Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

sv51macross

Members
  • Content Count

    2,276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sv51macross


  1. WHY,WHY,WHY?

    I can't believe with some of the 'good' books I've read, none of them make it to the screen, yet crap like this has to be revisited?

    <_<

    I know! I would love to see 'Punk's Fight' or 'Debt of Honor' made into a movie. (methink the Navy wouldn't want an accurate movie from Ward Carroll though :rolleyes: )


  2. Just looked it up, and I have to say that it actually is pretty logically designed given the space constraints. I don't really see what's all that complex about it. It's an unorthodox arrangement but it's not as convoluted or mind-bending as some make it seem like.


  3. You would sometimes see some crazy loads on aircraft on static display at airshows. TA-4Js were used in the testing phase of HARM development, and one even had a HARM seeker installed in its nose for a while.

    This excites me for some reason. :salute: Maybe use a OA-4M for a base and add some IR-guided Zunis...:D


  4. Hello!

    No update today because but I have a question.What do you think about JOLLY ROGER markings ?:taunt: I have a plan to add skulls on vertical fins and paint my YF-19 on Humbrol 28 (the same as VF-0S). What's your opinion?

    Pretty hard for an aircraft to not look good with black/yellow tails and the skull-and-crossbones. Go for it!

    Also, the customized figures look really nice. that one guy looks like he's drinking from a 2L bottle though. :)


  5. AFAIK, Starblazers is not Macross. Starblazers was called Space Battleship Yamato or somesuch in the original Japanese, while Macross came to these shores as Robotech. Folks who know the genre better may, of course, feel free to correct me.

    Yes, Macross, and more specifically, Macross Plus.


  6. Little Jeff,

    There's a big difference between can and does. Your best bet is to find a pic with a loadout that you like and go with that. Usually during OIF/OEF the F/A-18 would carry two tanks. One on the centerline and one on the right wing. This was so the targetting pod mounted on the left shoulder pylon had a clear view. The inner left pylon was left empty or carried a single weapon parent mounted to the pylon. 500 or 1000 pound LGB/JDAM mixed loads are pretty common with two LGB and a single JDAM being the most common that I have seen. That being said, I have seen a pics of a VER/CVER with 500lb slicks mounted on the centerline, which was pretty cool looking.

    HTH,

    Crash

    Few Pics Here

    Well there's something you don't see everyday; a Hornet with the tgt'ing pod on the centerline.


  7. :banana:

    This is looking simply freaking sweet! the detail you're putting into this is just amazing, you should almost make the top removable to see all that detail. :salute:

    Another note, doesn't the Bofors use a 6-round magazine? Never mind, forgot what it looked like.


  8. Well, almost. A GBU-27 from an F-117 kit is a better starting point. It has the correct clipped canards and the GBU-10 like tail kit. All that's needed is to splice in the cylindrical center section to make the overall length of the bomb 229.3 inches (4.78 in in 1/48th scale). Lug spacing is 30 inches with the front lug 2.27 in. from the nose for a F-15E or 2.48 in for an F-111.

    The 28 has clipped canards too? I'm looking at the photos on wikipedia and the GBU-28 looks like a plain-Jane Paveway-III guidance unit.


  9. Or perhaps they just aren't worried about it to the degree you are, and just enjoy modeling for modelings sake, without feeling the need to correct every possible flaw however large or small. Not everyone really cares if a piece of plastic matches up perfectly to drawings, or even compares them to drawing to begin with. They build it to whatever degree makes them happy, and move on. More and more as I read peoples issues with kits, I realize how little most of them mean to me, so I ignore them.

    I more side with this. If there is something glaring with the kit that doesn't look right, then I won't buy it or I'll try to correct the problem. But little details and subtle curve differences don't bug me too much. then again, I haven't been intimate with these machines as some of you have, so my opinion might be skewed by inexperience.


  10. Not quite as bad as was predicted. Only a little more than the current Tamiya Black Nights boxing, so factor in the hours saved scribing lines and all the other work (and possibly resin correction/detail sets not needed), seems like a great price. I believe forecasts were as high as $300 for this?


  11. If the cockpit's reflecting, wouldn't it be showing the pilot's feet, legs and sky directly above?

    Mirrors looking back over the shoulder make sense, but I'm not sure what purpose mirrors on the cockpit floor serves except an attempt to look up the dresses of those underage anime girls...

    Reflecting as in relaying. Basically, its like the XFA-27 from Ace 2/X or the 5/0's FALKEN with a glass canopy; the pilot sits above the cockpit tub on an elevated ejection seat with the tub comprised of flatscreen displays linked to cameras on the aircraft's underside to allow a much greater field of view as well as extend the scope of the HUD. A 'bridge' replaces the forward IP with critical instruments and maximizing view of the floors.

    And about your cute little witty statment; Get yo mind owt o' da gudder boi!


  12. I do not like kinetic amraams, the fins of the missile are >1.5mm thick :huh:

    The Academy Slammers have very nice, thin molding on the fins. Not to the standard of whatever resin/photo-etch you originally asked for, but the OIF Academy Strike Eagle comes with two Bravo and four Charlie (but only stencil data for two each).

    @caiotfjr, the Slammers in the RoG Eurofighter only have fins on three sides, as they're designed to fir in the recesses on the underside, can't use them with rails.


  13. I was very pleasantly surprised during my latest trip to the LHS. The models section as almost literally overflowing with aircraft, among them several 1:72 RoG jets. the choices I was considering for postwar turbine-power were:

    F-14D---$29.98

    F/A-18E---$19.98

    F-22---$22.98

    Can someone please explain to me why an older tool is up to 50% more expensive than a couple of much more recent toolings? the Delta doesn't even come with much for ordinance, just AAMs, so why the bigger price? Simply plastic volume? It was the 'last cruise' boxing though.

    On a more positive note, I resoundly support the priase for RoG's new Rhino kit. Very nice. Also got the Me 262B (the one with radar) and an Academy Komet. (again, very nice kit, comes with tow tractor)


  14. I'm sorry, but those new parts are inexcusably pathetic. The level of detail on the bombs is laughable, especially compared to the bombs in the Rafale B kit. And the LANTIRN? The laughably shaped adapter pylon aside, the LANTIRN has only one panel line and next to no detail. Again, even the basic F-15E kit comes with a LANTIRN that is far better. Dragon's 1:144 LANTIRN is better.

    :cop:


  15. Last time I was in Hobby Lobby they had the new Academy kit and I had a 40% discount coupon, but I didn't get it. I have about 10 different F-15 in my stash and couldn't justify any more.

    :thumbsup:

    Anyone know how to secure a Slam-Eagle decal spread?

×
×
  • Create New...