seawinder
-
Content Count
1,108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by seawinder
-
-
I recently finished the Tamiya F-14A and had a great time with it. Especially given the complexity of the subject, the engineering is in a class by itself. The whole wing-swing mechanism is screwed up tight in its own box and simply works, period. Everything fits. The missiles provided in the box were quite satisfactory for me, and the kit missile (and other) stencils worked just fine, contrary to Tamiya's somewhat spotty reputation in that department. I did use a Quinta Studio cockpit set and AM resin ejection seats.
I've also very much enjoyed the two Tamiya F-16s I've built, one a Block 25 and the other a Block 32 aggressor. Only a very slight step down from the F-14 in fit and ease of assembly IMHO; still clever engineering, very good detail OOB. On the first one I built, I used the kit seat with belts from Eduard and thought it looked really good.
Two other kits I've built that I think at least deserve to be mentioned are the Eduard MiG-21 (I did the SMT kit) and the GWH MiG-29 (I did the 9-12 Early kit). They both take somewhat more work then the Tamiyas, but IMHO yield really nice models.
I've got a Tamiya F-4B in the stash and can't wait to do it.
-
But it's a jet??
-
14 hours ago, KursadA said:
... I disagree that the stroke width is different, the slightly thicker appearance is probably due to JPEG compression artifacts in the shared photo. There are larger and clearer photos that show the markings to be fairly regular.
And I respectfully must disagree with you on that, but I could be convinced with the "larger and clearer photographs" you mention. Are they accessible to view online?
-
5 hours ago, Sabrejet said:
The white 'US AIR FORCE' is standard Amarillo USAF font and may even exist on aftermarket sheets. (snip)
AmarilloUSAF will get you reasonably close for the U.S. AIR FORCE, but it's not really the same. For one thing, the lettering on the plane has significantly wider strokes. Compare the "A" from the plane with the font below: the enclosed triangle is almost just a dot on the plane lettering because of the wider strokes. Also the middle stroke of the "E" is closer to the same length as the top and bottom ones (which I think are proportionally shorter), and the ends of the "C" protrude further vertically.
-
From the box art, Monogram 6838 provides a Hamilton Standard propeller. Ultracast does a resin item in 1/48 that could probably be modified to fit fairly easily:
https://www.ultracast.ca/product-p/ult48103.htm
As for decals, there are lots of aftermarket sheets available, at least some of which are for planes with HS props.
-
Thanks, Kazu. I'll also check out some of the videos before starting the project.
-
Looking good so far. How have you found the build? I've got one of these in the stash and hope to start it this year.
-
1 hour ago, Kazu said:
By the way... Are there sites where people like to show their work? Or does that end up being Instagram and stuff?
A lot of sites, including this one, have sub-forums for showing models. Here it's "In-Progress Pics" and "The Display Case," eight and nine sub-forums below this one.
-
I believe it's the standard low-drag configuration with conical contour to the aft end of the bomb, as opposed to the high-drag Snake Eye..
-
I say build it as an E-3. If the issue is the wing armament of MG vs. cannon, according to Wikipedia many E-1s were later upgraded to E-3 standard anyway.
-
Thanks, Jari. The photo appears to show the missiles the same hue as the pylon. For better or worse, I went with "pure" white (Mr. Color C1) for the missiles and Insignia White 37875 for the pylons (same as the rest of the airframe).
-
7 hours ago, Illu said:
Don’t overthink white.
I wasn't overthinking, just asking a fairly simple question.
-
There's a discussion of this plane at ww2aircraft.net:
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/corsair-mk-ii-leslie-durno-aircraft-of-the-aces-gb.30088/
Opinion seems to be that it wasn't red, but rather some locally mixed blue applied to reduce the diameter of the inner white (or pale blue) circle.
-
I'm getting to that stage of an F-14A build. I used Insignia White FS 17875 for the under- and control surfaces. It's really a very slightly off-white. Question: were the missiles painted in that color or in a pure white? We're talking 1970s.
Thanks! Pip
-
Aeromaster 48-106 has markings for two planes with cannon armament, one British, one American. Probably very hard to find.
If I read the online references correctly, the DK sheet wouldn't have any appropriate markings since AFAIK all A-36s had .50-cal armament. Apparently only 150 cannon-armed P-51s were built, all but 57 going to the British who called them Mustang Mk. IA. I believe all the P-51s retained by the USAAF served in Africa and the Mediterranean with pretty plain markings. INHO the kit decals are probably your best bet. In my experience they hold up pretty well, but you could always give them a coat of Micro Liquid Decal Film if you're worried about disintegration.
-
It's probably the best of the four 1/48 offerings (Heller, Monogram and Kinetic being the other three). Basic shapes are okay, but there are issues. I suggest you check out Tom Cleaver's build review at Modeling Madness:
https://modelingmadness.com/review/korean/cleaver/usaf/tc84f.htm
Read the "The Kit" section for a pretty useful rundown. There are a lot of other reviews online.
-
Try Google?
Furball, Afterburner and Caracal all have sheets that include at least one D. I'm sure there are others.
-
The plastic is Academy plus a bunch of Eduard PE and resin. Here's an in-box Hyperscale review:
https://www.hyperscale.com/2013/reviews/kits/eduard1177reviewmd_1.htm
Apparently the kit lacks the bulged gear doors to do a proper E, nor does it include appropriate air-to-ground armament. The article states it will build a good Israeli D.
-
1 hour ago, lockheed2004 said:
Cybermodeler has a full review from 2005 of the Academy reboxing. The kit came out in this form in 2020. Why are we just now reviewing it like it's brand new?
That's pretty much R_C61's modus operandi.
-
1 hour ago, legend1 said:
i do agree with you but assuming that tamiya f14 is the top in terms of accuracy why not compare the 2?
That seems to me to be a large assumption. "Top in terms of accuracy" doesn't necessarily imply that Tamiya got the nose contours exactly correct. I'm not saying they didn't because I don't know, nor do I know what the two companies used for shape references. In any case, before scattering more accuracy accusations around at various web sites, I suggest you do due diligence and compare the two kits to reputable, documented references (drawings?) first.
-
23 minutes ago, legend1 said:
correct but this was easy to fix it !!!the nose cone and the shape of the front fuselage will be impossible according to the tamiya kit which is the most accurate out there
I love the Tamiya kit (working on one as we speak), but isn't it a bit risky to base the accuracy of one model on the contours of another model?
-
2 hours ago, Buckmeister said:
Those two photographs don’t show anything. One has the canopy closed, one is a model with the canopy open.
Windscreen center section, horizontal width; the canopy is irrelevant. Check out his post on Monday at 5:19 p.m.
-
1 hour ago, Buckmeister said:
I don’t understand what you’re trying to show with those photographs.
I believe he's trying to show that the Hasegawa windscreen is "much too wide." I might go along with "slightly too wide," but otherwise I'm not seeing it.
-
On 8/14/2023 at 5:19 PM, Robertson said:
Not many, but pit a P-40N against a P-51D, and the winner would very often not be the one most think... Hit and run required an unaware target and basically firing at point-blank range. Speed was not at all the dominant factor historians have retained. But of course the range was...
The Hasegawa has a much too wide windscreen center glass, and an inaccurate radiator bottom profile, a very prominent signature feature. The Eduard kit is badly needed just for a better prop on its own.
I think you have a tendency to use subjective phrases like "much too wide." How wide is much too wide? How about telling us how many mm too wide?
What flavor F6F?
in Props
Posted
Target drone. Link to article about F6F-5K used in testing the new Sidewinder missile during the 50s:
https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/grumman-f6f-5k-hellcat/