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

VADM Fangschleister

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About VADM Fangschleister

  • Rank
    Trek Modeler

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Somewhere at sea...

Recent Profile Visitors

5,511 profile views
  1. So you say. Enamels are best. As years pass, the acrylics peel away. I agree that they may be losing market share but it has more to do with sky-is-falling environmental BS imposed by over-controlling governments rather than modelbuilder preference. Plus nanny parents who don't want their kiddly diddlies using that "toxic" enamel paint (based entirely on ignorance) as fumes from acrylics are as toxic, if not more so. I'm not buying your specious position.
  2. So Rustoleum buys the paint line because they want to be the only ones producing small-batch paints. Then, they eliminate MM, cutting off dedicated modelers who've used it for years. What is the motivation? Is it some self-righteous move by corporate greenie-fiends who want to "save the planet" and decree that all enamel paints are evil? Or, is it because some guy who built models stole their girlfriends? I cannot, for the life of me, sort that it's a "business" decision. Since they own the rights to the paints, no one can pick it up and produce MM paints? No, I am NOT interested in converting to acrylics. No, I disagree that enamels are "bad for gaia" (eyeroll). Rustoleum can go suck it. Just another corporation that has now manipulated the market to their satisfaction and limited their production line---this is common for post 1990 businesses who've hired post-graduate weenies who studied economics from a comic book who are all on board with "maximum profits by ONLY producing the high-selling items". "We lose money on the hobby paint because we don't sell that much of it and it's expensive to produce" PHAGH! I have a large assortment of cusswords for them.
  3. The Revell 1/72 is a bit of a disappointment and needs surgery to fix the nose. The 1/48 Fiberglass one from Russia is gorgeous but expensive. This thread caused me to purchase one of the NItto/Doyusha/Entex/Otaki 1/100 ones and I will build it faithfully as the prototype but with the visor dropped. I did not know until about ten years ago that there were two visor versions; One was the more solid type with the two small windows looking upward and the other was the more complex streamlined Lots-O-Glass version that went on the production machines. But I noted when in the UK that the retracted visor on the one looked similar to the other but I was not aware that the bigger, more sheet-metal version also retracted. Now it all makes perfect sense. Back then, no internet so no quick reference to how it looked retracted. Now there's lots. Also, the shorter tailcone and different engine configurations. Lots of minor but significant differences.
  4. The best Concorde prototype kit is still the Entex/Doyusha 1/100 rendering of which there are many, many available. I remember building it in the 70's and being so disappointed that it wasn't a production machine. How my position on that has changed although....we still need a good 1/100 production version.
  5. Stop Gum II, The Search For Spark.
  6. Thanks Tim, I think I heard or read about it as such but don't remember where or from whom...so it stored in my memory as an imagined belief until you said otherwise. Either of those subjects would certainly be fun. The F-11 in Blue Angels colors would be sweet. I tried to order the Combat 1/32 F-84F but the person I emailed got the communication so bollocks'd I begged off. I requested the correct kit # and asked for pricing/availability and got a quote for an entirely different kit and such so I figured if they cannot do that right, why bother? I don't want to pay for something I don't want. It often happens that many of the people in the hobby business are not aware, through no fault of their own that an F-84E/G is not a "F" but makes no difference to them. This is not precisely what happened but I am using a simple example. In any case, though kits abound in the world today of a great many subjects that are quite incredible, none of them are anything I want. A 1/32 B-17 is certainly awesome and cool but...my tastes run to cold war jets and they are getting attention in 1/48, especially with the MiG-25 love that's been happening and some others. But I still desperately desire a 1/32 F-106 to add to the F-100, F-105, F-104 already kitted. Sorely missing are the Deuce and the 'Six. On a side note, the huge overpopulation of the Navy and air forces around the world with F-4's seemed (back then) to make a statement about the upcoming single-aircraft/multirole mission capability that so many politicians seemed to believe was simply a matter of a pen-wag. (*sigh*) In any case, an F-84F or F-11F in 1/32, being of roughly the same era would be a definite purchase for me.
  7. 370's and occasional C/L tank, ok. But no "exposed" munitions due to laws where they required closed doors, such as on the SUU-21 for BDU-33's and sometimes on the other side, Mk-106's. It was for safety reasons where an accidentally dropped munition could cause bodily harm or death or significant property damage. It was a requirement of the German government. I hauled/hung/moved hundreds of SUU-21's at Spang from 1980 to 1982. On Victor Alert, there were five "hot-cocked" jets with C/L nukes...B-61's, and during alerts (exercises) we loaded on the D's, Mk-82's on stas 2 & 8, on TER's or a LAU-88 with AGM 65's on it, or GBU-12's (one, ea) on stas 2 & 8, and on rare occasion, if the mission frag called for it, two AGM-45's, also on 2 & 8. It also wasn't uncommon to do a combat "quick turn" where an F-4 would either taxi out and come back to the same spot or one that had flown and returned to a TAB-V and get a Mk-82 hung or even a GBU-12. But that was for weapons-load proficiency evals vs. larger mission requirements but it all tied into the final "score" when the exercise was over. We did this a lot. 12 hour shifts for a week or more, chem-gear, C-rats and busting our butts for being ready against "Ivan". Once the conventional part was over, the entire flightline got special weapons and then we downloaded them and the jets would do the "elephant walk" to the runway, fast taxi on it, turn off and taxi back their spot. However, day-to-day, "going to the range" was a SUU-21 on either sta 2 or 8 sometimes one each and maybe with six BDU-33's each or one with BDU-33's and the other with Mk-106's. Never a gun pod though we loaded them occasionally, and always both 370's, sometimes with a centerline bag sometimes not. On very, VERY rare occasion, the SUU-21 might be loaded on the C/L. Another typical config would be a TGM-65 on a LAU-88 with the store on the bottom station. The "missile" would never leave the launcher (no motor) and was used for practice with the video acquisition/targeting. HTH
  8. Thanks for the suggestion. Actually a Rolls Royce Welland in the F.1, never a Ghost or Goblin though the De Havilland Venom and Sea Venom had them as well as the Swedish Saab Trunnan. The one kit of the Tunnan has some engine parts but not very accurate and really just physical representations for when you look up the tailpipe or intake. I noticed the nice engine in the Meat-box kit and considered it but the mods I'd have to make kind of made it so that buying an expensive kit like that a little pointless. However, I also considered casting the parts that might work and scratchbuilding the rest. However....the project I'm prepping for may not need an engine to display after all for the access hatches all open downward and so you would never really see the engines in-situ. I was originally of the opinion that they were accessed from above, but no. It would still be nice to have one to display, in scale, with the model. I may just learn to carve sculpy and make my own castings. I don't know.
  9. OK....looks like it'll be tech drawings, photos and putty. This is not going to be easy. I think I'm in need of a mini-course in sculpting.
  10. One of my secret projects, needing a 1950's era British jet engine. My online searches turn up bupkis, so...anyone here know of any?
  11. Not to derail the topic....as I've been curious about this release also but...I was kinda sorta, y'know, thinkin' about it and sorta wonderin' maybe if they had forgotten all about the (soon to be released) 1/32 F-84F. Guess the T-Flash didn't do so hot? Was that grounds for not popping the 'Streak? (Asking for a friend)
  12. Some shipping rates are ridiculous but the prices that people are demanding seem skewed to me. But..."people will pay what the market will bear", I guess. Oddly, the replies to my request are showing up 19 and 20 hours after-the-fact. That's annoying. I have a tentative deal with a seller but will keep rpm1947 in mind. Thanks very much. Will let you know, rpm.
  13. Not sure where you're located or if you have an eBay account and all the necessary accoutrements thereof to purchase but there are some of those kits on there. Not too bad on the prices.
  14. SapperSix, I worked F-4's at Spangdahlem for two years from 80 to 82 and one thing is for certain, not every airplane had every placard or important decal everywhere on the plane. The ones most commonly omitted were the stenciled panel info ones. "NO STEPS" were most commonly found on the G (Weasels) models but I worked D's, E's and G's and there was wide and varied, uh, "coverage" when it came to those things. I never asked but I supposed in my own little head that certain ones were more important than others and had to be there. Others were of lesser importance and could be omitted at the discretion of the MajCom. Sometimes, the base painted its own planes while others came back from depot with fresh paint but lacking only the tailcode and Ser No and squadron color fin-flash. Back then, there had been a concerted effort by SOMEone high up to "de-glorify" everything and to also go "subdued" on everything so the bright squadron emblems were slowly reduced to a smaller stick-on emblem and less pronounced fin colors, or...covering a much smaller area. Then in NATO, the really hardliners hit and "everything went black". Our uniforms did too. The bright colored patches we all wore on on fatigues were redesigned to have no stand-out colors and backgrounds that matched the OD green of our uniforms. On your model, if you omit some stencilling, no one can say if it is accurate or not. the placard on the speedbrakes...I saw dozens of jets without it. The landing gear almost always had the placards and the big black and yellow "map key" on the nosegear door was always there as well. Ejection seats had all of them, as they were maintained by the egress shop. I'm not telling you how to build your model...and it appears to be coming out really well...just that they didn't all get the "golden crew-chief" award for their placarding. Yes, it was covered by AFR whatever but not to a devoutly religious level. Some omissions can happen and sometimes they even peeled off based on improper adhesives used. That sometimes happened as well. Not the painted on stencils, of course but the sticky-backed decals. I've seen stars & bars that have peeled halfway off, other 'stickers" as well. If you've ever seen the "decals" used on the real machines, they are usually made at the base's "print shop" (the flightline one, not the base t-shirt shop) and are silkscreened on a vinyl like material with pinholes in them about every inch and a half. The holes are there to help eliminate bubbles when applying them. HTH to some degree. Your model will be a very nice museum-level piece.
  15. I think if you can get ahold of some "pearl" based paint....you may just nail it. It's a tough one but I'm sure SOMEone has cracked the code on it. Not bad looking at all though. Certain lighting it would be convincing.
  • Create New...