mawz
-
Content Count
1,095 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by mawz
-
-
It's worth noting that there is a third kit out there, the Revellogram (ex-Aurora) kit.
Run Away, it's both the least accurate and the hardest build of the three. It dates to 1966, but was updated in 1981 to be somewhat closer to reality.
Last boxing seems to have been in '85, so you're unlikely to find it. -
Here's my take.
1. Start with an airbrush just about as fast as you can. It's so much better for doing larger surfaces than a brush. Stick with a brush for the little stuff until you get comfortable with the airbrush. But DON"T buy propellant, it's ridiculously expensive over time. A cheap Harbor Freight compressor and an Iwata Neo can get you started relatively cheaply, then upgrade once you hit the limits of what you have. You'll keep the brush around, but the nice hobby compressors are more consistent and quieter than the cheap garage unit. I started with the Badger 350 kit, which is useful for large surface covering only, but even then it gets you started.
2. I'd skip enamels today. I'd also skip true Acrylics to start. Go for an Acrylic Lacquer as the best of both worlds. Tamiya and AK Real Color are where I'd start. They brush and spray well and are compatible with a wide variety of thinners too (including that great Mr Color Leveling Thinner). Right now for Aircraft, AK Real Color is probably the easiest starting point, they have a better selection of aircraft-specific colours than Tamiya.
3. X-Acto knife, a set of nippers for sprue removal, a bunch of sanding sticks in various grits, get extras of the rough and medium grit. Tamiya tape, Tamiya Extra-Thin Cement, Mr Dissolved Putty (my preferred easy to apply putty), Q-tips and a bottle of acetone nail polish remover (strips paint and can be used with q-tips to remove excess putty). Microsol for decal setting. -
5 minutes ago, Joe Hegedus said:
With the exceptions of Tamiya and Gunze, which have been around since at least the mid-80s, I’m curious if the rise of these new paint lines is a result of declining availability of Testors products, or is declining availability of Testors a result of additional competition?
Combination of both of those, Testor's completely missing the birth of the Miniatures market (where Vallejo for example is a major player) and the desire for acrylic paints that spray well (MM Acryl is not competitive in terms of its spraying & adhesive qualities) as well as the relatively recent boom in Laquer paints as an alternative to both enamel and acrylic paints.
Testors also tried to get out of the Model RR market, and shot themselves in the foot doing so (yeah, the paint market for MRR crashed with the move to mostly RTR models, but Floquil & Polyscale owned what was left, killing Floquil turned Testors from the dominant player to an also-ran as nobody trusted them after that)
Testors seems to have wanted to own the market without any product development. Their competition either died themselves or evolved. -
Model Railroader Magazine reported the following this morning:
Seeking information about the status of the status of several of Testors long-standing paint lines, we have received the following from Vince Pierri, Senior Manager, PR & Corporate Communications for Rust-Oleum:
“With a long history of producing quality hobby kits and supplies, we are evolving our strategy to focus more keenly on Testors, our flagship brand. To that end, we are discontinuing our PACTRA, AZTEK, and Model Master brands as demand for these products continues to decline. We will continue to support the hobby market with a robust line of aerosols, brush paints, tools and accessories – always looking for opportunities to innovate in these categories.”
-
2 hours ago, habu2 said:
Assured by whom?
The Demo birds are typically rotated through the higher-time single-seat airframes in RCAF inventory. Considering that the Aussie aircraft will be 1/4 of the operational single seat fleet, it's a given that they will end up as demo birds at some point. -
6 hours ago, Jay Chladek said:
That depends on if the birds are used for demos. Airshow displays don't pay what they used to and usually if the US Government is footing the bill, the companies involved try not to rock the boat and do anything extra. So you might see a jet at an open house or two, but not a flying display.
None of which applies to the ex-Australian RCAF birds, which will assuredly get used for a yearly demo scheme and were what Colin and I were discussing. -
8 hours ago, Colin K said:
Nope. Aussie Hornets are receiving the standard CF-18 paint scheme.
And at some point no doubt one or more of them will get an annual demo scheme, which is what I was referring to. -
2 hours ago, 11bee said:
But in reality, the F-111 actually worked (after a crapload of money being spent).
No other US aircraft could do what it did during the Vietnam War, same for long range strike missions against the Warsaw Pact during the cold war. It also did a fantastic job during DS.
One of the two variants worked. The other one, arguably the more important of the two, was a dismal failure and only the ability of Grumman to deliver an entirely new airframe wrapped around the same engines and weapons system in fairly short measure offset that failure. -
2 hours ago, 11bee said:
I never understood why a standard targeting pod couldn't be upgraded to do this job instead of the tank mounted option. Is the IRST that much more powerful / capable than the latest generation targeting pods?
The standard pods are normally carried in place of one of the two fuselage-mounted AIM-120C's, by going with the tank mount the aircraft can carry a full set of air to air missiles. The IRST is normally used for BVR air target acquisition. -
Thanks Kurt!
-
11 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
Ah. They also supplied F-16Ns?
No, they currently operate Hawks, Alpha Jets, MiG-29's and L-59's -
36 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
"Australian retired F/A-18A/B Hornet fighter aircraft will be used to provide training services to the United States Air Force..."
Say what?
The company provides Aggressors to the USAF. -
If you want some cool paint schemes on ex-Aussie Hornets just wait, the RCAF bought 25 of them and no doubt will do some sort of heritage theme around that.
-
2 hours ago, habu2 said:
wrt payload and effectiveness you can’t go strictly by weight. One smart bomb can do what several dumb bombs might if they are lucky. Compare B-52 carpet bombing in the same era (as F-4) to what a B-2 can do with PGMs. Even if you loaded an F-4 with PGMs the jet didn’t have the avionics to support their guided delivery.
Still it was great in its time and had a long service life.
I'll freely admit that as a modeler, I'd rather build F-4's than F-22's. Boring grey jets are not my thing. But the F-22 as an aircraft is a real beast.
Note that some F-4's were PGM capable since 1969, modern US PGM's are developments of the PAVE KNIFE program on the F-4 and A-6 which pioneered the use of LGB's in combat. -
Very nice build.
As to the decals, the key to getting Airfix decals to bed down in my experience is liberal applications of Walther's Solvaset. It's a LOT hotter than Microsol and will bed down the most stubborn of decals (even old Tamiya ones). But it will also craze paint/glosscote if not careful, so be sure to test your paint/gloss combo before use on a real model.
Solvaset is available from most model railroad sources, as Walther's is a big US model railroad supply. -
If you want to understand how Eduard got so big so quick, look at what the primary business of each of the big manufacturers is:
Academy: Plastic Mold production
Tamiya: RC Cars
Hasegawa: Anime-related models (Gundam, etc)
Airfix: Model Trains (Hornby)
Eduard: Model AirplanesRevell: RC planes (under Hobbico until 2018)
Revell of Germany: RC toys
Trumpeter/HobbyBoss: Plastic models
As is readily apparent, only 3 of the big names are doing plastic scale models as their primary business, and of those 3 only Eduard concentrates on airplanes. Not surprising that the company that puts most of its efforts into our area of interest has also experienced the most growth in that area. And remember, Trumpeter has also gone from a small player to a large part of the market over a slightly longer period.
-
On 3/20/2020 at 9:01 AM, GW8345 said:
While the F-22 may have thrust and maneuverability the F-4 has payload, range and (most important of all) can take a punch. The F-22 is a glass tiger IMO, looks all flashy but has a glass jaw.
Payload is lower on the F-4 (F-22 is capable of a little over 22,000lbs max payload if all 4 external pylons are used, vs 18,650 for an F-4E) although the operational loads on an F-4 for strike are definitely higher as the F-22 has limited internal storage and rarely, if ever, operates with weapons externally. That's only in the strike role of course, air to air loads are basically identical (up to 8 AAM's normally, with 4+4 AIM-7+AIM9 for the F-4 and any mix of AIM-9X and AIM-120C for the F-22, although 6 AIM-120C's and 2 AIM-9X's would be typical)
Range is also lower for the F-4, in pretty much all configurations (even ferry range on an F-4E is around 200 miles lower than an F-22). That's unsurprising as the F-22 has an internal capacity of 2647 gal to the F-4's 1994 gallons internally, and while the F-4 can carry more externally (1340 gallons vs 1200) the 140 gallons advantage for the F-4 doesn't offset the 653 extra gallons the F-22 has internally). -
15 hours ago, GW8345 said:
I'm talking aircraft structures, the F-4 was built like an Abrams tank, the F-22 like a Ferrari, which one would you rather be in when 20mm starts heading your way?
As for stealth, it doesn't do anything for AAA and IR guided missiles, also, stealth does not make you invisible on radar, it only reduces your RCS.
In terms of structure, I'd bet on the F-22's being significantly stronger in fact. They're very similarly sized aircraft (the F-22 is ~1' shorter but has 6' more span) and the F-22 weighs around 12,000lbs more when empty. Some of that is the much larger engines and larger internal volume, but some is structure as well.
And the F-22 is also stealthed from an IR perspective, one major reason for the design of its exhausts is reducing IR signature, and the leading edge design is also around that (it's actively cooled on the F-22), there's also a layer of undercoat on the paint which reduces IR emissions. All the 5th gen designs and many of the 4.5 gen designs have quite significant IR signature reduction measures. -
On 3/19/2020 at 9:08 AM, GreyGhost said:
Funny story...
Ironically, that "coal burning" F-4 is faster than a F-22...
-Gregg
Pretty sure that's not true, in terms of the official specs, the F-22 is listed as marginally faster, capable of Mach 2.25 vs the F-4's listed top speed of Mach 2.23. Now actual measured is hard to compare, as while we have good numbers for the F-4 from its career setting records (with a proven max speed on a closed course of 1604mph), no equivalent activity has been done with the F-22.
The reality is that both aircraft share the same basic speed limits, which are airframe heating from air friction and air intake geometry limits, otherwise the F-22 in particular would be much faster on sheer thrust (it has just about twice the thrust of an F-4E in full afterburner) plus the airframe is cleaner. -
And Pic's!
Theater markings going on the Fujimi. Needs a second coat and then it's gloss + decals.
And I just need to finish up the tail (which needs a bit of RLM81) and paint the inner crosses on the fuselage & upper wings as Hasegawa was cheap and expects you to paint the inside section and trim the decals.
-
On 3/5/2020 at 10:19 PM, ElectroSoldier said:
How can you hate them?
They either put out their own kits which are very good or rebox other manufacturers kits which are also very good.Thats why I said much earlier in this thread it doesnt matter if the pastic is theirs or not, the kits are always very good.
Some of their reboxes are mediocre kits with really nice bits added. The Kinetic F-16 reboxes come to mind there.
Eduard is limited in what molds are available to rebox. -
No idea what the boxing is, but what the Finn's actually flew were a Type 18 (VH-201, recoded to VH-21) that actually ended up in Germany, and a Type 6 (IR-101)
They also had a few UTI's but only one was flown, which was coded VH-22 and later UT-1 -
Probably the RS Models F or G is your best bet. The F & G differ only internally.
-
Pics to come tomorrow, fixed the Fujimi scheme today, it had accidentally got hit with some overspray from a P-39 I'm also working on.
Then work on the Hasegawa. MMP's interpretation of RLM81 is a fairly olive dark green, and their 83 is a lighter and greener colour. Originally followed the callouts by RLM number from Hasegawa, backtracked because I was unsure of the split (mostly 83/75, a bit of 81 on the tail) and decided I wanted to stick with the callout, so I need to reshoot the 81.
Then for the Hasegawa it's painting the inner crosses, as they are 83 and white rather than just white or white & black. That will take some mask & measurement.
The Eduard got the outer flaps and slats. It's ready for a bit of paint on the underside before I complete the radiator/inner flap install.
Future of Kitty Hawk molds?
in Jet Modeling
Posted
Nope. I have the most recent boxing and it's the exact same plastic as at release, just without any A2G sprues beyond the bomb adapters for the Phoenix rails.
Around here it's not enough cheaper than the Tamiya to matter. Not much difference between $130CAD for the AMK and $150CAD for the Tamiya, especially when the latter has FAR better reviews. I bought the AMK solely to see what the fuss is about (The AMK is good enough for my standards and looks like the more interesting build)