Quixote74

As others have noted, the engines are effectively the same but the pylons are different because the 135 series has a different wing from the 707/E-3. To summarize a subject that gets pretty complicated thanks to nearly 70 years of development history: The "Mother of All 707s" was the Boeing 367-80 ("Dash 80") prototype, which is the common ancestor of all 707 airliners and C-135 tanker/transport variants. The Dash 80 and C-135 and all KC/RC/EC variants have a 'narrow chord' wing, with the trailing edge as a straight line (other than the root fillet). The 13

What's the source indicating the Fightpath set as OOP? Their website still lists them: https://www.djparkins.com/product.php?productid=17944&cat=248&page=2

Love the 1/72 love, as always! Didn't readily spot a thread for it so if @KursadA has no objections, for those looking for more detail here's the page for the 1/48 sheet: https://www.caracalmodels.com/cd48228.html

Hi Danakar, welcome to ARC! If you weren't already aware, Revell and Monogram were originally separate companies that were consolidated under Revell's brand name in the late 80s (and Revell itself has had a few rounds of restructuring since). So many of the kits now marketed by Revell were originally Monogram molds. This is also why you'll occasionally see references to "Revellogram" as a manufacturer. Your research thus far is accurate in that no single kit of the SR-71 in 1:72 is perfect, but the general consensus is that the Revell kit you listed has the most accur

I think the photos you've posted show a pretty good reference for the actual color, which does have some degree of variation. The trick with representing it in scale is a combination of the color and not overdoing the metallic - the real thing are an anodized finish, so unlike most "natural metal" finishes you're actually trying to keep the metallic aspect subtle - and no more than a satin/semi-gloss, matte probably being more accurate in scale. I've yet to find an "out of the bottle" match but on the examples I've been happiest with I combined a metallic steel (not silver or alum

Not my scale so I'll leave it to others to narrow down your specific decal choices, but the two USAF units that have flown F-16s with sharkmouths as part of their official (or at least semi-official) schemes: 52nd TFW @ Spangdahlem, Germany (SP tailcode): USAFE's Wild Weasel wing, they received some of the earliest F-16C/Ds and wore several varieties of sharkmouth (hi and lo-viz, underside only and some that wrapped the chine between upper and lower nose). Note this unit still flies F-16s today (as the 52nd Wing, no T since the reorganization from TAC to ACC) but no longer carries

FYI, for the Phantom it is only the 600 gallon centerline tank (and the "late model" version of that) that is also used on the F-15. The Phantom's wing tanks are generally similar in overall shape but only 370 gallons each, i.e. much smaller. Good shot of the Eagle tank for reference (centerline and wing tanks on the F-15 are identical):

Not a 1:48 guy but this forum has them in abundance so confident you'll get plenty of input on that scale. For 1:72: Su-7 Fitter Best available: Modelsvit (various sub-variants) Also worth considering: KP/Kopro - *much* older kit with sparse detail, raised panel lines, and less than perfect fit, but good overall shapes and should be readily available for something like 1/3 the asking price of the Modelsvit wonderkit. Only major drawback for the early KP boxings is terrible decal quality, but aftermarket sheets suitable for this type are available.

Hi Ash - Welcome to the forums! You may have missed it since it's waaaayyy down toward the bottom of the forum index, but there is a "classifieds" section where posts like yours should typically be placed. Making a parts request like this, you could post in either the "Spares Box" forum, or a "Want-To-Buy" in the Buy/Sell forum. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/forum/22-the-spares-box-add-scale-to-your-title/ To share a few technical notes to be aware of where 1:72 F-15 drop tanks are concerned: First, beware that some kits, most

"Real" has a few layers of meaning here. I'm inferring from the 'security' comment you may not be aware of the sad history of the ill-fated "Flying Dorito" - which never made it past mock-up form before being cancelled, resulting in one of the longest legal sagas in the history of Pentagon procurement: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II While there was never a real airframe, the mock-up, some engineering drawings for specific components, and various detailed models and renderings have made it to the public realm, allowing for the possibility of

Is this correct? I understood all the Mk 80 series (or at minimum both the 500 lb Mk 82 and Mk 83 1000 pounder) used "Snakeye" tail groups as an option to the "slick" conical fins. The AIR "ballute" was introduced post-Vietnam, but my understanding was that fin group was again an optional fit (and only used operationally by USAF, not USN/USMC), so Snakeyes would be correct for the film. Related recent discussion on the various fin & fuse types here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/329547-mk82-retarded-bombs-different-fins/

By no means an expert so happy to be corrected, but based on having the same sheet in 1/72 and accumulating all the 57th FIS Eagle reference images I've been able to find: 1) Non-MSIP (at least they do not have the telltale "nose pimples" I understand are a sign of that upgrade) 2) See above 3) I believe this varied at the timeframe in question, but this photo shows the AFI CO bird did not: http://www.verslo.is/baldur/1024/f15c-afi-024.jpg 4) Don't believe any C/D models had canopy breakers on the seats during this timeframe.

Another illustration of why color "names" alone are darn near meaningless 😏 Also a good example of how "equivalents" and "pretty close" is in the eye of the beholder when comparing multiple color standards. Color perception ("what color do I see it as") as distinct from pigmentation ("what color is it painted"), or objective color ("what color IS it" - i.e. the visible portion of the EM spectrum) is a lot more subjective than most people realize. At their core this is the fundamental reason most of the color systems that have been established and evolved over the years

Know the OP asked for a Tamiya match, but since it was referenced as a replacement for Model Master it may be worth sharing. Been a long time since I've purchased it so no guarantee that it's still the same color, but at one time Testors (not Model Master) "Light Aircraft Gray" was the same as the Model Master FS 36622 "Camouflage Gray." (Testors "Dark Aircraft Gray" was a match for FS 36307, which MM labeled as "Light Sea Gray"). The Testors paints should still be available at the retailers that still carry Testors paints at all. When they were all available the Testors cans were usually

Can't help with MRP equivalents, but the FS595 colors you've quoted bear a couple of technical corrections. First, for the "high viz" era all the FS numbers should start with 1 (gloss finish), not 3 (matte). Also, the second digit of the correct (or any) blue in the FS595 nomenclature would be a 5. So the correct gloss dark blue is actually FS 15044 - often referred to by the unofficial nickname, "insignia blue." Likewise FS 13538 is the official gloss yellow used. Theoretically the gloss vs matte finishes should just mean the difference in surface finish so you could

I suspect the plastic is the same but that box art (and likely the decal option) is pretty clearly fake. First, the "all new tooling" subtitle is something I've never seen advertised so prominently on a boxtop - and it's been close to 20 years since Revell reboxed Hasegawa's F-15E, 30 for the Monogram Strike Eagle, so who outside modeling circles would be confused about this being an "old tooling"? Next, the main title lettering uses the exact same typeface as the vintage Monogram release circa 1984 (just changing from black to white text and adding the E suffix that d

The 1987 date caption on the seaforces.org version is dubious, but I think it's a genuine photo. The resolution and lighting are such that details like the yaw string aren't visible, but the lighting source is consistent (high to the right/rear) despite some claims to the contrary above. More to the point, if someone were trying to "fake" this image, why would they use two different Sidewinder types? This has the "look" of one of Heater's photos from the early 80s, which would make the -9H more explainable (if still strange). I'll have to dig up my copy of The Cutting Edge and see

@mrvark if @Dutch's post isn't sufficient, I'm pretty sure I have that sheet in my decal bank but it may be a few days before I can dig it out and scan for you. Note that if you're asking for instructions, the original Microscale sheet will always be a better option - when Superscale took over the line, they usually copied the original two-sided instructions onto a single-sided sheet (and at poor resolution), so legibility of the SS sheets is often lacking. (AFAIK the sheet numbers were carried over, so the one you need is MS 72-452).

Try searching by "OSO" or "DSO" (Offensive/Defensive Systems Operator) - those are the technical terms for the rear stations in the B-1B. Just one example from Wikimedia:

Well since you're going off my notes I decided I better double-check the info 🤔 There isn't a camouflage pattern for the T-39 in my copy of T.O. 1-1-4 - which isn't terribly surprising. But I did confirm my recollection that the standard Euro I scheme as worn by most transports is FS 36118 gray/ FS 34102 medium green / FS 34092 dark green. The only official scheme that substitutes 34079 for 34092 is the F-4's version, which was unique to the Phantom and used the darker FS 36081 gray rather than 36118 (basically just subtituting 36081 for the 30219 tan areas of the Southeast Asia s

Thanks for the very comprehensive preview, look forward to following your progress! The color guide for the Euro I option has some dubious suggedtions: the gray color is labeled as FS "34118" - should be FS 36118, aka "Gunship" Gray. Also, I'm not certain for this type but in the standard scheme for most transport/utility types the darker of the two greens was FS34092, vs. 34079 per the instructions. There were variations on several types, this may be one of them but reference check is definitely in order if building this version.

Found the answer to the Falcon mystery - surprisingly right here at ARC 😄 http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0015_F-15_AIM4/story0015.htm Short version: early 90s test for a warning system on the C-141. The AIM-4 (surplus and obsolete) was fired at the Starlifter outside its range to test the new syatem's ability to detect the incoming missile.

Not my normal scale of choice but I understood the Academy 1/32 Phantom is Revell's tooling. Not aware of other examples, but that's not to say they aren't out there.

The Revell/Monogram tooling would be my guess, its being made for both the C and G variants (with appropriate optional parts) might explain the confusion in the marketing images. Academy's own G-model dates from their Minicraft era and is one to avoid - a poor copy of the already mediocre first-generation Hasegawa tooling (not to be confused with their excellent 2nd generation F-104 family). I picked one up years ago without knowing what to expect and was shocked to find a *swaybacked* Starfighter in the box!

As I began the post, I could be mistaken. But the alphabet and the USAF seem to agree with me: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104557/aim-9-sidewinder/ (The linked article notes the Juliet model entering service in 1977, which suggests the E would have been standard equipment for the As in early service.) That Falcon shot is intriguing on several levels: it's clearly not an early test, since the airframe shown is wearing Mod Eagle (not in use before the early 90s) and that plus the ET tailcode date it much later than any preliminary tests ev