Mycapt65

Wow that sucks. I'm sorry about that

How could it be a retread of old ground if there's never been an 86A done before??? Most jets don't excite me. Jets without combat experience are less exciting. I don't think I've done a non combat plane since I was eight when I built an old Mongram Albatross and Cousteau's PBY on a seaplane binge. Different strokes for different folks. Be well Ron How could it be a retread of old ground if there's never been an 86A done before??? Most jets don't excite me. Jets without combat experience are less exciting. I don't think I've done a non combat plane since I was eight when I built an old Mongram Albatross and Cousteau's PBY on a seaplane binge. Different strokes for different folks. Be well Ron How could it be a retread of old ground if there's never been an 86A done before??? Most jets don't excite me. Jets without combat experience are less exciting. I don't think I've done a non combat plane since I was eight when I built an old Mongram Albatross and Cousteau's PBY on a seaplane binge. Different strokes for different folks. Be well Ron How could it be a retread of old ground if there's never been an 86A done before??? Most jets don't excite me. Jets without combat experience are less exciting. I don't think I've done a non combat plane since I was eight when I built an old Mongram Albatross and Cousteau's PBY on a seaplane binge. Different strokes for different folks. Be well Ron How could it be a retread of old ground if there's never been an 86A done before??? Most jets don't excite me. Jets without combat experience are less exciting. I don't think I've done a non combat plane since I was eight when I built an old Mongram Albatross and Cousteau's PBY on a seaplane binge. Different strokes for different folks. Be well Ron

Were 86As used in Korean War?

Thanks, that would fit my uncles service time from 72-74.

Beautiful. It may have fought you all the way, but you won in grand style.

Ok, at least this photo says differently. Fwiw to the dismay of all the environmentalist out there. Every carrier plane at that time left the deck with full fuel tanks even if it was for a short test flight. They were required to dump all but the necessary fuel before landing. The fire hazard of landing with full or or partly full tanks overcame the financial and fuel losses. Atomizing hundreds of gallons of jet fuel, essentially kerosene was common place to protect the ship's and crew's saftey. It still might be today. It just wouldn't be publicized today. In regards to your statement the RF in question might have flown with completely empty wing tanks until needed. Either way it's obvious at one time the Midway had a Marine RF-4 detachment. I had other pictures of them but I tossed them and unfortunately a bunch of others when I was a stupid teenager making room in my photo album for girlfriends and cars.

I could be wrong but this is what I was told by my Uncle Jay who was an ordnance man on the Midway 72-74. You'd be hard pressed to find photos of a Vietnam era Navy Phantom with Sparrows on the front mountings. At least when the 600 gallon tanks were used. Which was the norm. I have no idea of what you're talking about regarding articulated arms and inner pylons. When I said inner pylons, I was referring to the inner wing pylons. Those had two side rails for AIM 9 Sidewinders on each pylon. Occasionally they'd fly with only one Sidewinder on each side when flying strike missions. The RF-4B is carrying wing tanks. They had an entirely different mission that required extra fuel. He also said that the Phantoms were gas guzzlers and they lost more Phantoms to running out of fuel than enemy fire.

You'll only need two AIM-7 Sparrows. Vietnam era Bs usually only carried two sparrows on the rear launchers. They weren't terribly dependable and they didn't like lighting them up in front of the 600 gallon belly tank. A normal Migcap load out was, two Sparrows on the rear launchers, Four sidewinders on the inboard wing pylon rails, 600 gallon center tank and no wing tanks. The outer pylons were usually empty on Migcap missions. Strike Missions would carry similar defensive load out with the addition of bombs to all four wing pylons. The bombs and their arrangement varied. Usually there be TERs and MK82s hung on the inboard. Outboard pylons could have a single, TER or MER. Check your references.

Beautiful. I love that scheme. Possibly because my uncle was on the Midway when that plane was flying missions.

Looks Damn Good to me. NEVER APOLOGIZE for build like this. You're not responsible for the kit itself.

Making slow progress but I think it's an improvement on the kit cowl to the left. Be well all.

IMO I wouldn't get too hung up on getting perfect matches. Those paints varied from supplier to supplier. Then weathered poorly. That's why ANA 623 was reformulated in 1947. Leave the color spectra graph home and just use what looks right to you. I know it's hard. I suffer from ocd and have gotten into the deepest rabbit holes chasing exact colors only to find there's no exact answers. Enjoy your model. The corsair is my favorite airplane of all. Make it the way you want.

Very nice. My favorite Jug.

Beautiful. Very colorful!

I never knew the plane existed. It's a beautiful airplane and your kit came out great. I have some research to do now. Thank you Ron