Jump to content

VADM Fangschleister

Members
  • Content Count

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VADM Fangschleister

  1. Anigrand has a resin 1/72 rendition. I have not looked it over. They did the Lockheed Jetstar which was a “close” approximation. The Collect-Aire 1/48 is very nice. The one built up by one of our own expert modelers looks fantastic and there are many military schemes plus, if you look through airliners.com photos you can find some really sharp corporate paintjobs. My father flew them for IBM a long time ago and their paint scheme was boty complex and expensive. But IBM was an original fortune 500 company and they were very proud of their flight department out of
  2. Hello, The thread is really just a review. I haven't the time right now to build it. There is a consensus that Anigrand doesn't use any technical tools to make his kits and instead just uses the Mk 1 eyeball. This results in some serious shape errors and for those of us requiring more fidelity, we are forced to make the modifications ourselves. In this day and age, it's a bit of a paradox where there are many tools available for even the garage-industry types to get a reasonably accurate model but Anigrand seems immune to accuracy and instead goes for the "TLAR" method. That L
  3. Interesting. Never considered it in that light but you’re right. The Lockheed Jetstar prototype first flew with two Bristol Orpheus engines of some 5,000lbs thrust each. Potential buyers (USAF) were reluctant to purchase an aircraft with non-US propulsion as well as Bristol engines being less than accommodating with potential contracting/licensing. Pratt & Whitney had been developing a 3,000 lb thrust jet engine for use in the BOMARC and other weapons systems but it was getting delayed. Four of them would be needed as the US had no turbojet engine in the 6,
  4. It appears that the fuselage is too short, windows not properly stationed, tailcone needs extending, nose cut and a plug inserted to make the cockpit properly placed and Bondo used to reshape the nosecone.
  5. OK.... So, I have to hand it to Mr Anigrand for tackling subjects that cover the oft-missed but significant airframes that the major kitmakers just won't do. However, and this still can be a hugely debatable subject and ventures into the realm of "why bother?" on the left side to "at least it's a start" on the right. Those of us brave enough to build an Anigrand kit have choices, of course but there are no aftermarket correction sets for these kits and any shape errors, which this maker has become infamous for, are up to the modeler to correct. I still h
  6. There are a couple of reviews out there of RVHP kits. They seem more dedicated to actual fidelity than *ahem* Anigrand. Minor complaints range from an errant bubble in a critical area to the vac-formed clear parts being very thin. But for an actual modeler with some bit of cleverness, these are not major issues. Not shake & bake kits by any means and you'll spend as much time with files, sanding sticks and putty/superglue as you will with paint and decals. For me, if you don't mind indulging me, a "good" kit is almost anything that has the correct shapes and outlines. To
  7. The E models are selling on the Bay for $59.99 w/ free shipping. Other prices are all over the map, some going as high as $109. Some stabilization will occur after the market is saturated with availability.
  8. Basic aerodynamic laws still hold, of course. But...given that the Reynolds number is much lower, that is, you cannot change the size of a molecule of air so therefore, the fluid effect going over a model airplane is less effective than over the full-scale machine, airfoils are more efficient with a more exaggerated cross-section. With that said, I'm sure with some trial & error, you could make a foamie egg plane and might even start a new trend.
  9. Cheapest I saw was $86.99 + $15 for shipping, so yeah. I'm sure once the first rush of "gotta-have-it" has passed, they will come down to (my opinion) somewhere around $50/copy.
  10. With the advent of styrofoam RC planes, people were bound to get creative. There is a distinct subset of RC foamies and they are called "cartoon planes" with the obligatory cartoonish appearance that you would find in a Sunday comic strip. https://parkflyerplastics.com/cart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=24_62
  11. Thanks, Fred, I know the two machines bear close family resemblance and I once tried to modify the Hasegawa F-5 into a T-38 which is where I first learned of the dimensional differences but decided to try and fake it anyway but gave up due to moves/job-changes, etc. I learned the fuselage was more deep to accomodate the bigger engines and the vertical stab was bigger as were the horizontal stabs. That it shared its wind-tunnel carved shape was more an attribute to the validity of the design than production cost considerations, I suppose but the fuselage was entirely different, th
  12. I honestly thought this would get more ogling. And no, it's not something I'm eagerly awaiting because I can't afford it. I'm not member over at LSP but I would've thought their wordy-word-word-word thread on the F-5 in general would've had these shots included. I just find it strange the fickleness of our model crowd. Whiz *BANG* when the new thing shows up...or is announced...or is offered a correction set...but just as quickly interest wanes or was never there at all to begin with. One interesting aspect is that the 1/32 F-5F is the only time this
  13. I have a set of the closed nozzle. I am using it to attach the Hasegawa turkey feathers for an F-16 in-flight display. It's not all that simple though as they have to overlap in the correct direction and also have to have a slight curve imparted to them, which can be done by placing the PE turkey feather on a hard, flat surface and rolling a 13mm socket over it repeatedly.
×
×
  • Create New...