Jump to content

alex

Members
  • Posts

    1,833
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

alex last won the day on December 5 2013

alex had the most liked content!

About alex

  • Birthday 05/26/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    somewhere in the Swiss lowlands...

Recent Profile Visitors

4,556 profile views

alex's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

1.2k

Reputation

  1. alex

    Decal bank

    Have thought about the same think for a long time. Just one post per user, where they write what they offer and are searching for. Details to be discussed by pm to keep the thread as short as possible. And maybe for spare parts as well (like ordnance etc). Alex
  2. A kit review I did for a german model site. The pictures speak of itself... http://modellmarine.de/index.php/bausatzvorstellungen/58-rev/3748-bausatzvorstellung-fairey-gannet-t5-revell-172 Alex
  3. I can't comment about accuracy, but only about the kit itselt: I built the Revell kit a few years ago as a COD-version, and I was disappointed. It looks nice in the box, but needed a *lot* of work. Ejector pin marks in places hard to reach like the gear well, bad quality of the transparencies, flash on almost every part... here was the RFI: Alex
  4. Yes, the GBU-10 doesn't need the pod, if you want to stick with the centerline tank. Just be aware, if you are putting the GBU-12 under the conformal fuel tanks, the pylon in the middle has to be free (the bombs are too long to use all three pylons!). It's ok for the Mk-82, though. Have a quick image search for "F-15E loadout charts", you'll see what I mean. Alex
  5. Nice choice, great little kit! I was not happy with the ordnance provided, so I bought a second kit just for two additional GBU-10. And the kit ended up with each 2 AIM-9 and AIM-120, two tanks and four GBU-12 (along with the two targeting pods) I think the GBU-15 would need the guidance pod on the centerline, so you layout is surely impressive, but may be technically incorrect. As you say, if you like it, do it! Alex
  6. Still at a reasonnable price range for me. I don't know how fast you build, but it takes me usually 3-4 month to build a 1/72-aircraft. For the quicker builder, it may pile up. I bought yesterday the 1/72-Wildcat in a swiss shop for 15CHF. The new tamiya Bf-109 was priced 44CHF. Revells 1/72 were around 25CHF. Alex
  7. That's my favourite image about this topic. You see a mix of colours on the bodies, tails, and even the fins of the guidance section don't match. That much for "navy uses grey and air force green, it's in the rules!" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GBU-12?uselang=de#/media/File:US_Navy_040709-N-4374S-021_Aviation_Ordnancemen_assigned_to_the_Sunliners_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_Eight_One_(VFA-81)_transport_guided_bomb_units_(GBU-12)_to_an_F-A-18C_Hornet_for_an_on_load_aboard_USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CV_67).jpg Alex
  8. Thanks for showing. I remember the last Hunters in 1994 (when I was doing my RS) when they took off from Interlaken towards the Kleiner Rugen. Extremely impressive, just started a tight left turn right after take off.... Alex
  9. not really convinced... the relatively narrow top part of the air intake should give much resistance to the airflow (bundary layer). But we'll see... Alex
  10. A small report in German: https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Russland-praesentiert-neuen-Kampfflieger-article22694290.html . It is targeted as "cheap alternative to the Su-57". Alex
  11. I guess after the first few rounds, the F-5 would fall from the sky in pieces... Alex
  12. looks a lot like a F-35-"inspired" aircraft... Alex
  13. Nice choice. The decals are excellent, I built a Rafale a few years ago in 1/72 with the Syhart decals, too. Alex
  14. Skull and bones sell... the same version is in the Revell-kit 1/72. Alex
  15. Nah, we buy only the newest and most expensive stuff, even if we have no use for it. BTW, we bought some years ago a "F├╝hrungsinformationssystem" (I guess it's called battlefield management system), which was first tested in the air force, and then if it was performing well, it would have been introduced a few years later for the rest of the army. It was intended to be mobile, encrypted, down to the individual soldier level and all the nice things the IT departments will promise you. Cost overrun, late delivery, only a fraction of the promised performance was achieved... those who speak german can google "FIS Heer" and be surprised. The same people were not able to introduce a model-airplane-sized drone in time (because the frequencies were already reserved by our national telecom company), they are again a few years late on the new drone (because they changed the whole desing of something they initially bought off the shelf), they upgrade some personnel carrier for a higher price than new vehicules would have cost (google DURO Modernisierung) and are struggling with the new mobile mortar system, which is again few years late. So, as I said on another forum - if they have to purchase something that is more complex than a lawn mower, they fail. Not sure if we should give them a few billions to buy new planes... Alex
×
×
  • Create New...