Hoops
-
Content Count
1,805 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Hoops
-
-
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
-
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
-
Quote
I've explained that I have hands on experience with AERO 1D's and (a little) with A-7D's, what experience do you have.....or are you just a textpert?
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.
QuoteI've also explained that the AERO-1D had various part numbers, how do you know that the USAF tanks weren't just a different part number but still identified as AERO 1D. Or the USAF just called it a different name but it was still an AERO 1D (example is the BDU-50/Mk 82 Mod 1 Inert).
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.
QuoteSo far you've proved that they are not like USN/USMC AERO 1D's but have not proved that they are not AERO 1D's. Again, they may be a different part number but are still identified as AERO 1D.
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.
QuoteNow that you've identified the differences between the tanks, why don't you identify the designation for those tanks. What is the nomenclature for them and what is the part number?
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 -
37 minutes ago, GW8345 said:
Yes, once, when an ANG A-7D squadron (think it was either Michigan or Wisconsin) came down to Cecil Field and did a week with us (VA-82). Myself and few other ordies helped their ordies load their tanks for the return trip back home. Their tanks were basically just like ours' just painted differently.
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?
-
8 hours ago, GW8345 said:
The AERO 1D did not have a constant curve like you keep saying, it did have a straight center section.
http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/07/douglas-low-drag-external-fuel-tanks.html
The USAF tanks just had a strengthening strip added.
BTW, you are aware that there are different part number's for the AERO 1D, such as 75A550002-1001, 225–48000–96 and 225–48000–97. So what you are claiming is not an AERO 1D is in fact an AERO 1D, just a different part number.
And as far as the curve, take a look at MIL-T-81838(AS), NAVAIR 03–10JL–7 and ASIM AOP-12 Vol 2, there is not constant curve.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever handled an AERO 1D?
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.
-
23 hours ago, BillS said:
Hmmmm, I opened s can ‘o worms. In some of these pics the tanks look like the Navy type, others have that stringer on the side. I don’t get it but an explanation lurks within the annals of ARC.
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.
-
3 hours ago, GW8345 said:
I never said they were the only tanks authorized.
BTW, the pic you post is a museum bird, there are photos of operational A-7D's with AERO-1D's.
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/
-
2 hours ago, GW8345 said:
Yes but I rarely saw tanks on USAF Corsair's.
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.
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.
-
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
-
11 hours ago, GeneK said:
Thanks.
Did you use the very cool Android mobile app to "translate the picture" ... or is there a way to do it on the computer?
Gene K
I used the android app, I don't know if you can do it from a computer.
Cheers,
Hoops
-
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
-
9 hours ago, Da SWO said:
Does the kit come with extra pylons/launch rails? or are you making your own?
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.
-
On 1/18/2020 at 7:51 AM, Thadeus said:
Nice work.
I always thought Hasegawa E's came with Aim-7 cft pylons on a sprue with all the CBU's. How's the buildup of GWH compared to Hasegawa? I remember
somea lot of putty going under the intakes and nose to fuselage joints on my last Hasegawa F-15.Will You put all them Aim-120's on the -15SA?
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!
On 2/9/2020 at 11:12 AM, mawz said:
Remember, that's an SG boxing, not an E boxing, so the weapons sprues would be different.
I don't think the RSAF uses CBU's, so they probably deleted that sprue from the SG boxing.It actually was included, I just blanked on where I got them from.
Cheers,
Hoops
-
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
-
3 hours ago, KursadA said:
Bringing this topic up as the sheet is now a couple of months away.
Folks, would you need anything other than an EP-3 "M&M" antenna to build this VW-4 airplane? I would recommend the use of EP-3E conversion parts sold by Click2Detail on Shapeways.
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
-
Holy necro thread Batman!
the thread is 10 years old and the member in question hasn't logged on in six years!
-
This is what gonavy has for the bunos on the shore dets 1979-1980:
http://www.gonavy.jp/usmc/06/usmc0602.html
While not definitive, it might get you pointed in the right direction for some of the BuNos for the next year.
-
11 hours ago, JackMan said:
Man, that's unreal! Given that Japan -- an island nation surrounded by vast oceans on all sides ---AND is a hotspot for hostilities AND given the number of US & Japanese military assets, I'd have thought both the US and the Japanese would have invested more into SAR. At the very least, the US could lease a couple of Shinmaywa US-2 or even the older but probably still capable Shinmeiwa US-1A. 827 lives were saved by the US-1A since 1976 until the type was retired in 2017:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Meiwa_US-1A#Operational_history
Again, I'm not super smart on the laydown for Japanese coast guard SAR capabilities, but most peace time SAR immediate response is going to fall to them. In the time of conflict, the military will spool up and have crews/assets ready to go. That sort of posture is not sustainable for the military units that have other mission sets and requirements, however.
The US-2s are pretty cool to watch and bring a unique SAR capability. I find it particularly impressive to watch them take off and land with their amazing slow speed performance. It would be interesting if other countries had that as well, but it's just not going to happen. Japan has decided as an Island and sea going nation that it's a capability that it's worth it for them to invest in, but I think that they are an outlier in that regard.
10 hours ago, JackMan said:I agree. Reading the article I kept wondering about how they knew about the pilot's watch and other stuff that made it seem as if the authors had a front seat view of what happened. I, too, suspect that they added some flair for dramatic purposes.
It's all in the command investigation. It is sobering read to be sure, but I'll admit that I didn't read all of the individual pieces of evidence, focusing more on the summaries and findings of fact. The redacted and released document is a whopping 1600 pages, and can be found here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6431155-KCJAGAMN-TOTAL.html
This is NOT the privileged safety investigation, but instead the command investigation.
Hoops
-
6 hours ago, JackMan said:
Reading the report,
This seems strange to me that the JMSDF or JASDF's Search and Rescue teams are not on base, given how disaster prone (earthquakes, tsunami, etc) Japan is. I am finding the above statement hard to believe. I wonder if it's true..
There is a big difference between maintaining a SAR Capability and a SAR Ready. MCAS Iwakuni divested their organic SAR capability as a cost saving measure years ago, with a handshake agreement with the Japanese that they would perform SAR duties if called upon. The problem was that this was not formalized in the sort of MOA of MOU, and there was no requirement for the JMSDF (the only ones at the base) to maintain any sort of SAR ready to support the US presence in Iwakuni.
From a Japanese perspective I would be reluctant to sign up for such a responsibility, the manpower and costs involved to maintain a SAR ready is significant, and would it distract from any other mission sets. The only helicopter assets at Iwakuni are the Japanese minesweepers, and the site of the collision was far enough out that they would have little if any on station time to perform a search once they got there. Komatsushima is closer to the crash, but that would not make a lot of sense to obligate Komatsushima to stand a SAR ready for Iwakuni. I admit that I am not smart enough on the location sites for the Japanese Coast guard air stations to say if there are any closer, but the coast guard or other civil rescue organizations are going to be the ones standing those sorts of short response readies. Outside of the coast guard, other organizations may not be equipped and trained for maritime rescue, however.
-
The F-15SA is currently the most advanced Eagle in service, and has a number of differences from a baseline Strike Eagle. Of particular note, it is the first F-15 with Fly By Wire controls, that allows the reintroduction of stations 1 and 9 on the outboard wings. This build will incorporate the bright orange paint scheme linked to above. Decals don't yet exist for that aircraft, I've completed the artwork and hope to see them printed soon.
The Great Wall Hobby kit starts off as a F-15E, in there is no work necessary to bring it up to that standard, all the conversion work will focus on capturing the differences for the "SA." The best place to start for these changes is the Hasegawa F-15SG kit, which includes spures "Q" "R" and "S." These provide the longer stub pylons, the larger fin tip antennas, the GE engine exhausts, and the MAWS sensors for under the cockpit and the tail booms.
I will describe the other changes in more detail as I complete them as part of the build, to this point, basic construction progresses. The only modification so far has been to adapt the Hasegawa tail booms to the GWH kit:
20200105_110149 by J Hooper, on Flickr
20200105_110136 by J Hooper, on Flickr
I opened up the engine vents on the top of the nacelle humps as there are simply scribed as ovals on the kit.
20200105_110117 by J Hooper, on Flickr
All for now and thanks for looking!
Cheers,
Hoops
-
The first that I will cover is the Hasegawa based F-15D.
Many are probably familiar with this kit, having been the standard for F-15s in 1/72 scale for the last three decades. There will be some work required to bring the kit up to the standard required to accurately depict "715." The Isradecal book on the Baz has been very useful on this build.
Israel was very early ordering F-15s, most being purchased in the late 70s and early 80s. This particular aircraft was purchased much later, however. There may be others, but these are the F-15D serials that I've found that were part of this later buy:
IDF Ser. USAF Ser Delivery Year
701 90-0278 1992
706 90-0276 1992
714 90-0279 1992
715 90-0277 1992
733 90-0275 1992Based on that timeline production of "normal" F-15C/Ds had ceased, and McDonnell Douglas was only producing F-15Es. I've not seen it written down anywhere, but I think that it is for that reason that these F-15Ds incorporate a number of aspects of the F-15E, while not being full Strike Eagles. These include:
-Round ESM antennas on both tail stings
-F-15E style engine vents on the top of the nacelle humps
-No notch in the underside engine petals
-Tail hook not stands proud of the underside
Construction began with the cockpit, and I modified the rear instrument panel to represent the missionized rear seat of an Improved Baz. I also added a multifunction display to the lower left of the front instrument panel (similar to an MSIP F-15C). Reference was taken from the Isradecal book.
20200105_134504 by J Hooper, on Flickr
Modifications for the underside include:
-The CFTs were used for the Hasegawa kit, but the attachment points for the external pylons were filled in, as were numerous vents that are not applicable on the baseline F-15 CFTs.
-Sparrow pylons for the CFTs were sourced from an old tool Hasegawa F-15E kit.
-The Jet Fuel Starter Exhaust was opened up, the mess is no longer present on the late F-15s.
-Notches on the underside engine petals were filled in.
-Round based antenna behind the nose gear was removed
-The two small blade antennas under the nose were removed
-The incorrect panel lines around the pitot tubes were filled in on both sides
-The panel line meant to show the boot on the tip of the nose was also filled in, not present on this aircraft.
-While not strictly visible on this photo, the chaff/flare buckets in front of the main gear were scribed in place.
20200105_105843 by J Hooper, on Flickr
Modifications for the top side include:
-Addition of the SATCOM antenna behind the cockpit. This was taken from the GWH F-15I kit.
-The environmental control system vent on the starboard side behind the cockpit was opened up and detailed
-GPS antenna added to the right mid fuselage
-Early F-15 style engine vent was filled, and Strike Eagle style vents added
-Fairing between the engines was cut off and the blanking piece added
-The air exhaust on the top of the intake was also filled with sheet styrene to bring it flush.
20200105_105829 by J Hooper, on Flickr
The weapons load will include two AGM-142 Popeye missiles, and the associated datalink pod on the centerline. The missiles were taken from the GWH kit, but there is one error as molded. The sensor window should look downward on the tip of the missile, but as molded, it looks upwards. The wiring conduit should be down the port side of the missile, when oriented correctly and the white hemispherical antenna on the tail should be oriented to the bottom. If those two are aligned, the sensor looks up, so I cut the nose of the missile off, flipped it 180 degrees and reattached it.
The datalink pod included in the GWH kit is appropriate for the AGM-130 that is also included, but not for for the Popeye. I sourced it from a Kinetic Israeli Weapons set in the stash. Despite the error decribed above, I still think the GWH AGM-142s are better than Kinetic's so I used those.
20200105_105957 by J Hooper, on Flickr
-
Good Morning,
Attached are the first few photos of my next work in progress, this is a bit of kit bash between these two kits and both are being built parallel.
20200105_134423 by J Hooper, on Flickr
The fist subject will be a new F-15SA (Saudi Advanced), still being flown by Boeing for flight test and integration purposes. Inspiration for this build can be seen in the link below:
The second subject will be a Israeli Defense Force F-15D, it will be one of the aircraft seen recently at Waddington, but with a different load out:
The Great Wall Hobby kit is a Strike Eagle out of the box, where as the Hasegawa kit is really an F-15D with some extra parts thrown in. The Hasegawa kit is still, good, but it shows it's lineage, and there are still some steps that need to be taken to make it an accurate Strike Eagle. For that reason I will take advantage of the kit's individual qualities, to make the best out of both.
-
On 11/8/2019 at 11:16 PM, niart17 said:
Ahh yes, the insult trend from a "woke" generation. Cute.
After all the hate heaped on millennials, I think a bit of turnabout is fair play.
Additionally, "Baby Boomers" have been referring to themselves as just that for how long? How did referring to a group by their chosen moniker become that offensive?
-
11 hours ago, 11bee said:
F-14's were flying with LANTIRN in 1995? I thought they just added the pod after the Iraq invasion?
Love those old-school SAC subjects!
If I understand correctly "FLIR Cat" was the first integration test aircraft for LANTIRN/F-14, hence the nose art.
Cheers,
Hoops
Need help identifying pod on AK Aggressor F-16
in Jet Modeling
Posted · Edited by Hoops
Good Evening,
Does anybody know what this pod is? If I can get a name, I'm sure I can get a few more photos of it, enough for a quick scratchbuild in 1/72.
Photo on Flickr
Thank you very much!
Cheers,
Hoops