Quixote74

Pulled up the Wolfpak decal instructions and did a bit of additional research. The pattern that Wolfpak provides for the C-130 'desert' scheme looks to have come from @Dana Bell's USAF Colors & Markings of the 1990s book. The diagram in the book may be one that was created specifically for that publication and did not previously exist in T.O. 1-1-4. The caption in Bell's book, as duplicated by Wolfpak, labels this as the "Asia Minor" scheme but I believe this is a mistaken carryover from the T.O. 1-1-4 drawing it was based on (see below). Wolfpak's instructions note that 64-17681 was t

I believe this scheme was previously offered by Wolfpak on their 2009 "thank you" release (09-012). I'd have to dig into the decal stash to confirm whether they gave an upper surface pattern and/or any applicable reference sources. *Apologies, @Dutch has already noted this above.

Hi @Rod D - just ran across your post today, is there any chance you have photos of the dark sea blue scheme you could share? My understanding was that the only single-color scheme worn by USN helos since the 60's is the "engine gray" scheme (FS16081). I've seen a few Seasprite models painted (and some kit instructions calling for) various blue shades, but from photos and the relevant color standards I always thought this was a misinterpretation of the engine gray scheme due to odd lighting and/or poor color reproduction.

That's one of the funny things about Showtime 100 - Cunningham & Driscoll, both LTs at the time, made ace on the 10 May 1972 mission, but lost the CAG's Phantom in the process!

The ADWC bird gave me a hankering for another Eglin tester - 64-0817 (now preserved at the Armament Museum, in a sadly more mundane SEA scheme): And while we're talking wish lists, how about a rare gray F-4C from the 57th FIS 63-7618  F-4C 57th FIS

Not certain what differences there may be in the cockpit, and it's important to remember that many "legacy" Hornets have undergone one or more upgrades during their service life, but based on the "as built" configuration 163754 was an early F/A-18C. Externally this means it has the A/B style vent grilles on the nose, vs. the later style with the "diamond mesh" screens. Also, it would have had the SJU-5 seat rather than NACES (again, when built - can't speak to potential updates at some point).

Hate to rain on your parade, but note that Italeri logo on the top right - I suspect this is yet another case of Tamiya reboxing an Italeri kit for the former's domestic market. And as we all know, Italeri is no Tamiya.

I didn't consider a two-tone scheme when looking at the photos because I took the question as "is FS 36375 the predominant color?" and also because the scheme pretty clearly doesn't feature the usual darkest gray (35237). That said, I believe the photos do show Dark Ghost Gray 36320 on the upper surfaces and a portion of the spine, although the contrast is low and the demarcation on the spine seems to vary. The darker color is most apparent on the Seaforces images in the shot from above/behind with the yellow shirt in front of the aircraft, and in the closeups of the wing gloves. In the latt

As far as giving the correct basic airframe (fuselage, wing, engines, sponsons) for the variants - not inclusive of specialized gear (revised nose radome, Fulton recovery gear, dorsal radome, etc), yes to all of the above with exception of the HC-130J (which is based on the C-130J variant). Basically, from what can be seen in the sprue shots (and notwithstanding what I'd consider minor differences) the kit gives what you would need for the B through late-model H as "vanilla" transports.

Seems to me these are among the most common Phantoms covered by kit decals, but that doesn't necessarily preclude need/demand - Academy, Hasegawa, et al, are notorious for poor quality decals (or hard to find limited edition Cartograf boxings). Assuming this was done for 1/72, I'd love to see VF-31's MiG killer included.

When did Gilligan date Barbie's little sister? 😆 Seriously though, the GBU-16/AGM-123 discussion above reminded me that I've read the Skipper was pretty much literally a GBU-16 with the rocket motor of an AGM-45 Shrike mounted to the back end. Can the ordnance experts confirm/elaborate? The reputation I've heard was that it was a good idea on paper that didn't work very well at all in reality.

Well I can't speak for what your eyes show you, but mine see FS36375 consistently in those Seaforces photos for the era in question. Several things to bear in mind: 1) Ambient lighting has a tremendous effect on the appearance of any object, most especially a neutral finish like gray. So for example the same plane at "golden hour" vs an overcast morning will look very different. 2) The light level (and adjustment, white balance, etc) in photos can make the same color seem dramatically darker or lighter than the "actual" color. 3) Largely because of lighting

It's easy to still think of the Super Hornet as "new," but they've been in the fleet some 20 years now. It's harder to tell with USN/USMC aircraft on deployment vs USAF types, but there does seem to be more weathering evident all-around nowadays than was the case even 10 years ago.

Hence my using the phrase "One of the reasons you rarely saw...." I didn't state or mean to imply it was physically impossible to carry the 6x AIM-54 back to the boat, I said very clearly the weights involved were a factor in it not being done very often. Which your quote above confirms.

I recall reading your blog post(s) indicating that the F-111B's supposed weight problems were mostly overstated, especially compared to the Tomcat's eventual operating weights. It's a shame they didn't focus more attention sooner on giving the F-14 a decent engine. I think most would agree the Navy still got the much better fighter of the two, but it goes to prove the old adage about "lies, damned lies, and statistics." Also, how boring would Top Gun have been if instead of Goose dying you just cut to a scene of he and Maverick floating in their escape capsule.... 😄

To put an asterisk on @tomthegrom's answer, dumping ordnance before landing is obviously not preferred procedure, but it is an option. Every carrier-based aircraft has a certain capacity for the amount of ordnance and fuel it can land safely while carrying, known as "bring back weight." When plannning a mission, the weapons load is partly determined by staying under that weight limit, but also recognizing that in combat you can't always predict the availabilty of targets. This is part of why you often see mixed ordnance loads in the modern era (e.g. JDAMs and LGBs) - so if, for

I'm actually pretty sure it's the same aircraft in the first shot also, and it's an early S. The standard fit for.the J and S includes the same undernose antenna setup: where the IR seeker fairing was on the B/N, the J/S has a smaller rounded rectangular antenna for the ALQ-51 ECM system (best way to describe the shape is an inverted mailbox). The main S feature it's lacking is the strip formation lights, but in the Airfighters photo linked above you can clearly see it 157826 has the slatted wing (exclusive to the S) but no strip lights fitted (yet?). And while it's not entirely

I'm pretty much 100% sure the panels aft of the nose radome are present in all Eagles from the A/B through current production. When they aren't readily apparent (as in the 333 TFS photo) its because the color/finish happens to be close to the surrounding airframe. The darker panels you mentioned in the D&S photos are, I believe, due to a slightly more matte finish, plus the panel material accumulating dirt differently than the adjacent skin panels. Coincidentally, the fourth picture in the "click to enlarge" section of the D&S page shows the side panel clearly with a "Do

More likely a play on the last name: Walsh => "Wash" => "Bubbles" as in soap, bath, etc.

It's definitely a small minority that had this feature, but if you ever plan to build another "Mudhen" it makes for an interesting detail (and breaks up the monochromatic scheme a bit). Going back to my library to answer your questions, I noted that the "gray panels" were primarily on a small number of 4th TFW Desert Storm birds, but also appeared on several Alaska-based F-15Es with the 3rd Wing (which didn't exist as such until well after Desert Storm). My suspicion is that the veteran airframes with this feature were transferred from Seymour Johnson to the new unit, but I'll hav

The top and side panels just aft of the nose were all 36320 (when not 36118), to the best of my knowledge. In the standard Compass Ghost scheme the darker gray covers all three locations. As you may have already seen in photos, sometimes it was only the top, sometimes all three (I've never seen one with only sides in the lighter gray, but it's at least theoretically possible). In any case the lighter panels were only on a limited number of airframes very early in the Strike Eagle's service. From photos I've seen, it appears that when the top panel was light gray, the

In the Desert Storm era these were FS 36320 Dark Ghost Gray. I suspect they were "off the shelf" components made for the C/D fleet, which at that time still wore the Compass Ghost scheme.

Just noticed that you can read the "last four" serials in the second shot - confirmed 157286 was an NATC bird, actually an F-4S (which explains it still being under test in '79). https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/342863

Great shots - any chance you took note of approximately when those scenes came up? Or am I going to have to "suffer through" watching the entire movie for research purposes? 😆 The film was released in August 1980 so principal photography was actually during 1979. According to the Wikipedia article they shot onboard during two separate periods, as well as on shore at Oceana. Nimitz had just come out of a yard period in July '79, with the full CVW-8 cruise starting in September. As for the mystery Phantom, the "red" (I suspect actually International Orange) vertical tai

In general, since the Vietnam war USAF tactical types have carried decorative bands at/near the top of their vertical fins that represent the squadron assignment. Since just after Vietnam, the two-letter tailcodes represent the wing assignment (frequently corresponding to the base name). Wing and squadron badges are also worn, usually with wing on the port forward fuselage, squadron to starboard. In the case of Misawa, the wing identity and tailcode was changed in the early 1990s from the 432 TFW/MJ ("Misawa Japan") to the 35 Fighter Wing/WW ("Wild Weasel" - a more prestigious cod