Hi Habu 2,
I see that the cockpit photos are from a fighter and not a recon version. But is it a QF-4E? or an earlier version?
The reason is simple it differs considerably from other on-line photos of active (back then) late QF-4E's with TISEO.
On the above photos it looks like a lot of things have already been removed from this ship as if it was just about to be scraped. (and I am not speaking about the bang seat in the aft cockpit). : ) : )
WOW what an aircraft!
Maybe someone of you know that in the end of 1944, a small amount of Yak-9D (Early vers.) were converted into 2-seat night interceptors with more powerful armament and radio locator. So, we have decided to recreate this unfamiliar modification under designation Yak-9SD in 1/48 scale.
P.s. remember todays date! : ) : ) : )
Good afternoon everyone
I haven't been on this forum for a good few months as I have been visiting family and friends in the States and I just got back home to my office before all the lock downs due to Coronavirus!.....what a terrible state of affairs for all of us and I do hope that you all are staying safe in your self isolation!
The only positive I can think of whilst isolating for us modellers is of course hopefully more bench time!
I am in the process of scratch building a 1:20 scale B17G but I really needed a break from it ....so I thought I would have a go at the F-80C.
Just love the lines of the F-80 and I'm interested in jet aircraft of this era...early 50s!
I wanted to see if I could build it in 1:48 scale out of the usual materials I build in ...which is balsa wood /card/wire....well anything which looks useful I guess...and as usual I am building this the old school of modeling way...ie no C.A.D ,special tools...just look at photos of the real thing and try to use the materials I have to replicate an aircraft the best I can.
I have actually finished this build but thought I would show you some photos I took whilst building it....so it's not in real time (hence the quick photo upload!)
So lets start.....................
First up....I searched for some decent scale plans of the Shooting Star and re scaled them to 1:48
I started on the fuselage......
Formers were glued into place and the cockpit and front wheel well area were prepared....
Mustn't forget the lead weight in the nose as she will sit tail heavy....something I always forget to do!!!
Next up I filled the gaps between the stringers with scrap balsa....something I always do so that I can sand down to the stringers and get a good shape of the fuselage.
Here is the fuselage sanded down and the tail unit (made from balsa wood) and the wing roots and fillets prepared....
Balsa wood wings were then shaped from a block and fitted to the wing roots....
It was time to build up a basic cockpit...I say basic as I wanted to display this F-80 with the canopy closed....(the aircraft looks better that way in my opinion!) so actually you wouldn't see much of the detail anyway......
I wanted to try something completely different than how I normally skin my scratch built aircraft and that was to cut each panel separately from a sheet of sticky back silver paper. This took me a few days I have to say but I was pleasantly surprised with the end result. As I cut each panel out I made the rivet markings with a pin as I went along...as hopefully you might see!!
The air intakes on either side were a nightmare I might add!!
I am about half way through the photos now so I will have a break and get back to the completion of this F-80 either later or tomorrow!
Thanks for looking in ....and please stay safe out there!
I'm not an expert on 1/32 but from the product numbers you quoted I think you're confusing the Multiple Ejector Rack (MER) 632102 and the Triple Ejector Rack (TER) 632103.
Both of these were developed around the early Vietnam war to allow several bombs to be carried on a single pylon, the main difference being the MER has a total of six mounting points vs. the TER only three (hence the name). In overly simplified terms, a MER is similar to two TERs connected front to back in tandem.
As far as your model A-10 goes, are you looking to show off a realistic warload, or do you want to show an "airshow load" - an unrealistically heavy/diverse range of weapons that the plane may technically have been able to carry, but which wouldn't be seen in "real world" conditions due to weight restrictions, mission requirements, and other technical considerations.
The MERs were cleared for use on the A-10 but rarely if ever seen operationally since the A-10 isn't really meant as a "bomb truck." A normal MER load would be six Mk 82 (nominal 500 lb) "slick" bombs, aka Low Drag General Purpose (LDGP). The TER is slightly more plausible, and might carry Mk 82, cluster bombs (Mk 20 Rockeye, CBU-87, etc) or theoretically 500 lb class guided munitions like GBU-12 Paveway or JDAM (GBU-38 IIRC). But in practice the A-10 usually only carries one weapon per pylon - leaving some empty to maintain reasonable range without external fuel.
As for Maverick missiles (AGM-65), these need a launch rail and cannot be mounted on a TER or MER. When the A-10 first entered service the Mavericks had dedicated triple-rail launchers (two missiles with a third below, similar to a TER). It was found that using the inboard launch rails the AGM-65's exhaust potentially damaged the adjacent landing gear sponson and wing. This led in some cases to the inboard missiles being left off and the remaining pair carried in "slant two" configuration (top outboard + bottom rails). But as with the other ordnance, single launch rail + missile per pylon became the most common configuration.
That actually makes quite a bit of sense. The irony of all of this is that the very design feature that caused so much trouble (VTOL), may become a mute point if the news about the Marines changing their focus is to be believed. The cost and length of development of the F-35 (or should it really be the F-24?) would have been much lower had they not had to incorporate VTOL into the design. And maybe the X-32 would have looked a little more streamlined.
Looking good Tim, you are off to a great start! I'll be following along with your build. Quick question - on your picture of the real thing at the top of this thread, is it me or does the ALQ-144 look "different"? Might just be the lighting?
So I'm finally off and running (walking?). The Tamiya Mossie is absolutely amazing. You really need to spend a great deal of time reviewing the instructions and planning your approach to building and painting. First off will be the cockpit which is an absolute masterpiece. I'm guessing close to a hundred pieces make up this area. At first, I wasn't thrilled about building this aircraft because it has a fixed canopy and a lot of the cockpit detail would be hidden. In all actuality, there will be more visible on the Mossie than the previous single-seaters I've built. The kit canopy is huge and is amazingly clear. Plus I'm planning on leaving the side entrance door open. Pretty much everything will be visible. To enhance that, I'm still planning on removing the upper escape hatch but more on that later...
Period photo's show an extremely "busy" cockpit with lots of small fittings, wires, etc. Tamiya did a nice job but obviously they couldn't capture everything. Between the cockpit, the amazing bomb bay and the engines, I'm going to have lots of fun.
Anyway, to start things off, I'm going with the pilot's seat. Here is how it looks through the access hatch:
I assembled the basic seat and then added a few extra touches:
The seat support tube was drilled out, as was the relief tube and I added the drain tube to the "portal". Can't have our plastic pilot piddling all over his cockpit, can we? I wasn't going to bother but since you will be able see the underside of the pilot's seat through the door (as in the view of the real thing above), I decided it was worth it. d
I also added a canopy locking lever (Tamiya had this molded to the side of the seat) and it's associated cable that runs to the harnesses connection behind the pilot's armor plate.
Don't worry about the ejector pin marks, typical Tamiya, everything gets covered with other bits. After looking at these pictures, I think I'm going to re-do the bands that secure the cable to the armrest support.
Anyway, that's it for now guys. Thanks for looking and STAY SAFE!
I don't think so. This is coming from the top of the Corp itself. Obviously, the whole China is the new Boogeyman thing is political but how to implement the Pacific Pivot(tm) is coming from within. If anything, you will see the politicians jumping in to second guess this if it impacts weapons production or manpower levels in their home districts.
Maybe the next war really will be a "clean one" with long range precision fires and UAV's doing all the dirty work but again, our track record of forecasting what the next war really looks like is pretty bad.
@habu2 I thought I read somewhere that it was only F-16 with a rear stick, but I guess that was wrong. It didn't seem right to me but then again, I am no F-16 expert. Thank you for the pictures. I will assume that the simulator is the same as the real aircraft. If I'm not mistaken I will need to source the correct rear instrument panel.
I'm wanting to get some 1/32 Eduard brassin MERs for my A10. I see they make two types of MERs. Product numbers 632102 & 632103
Could anyone tell me the difference between the two different MERs and which ones I should put on the A10? I was probably going to use them for Mk 82 slicks and for some mavericks
Any help most appreciated
Thanks for all the info and taking your time to help me out. I'm going to use the reskit stuff. They have excellent resin russian bombs and MERs. So I'll be all sorted with the reskit stuff. It's great to see a company took the time to make excelkent russian bombs/munitions. So now with reskit and zacto, any modeller making russian machines has it covered. Also Dmitry at reskit is excellent in helping out providing a wealth of info to any of your questions. So guys, look no further than reskit for your russian munitions.
The first step should be to clean the PE belts from any residue with rubbing alcohol (at least this is what iI do) and then paint them, leaving just a small area unpainted for the CA glue. The same applies for the seat (you can also use an X-Acto blade to scratch just the area from the seat that the seatbelt will be attached).
By the way, a fellow modeller told me once that if you want to bend PE parts such as, seatbelts, you can do this by heating them with a lighter for a few seconds.
Just my two cents.
Bored and locked-down? NO WAY!!! I have a stock of 70+ models waiting patiently for the past 20+ years to be build!!! AND now is the chance! Plus I have a display case with the 2/3 empty!!!
SO, bring out all those enamel and lacquer paints and thinners and let the party begin!!!
I believe that's the (their?) main objective. Much like what happened back in the 90s with the NAVY and NASs like Miramar.
To me, this decision sounds more like a political one than a Marines decision.
To make it worse...we look at photographs for reference. The photographer can influence the color by playing with the exposure settings (and maybe even a wrong whitebalance setting), and post-processing (either in-camera or with photoshop). When you fiddle around with saturation, contrast etc, you get a slightly different shade. Weather conditions too can make the color look different.
So...don't try to get it 100% right. My guess is that if you make it orangie-brownish you're ok. You can vary it from top to bottom and add some off color areas (slightly darker/lighter), as it seems that way in photo's. Most important in my opinion is to try to give it some texture. That really makes it 'real'.
ET coloring starts out off white when the foam is first applied. Then it rather quickly darkens to a pancake batter colored tan. Over time it goes more yellow, then burnt orange and finally more of a brown shade.
No two ETs were quite the same shade as the color can vary depending on how long the stack was on the pad. Some flights looked more orange while a couple missions that had an abort requiring SSME replacements ended up with a tank that looked chocolate brown at the end of a couple months. Lighter colored areas are either later applications of foam or the surface rind was sanded, exposing fresh foam to UV light and the darkening process would start all over again. The ribbed intertank region was sanded, so it is usually a lighter shade than the rest of the tank.
As for the colors I have used, they were typically railroad colors, usually Floquil brand. But Floquil is no more. Thankfully companies like Scalecoat have issued many of the same RR colors in their line.
For yellow areas, UP (Union Pacific) Armor Yellow is a good shade. For the brown/orange shades I would typically mix freight car brown with either UP Orange or SP (Southern Pacific) Daylight orange. I hate what I call "witches brew" paint formulas that use three or more colors because they are hard to duplicate if you run out. So I would just mix the brown with an orange color until I got a shade I liked working from imagery of the specific mission I was making. Keep it simple.