Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

mawz

Members
  • Content Count

    983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mawz

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!
  • Birthday 05/25/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto, ON
  • Interests
    RCN/RCAF, Ilmavoimat, USN, FAA, RAF

Recent Profile Visitors

6,916 profile views
  1. Just a note, I was talking about the hood (the sliding part of the canopy) where I have the same orange peel issue on my Spitfire IX as you mentioned yours has, not the cowling, which Eduard got right on the Spit. I have every intention of building the Eduard P-51D regardless, once I'm finished wrestling with the Airfix kit, which is not nearly as nice a build.
  2. Looking great! A pity about the hoods, I have an initial release of their Spitfire IX in 1/48 with the same issue, I suspect it’s a minor manufacturing issue that they will resolve
  3. The ICM B and D are clones of the Tamiya, their Allison is a butchery of their otherwise pretty decent B. You can't do Polar Bear from the ICM kit, as the core fuselage is an A, it's the wing is new, and a bunch of other bits are D parts.
  4. The AM kit is decently shaped, but simple in detail and is really an A-36 fuselage with additional wings/nose bits to depict the other Allison variants. It however does not correctly depict the radiator intake for most of the other variants, particularly the early ones, does not offer a Mk1 wing and has some other minor issues (the nose intakes are simplified, the wheelwells are the usual inaccurate version that's on all but the recent Mustang kits). The cockpit is also pretty crude. Doing a proper Allison Mustang family requires tooling at least 4 different radiator setups as well as the nose and wing variations. To do it right really needs 4 wings, 4 radiators, 2 noses, 2 nose intakes with 2 inlets each (which must be separate from the noses as the nose armament and nose intake variations do not always match up) and a single core fuselage. AM did 3 wings, 1 radiator, 2 noses and a single intake with 2 inlet styles. A good showing, but not anywhere near complete. The ICM is in NO WAY a clone of the AM kits. Rather it's a new Allison-style nose on their B model and does not depict an Allison Mustang at all. The fuselage is too tall (because it's a B model) and misses the smaller, sleeker look of the Allison variants vs the B/C and the wing is almost right for an A model only.
  5. It’s actually a P-38L that’s been modified with early-style intakes
  6. we need a good Allison engine family as well. but yes, I’d love to see a well done Twin Mustang kit
  7. Remember that latest tooling and best kit of a subject are two very different things. A good example of this is The F4U-1, where Tamiya’s kit is certainly the best in 1/48 even though the Hobby Boss kit is over 15 years newer. Best just to ask what is the best kit of a given subject/variant
  8. The canted pylons on the SH are brutal for drag, so they try and fly with as few pylons as they can get away with. I'd read that the SH isn't actually supersonic with a full stores load. It's one reason they want CFT's for them. All because the design team assumed the SH would have the same stores separation behaviour as the Legacy Hornet and had to come up with a quick fix well after they had any ability to significantly change the wing structure after separation testing identified some major issues
  9. That's quite believable, although I suspect that when bombed up the drag equation might be the other way around. I know the F-101B actually had more range on one tank than two due to drag.
  10. You'll see a new tool A-10A/C long before a Sabre Hog. While the A-10 has limited schemes and small numbers, it's seen a lot of combat and is reasonably iconic. The F-86H saw no combat and has all the downsides of having been a 1 operator aircraft produced in small numbers and very limited schemes, and is overshadowed by far better known variants of the same aircraft.
  11. These were quite new aircraft at the time of these cruises. It's pretty clear that some units preferred to run a centreline tank and weapons on the wing, while others ran a centreline weapons fit and tanks on the wing. The two fits had fairly similar fuel capacities (either 600gal centreline or 740gal in 370gal x 2 wing tanks) and you were looking at 6 Mk82's on the weapons racks in question for either configuration in a standard strike configuration (plus up to another 6 on the inner wing pylons of course). So unless that mild increase in fuel was required for the tasking the squadron could go with either configuration for the same tasking and have the same capability.
  12. The Tamiya kit is really an F/G/H, as you can build all 3 variants out of the box. That said, if you can source an E canopy that fits, and delete the drop tank mounts cleanly, a reasonable facsimile of an E should be doable from the kit.
  13. I've got their 1/72 F-16 Block 52+ and 1/48 F-5A kits, both on the shelf of doom. Neither impressed with fit or detail. That said, Ive heard much better things about their more recent kits. The Zipper is one subject I'd like to build a few of, so this kit is on my radar.
  14. No, that was the Sabre 2, not the Sabre 4. Of Sabre 2 production, 60 went to the USAF as F-86E-6's, 3 to the RAF, 278 to the RCAF Sabre 4 construction started after Sabre 2 construction ended and the last Sabre 2's built were the 60 aircraft batch for the USAF. All Sabre 4 construction went to the RAF (428) or RCAF (10). The confusion mostly stems from the fact that the US funded Sabre 4 construction, and they went to the US after the RAF replaced them in 1956, and were passed on to Yugoslavia and Italy for the most part. These were designated F-86E(M)'s. They were close to an E, but not identical, although most changes were in the cockpit so you could potentially model one from an E. The Sabre 3 was a testbed for the Orenda Sabre, which would become the Sabre 5.
  15. Can't leverage the tooling for any other variants as it's basically a new aircraft and zero combat service, relatively small numbers built, only served with the USAF. The F had 5 times as many airframes produced and served with many operators. 2500+ F's, 456 E's. E's also only served with the USAF, RCAF, Greek, Turkish and Yugoslav Air Force in any numbers (the RAF also had 3 and the Hondurans ended up with 10 ex-Yugoslav, ex-RCAF Sabre 2's, which were Canadair-built E's), F's served with pretty much everybody that flew non-Canadair or CAC built Sabres, and an F kit is a good starting point to produce a Canadair Sabre 5 or Sabre 6, the other two widely used variants. Same goes for the A, except even worse as only one A served outside the USAF. Note several supposed E operators actually operated Sabre 4's, as MAP-funded ex-RAF Sabre 4's were designated F-86E(M)'s by NAA and the USAF, but were really a separate model from a regular E.
×
×
  • Create New...