sv51macross
-
Content Count
2,276 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by sv51macross
-
-
Now, I know it's a cannon fodder VF, but in all honesty...this looks soooooo much cooler/better than the VF-25. Plus, Yamato did the VF-11 in 1/60 perfect-transform, and that was cannon fodder (for the series the VF-11 was featured in) so there must be a market for this stuff.
I just think that the 171 is much more practical from the standpoint of a space-fighter in terms of design. (also, anyone notice the Battroid 171s had to rely on melee weaponry and chest-guns; they had no gunpod!)
Just saying I think there'd be market for it. Agreement? Dissension?
-
Are these the original releases, now with the nose fix?
Regards,
José
No, the first Barak kit was the Israeli F-16C. This is the F-16D. All kits after the Israeli F-16C have the modified lower fuselage to fix the nose issue.
-
Huh, I thought the Test Program kit didn't come with the extras Dragon put in. Well, it still doesn't have the resin featherless exhausts.
-
Is there a difference, in terms of what it is in the box, between the 'ACC' release and the 'Test Program' release, other than the markings?
any input would be appreciated.
ACC contains resin 'featherless' exhaust nozzles as well as a weapons bay, doors, and a rotating rack with GBU-31s. Test Program is the std. Panda kit with new marksings.
-
While the answer will probably be 'no', I'm almost scared to ask. I am assuming it is a kit deficiency, not something I screwed up :( If so, I really don't want to jump too deep into repairing problems with the kit design. That is a bit too advanced for me yet. One step at a time :D
It is a kit deficiency. Italeri gave you canards to stick right on the leading-edge chines, the real thing has beefy 'shoulders' built-up to handle them. As for wing area, again Italeri used the normal Su-27 wing, whereas the Su-33 has a wing with greater chord and 'fowler flaps' (like the Hornet)
Again, too advanced. I just want to learn to fill gaps and paint cleanly before I start counting rivets. I wont be entering these in any conventions! (BTW, I am doing a 'Silent Eagle' not a 'Strike Eagle').Well, then go with the Hasegawa. The thing is, Hasegawa's is really a F-15B with CFTs, and not even all the appropriate pylons. The Airfix has all eight pylons plus other details, but raised panel lines. You're building a Silent Eagle though, so the Hasegawa will be fine, just remember the Strike Eagle details like the RWRs on the tail booms. Those will be the greatest things to fix for what you want. (SE huh? Open weps bays? :) )
-
I know you're not going for 100% accuracy, but you aren't fixing the wing area issue or the canards?
And as for the F-15E in 1:72...best idea would get an Airfix and Haegawa kits and bash the two together, then scratchbuild all the details. (not alot of hope in 1:72 for that plane :) )
-
Fav jet: F-16
Fav kit of fav jet: 1:48 Italeri F-16B/D
-
First off, it's looking great so far!
For the stores loadout, I'm not too sure on the CJ/CG AIM-9X clearance, but either way the AMRAAMs go on the wingtips, heatseekers are underwing. Also, according to the side of the box, your decal choice would be for a CG, and unless they upgraded to the CX standard, it would be LANTIRN and GBU-31 for your model.
-
Can someone kindly explain to me the Japanese obsession with, (visually), very young girls showing there 'underneath' parts all over the place?
Is it just me or do others feel a little disturbed by this?
Remember, a lot of this, model related, stuff can be bought by younger people.
-It is Japanese culture. In Japan, the emphasis is placed on the whole rather than the individual (opposite of America), and as such the average Japanese male grows-up with a very strong work ethic, and thus companies expect long hours to be put in. Combined with (usually) cramped apartment availability, a very large percentage of Japanese males are unable to successfully court a female to the point of sexual intercourse. This creates a very large market for various...forms of visual and physical stimulation (pron and 'personal massagers).
-Certain animes, by far not the majority, attempt to pander to the loneliness of their target audience by incorporating alot of 'fan-service' (upskirts, panty-shots, nude scenes, indirect self-pleasuring, ect). In addition, a subset (and much more mainstream) concept is that of 'Moe' which basically means very lovable/cute characters (and not usually sexually). Add in the Japanese obsession/worship of youth, and you have something like Strike Witches.
-On the note of being disturbed, this is actually very mild compared to what some Hentai (animated pron, very different from standard anime) can delve into. (It should be said that those specific sub-fetishes make-up a small percentage of total hentai, most of which is produced under the same regs as normal RL pron)
-And finally, these items are not what one would find in a hobby shop stateside. Resin garage-kit figures and other anime figures are uncommon here, one would have to go to a specialty site specializing in anime paraphernalia.
You might be better off asking Honza K or ReiRei0 though.
-
The sprue and decals are posted on luckymodel website now, cant find any missiles for the J-10 though, hope it does comes with some aa missiles
You've got every major aerospace-defense firm there with the 17's missile sprue.
-
Man I hate freaking CVER's also!!
It's not that you have to load the missile from the side, that makes it easy to load them. It's that Monsters (LAU-115/LAU-127 combos) and CVER's are freaking heavy as heck and awkward to put on the plane. Plus, they take up so much room when you have to store them and trying to find space on the hangar at times is a challange.
I'll take IMER's and ITER and even buddy stores over Monsters and CVER's, my back still hurts from those darn things.
Reddog
Well...can't the 127s be detached from the 115s and the 115s stored like the normal rails? And what are those other three acronyms you're using; CVER, IMER, and ITER?
-
They don't call LAU-115's w/LAU-127 Monsters for no reason. Man I hated those things!
Reddog
Is it because the missile has to be loaded from the side, and is thus more difficult?
-
I can't remember having difficulty with the intakes, they went together alright for me, but I agree the nose is iffy. You just have to be careful and diligent with the filler.
-
What-ifs FTW!!! I made a 2 seat F-16XL with an extremely outlandish weapons load. 2 HARMs, 2 SLAMs, 2 Mavericks, 2 Rockeyes, 4 Ramjet equipped air to air missiles based off of the AMRAAM that I made up on the semi-recessed hardpoints, 2 JSOWs on the centerline, and AIM-9Xs on the wingtips. Go for it. At least 10 AMRAAMs has actually been attempted on an F/A-18. You're better off than I was.
PICTURES! PICTURES! PICTURES!
-
Well, the kit comes with the wingtip sidewinder rails, it alos has two pylon mounted sidewinder rails, and then it has these two rails that look like a cross between the old and new...
-
So I'm looking at a Hase 1:48 F-16 in front of me (going to become a sub-launched whiff-16) and on the sprue that holds the rudder and wing-underside pieces, what are the underwing missile rails it includes? Original prototype design for the LAU-128 or some other rail originally intended for the AIM-120A?
-
So when they say block-60 compatible, it'll have the -132's extended feathertips?
-
The Acad Bombcat went together alright for me, it needed some filler on the fore/aft fuselage and intake-fuselage joints, but otherwise was alright.
-
Why...why would aaaaanyone want to model the EC-1? I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've seen guro less nauseating than the nose on that thing.
-
Hello again. I am looking for excellent tomcats. I have two from Revell but have not put them together yet. What does everyone think about Tamiyas 1/32 scale F-16? Is it nice? How about Hasegawa F-16's? I read that early ones had a fit problem. Is that still the case? Also how about Academys 1/48 F-16 bombcat? I love F-16s but its tough to find some of them especially the F-16D.
Thanks,
Dan
Well, Tamiya's 1:32 F-16 is as good as it gets in F-16s period. Hasegawa's 1:32 F-16----------
Wait, you mean F-16 Fighting Falcons or F-14 Tomcats?
1:32 is not good for the F-14 as you either have to choose between Tamiya's raised-panel-line and outdated mold or..well, Tamiya's the best in that scale but it's a darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don't kind of thing.
Hasegawa's 1:48 F-14s are the cream of the crop for that scale, besting all other makes. Expensive and complex but very much worth the effort. Academy's F-14s are somewhat inaccurate in shape and have some issues with their tooling wearing out in a couple areas (very faded panel lines). But the Bombcat boxing is IMO worth it as it includes a sprue of extremely nice F-14A+/F-14B parts and bombs, as well as having an extrememly comprehensive decal sheet for not only the bombs, but the AAMs as well. Only Hasegawa and Revell make halfway decent Delta Tomcats (but even the Revell's need a few updates, see Darren Roberts). Though in 1:72 Fujimi's F-14D is the single best F-14 kit you can get in 1:72.
-
Here´s a pic from the afti that has identical canards as the ccv.
Credit: Mike Valdez
Why is it that every other pic of the CCV I've seen, as well as half the pics of the ATFI, show canards at more of a 35-45 degree angle than the 5-10 shown in the pic?
So those small mounds on the inside of the intake would cover a sufficiently strong [again, hyothetical here] mount and actuator to make the canards [at a 45-90 degree angle] workable pitch/roll controls?
-
I'm not sure but are you asking if the test version is how they would appear on a production version ?
Gregg
This is hypothetical. Maybe I should rephrase...
Could the CCV canard mounts, as engineered [and relocated several degrees up on both sides] sustain hypothetical forces from acting as pitch/roll control surfaces with a warload eq. to current-block F-16s? that is, without needing external blisters for actuators or any externally visible reinforcement of the mount? Because I assume the forces endured by a given control surface for yaw will be much less than the forces exterted on a similarly-sized control surface sued to pitch/roll, yes?
-
Now, IIRC the YF-16CCV's intake-mounted canards were used only to test decoupled yaw, correct? So does that mean that the mounting points were not designed for such an arrangement (at least one that would appear externally similar w/no protruding actuator housings/ect) used in the pitch/roll domains with block 52+/60 warloads at high-G?
-
Getting a bunch of 404 errors from links on that page SV
Fudgesucker.
It was working last I checked. Then again, it's been a loooong time since the last update.
A different take on Gundam modeling
in Sci-Fi Modeling
Posted
And the sad thing is, that somewhere in Japan right now there's an Otaku handing his keys over to a bodyshop with this kind of thing in mind...