Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About phasephantomphixer

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

14,562 profile views
  1. Thank You Rich, this is what I was waiting for - straight up comparison. A request, and in fairness - a shot of the two bellies would be great.
  2. The ignore it part I agree, the accusation you just made makes you...
  3. Wait, how did you read that as such? Putting someone down? How about we go back and ask why these accusations and aggression for pointing out kit issues? If you don't agree, so be it. On and on...geez
  4. "ZM question" was hoping the Meng kit was more a Tamiya F-4 kit than ZM. You state that I must own these kits to call out what issues I see in posted photos? Did I read that right? Only continued/continuous posting I have done is in response to these odd responses. If you don't see the issues of the areas pointed out GREAT, go enjoy your kit.
  5. Exactly, parts of both are nice. Parts of both are not...
  6. Thank you VERY MUCH for posting Mirage 3! UGH, looks like Mung is no answer to the ZM question. Phooey
  7. Ah, nice there - overcast and rainy here in Everett WA. Likely already filled that gap, but those larger ones I slide a shaped piece of plastic card in there to also add strength. The filling work is looking splendid although it is all work, but going nicely.
  8. I sure agree it does, just not as much as Hasegawa. Sure it surpasses Hase. with modern tooling, but not in shape in areas I listed. Believe me I wish it was perfection, and at the assumed price I think it should be. Buy it, enjoy it - I won't be.
  9. Other views reveal other issues. Many of those mentioned are fixable, but assuming the price of admission, should not need fixing. Some from other views not easily fixed, Rear WSO panel too flat, side view, stab too low for instance. Just not the kit for me, but was asked.
  10. Think it is just from me working them four years at George AFB '87-91 (which I would like to know if decals include the 35/37th or just typical SPang) but just from the front view (BTW, thanks for posting), find the wingtip RHAW ant. misshaped, are slats only as deployed?, upper taper of chin pod larger than chin pod, 370 tanks tilted too much, aft part of splitter top and forward lower angled too much, intake probes located too far down, 600 gal. tank bogus raised details, Nose wheels in too far, oversized antenna behind canopies (canopies themselves quite nice), and toughest to correct, vert
  11. I agree you should press on with it as I see shape/size issues...ugh
  12. Nice to see you givin' the ol' spook a go, and a Guard-ian - good choice. The boxing too since not the earlier dark green plastic. One thing your wing repair pic. pointed out to me I forgot is Monogram festooned the spoilers with giant rivets when they should be for the wedge shaped panel forward of them. One technique I use on these old kits with raised lines everyone moans about is to fine grit sand the entire kit after painting to remove the paint on the lines and get the lines flush with the paint. It's a way to "use" those raised lines to a detail advantage. 👍
  13. I also have the Gen. Horner interview on an old VHS stashed, and yes A-10 has a higher attrition rate naturally from exposure, but it's kill numbers or effect are also more from same exposure. Redundant design brings pilot home, then I apply my ABDR skill. Hope there are more A-10's at station to cover next mission until repairs are done.
  • Create New...