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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mawz

  1. Very nice work. Pretty clear that the ICM is overall a tad better, but the Monogram is still pretty respectable. Did ICM copy Tamiya's B-model mistake on the curved cockpit floor? (the Allison Mustangs did have a curved cockpit floor, which was the top of the wing, the Merlin Mustangs have a flat wood floor as the wing was lowered 4" compared to the Allison models) One note for future reference the floor on Mustang cockpits was painted with black anti-slip paint, rather than being bare wood. Most of the warbirds have clear-coated wood instead which has led to many of us (including myself) painting a wood floor instead of matt black.
  2. Thanks. And moving along, Some touchup on the bottom of the Hasegawa, then it's time to start painting it. Since the eduard exhausts mount from the inside (boo hiss), I'm getting the basic nose scheme on so I don't have to do any gymnastics around painting near the exhausts (or gun barrels, as they again mount from inside)
  3. Nice Selection of kits, And I have to give Academy (& Eduard) props for not putting the same plane on their box art. That's 3 Showtime 100's out of 4 kits (the regular Academy boxing has a VF-102 ship, and their other boxing is a VF-84 only boxing)
  4. This article documents an operational 16,750lb load used on a few Syrian strikes, albeit a good chunk of that is a full 480gal tank. Given the Super Hornet has a reasonable range on internal fuel (unlike its predecessor), there's no reason they wouldn't operate with 17,750lbs of weapons and no tank for closer-range strikes if required. The Super Hornet is 32,000lbs empty, has a MTOW of 66,000lbs and carries 13,500lbs of internal fuel so ability to haul ordinance is hardly an issue for it. In fact, based on the math it's actually limited by pylons, not mass, when it comes to weapons configurations. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11355/this-syria-bound-super-hornet-is-carrying-a-uniquely-massive-bomb-load
  5. The much more complex Eduard cockpit has that build lagging the other two as I'm building round robin. I work on one until it needs to dry, then set it aside and work on the next. I'm on vacation this week, so LOTS of build time. The basic pit is all but done now. Just need to fold down the seatbelts after they dry. note I decided to go zero aftermarket on this trio, so no belts for the other two (that would be the biggest win in improving the Fujimi and Hasegawa cockpits) Left sidewall done, panel still needs 3 parts added Right sidewall all but done. I'll need to fix that regulator....
  6. Wing tops on the Fujimi. Sadly, one slipped a bit after clamping and will need some cleanup Wing tops on the Hasegawa note don't glue the top surface to the top of the radiators, or it won't align on the fuselage. An engineering miss for Hasegawa Closeup of the Hasegawa instrument panel after installation. That's a decal on a detail-painted panel. And spare Eduard exhausts fitted to the Fujimi to replace the horrid stock items. A nice improvement although I will say that Hasegawa's exhausts are nicer than the all-plastic Eduard, but not as nice as the Plastic+PE Eduard Lower rear wing joint on the Fujimi. Very nice fit here, but I had to glue here, wait for it to dry then glue the front as the curve of the fuselage doesn't quite match the wing.
  7. The B-2's book bombload is 40,000lbs, although estimates suggest that real world max is closer to 50,000lbs. That's less than 3 Super Hornets worth of load, at 17,750lbs per Super Hornet. However the B-2 is nuclear certified, and the only aircraft on carriers which are anymore are Legacy Hornets, so very technically a B-2 can carry more firepower than a typical carrier group deploys, simply because the Carrier group won't have B61's or B83's in inventory. The reality is that the Super Hornets are nuclear capable, but not certified as the surface fleet had lost that mission by the time the Super Hornet entered service. So in reality a Super Hornet could certainly deliver B61or B83 weapons and a full deck strike could deliver more of them than a B-2
  8. Good idea on adding the intakes now, that should let you get a better fit on what's probably the worst fitting spot on an otherwise brilliant little kit. Gotta say, as much as I do like the Academy kit, I would not be averse to Kinetic scaling down their version if it maintained the same basic layout as the 1/48th version.
  9. Was there a tail gun change before the Cheyenne Tail? Because that's a late G feature, early G's didn't have them.
  10. While I was pondering just how to get the Eduard exhausts into the Fujimi Fuselage, I glued the fuselage together and selected the tail. Then it was some detail painting on the Hasegawa cockpit, to prepare for sidewall installation. The sink mark on the cannon breech is annoying, but invisible, so I didn't bother filling Hasegawa instrument panel, which will get a decal as well before installation And minor detail painting on the Eduard before the next bout of Photo etch install Eduard cockpit needs another coat of RLM66
  11. mawz

    1/48 B-17 series from Hk

    It's basically the same price as the Tamiya 1/48 Tomcat and cheaper than the nearly 40 year old Tamiya Lancaster. I fail to see any issues with the pricing. Frankly, I was expecting it to be higher, with a street of $150 or so.
  12. The same can be said for the P-51H vs the P-51D and nobody would argue that the P-51H is not a derivative of the P-51D. In fact there's arguably a closer relationship between the P-51H and the F-82 than between the P-51H and the P-51D. The F-82 was a direct evolution from the P-51H, the fuselages on the XP-82 started as the P-51H fuselage design with a 57" plug added and an enlarged dorsal fillet, and the outer wings differ from the P-51H only in the gear installation and added reinforcement for hardpoints. The centre wing section and horizontal stabilizer were all-new. Naturally the production models differ somewhat further from the P-51H than the initial prototypes, especially once you got past the B model and the Allison engine re-appeared.
  13. Back to the Fujimi. The cockpit bits have been it with primer and a coat of MMP RLM66 Next up is to deal with the exhaust situation. There's two problems here, the utterly terrible and completely fictional exhausts, and the exhaust deflectors. That's thick, but at least correctly shaped. unfortunately the deflectors are symmetrical on the kit, and the real thing is not, with the curved section only on the left side of the cowl to protect the supercharger intake Luckily, the Eduard kit includes two sets of exhausts, one all-plastic and one intended for use with the PE deflectors. I'll use the PE deflectors on the Eduard build, so I can rob the other set for this one. The eduard set is a little simplified for molding reasons, the Fujimi is a dogs breakfast. Since the guards are molded onto these exhausts, I can just remove the ones on the fuselage rather than trying to fix them. The asymmetry is an easy fix, the thickness is not. So off they come A little cleanup and some fettling and I'll have good exhausts in the Fujimi, fixing one of the two main warts of this kit.
  14. A battle of the giants here, very much looking forward to this one.
  15. Next up is of course the Eduard pit. As this is infested with pre-painted PE, I've not fully assembled it prior to it being ready for paint, unlike the other two. The base unit is very nice. PE for the trim adjustment chain and part of the mechanism, and your choice of PE or plastic rudder pedals. I went PE. Note I've installed the seat back, but not the bucket. That's because installing the PE belts will be blocked by the trim wheel. The three sanded bits on the lower left get pre-painted PE The right sidewall gets one plastic section installed before paint, correct sidewalls are molded into the fuselage unlike Hasegawa. The other two bits you can see mounts for will be either pre-painted PE or is not painted RLM66 (oxygen regulator, which is blue + pre-painted PE). Decals are an alternate option for most of the pre-painted PE on this side. The other side is as molded+PE, but all PE is added after paint. You really need to look at what's assembled, then figure out your paint & assembly strategy, the instructions tell you what to do, not when.
  16. Yes, the F-82 is a derivative of the H and Modelsvit is the company that announced they're working on a F-82..
  17. Yes, it was used postwar and primarily by the ANG. With only a little over 500 built they were worn out by the time the Korean War arrived and unused D models were pulled form storage and refurbished instead. Some of the most colourful Mustang schemes ever though
  18. Now for the Hasegawa Basic floor assembly: The Hasegawa pit is definitely closer to a real Gustav than the Fujimi, but very simplified. In particular the seat is weak, if closer to the actual design than the Fujimi's bucket. The inclusion of a proper dual-wheel trim wheel is a bonus, but otherwise the sidewalls are more than a tad simplistic and suffer from being entirely molded on, going the other way from the Fujimi's chunky detail At this point you can actually close up the Hasegawa fuselage, since eveything internal is inserted after the fact. So I've done exactly that. And finally, I got started on the wings by installing the large wheel bulges (yet another thing the Fujimi doesn't offer in a supposedly all-Gustav kit) Note the utter lack of any surface detail beyond panel lines, unlike the Fujimi's delicate raised rivets and Eduard's even more delicate inlaid rivet detail
  19. And now for getting started on the cockpits. First up is the Fujimi again. On the sidewalls, some chunky detail has been added. And the floor has the cannon breech, rudder pedals, stick and seat added. Still need to add the firewall. As you can see it mounts onto the wing lower section rather than being fitted to the fuselage. A bit odd, but not unheard of. Airfix does this on a number of recent kits like the Hurricane
  20. And finally the Eduard. Since this includes both a G-2 and G-6, there's a LOT of plastic in this kit. It's broken up into 3 separate items. Wings, Fuselages and the very comprehensive set of F/G/K parts. For starters, here's the first wing set, it's for either a G-6 or late G-2, so 2 are included in this boxing. And the second wing sprue, this is for the other G-2 options (yes, 3 wings in this boxing) The difference here is the missing wheel bulges. Very nice. G-6 Fuselage 3 fins, 3 beule, 1 rudder and two top cowls are included here. G-2 fuselage This is clearly an insert in the same mold, as it includes Beule and gun troughs that are unused on the G-2. Clear Sprue (x2) 3 windscreens, 5 hoods, a couple armor variations. This covers pretty much every canopy from the E-4 to K-4 (as the late E and F-2 use the same hood) Gorgeous. And there's a FUEL LINE! Hallalujeah! Detail Sprue 1 2 chin scoops, 3 fins, 2 tailwheels, 2 tailwheel struts, exhausts, etcs. All extremely nice. You'll have a good portion of a detail set left over. Detail Sprue 2 More of the same, pretty much covers all the variants that Eduard might do. PE and Masks: Nice, but not obligatory. The only bits I see here as a real win are the belts, everything else is 'nice to have' not necessary. Overall, from a box view the Hasegawa's visibly better than the Fujimi in most regards, but it's not that large a difference aside from the wheel bulges and exhausts. The Fujimi actually has nice raised rivet detail, while the Hasegawa has nothing but panel lines. The Eduard is light years ahead of the other two in surface detail. Frankly most of the extra parts are just from Eduard's actually good in plastic cockpit and the coverage over every variant in the box.
  21. Now for the Hasegawa Wings Wheel wells are still simplified, but the gear section is at least shaped right. Proper radiator setup, slats are separate. Fuselage: Nice, very nice. Version specific but this is actually a K-4, unlike the Fujimi which claims to be able to build as a K-4, but cannot. Clear sprues are version specific, so only one windscreen & hood option. Part Sprue 1 Exhausts are basic, but FAR better than the Fujimi. Cockpit is a mixed bag, trim wheel is better, but the sidewall detail is arguably worse than the Fujimi. Still no gas line.. 2 tailwheel options here, neither is for a K-4 Detail Sprue 2 Wheels and bulges for a G-10 or K-4, wheels are quite nice. Detail Sprue 3 More K specific bits. Missing part is the top cowl, which will be shown later. This has the correct tailwheel and look at those wide blades compared to the skinny Fujimi blades. Also K-specific wheel bay covers and large chin oil cooler, missing on the Fujimi. Detail Sprue 4 More generic G/K bits, including the usual G-6 tailwheel and various other bits you'd use on most G or K's. Overall, this is a great kit let down solely by a mediocre at best cockpit. Exhausts are OK, but would benefit from resin.
  22. Thanks! I seem to treat the Eduard kits like a combination of a kit (or two) and an aftermarket decal sheet. Inevitably I want to build them all. I may use as many as 5 of the decal options in the course of this GB, across multiple kits. It helps that I'm of Finnish and German descent, so a Finnish 109 is very much my sort of thing. As to the kits, I've broken them open and taken some pictures. Starting with the simplest kit, the Fujimi. Ironically this is the only one of these kits which is not billed as a single variant, but despite it's claim to being a G-K, it's really a late G2 or G6 only. Starting with the wings. The wells are basic, but this is 1972. Biggest weakness though is the poorly shaped small wheelwell bulges, which look more like post-war Spitfire bulges than the kidney-shaped bulges that should be there. The radiators are molded closed (boo) but otherwise the wings are OK. The tails: Not bad, but inconsistent demarkation between rudder and fin are the big weakness. Again, this only has one variation of the wood tail and one rudder for the standard tail. Main parts sprue: Basic selection of parts. Only one prop and it looks better suited to a G-2 than anything else. Decent cockpit detail for the era, but no wall behind the seat and no representation of the very visible fuel line in the cockpit. Fuselage sprue Looks good enough here. The exhaust baffles are crude and symmetrical, which is wrong. Needs some fiddling Detail sprue: Looks good, except those exhausts. They're horrid. Pathetic even for 1972. Clear Sprue Your basic options. One of each style hood and only the Galland hood can be posed open. Reflector for the gunsight is present, it's a 2 piece gunsite. Overall verdicts? Not bad for 1972, but the wheel bumps and exhausts are major weak points. Copy or steal a set of Hasegawa small wheel bumps and resin for the exhausts are the likely fixes here.
  23. As far as I've ever read, the GR4 program addressed sensors and electronics only, with all physical changes being to support sensor & computer upgrades. The Mk10A was retained on all Tornado variants as far as I'm aware. As to variants, there's really only 3. The IDS is the main variant, this is the strike version operated by all the Tornado operators. These were GR.1, GR1a and GR1b's in RAF service. The Tornado GR1 Mid-life update program produced the GR4 and GR4a versions. in RAF service the A suffix denotes Recce-equipped units and the B denotes Maritime Strike units with software changes for Anti-shipping use, note there were no GR.4B's. The ECR is an IDS fitted with specific gear for SEAD operations. The Luftwaffe ECR's were purpose built and dual-role recce and SEAD, the Italian ones were converted IDS's without Recce capability The ADV is a significantly different variant of the airframe intended for the Interceptor role to replace the RAF's F-4 fleet with an aircraft better suited to the role (largely by doubling the range & loiter time). It was based on the same basic airframe, but with heavy modifications and pretty much all-new electronics and different engines. A few RAF ADV's were modified for SEAD as the Tornado EF.3. It was designed solely for the RAF, but was also used by the RSAF (who hated it and converted most of their orders for the ADV to IDS orders based on their initial experience) and the Italians (who leased RAF units for 10 years and replaced them with leased F-16's largely for cost reasons)
  24. Somebody clearly had the F.3 and GR.4 mixed up. The GR4 IS an IDS, the F.3 is the main production ADV variant and had the longer airframe.
  25. The F.3/ADV is substantially different from the IDS and ECR, with changes to the wing gloves, flap system, a 1.36m stretch, longer airbrakes and different engines with longer afterburners. only the centre fuselage section remains unchanged. The IDS, GR1/4/4a and ECR are the same basic airframe though
  • Create New...