Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Hoops

Members
  • Content Count

    1,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hoops

  • Rank
    Full Blown Model Geek

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Texas, USA
  • Interests
    1/72 Scale Modern Aircraft

Recent Profile Visitors

12,662 profile views
  1. Good evening, I'm going to be building a Luftwaffe Alpha Jet, and I would like to hang a some LAU-51 Rocket pods underneath. Does anybody have any in the spares box that they would be willing to sell or trade with me for? Thank you very much! Hoops
  2. Hoops

    4 -bladed OV-10G+

    Not that I am aware of. There are a number of other users that have upgraded as well, but you will probably have to scratch build the new props and spinner. Cheers, Hoops
  3. What impact on does having handled the tanks have on being able to identify that the tanks are different? This is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. You claim based on having handled Aero 1D drop tanks that the Air Force tanks are also designated as Aero 1Ds despite having significant design differences without providing any evidence to support the claim. Nowhere in the A-7D or K T.O. does it reference an Aero 1D. My argument follows: Air Force drop tanks follow a consistent design philosophy: A center section with a mostly constant cross section, usually circular, with a joint at the 7 O'clock position. Attached to this center section with visible recessed panel lines are a nose and tail cone section. If applicable the tail fins are fixed, not not reconfigurable. Example that fit this pattern: the 600 gallon tanks for the F-111 and A-10, the F-16 centerline and wing tanks, the F-15 tanks also used on F-4 Phantoms, etc. The Douglas designed Aero 1D is defined by the government specification (examples you have provided: MIL-T-81838(AS), NAVAIR 03–10JL–7 and ASIM AOP-12 Vol 2) as having the following characteristics: 1. 36 inch constant cross section center making up ~16% of the total length 2. 2 access doors on the port side, one on the starboard side 3. The fuel filler cap located at the 11 O'clock position 4. reconfigurable tail fin arrangement with horizontal and vertical slots 5. Raised weld beads joining tank sections 6. Pressurization vent forward and drain line aft on the bottom of the tank 7. No center section horizontal seam The Air Force A-7 tank has the following observed characteristics: 1. Constant cross section center making up ~27% of it's total length (73% longer than the Aero 1D specification) 2. No access doors on either side of the tank 3. The fuel filler cap located at the 1 O'clock position 4. Fixed configuration tail fins 5. Recessed panel lines joining tank sections 6. Different vent and drain arrangement 7. Raised and bolted center section horizontal seam My conclusion: the Air Force A-7 style drop tank does not meet the design and manufacturing specifications for set out in the aforementioned documents for an Aero 1D, Therefore it is not an Aero 1D. Based on significant design differences and philosophies, it is completely different tank designed to meet the Air Force MIL-T-7378 specification. In the case of the BDU-50 and Mk 82 Mod 1, both are readily identifiable as having the same design. When viewed next to eachother, they can be easily identified as such. This is another logical fallacy, a straw man argument. This is another logical fallacy, an appeal to ignorance. I have not provided documentation to prove that the tanks are not identified as Aero 1Ds by the US Air Force, therefore my argument must be incorrect. You're also asking me to prove that something does not exist, which I can't do. MFG SKU: 27-300-3461 NSN: 1560-00-118-4243 Item Name: Tank, Fuel, Aircraft Details: Aircraft Mission Design Series: A-7D Aircraft Location: Tail section Capacity: 300.0 gallon, us measure
  4. Good, then you have hands on experience with the Air Force A-7 tanks. Can you please explain the four differences that I've identified above between the two tank patterns and which version of the Aero 1D each represents?
  5. You are correct, the Aero 1D does have a straight center section. Looking at the line drawings in the linked blog post, the center section is 36 inches long, representing 15.8% of the total length. I was mistaken. The Air Force tank differences are significantly more than adding a strengthening strip, however. Jake Melampy's Modern SLUF Guide identifies the Air Force as using different tanks as well. In his book, they are even described has having a larger diameter. 1. The center (straight) section of the Air Force tanks makes up 27.6% of the total length of the tank, significantly more than the 15.8% of the Douglas designed Aero 1Ds. 2. There are no Access doors on either side of the Air Force tank. 3. The fuel filler cap is located at the 1 O'clock position on the Air Force tanks, where as they are located at the 11 O'clock position on the Aero 1Ds. 4. The tail fins are not reconfigurable on the Air Force pattern tanks, there are no slots to adjust fin position. rect865 by J Hooper, on Flickr Airliners.net Photo showing the filler cap and lack of access doors on the starboard side. Airliners.net Photo showing the same Walkaround photo showing detail of the tail fins and lack of access doors on the port side Which one of the Aero 1D part numbers listed above corresponds to the configuration differences I've identified? I did take a look at the MIL-T-81838(AS), however, and it doesn't establish any of the fuel tank dimensions or profiles. Instead it directs that the tanks "shall be manufactured, inspected and tested in accordance with the drawings listed on NAVAIR Drawing 244AS100." Referencing that document is a distractor at best. Unfortunately NATEC no longer lists NAVAIR 03–10JL–7 or ASIM AOP-12 Vol 2. That also ignores the fact that those are NAVAIR documents which would not be authoritative for an Air Force aircraft. I would welcome you to upload the applicable portions of those manuals to show how the Aero 1D tank matches the differences I've identified above. "Just out of curiosity, have you ever handled an AERO 1D?" This is an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. I'll answer with "Have you ever loaded fuel tanks on an Air Force A-7D or K?" because that is what the disagreement is about.
  6. On the AF pattern tanks the seam is only down the port side of the tank, look for an angle where the center section with the straight sides meets the front and rear cone. I didn't include any photos where it was hard to make out, the Aero 1D tanks have no parallel sides, it's simply a constant curve from front to back.
  7. To answer the question "did the A-7D use the same tanks as the navy and marine A-7s?" with "Yes" is only half the truth. There are more photos of A-7Ds with AF Pattern drop tanks out there than A-7Ds with Aero-1Ds. I'm fully aware that that link I posted earlier was a photo of a museum aircraft. It was the first result that came up, and had the best lighting. If you want a cross section active A-7D/Ks with the AF pattern tanks, here are a few: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_kok_collection/30657371402/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_kok_collection/14767061471/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_kok_collection/19602057972/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/al_henderson/4755666784/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/22790934@N07/47336987042/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/22790934@N07/32756375887/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/22790934@N07/49518180136/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/75122977@N05/49391886467/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/31078316@N04/11514109843/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/59455242@N07/22384233593/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/22790934@N07/32848064047/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_kok_collection/14148434666/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/22790934@N07/49896105292/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/77175657@N00/42806058845/
  8. I'll disagree. The USAF A-7 external tanks had a different profile. The center section had parallel sides and that ubiquitous seam, whereas the Aero series of tanks had a constant curve from tip to tip. Can been seen here: Most kits seem to include the Aero 1D pattern tanks, I don't know that I've seen the Air Force style tanks kitted anywhere.
  9. The GPU-5 is too big to use a normal pylon. Part J 25 in the Tamiya kit is I am assuming the small pylon used for the deep ALQ-131 Jamming pod, and I've always guessed that the pylon for the GPU-5 is is the same, or at least similar enough that you can't tell the difference in scale once sandwiched between the gun pod and the aircraft. I would assume that you are using the pod from the Hasegawa Weapons set. If so, it represents what i assume to be a prototype, which looks in detail fairly different from those actually mounted on F-16s in Desert Storm or the CAS/BAI trials. Differences off the top of my head between the production pods and the Hasegawa plastic: Aft end should be angled up and the rear is a hemisphere Lifting handles and charging port on the aft hemisphere Different venting below the muzzle Muzzle has a small extenstion from the front, not simply a hole Grill type vent bottom center aft Strong back and pylon mount much lower profile and differently shaped There are some other minor details as well with missing panel lines, but those are the ones I can think of right away. Cheers, Hoops
  10. I used the android app, I don't know if you can do it from a computer. Cheers, Hoops
  11. Using Google translate, the sign to the right says: Shipping late august, Dealer orders due July 6th. Display model forward fuselage is 3D printed. Cheers, Hoops
  12. For the outboard stations, I scratch build the pylon using sheet styrene. Below it is a LAU-115 from the Hasegawa Weapons set VIII and a LAU-128 on each side of that. The LAU-128s I used are supposed to be F-16 wingtip rails with some minor cleaning up. No pictures yet, though. Cheers, Hoops.
  13. You are correct, they are on Sprue H. I usually eject all the Mk.20s from the kit upon purchase, as they are not very good and it frees up a lot of space in the box. Anything salvageable goes into the spares box, to include the Sparrow mounts here. I just didn't remember correctly where they came from. With regards to the build, there are some things that I think GWH does better, but for all its flaws I still thank that the Hasegawa kit goes together easier. I'll provide some more specifics whenever I wrap this up. I went back and forth on the weapons load on the F-15SA, but eventually decided I'm going to do the 12x AIM-120 load. That will wipe out all the missiles for a Hasegawa weapons set VIII, but I'll make it work! It actually was included, I just blanked on where I got them from. Cheers, Hoops
  14. Work has continued on both of the aircraft, but a few other builds have taken priority. Those have wrapped up for the most part, so it's shifting back onto the F-15s. Aires Resin Exhausts were added, as I had a set available for this build. Attaching all those actuators was very fiddly! There were some minor changes to the antennas for the F-15D that I replicated with sheet styrene. -Addition of Radalt antennas on the bottom of the nose (two white squares) This necessitated moving one of the blade antennas further forward. -Addition of small blade antennas on the top of the nose in front of the windscreen, and one forward right of the SATCOM antenna behind the cockpit. Decals were a mix, and proved to be difficult to source right. The stencils are Hasegawa kit stencils from a normal white box F-15C. While not 100% correct for this aircraft, they went in the right direction, and created the right impression. I don't think that there are decals anywhere in 1/72 that match what's actually painted on this aircraft for stencils. The AGM-142 stencils are from the GWH F-15I kit they were sourced from. The Israeli unit markings, ejection triangles, and roundels are from a old Sky's decals sheet that I've had for probably close to 18 years. They proved to be a bit brittle and tricky, but with some special care I was able to make them work. The serials and nose art script were drawn in Inkscape and custom ALPS printed. Waiting for those to get printed and arrive put this build on the back burner for a while. The custom printed decals turned out really nice, I think are a great touch on this build. P1030562 by J Hooper, on Flickr P1030566 by J Hooper, on Flickr P1030564 by J Hooper, on Flickr P1030559 by J Hooper, on Flickr P1030567 by J Hooper, on Flickr I still need to do a few little touch ups, but this is very close to being complete. If I had some oil paints, I'd like to experiment with streaking and staining on the bottom of the aircraft, but I'm not quite there yet. Some more work has been done on the F-15SA as well, but I save that update for the next time. Cheers, Hoops
  15. I think that the fairing the goes behind the M&M is too wide, but that's a minor complaint. Less of an issue an issue if you are building this aircraft, but I would not recommend the EP-3E Conversion from Click2Detail if you want to build an actual EP-3. Instead I would recommend the Lone Star Scale Models resin conversion, as it has the shape of the upper and lower canoe fairings correct. The 3D models used for the conversion from Click2Detail are perfect half circles in cross section, where as on the actual aircraft the curve is much more flattened. Take a look at the front of the canoes as well, the 3D printed parts curve that same perfect half circle down, where as the actual aircraft is a bit more nuanced. Both sets miss a lot of other things, but it gets you the major parts. Hoops
×
×
  • Create New...