Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by seawinder

  1. Mstor (or anyone else), how does one order one of these? I'm sorry to sound insistent, but nobody, including Dave, seems willing to post or send an answer. I emailed Dave several days ago, but have heard nothing back. Thanks!
  2. Hi Dave. I emailed you inquiring how to go about ordering an F/A-18 HUD. Can you post that information? Thanks!
  3. While I doubt that you'll find the exact font used on the plane, the closest thing I'm finding on my computer is Calista MT Bold italic. The letter shapes and weights are quite close, but you'd probably have to bring it into an app that would allow you do adjust the character width to make it a bit more condensed. Clark.pdf
  4. Assuming that RLM 82 refers to the bright green and RLM 83 to the darker olive green, the standard late war scheme for the Ar 234 was 81/82. For the Me 262, both 81/82 and 81/83 were used. I don't know which scheme was more common, but Messerschmitt is known to have used the 81/83 scheme on other late war aircraft including the Bf 109 K and the Me 163.
  5. Yes, I also invested in a resin seat (Quickboost), which happily fits nicely, but I used the kit ejection handle since the Quickboost item was broken. Agreed on the IP decals. I didn't find the stenciling instructions too bad, and a lot of the stencil decals are virtually invisible so alignment doesn't seem to make that big a difference. An awful lot of them, though. I counted 188 for the airframe and another 198 for the two R-27s/pylons and the four Eduard Brassin R-73s/pylons.
  6. Thanks all for the info and photos. ijozic, I'm going to take your lead and do my model without the antennas, largely because I'm finding the tiny GWH photo-etch assembly beyond my ability to achieve a satisfactory result. Really don't understand why they couldn't have done it as a single injection molded piece (Academy did on theirs).
  7. Yes, that's it. Guess I'll put it on, thanks.
  8. I'm getting near the end of a GWH MiG-29 9-12 that I'm doing as a USSR plane around 1991. I'm wondering about the diamond shaped panel just ahead of the windscreen with the three vertical tubes sticking out of it. Was this an early or late feature, and would it be appropriate/necessary on a plane of that vintage? GWH provides the diamond shaped panel with and without holes for the tubes. Thanks, Pip
  9. I reported one of his posts a week or so ago because I found it abusive and offensive.
  10. Just out of interest, was there an announcement somewhere of the ban? If not, how did you find out?
  11. According to Sovereign web page: https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/us-navy-usmc-aircraft-colours-around-ww2 it's pretty close to Light Gull Gray.
  12. I like haneto's recipe, but I also think the Sierra Hotel resin seats are very good alternatives.
  13. IMHO the Tamiya F-16 cockpit is not that weak at all and is actually more accurate than at least one of the resin cockpits (Aires I think) purportedly designed for it. Sierra Hotel makes really nice resin seats, and the Eduard PE cockpit set is useful for the central console of the IP.
  14. Yes, that's definitely a possibility. I could use something like Micro Liquitape, which is a reasonably strong yet temporary bond. However, I've made the decision not to have the missiles covered and have begun attaching the clear seeker heads to the Brassin A-27s, so that die is cast for better or worse.
  15. Very helpful answer, B.R., thanks! I've got the FOD covers all painted and ready to go, but I'm trapped squarely on the fence. One minute I decide I want to use them; five minutes later I think no. Right now I'm leaning toward not using them.
  16. I'm nearing the end of a build of GWH's MiG-29 9-12, and I'm soliciting opinions on whether or not to use FOD covers. I've got Quickboost covers for the intakes and exhausts, and the Eduard Brassin A-27 Archer missiles I'm using provide for covered or uncovered ends. I keep changing my mind on which way to go. Aesthetically, I think the plane looks more businesslike uncovered, but the covers add some splashes of color. I'm also thinking that if I go with the covers, I should also be covering the pitot tube, angle of attack sensors, and other pointy-outy things, and I don't really want to do that. I know that the GWH intake interiors are not terribly well detailed, but that doesn't bother me much because it's pretty hard to see inside them from any normal viewing angle. What do people think?
  17. Hi Andrew. I'm with dnl47: I generally thin by eye rather than measuring. For paint, I go for a consistency that flows like milk down the jar when I touch the stirring rod to the side. When I'm thinning Mr. Color clear gloss for a wet coat, I'll thin more - like skim milk - more watery.
  18. Lately I've been using Mr. Color Clear Gloss, thinned quite a bit with their Leveling Thinner. My final flat coats are invariably acrylic - Micro Flat or Vallejo. As far as Xtracolor is concerned, it's just too hard to obtain where I live. As Model Master gradually fades out of the scene, I'm more frequently using Mr. Color or MRP for my main paint coats; they're both semigloss and so need much less clear gloss for decals.
  19. I used GWH's decals for the (numerous) stencils on their MiG-29 9-12 I'm currently building. Although they're matte surfaced, I had no trouble with them at all.
  20. I had an acerbic response all set to post before I saw your "lol."
  21. Try mixing a lightened version of your color and apply it in a dense mottle as if to a Luftwaffe plane. Then if necessary, apply a thin coat of highly thinned original color to pull it all together.
  22. There's no listing for that model at 1999.co.jp. Not surprising since the kit dates from the 1960s (although it was reboxed at some point by Testors). I (as you probably have) did an internet search for both IMC and Testors instructions and came up empty.
  23. Hi Collin. Just what I was looking for. Thanks for the link.
  24. 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.
  25. .... 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'.
  • Create New...