Jump to content

theemodelstarter

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by theemodelstarter

  1. Is anyone aware of a source for decals for the Gulf Air A330 F1 scheme used at Bahrain this morning? Or have a set they'd sell/trade? Thanks, Keith
  2. Hi Justin, Just out of curiosity, did you win that from goinggoingsoldtoyou? Some plastic or brass tube will help with the intake issues. I don't recall whether the fan face is located far enough aft on the #2 engine or not. Minicraft announced a 135 kit some time back but none of the kits listed at that time have gotten to the shelves yet, delayed, canceled, who knows?
  3. You can just make out the red covers laying on the ground on the nose of the far right plane. HTH
  4. Well, Since you did say exotic, I was gonna suggest the XL but you have that covered already. The Cutlass sounds like a great choice too. But I'd say Zacto's YF-23, if it was right around the corner, Israeli markings maybe? Hey Chris, any news on that beast? How about doing an X-29 from the Hasegawa F-5E kit and Belcher's F-5A conversion, or go the other way and do an F-20! Then there is always an F-107 from the Trumpeter Hun kit, the super critical wing Crusader, or even a back-dated AV-8A from the new Trumpy AV-8B. The one on the list I like best is the Tornado though. Good luck mak
  5. Thanks Guillaume, My apologies, that would be me quoting from a misinformed or typo-ed source. You are indeed correct that the CFM56-5C is the most powerfully rated of the bunch, at 34,000 lbs ea (now quoting from the CFM website). At those numbers, if the 52 were re-engined using them, the plane would still have the same amount of thrust as it does with the TF-33s, would weigh less, have half the require engine maintenance, be more fuel efficient, and quieter, and have extended range. These engines have been available for fifteen years now, so what kind of savings and performance improvement
  6. But just think of table full of "what if" models you could do from that series alone :)
  7. That makes a lot more sense now that I think about it. And I seem to recall that the TF was mounted on the PORT side for it's testing flights. Good catch by the way!
  8. Jay, I actually cheated on those. I needed to enlarge the Hasegawa decals to 1/32 so I just included the CCV canards in the scan. I eye balled the pivot point on them and the intake surface till I got it to look right. I do have a set of 1/48 drawings of the YF that were extremely helpful in getting everything moved around to the right places. The whole nose end is shorter except for the strakes and cannon location. I had to move the cockpit , nose well and in take back about 5/16 and the cannon location back forward. shortening the intake to still match up was a real witch with a "B". I'm
  9. Jennings, Great drawing, can you do one of the EB-52 Mega Fortress from the Dale Brown series? Pointy nose (like the Concorde), Big "V" tail, straight (0 deg anhedral) rigid unflexed wings, air mine launcher out the back, Amraam missiles under the wings and all black!
  10. One thing is for sure, if that is the TF-39, the cowl and fan are both way different than what was mounted on the C-5. The shorter pylon idea is the same thing I was thinking though, but I'm not so sure about the anhedral.
  11. Don't feel too bad Jay, I'm backdating the Tamiya 1/32 F-16C to the YF! It's been a bear and I'm in stall mod presently but most of the structural stuff has been finished. Lots of dimensional changes all around. I've done done both the Monogram and Tamiya 1/48 kits too but as shelfers without too much attention to detail except for prominent contour and dimensional fixes. The seat is what I'm wrestling with right now, not sure if I want to use the Stencil or Escapepac, since this may wind up as the CCV demonstrator.
  12. So Ed, Would you mount that on top of the wing at the centerline? That WOULD be a great picture! But your point about the PW2040 goes right back to Vindicator's original post. Makes you wonder, are modelers engineers, or are engineers modelers?
  13. Hey Darren, The list of new goodies looks great. I took a peak at your F-4S conversion post with the VF-161 markings. I was on Midway when they got their J models and have always liked the paint scheme. The "S" conversion looks really good. I agree with you about the Monogram kit being up there with Hasegawa. All the lines are right-on if you can live with the raised lines or do the rescribing. Have you put up a web site yet? Anyone else besides Sprue Brothers carrying Steel Beach? Thanks for the update!
  14. I'm not quite sure what the point of putting eight CFMs would have been. The CFM56-7 puts out over 52,000 LBS of thrust each. That's well over 200,000 total with just four engines. Does the BUFF really need to go from ~ 136,000 pounds of thrust of the eight TF-33s on the "H" to 416,000 pounds with eight CFMs? There were also plans for a GE CF6-80A upgrade, 56,000 to 73,000# ea, in addition to the RB.211s
  15. Hey Vindicator, Didn't mean to steal your thunder. I've had one of those in the "planning" stage for years now but haven't gotten a round to it. My wife keeps swearing she is gonna buy one for me though (the dreaded ROUNDTUIT, from Home Depot) Good Luck on that, can't wait to see some pics. By the way, are you familiar with the Dale Brown works? The Flight of the Old Dog? I've always wanted to do the EB-52 Megafortress from that series as well. Food for thought!
  16. Has anyone heard any release date news for this lately? I haven't seen any new info at Great Models recently since pre-ordering mine.
  17. Jennings, Great answer. This means that a set of engines could be swiped out off a C-17 kit and grafted onto a BUFF for a hypothetical engine upgrade. Am I right Vindicator One? I'm sure there are other options available as well, the CFM or Rolls engines in the A320/321 or 757 could easily be used too, as the max rated thrust on those is in the 50K range each. I'm guessing the max take-off weight on the BUFF would be increased if an engine upgrade were ever done as a SLEP on the 52. Cheers!
  18. I was thinkin more like the AMS crew types (Aviation Machinest Mate Structures)
  19. OK Guys, An explanation is in order here so everyone understands how the planes actually get this way. First off, the planes don't naturally fade this way due to 'Weathering" from exposure to the sun and sea air. It's a result of the squadron maintenance folks (mechs) performing corrosion control on each and every airplane, each and every day. The sun and sea air do of course contribute a bit though. Think about it, why would paint fade in the middle of a panel and not on a seam? Second, the airplanes are not done uniformly over the entire surface. Areas are worked on as corrosion is disco
  20. The "Alpha" and "Bravo" designations indicated what type od APU was on each tractor. The Alphas were needed for Phantoms, Tomcats, and Skywarriors IIRC but could start anything on deck. The Bravos could not start F-4's or -14's so were used on everything else. The number was just that, the tractors deck number. HTH
  21. Hey Josh, The AMT ERTL kit of the ES-3 had what is the closest example of the currnt ARS pod in it. The buy / sell forum might be a good place again, then you could use the resin pod for something from an older era. Good Luck
  22. Rex, That is definitely one I've never heard before, but it sure sounds like a good story. Maybe over one of those beers someday. I've been building over 40 years, like a lot of the other folks here, but have only recently started participating in some of the forums. You're definitely right, I wish I had a camera way back when, for so many reasons. Thanks for the brief reality check, I know it's not a contest but you just can't compare apples to oranges, well, some folks try. I'm feelin your pain but need to go through the learning curve initiation first. Besides, I may actually give someon
  23. I'll say this once more. 500 pound bombs CAN be hung on ALL three stations of the TER, especially the NPT type. It is however, less likely to see them that way for a number of reason listed throughout the tread. They were difficult to load this way for the Ordenance personel, the easiest way being to clip on a pre-loaded TER. Yes it is very close to the landing gear door, bit it fits and has been done. There are picture that show ithem this way, from the mid/late 60's and early 70's after which you don't see it any more because the practice was discontinued.
  24. Early on, when Skyhawks were flying with Mk117 bombs, only two could be put on the TER's because of their size. When the Mk 82's first came out as Non Thermally Protected (This wasn't even an official term yet!) they could be loaded out with three Bombs per TER because they were so munch skinnier due to the new aerodynamic shape. Once the Thermally Protected bombs made it into the fleet, they were now fatter, and although they could still fit, it was decided to limit the load to two per TER to avoid possibly wearing off the coating on the inboard bombs. Rex is correct that the addition of th
×
×
  • Create New...