Quixote74

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

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

You'd know for sure if there was video of him falling coming off the ladder 🙊

Ok, please read what I wrote above. I was suggesting using the NOSE of the Trumpeter kit only, I'm aware that the Italeri is still superior.

Never compared them for the purpose but it occurred to me after yesterday's post that you might be able to use a Trumpeter (aka MiniHobby or Zhengdefu) copy of the Italeri F-5E as a "nose donor." The kit overall is basically a scribed panel line copy of the original Italeri tooling (including early nose and lack of LERX). The main reason I suggest this is that the Trumpeter kit has been more widely available and at a far lower MSRP than the Italeri (esp. the original tooling).

Furball's instructions indicate the decals for your subject date from '77 which would predate the sharknose and LERX mods (They specify the updates in their instructions where applicable). The original F-5E/F wing planform extends to the same point at the root leading edge, the extension was made spanwise, no change in chord, so the photo likely shows the original wing root. Your simplest path to building a pre-update airframe would be finding one of the earlier boxing of the Italeri kit (or Testors reboxing). The tooling for the E was modified circa 1995 for the Patrouille Suisse

Will be interesting to see how far they take the options on this round. The changes between JASDF and USAF A/C airframes are so minmal it would be silly *not* to tool up the additional parts. Haven't seen the molds for any two-seaters yet, but once you've done that it's not much farther for the Strike family parts (as Revell clearly started with, engineering their new E for the air-to-air versions in the future).

This does appear to be an error. The 23rd Wing did not have any C-130s assigned under TAC, it was an A-10 unit at England AFB Louisiana. When TAC was reorganized into ACC, the 23rd relocated to Pope AFB North Carolina and adopted the former airlift C-130s there along with new F-16C/Ds. It's possible some C-130s kept their old markings for a while after the reorganization, but the subject aircraft has the newer "proud gray" overall FS36173 color scheme and its other markings are for the ACC era.

Assuming you mean the scheme shown in the first photo here, I believe a single gray color is correct with just a darker gray cheatline. The C-9, like several airliner/transport types, has a "double bubble" cross section, which in certain lighting creates a sharper shade/shadow contrast along the sides than a conventional single-cylinder fuselage. The upper surfaces can appear lighter, but it's just the way the light hits it - overall 16440 looks like the way to go.

I'll leave to others with more definitive information to confirm, but I believe the F-5Es and F-5Fs operated by Topgun in the 70s-80s retained their radars. I do know for sure the standard production variants had radar displays on the front and rear panels, as seen here: https://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/f5-72/f5-tiger-aircraft-man.htm As for the "missing" nose gun, my understanding is that none of the two-seaters had a second cannon fitted, so it wasn't removed - it was never there. The potentially confusing thing is that the vacant gun bay (IIRC the starboard one) was u

Unless this is something from a deleted scene or a translated version, gonna have to question the accuracy on that quote. Obi Wan's response to the cargo question is: "No cargo, only passengers. Myself, the boy, two droids... and no questions asked." (Memorable in part because that last sentence usually wins the "Star Wars lines that are creepy out of context" contest 🙊) I think the line you're actually referencing comes earlier, when Obi Wan rescues Luke from the Tuskens. He tells him "The Jundland Wastes are not to be traveled lightly." (Jundland Wastes being th

Actually by "gondola" I was referring to the "underslung" tube section that runs most of the pod's length below the main body (vs. earlier versions with just a single cylinder). If you think about the cross-section profile (very roughly speaking): No gondola: o Godola: 8 The small bulged antenna appears on some sub-types of each variant, but not the (V)10 as you see above.

Note that AMT/Ertl boxing of ESCI's kit was unique in offering the early and late tails in one kit (since it covered a QF-104C and the long-tail German and Canadian variants). As far as I'm aware all of the original ESCI boxings and all the recent Italeri reboxings only provide the parts for the A/C or the G/S, not both in one package.

The major external fearures of each version are shown in the museum display @RichB63 posted above, including the (V)10. The 101 probably has the widest variation of all US pods since there are short, long, with or w/o "gondola," and other more subtle differences. For the Desert Storm/Operation Granby Buccaneers you want a long pod with gondola as per the Resikit and Flightpath examples posted above.

I have this kit somewhere in the stash (picture the end of Raiders with more dust and less John Williams music 😄). I recall something like a $30 retail price from one of several sadly now departed LHS options I frequented in that era. Without resorting to Scalemates, I believe there were a few of the An-72/74 variants released, as well as a limited run of the An-71 "Madcap" AWACS variant that mounted its radar dish on top of a forward-swept vertical tail! When the time comes to replace the kit gunpod, Dragon/DML did a pretty good one in their Soviet weapons set (the air-to-surfac

Depends on how many "what-ifs" you consider. As @habu2 noted, if the XL variant had won over the Strike Eagle and entered production, that would have been the E/F - and holding that pair of designations open explains the Block 40 provisional series letter starting with G. I've never seen anything definitive but always inferred the two-seaters would have gotten their own letters, hence: F-16XL-1 = F-16E (later reused for Block 60 export single-seater) F-16XL-2 = F-16F (later reused for Block 60 export two-seater) F-16C Block 40/42 = F-16CG (provisionally F-16G) F-16D Block

The "CJ/DJ" designation is only semi-official (at best). Supposedly this originated when the USAF wanted Block 40/42 aircraft, aka "Night Falcons" with LANTIRN capability, to be designated as F-16Gs and Block 50/52s with HTS as F-16CJs. According to the story, concern about ordering "new" types of Vipers was perceived as a threat to F-22 funding, thus the non-standard nomenclature. In any case, while both the Block 40/42s and 50/52s have certain unique features and typically operated in squadrons with specialty roles, all USAF F-16Cs are multirole capable for a wide range of air-to-ground an

Appreciate the info, however I'd prefer to support @KursadA (esp. in his own forum) and frankly unless inflation has a much more horrendous impact than I would expect on Caracal's retail pricing it will represent a much greater value for a single sheet (not to mention being easier to acquire in the U.S.).

+1 on the vote for including low-viz choices, but TBH there's never been much more available in 1:72 for fleet squadrons in hi-viz either. I'd hope to see some of the more notable periods in carrier ops represented: HS-9 on Nimitz circa The Final Countdown/Eagle Claw/Gulf of Sidra Incident HS-17 from Coral Sea c. Prairie Fire/Eldorado Canyon HS-6 on Enterprise during Operation Praying Mantis Or pretty much anything from Desert Shield/Storm, particular personal preference for HS-8/CVW-14 off Independence, HS-3 from Saratoga, HS-9 off TR, and

Somehow this seems to be on-topic...

Just to break it down a bit further, there are basically "first generation" and "second generation" Harriers, the latter occasionally referred to as Harrier II. The second generation was co-produced between British Aerospace and McDonnell Douglas, and features a larger wing, uprated engines, and upgraded avionics of several varieties, though to a casual observer they all share the same basic configuration. 1st Gen RAF versions are the GR.1, and GR.3, plus corresponding trainers. The Royal Navy operated the Sea Harrier FRS.1. This was upgraded to FA.2 standard which included a new

No doubt whatever data it was meant to provide to the sender, it's already done so. But I'm confident the splashdown zone was already well prepared for U.S. recovery - examining it up close will tell a lot about what it was really designed to do (spoiler alert: not "climate science"). From the right solar orientation I would assume getting an IR lock on a highly reflective metallic balloon in an otherwise clear, cold sky would be pretty simple. Shame they needed to spend an AAM at all though, the M-17 Mystic was designed to down NATO "weather" balloons with just an internal gun.

My bad, you are correct that it was Mr. Peeler's work - 25 years ago this month, in fact: https://finescale.com/issues/1998/february-1998

Thanks for the additional info - gorgeous build! I have to acknowledge I first learned about the Dash 80 when I read your conversion build article in Fine Scale Modeler backdating the AMT 135 🙂

Not definitive or comprehensive by any means but seaforces.org posts photos grouped by unit and arranged chronologically (where dates are known). Note they group units separately by designation so the Tomcat pics are under "inactive" VF squadron listings, even where legacy VFAs are still active. Black Aces VF link HERE