Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

seawinder

Members
  • Content Count

    749
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About seawinder

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!
  • Birthday 06/03/1947

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Lincoln, MA, USA
  • Interests
    Music (conducting, cello, bass guitar), sailing, model building

Recent Profile Visitors

5,866 profile views
  1. Hi Collin. Just what I was looking for. Thanks for the link.
  2. I've been looking at photos of A-6Es over at airliners.net. The earliest ones I've found of planes with the formation strips are dated 1985. Does anybody know if there was a particular point in time when the strips were officially mandated? Some of the photos show the strips overlapping the existing markings which suggests that they were MU rather than factory upgrades.
  3. .... as I guess I just did yours. What's so weird about Mstor or anybody else quoting a post and agreeing with it? Okay, his post was just underneath the one he quoted, but that doesn't always happen, and a random "+1" post referring to --what? doesn't seem so desirable. Just sayin'.
  4. This is not a definitive answer, but ... The Monogram/Revell 1:48 kit depicting an A-6E in the 1970s does not show or provide formation lights. However, a sheet from Fightertown, which has a very good reputation for accuracy, does show and provide formation light decals for aircraft from the 1990s. There are also a couple of Vietnam era videos at Youtube that clearly show A-6's without formation lights, and there are any number of photographs of them in Compass Ghost schemes that have formation lights just forward of the NAVY designator. I'd therefore speculate that they weren't originally fitted, but were added at some point between the 70s and 90s.
  5. Nice model, but there are two subforums at this board for posting photos of completed models. Why is this thread not there?
  6. The D sprue fuselage is shown in the parts list for the F6F-5 kit(s) and lacks the small windows aft of the cockpit. There were some =5s that had the windows, but I wasn't aware of any -3s not having them.
  7. I've never read or heard of US bombs being painted 34102 (lighter of the two SEA scheme greens), but rather OD 34088 (or 34087 before the change with FS 595B). Gunze Mr. Hobby (aqueous) does a rendition of 34087 (no. H304) as well as a generic shade (H39) that looks pretty similar. Tamiya has two OD's, XF-62 and XF-74. Neither is matched to FS, but XF-74 looks lighter and greener.
  8. Beg to differ. In this whole soap opera of a thread, Zactoman has been one of the few posters to offer objective data, presented without hyperbole or hysteria. Just MHO.
  9. Don't know enough to offer anything on a Woodbridge A-10A, but there's a build review at modelingmadness that has some pretty clear, objective statements about the Tamiya kit: https://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/usaf/fighter/younga10.htm There's also a build review by David Aungst at Hyperscale that may be informative: http://hsfeatures.com/features04/a10adwa_2.htm Interestingly, the modlingmadness review states that the panel lines are engraved, while the Aungst review states they are raised. I think the truth is that the kit (at least the original boxing) has a combination of both. I have read that Tamiya did some sort of an upgrade in the 1990s, but it's unclear what actually got upgraded besides decals.
  10. And let's not forget their F6F series, IMHO easily the best 1/48 kits of the type. Their Mirages are pretty good as well.
  11. Is there any rule of thumb on this? I'm finding photos both ways, although perhaps a few more seem to show the same gray as the rest of the cockpit. I'm doing one from the early 90s, Russian. Thanks, Pip
  12. I'm by no means an expert on Eduard history, but weren't they producing their own molds of WW1 aircraft well before they ever started re-boxing stuff?
  13. Okay. Maybe I'll just put R27s inboard, R73s outboard, and leave the middle pylons empty. Thanks again for the help.
  14. Thanks for the responses. Since I don't want to get into aftermarket missiles at this point, would it be okay to go with R27 inboard, fuel tank middle, R73 outboard? (or R60 outboard?) If I went with that, would I have to leave off the centerline fuel tank? Thanks again. Pip
  15. I'm building my first Fulcrum, a MiG-29 9-12 from the GWH kit. I plan to have it in markings (Begemot) for 85th Guardian Fighter Regiment, USSR Air Force, Marzeburg, ex-GDR, 1991. I also plan to install the centerline fuel tank unless I'm advised not to. The kit, as you probably know, supplies 2 wing fuel tanks and 2 each of R27R, R73 and R60 missiles. Can anybody provide options for a typical loadout? I've read that R27 inboard, R73 middle and R60 outboard was not unusual and will happily go with that. Thanks, Pip
×
×
  • Create New...