Jump to content

Quixote74

Members
  • Content Count

    479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Quixote74

  1. Actually neither scheme has an "actual" official name, but Hill Gray is probably much more common and technically more accurate. The official "Hill Gray II" scheme is shown (but not labelled as such) in USAF Tech Order 1-1-4 (PDF here, page 116 for the Phantom). The Hill Gray schemes were originally developed for the F-16 when it was in the Full Scale Development stage. The FSD Vipers wore several different schemes before settling on 36118 ('gunship' gray) over 36375 ('light ghost' gray), with 36270 areas on the upper forward fuselage and upper part of the intake. This was origi
  2. The best (but not to say 100% accurate) 4-view line drawings I've seen are in Volume 31 of the Japanese monograph series Famous Airplanes of the World. Unfortunately may be difficult or expensive to acquire, being a foreign language publication and long out of print (1991). It covers most of the major variants and includes a lot of high quality photography, much in color, so may still be worth the investment for you. I suspect you will never find a "fully accurate" set of drawings so using photo references is often the best way to settle discrepancies that creep in due to drafting errors.
  3. An interesting footnote on the RAF SEAD role: circa early 2000s when the air defense threat had dwindled and there was expected to be a heavy anti-radar demand in what eventually became Operation Telic (aka OIF, aka Gulf War 2 [sic]), there was a trial fit of ALARM to Tornado ADVs of XI Squadron, unofficially titled "EF.3" for the occasion. Supposedly the F.3's enhanced RWR fit made a better emitter location system than the GR.1/4 - and owing to their roots the ADVs have always had some theoretical air-to-ground capability, though this is the only time I'm aware of any operator activating it
  4. Understood on the scale preference/size limitations. Unfortunately 1:144 limits the options, although you'd probably be able to find a conversion someplace like Shapeways and the base C-135 and 707 airframes are available from several sources. More broadly speaking, with your subject matter goal the vast majority of aircraft that have ever flown for NASA (particularly from its creation out of NACA to the end of the Apollo era) could be broadly classified as "support" for the manned space program - I think you just have to figure out your definition of "direct." DRAW Decal does a w
  5. The EC-135 version of ARIA was kitted by AMTech in a modified version of the KC-135 originally made by AMT. It's long OOP but you still see them on the secondary market occasionally. https://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/builds/amtech/build_amtech_729202.shtml The EC-18 version (based on the 707/VC-137 airframe, rather than the KC-135) can be built from the Heller 707 or (with slightly more work) the E-3 AWACS. DB Productions made a resin nose conversion set, which was picked up along with most of their line by David J Parkins/Flightpath and seems to still be available:
  6. Closest thing I know of specific to the BUFF was the resin "lumps, bumps, and antennae" set by Buffmaster, or the similar parts from Cutting Edge's even more rare G/H conversion sets. I'm not certain either included pitots though. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/buffmaster-designs-bmdr72026-b-52g-b-52h-stratofortress-antenna-lumps-and-bumps--930984 There's a Ukrainian company called Miniworld that does metal upgrade pitot & antenna sets for various kits. No guarantee they'll be the exact size & shape you need, but a couple of their sets for modern western types may ha
  7. Fantasy Printshop does several generic stencil/warning sets that will get you the ejection triangles and rescue arrows. https://www.fantasyprintshop.co.uk/decals/aircraft-decals/fantasy-printshop-decals/aircraft-markings/ They don't do the yellow data blocks, though. You may be able to cobble together pieces that are close enough from various "hi viz" broadly contemporary types - either spares, or dedicated data stencil sheets for types like the F-14, F-15, F-4, et al.
  8. I've yet to see any definitive timeframe for when removal started and when it was complete. It seems as early as '78-'79 was when they began coming off, mostly removed by circa '81-'82, but well into the 80s there were still some U.S. airframes (possibly entire units) that still had them. If you can't find definitive proof for your airframe, looking for others from the same unit is evidence as to whether or not they were installed, but not definitive. Anywhere from around 1978 up to 1983 or so seems it could go either way, obviously the later the more likely the nozzles would be "featherles
  9. The turkey feathers were hit or miss by that timeframe, but assuming the squadron/wing would have been reasonably consistent here's an A from Bitburg dated 1980 that still has them installed: LINK The tailhook fairing wasn't removed from fighter Eagles on a widespread basis until after Desert Storm (1991) [the E-models never had them]
  10. Correct on this being VMA(AW)-224, but I think this is a late and relatively rare variant of 36440 light gull gray over white, used in the late 70s/early 80s before TPS became standard (this was the attack community's equivalent of the Phantoms & Tomcats in overall 36440, between the gray/white "hi viz" era and TPS "yuck and double yuck" gray on gray). You can see a better quality example on this page, 3rd section down, 2nd image from the right (VMA-332). [If a bright tail on a TPS airframe would satisfy you, the VMA-533 example on that same page from 1990 has the full color blue/white ch
  11. Far from an expert, but the blade antennae shown in the F-111A instructions should only be there on the EF-111A 'Spark Vark' conversions. It appears this was an error in ESCI's original instructions (which I'm sure shared a lot of basic artwork between the variants). The phantom antennae from sprue "E" show up in the first release instructions posted on scalemates https://www.scalemates.com/kits/esci-ertl-9068-f-111a-aardvark--136476 In fact there should be an external "strap" reinforcement in that area unique to the EF-111A updates: http://nabe3saviation.web.fc2.com/ima
  12. In 1:72, Revell is the lead choice by far. I don't believe this kit has ever been reboxed by anyone else. All other options are obsolete by comparison. Note this tooling was originally produced in 2005 as an F.6, with an FGA.9 update offered later. If you have your heart set on a particular variant/squadron you'll need to be mindful of which details are appropriate. There should be aftermarket conversions available for most of the major versions not catered to by the kit options.
  13. Not my scale of choice so I can't help directlly with your proposed parts swap, but these links should be useful: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/01/grumman-6-wing-fold-differences.html?m=1 http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/01/grumman-6-wing-fold-differences-part-2.html?m=1 As I follow it, the EA-6B doesn't technically have a "composite" or "metal" wing fold, but technically its own unique configuration (closer to the composite version).
  14. According to my references TRAM was introduced in 1979, but based on a lot of photos from the early/mid-1980s it took a while for all of the A-6E fleet to be upgraded. I seem to recall that early on some airframes were wired for TRAM but didn't have the turret below the radome actually fitted (possibly due to shortages?) It's also very common in that era to see white TRAM turrets on TPS gray Intruders, and vice versa - in fact if you look closely the hi-viz example you posted has a ghost gray turret, and the TPS gray bird behind it has a white turret! Specific to VMA(AW)-533, jud
  15. Syhart produced a decal/mask set in both 1:72 and 1:48, and even offered some custom paints for the unique colors. It appears these are now OOP, but you may find them through distributors still having stock. https://syhartdecal.fr/references.php?lang=ENG&ref=Syhart 055&page=description
  16. Not that exact airframe, but a few options out there for the 460th that should just require some generic serials and "buzz numbers." Wolfpak Decals (RIP) included one on 72-063, which appears to still be available from Fantasy Printshop: https://www.fantasyprintshop.co.uk/product/wolfpak-72-063-tiger-tiger/ Modeldecal Sheet #11 also has a 460th Deuce. This sheet is much older so you'd have to find it on the secondary market, but Modeldecal's printing (at least in my experience) holds up very well. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/modeldecal-11-f-102a-delta-dag
  17. Not a color I've seen matched "out of the bottle," though several manufacturers have done decal sheets in a more accurate "greenish yellow-gray" than the bright yellow that still prevails in kit decals for these strips. In fact the original CAM even offered them with a luminescent "glow in the dark" ink.
  18. For the specific application you're asking about (USAF F-16Cs), the ALQ-131 and ALQ-184 were effectively interchangeable but for reasons of logistic efficiency (and probably some of the classified performance aspects alluded to above), generally a wing used all one type or another. Broadly speaking, the 131, usually the "deep" variant, seems to be the choice for USAFE, while PACAF and units in the continental US operate with ALQ-184s (replacing the earlier, similar ALQ-119s). It would be highly unlikely to see a Texas ANG bird, even on deployment to Europe or elsewhere, with a 131 pod, since
  19. The actual markings involved seem pretty sparse - any chance this sheet might also include the 19th TFS markings from the time of the original kill?
  20. Not sure how "first 4" is defined in this context, but until I see photos of an ACES II in an FSD airframe I'm inclined to stick with the Stencel. Note, among other things: - There's a comment in that same thread about '752' (the second 2-seater) having the Stencel fitted as late as 1983 - There were only 8 FSD airframes total (6 singles and 2 family models), so if the 2nd two-seater had Stencels then it's safe to deduce the first did also - Even if "first four" is taken to refer only to the single seaters (i.e. not counting the 2-seaters that had Stencels a
  21. Not directly relevant for the OP's purposes but the second pair of 'blister' antennae on the fuselage sides below the cockpit seems to me a rather tough recognition feature since they're often in shadow due to the LERX. The pair of larger (and much more visible from most angles) blister antennae on the dorsal spine behind the cockpit, along with a third on the underside behind the nose gear, have always been the quickest way for me to tell a C/D from an earlier airframe. Another A vs. C distinction not mentioned yet is the ejection seat. All A/Bs and early production C/Ds had SJU
  22. Your AMT kit is one of several that was produced right after the first, heavily distorted, image of the F-117 was publicly released (and its existence acknowledged, previous speculation revolving around the "F-19" dedignation that may have been left unused partly to provide 'plausible deniability' for the stealth program while it was still classified). Those kits were horribly innacurate, AMT being arguably least worst of the bunch. As for best currently available, there's never been a universal consensus but generally Hasegawa and Revell's "second toolings" along with Academy ten
  23. Happy to be corrected on this if others have specific info to the contrary, but I believe Hasegawa's Rockeyes being called out as green are a carryover from their original "demonstrator" kit of 71-291, the pre-production two-seater that McAir used for proof-of-concept. It wore the unique Euro I camouflage and was seen in a number of display flights carrying a full load of dummy Rockeyes that were green with a blue stripe. AFAIK live Mk 20/ SUU-75 Rockeyes (and training/dummy rounds as well) are normally white. What most people see as "green Rockeyes" are usually the very similar SU
  24. You'd know for sure if there was video of him falling coming off the ladder 🙊
×
×
  • Create New...