Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy

  1. Thank you, much appreciated! I discovered a problem with the canopy that I'm fixing. Rear tab supposedly attaches to the empenage, but that keeps the front corners of the canopy from resting on the rails. Ugh....
  2. Well by heck, I'm impressed! Such an unusual color scheme to this, not being a Lightning aficionado. This is really neat, and very well done!!
  3. Well, I'm not looking for any promise, just wanted to make a point. I'm sure they'd be shocked to receive such a parcel....or if they aren't, then it's very telling. I'm assuming I'd have to go through UPS ground to get it there, yes, as a chemical?
  4. Okay, I chickened out. 😁 More photos of her in the Critique Corner forum, including a family photo of her with the 11 Vermont ANG planes so far....
  5. Here she is taking her rightful place with the rest of her Vermont brethren. Only need an F-89D and an F-35A....and one more T-33 to reflect their later appearance.
  6. #11 in my Vermont ANG collection. Only a few more. After this collection, I'm determined only to build subjects for which there are existing decals!! 1/72 Tamiya. Great kit except the canopy and windscreen...what were they thinking?? Quickboost propeller/spinner. PE seatbelts from spares. Decals scrounged from whatever I could find in addition to the kit decals. Yellow/black sunburst on the cowling was a combination of hand painting and strips of yellow decal. The Vermont Mustangs did not have all the postwar modifications, retaining their retractable tailwheels and not receiving the extra radio equipment behind the cockpit. They did, however, receive the matt aluminum paint treatment.
  7. Thanks Robert, found just the pics on the 46th page, showing the D rear! Very much appreciated! Can now confirm the Pavla instructions are incorrect; the "D" rear panel is actually correct, and the claimed "C" panel is the "J". I guess I figured the D and J would be similar since the J was an upgraded D (kinda like the Navy F-4B/N and J/S).
  8. I used to purchase MONTHLY from them over many years from the mid 90's on forward, but it fizzled in the 2000's when it changed. I still get display cases from them about once a year, stuff I can't seem to find anywhere else. On another point, I had a thread last year about the new and de-improved white putty; I used their putty for 25 years and LOVED it, but the new stuff bears no resemblance at all, is totally unuseable. I have 4-5 unopened tubes of it, as I had stocked up before I realized it had changed. I'm seriously considering sending it back to them with a polite note, just saying that I can't use the stuff at all, and that they might as well have it back. I'm wondering how they might respond?
  9. Is (was) the rear cockpit of the F-89D similar to the J? I thought it might have been, until yesterday. I got the Pavla F-89D/J cockpit set, and the instructions are confusing. Although it's supposed to be for the D/J, the instructions claim the two choices of rear instrument panels are for the D and the C (I repeat, the set was supposed to be for the D & J). Furthermore, the "J"-looking panel with the large scope is claimed to be the "C", and the very simple panel, no scope, is claimed to be for the D. So, I'm confused. I have the Squadron Walkaround book on the Scorpion, but the cockpit photos *seem* to show retired J 'pits (not well labeled as far as subtype). Images from the set:
  10. It's from when the very first Tomcats were flight testing (early 70's). There was a type of Phoenix pallet made with bomb hardpoints (thus not technically making it a Phoenix pallet, but hey...). Completely different from the Bombcat racks that came about after Desert Storm. Another shot: Closer view: I even tried it years ago on a "What-If" USMC Tomcat build, although I goofed and put the aft-most bombs inboard rather than outboard of the pallets.... http://hsfeatures.com/f14amarinesad_1.htm
  11. Thank you both! Dutch, the XtraDecal sheet looks good, although may I also suggest the Wolfpak sheet (72-072) which I used both for the 102 and a couple for the EB-57. http://www.millcreekconsultants.com/WP72-14.html As far as I know the planes are still on display there, although I haven't actually been back since '83...I really do need to get back to my birthplace (Burlington) but I have no family anywhere there even though I was born there and grew up in Boston. I was contacting (for a short while) the little museum they have dedicated to the group there, but found that I actually seemed to have more materials accumulated than they did, which was a disappointment. Maybe one day I'll donate the collection to them?
  12. Kursad, I know I'm biased, but are there any future plans on doing more 1/72 F-16 ANG unit markings?
  13. Well, I can only speak from Model Master colors as that's my experience. The undersides were something very similar to Light Gull Gray 36440. The upper surfaces are a light blue-gray; some sources have cited using 35164 Intermediate blue, but this is too dark. A number of years ago MM came out with the correct color (or as close as they could get), called "Navy Blue Gray." Probably tough to find now, I'm lucky to have a couple bottles purchased years ago. It's lighter than the Intermediate Blue. Not sure what offerings in other paint lines would cover these. What do you normally use?
  14. WOW....potentially excellent, except not sure when, right?
  15. Thank you! The 57 and the 89 each take up most of a stackable storage display box that I use, although the 89 is much shorter, so I'm able to fit the two props in with it. Space will be more of an issue again when I do the F-89D (to add to the J)
  16. So, what is it that sets the Platz above the Sword? (almost sounds like the opening of a joke....)
  17. Thanks Paul! Well, the Heller is still easy to find on Ebay, that and tons of Hasegawas.....you're right about the price of the Platz, wasn't sure what to attribute that to. So with a possible order of Platz/Sword/Heller/Hasegawa, I'm guessing that's the full extent of choices?
  18. I don't have answers other than to comment on one of the opening statements....Although a longtime D&S fan, I could not possibly AGREE more that the original D&S on the SH isn't worth the paper it was printed on. I grabbed it as a new release about 12-15 yrs ago when I was building my first, and was WOEFULLY underwhelmed; was very little help in my project. I think I ended up giving it away.
  19. Wondering what the hierarchy on 1/72 T-33 kits is nowadays. I've done the Sword, which I'm told is still the best, apparently followed by Platz, which I have not done or seen. 35 yrs ago I did the Hasegawa one, so I know how utterly basic that one is. How do the others rate? Like, if I can't find another Sword or Platz with a reasonable price, is there a reasonable alternative for a halfway decent, simple, closed-canopy build?
  20. And she's done! Pics posted over in Critique: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/313258-172-eb-57b-vermont-ang/
  21. Here again joining its Vermont ANG brethren; still need an F-35A, F-89D and another T-33 (to reflect both early and later appearances). Also, PLEASE, someone release decals in 1/72 of their GE-powered F-16's? Closest thing out there is Wolfpak's markings for a P&W-powered "C", but the markings are not quite the same. Please....
  • Create New...