Ingo Degenhardt

That is a nice idea - Alert 5: would the aircraft already be attached to the catapult (nose down)?

Bedankt - those look promising. I'll try to find some more like those. ingo

Hi all, I want to build an 1/72 F-14A (either VF-2 or VF-84) and make a little carrier deck diorama. My problem is that I want it in this configuration: - wings spread, slats, flaps out - canopy open -fully armed Can anyone with adequate knowledge say if there is a realistic situation where the aircraft could appear like this? The only possibility I can think of is an aborted catapult launch due to engine trouble or something - the model (GWH) provides for the front landing gear to be built in the launch position and there is the Italeri catapult deck section. But I do not know what would have happened in such a situation. May be someone knows about this or another option... Ingo

Nice F-80! I still have Monogram's 1/48 F-80 in the stash. One of my oldest. And I cannot recommend Print Scale either. Very disappointing once off the backing sheet. I did not use them in the end (Had a sheet for an Aichi D3A1)

Not really in my opinion - I built the RAF tanktrucks and they are very basic kits. I put in a lot of extra work. Can't judge all the other sets.

Thanks all for the replies. Also: Actually I had hoped to be able to glue some different munition on one of the pylons - GBU-31/32 or 4xGBU-39.... But I am only able to find pictures with four GBU-12s... 😞

Thank you for the profound answer. I have here Reskit's GBU-12s with the protective layer. So I am going to use them. Instructions say to paint them all Green except for the brown area between the forward fins, but I think there is almost any combination of grey and green possible between guidance kit, bomb body and steering kit, is it not?

Hello, I am currently building an F-35B (USMC, USS America) and I wonder wether it would be right to use thermally protected weapons (GBU-12, etc) instead of the 'normal' versions of these munitions. Does anyone know if this would be correct/possible? In general, I am also looking for the actual possible weapons the F-35 is cleared for and on what station but haven't found anything really convincing so far. regards, Ingo

I received no answer - yet.

Thanks - they do look quite ok. I will ask him if the set is still available

Hi, I seem to be unable to find anything suitable, so: Does anyone know of a set of british tank crews fitting the 1/72 Mk.10 & 11 Chieftains by Takom? Ingo

Very nicely built and I love the freehand camo job. What kind of airbrush did you use?

Very nice 'Val'! I had the same decal problem with my Fujimi kit when I tried to use PrintScale Decals - much too Orange. The kit decals were too old to use. I finally also painted almost everything except the Number (just like you did) and gave the Number (AI-210) a very carefully painted coat of thinned Hinomaru Red (Gunze) to get them a little bit more on the red side. This worked to a degree.

Hi Andre, mine a for a camouflaged Mirage IIIC - will have a look at those FS colours. bedankt Ingo

Checked this one - looks about right. Thank you. ingo ps: The guest house looks nice.

Does anyone know what FS/RAL colour the blue Star in the Israeli National Insignia is? I bought painting masks for those but they lack colour specifications. Ingo

Nice! And you're right - I built the A6M5 by Tamiya last year and it goes together just perfectly. The only small downside of these kits are the usual thick Tamiya decals.

Right - a side profile is no proof. I have heard or read that too - the digit number differences served to confuse about the real number of existing aircraft. Looks like this system is still working - only that it is us now who are confused.😉

Thank you again for your extensive information (It seems I have the wrong books...and too few) So I might go with 778, Atar 9C and five kill markings - so far. As starting the kit is only in the near future, something might still come up. If not, I only have to decide between 152 and 778. Your answers were very helpful, Jure. Thanks for that. Ingo

Hi Jure, thank you very much for your investigations. This is interesting because the eduard kit includes a marking option for '778' (Atar 9C) but with 101 Squadron in 1972 and already marked with eight kill markings (four above and four below the 'Mirage IIIC' stencil (which I think was standard, not 'CJ'). It is my impression that the IAF changed aircraft between Squadrons quite a lot. Would you be so nice to have a look at your photo again how many kill markings are on that aircraft? This might be an option because 119 Squadron markings are also included in the kit. Thnaks again, Ingo

Looks excellent - I like the camouflage very much. How did you do the masking between camouflage colours?

Hi, I have here eduards Shahak kit in 1/48 and would like to built the above aircraft that participated in Operation Rimon20 in 1970. No. 152 (52) of 101 Squadron is the only one I am sure about that it was among the Shahaks used in this Operation. I was only able to find a single picture in a book showing only the front part oft the aircraft with '52' painted on the nose wheel front cover - plus a side-view drawing that shows the aircraft as 152 on the vertical stabilizer. Questions: Does anybody know if '152' is correct and wether the aircraft had the Atar 9B or had already been modified to the 9C? If anyone has clear information about any other aircraft from Rimon20 that would be very helpful as well. I am not 'fixed' on No. 52, but it's the only one I know about.

Very well done, I like it a lot. Must be an impressive beast on the shelf. Hope you got good dust protection for the display.

That's what I will do.

Yes, I had to do several coats to achieve an even, glossy finish but I did not consider the coat to be too thick (no panel lines flooded 🙂 ) Still, I had the same thought and apart from any strange reaction with the Alclad white primer (I think that very unlikely) it's the only explanation I can think of. No other choice than give it more time, I think.