italeri kit, unless it is a typo and they meant to say "Reintro".

np, just tried to be helpful Vladan

B2C is Business to Customer (retail)—retailer selling to customer. B2B is Business to Business (wholesale)—Airfix selling to retailers.

Number of layers depends on how opaque that nail polish is. You will need to apply layers until you have even coverage. I cannot really say how long you should wait between coats, as you would have to test that using a plastic card. Nail polish dries pretty quickly, but that process is exponential (it slows down with drying, if after time T half of remaining solvent evaporates from paint, after another time T the remaining half will be halved, and so on, so the paint never fully dries, but becomes dry enough to handle after a while). If you thin the nail polish, drying time depends on which thinner you used. Once again, for brush painting, you cannot use too hot thinners, as they will mar the plastic or paint beneath. I would try applying the second coat after at least several hours, and more likely at least a day. You have to let the paint dry sufficiently, as fresh coat applied over paint that is touch dry but still not propely dry will cause the layer underneath to start expanding, and that can lead to cracks appearing in finish. Letting paint dry long enough will minimise the risk of cracked paint, but it cannot guarantee that it won't happen. The best way to do this would be to spray.

It might work, but first test it on a piece of polystyrene to check if the amount applied by brush is small enough not to etch through. You will probably need to apply using just one stroke and not come back to that spot until it dries fully. Another thing to remember with lacquer paints (nail varnish/polish is usually a lacquer) is that it dries (solvent evaporates), unlike enamel paint which cures (reacts with oxygen from air) in addition to drying (solvent evaporating). Lacquer paint can always be re-dissolved using the solvent present in the fresh coat of paint, unlike enamel, which cannot be re-dissolved using its solvent. This means that you must be very quick if you want to apply another coat, or it cannot be done without marring the finish in the previous coat of paint. That is why hot paints are usually meant for spraying only, which will re-dissolve paint underneath, but it won't run and the amount of thinner present in the new coat is so small, to only let the paint adhere well. However, it cannot be sprayed on thick to the point of running, as this will mechanically damage the finish underneath. This is the reason Tamiya acrylic paints are very hard to brush paint. They are acrylic lacquers, and painting the second coat almost instantly softens the layer underneath, making a gooey mess in the process. This can be somewhat prevented by painting a coat of Klear on top of fully cured paint, then letting it fully cure, as Tamiya paint won't soften Klear, letting you apply a second coat without damaging finish underneath.