Fly-n-hi
-
Content Count
800 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Fly-n-hi
-
-
Here's my 2014 stuff. I don't think I posted any of these on the ARC forums:
1/48 Revell F-15E:
1/48 Italeri F-16C Barak:
1/144 Revell C-17A Globemaster III:
1/200 Hasegawa TWA 767-200:
Thanks for looking!
-
It might be that those people just don't want to ship internationally for some reason. When I first started selling stuff on eBay I specified no international shipping mostly because I didn't really know what I was doing. But once I became familiar with the whole process I offered international shipping.
And yes, it is way more lucrative to offer international shipping! I probably get 20%-30% of my business from overseas buyers.
-
I had this exact same problem with m 1/48 Hasegawa F-2A. What I did was I mixed up a slurry of steel birdshot and Elmer's white glue. Then I dropped the birdshot in the nose through the opening behind the rudder pedals. I had to do it one ball at a time and it took about 30 minutes to do it but it worked. I had to let the plane sit in a dose down position for 4 days to let the glue dry since there is no air circulation to help it out.
If you need birdshot you can buy some 12 gauge shotgun rounds at Walmart and cut them open.
-
Excellent! And who says the HB F-14 isn't any good? This helps put that argument to rest.
-
There is nothing wrong at all with the Alclad II Gloss Black Base. There was a batch that was produced back in about 2010 or 2011 that was made incorrectly. That issue has long since been resolved. That doesn't mean that some of those bottles aren't still out there but any newer bottles won't have the drying issues. I use the stuff all the time with great results.
I had one of the "bad ' bottles and contacted Alclad II. I got the information above straight from the main guy at Alclad II and he sent me a new bottle free of charge.
And even if the Gloss Black Base was still tacky your results wouldn't look the like this:
Thanks :bandhead2:/>/>/>
There is something else wrong here. This looks like some kind of chemical reaction.
-
Yes, thanks for sharing!
-
You need to be a little more careful who you are pointing fingers at. First of all, the Europeans were carving up, murdering, subjugating, enslaving and stealing from the world more than 2200 years before the US even existed. The US Government is just picking up where the European governments left off. And the Europeans would still be doing it if they weren't so dependent on the US after WWII (and they will be doing it again as soon as they get a chance). Secondly, the governments of the nations, not the average citizens, are making these terrible decisions so quit blaming "the US." I have nothing to do with anything they do and I want them to stop, too. The average person in Germany didn't want to go to war in 1939, either.The difference is that the Russians unlike the former Soviets are not Red Commies. Putin is as as selfish, myopic and greedy as well as corrupted and his inner circle as cronyistic as any other western nations' peers including that of the USA. Today it's not Us vs Them in a Bi-polar, ideological divide, but one of a top dog being the USA seeing that other near top dogs are nipping at its proverbial heels and these other growing more influential nations are not just going to sit on their collective hands and take it forever. The powers inside the halls and in the dirty back rooms of the USA don't like this fact but they better get use to it.
"Times they are a changin" was a Dylan phrase and that folks is true. The world is going to be a very different place in all aspects and the USA will not be able to sit all alone on the mountain top so to speak.
Our Constitution was designed to limit the power of the government so that our government couldn't do these exact things. The problem is that the citizens in the US have been duped into believing that European style government is a better system. And as a result they have given too much power back to the government...and the results speak for themselves. If you want to say the US citizens are idiots for buying this non sense and letting this happen then I will agree with you.
This comment makes me wonder if you know what Capitalism is. Here's the definition:I'm not saying it's going to be better nor worse. I'm not defending the likes of Putin's Russia and the not so Commie Chinese (there is probably more pure and wrank capitalism in China today than in the USA or EU.)an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state.
Are you honestly suggesting that the Chinese government doesn't control their economy? And we haven't had true capitalism here in the US for several decades. The US government has had their hand in it since 1913 for sure and it's only gotten worse since then. Once the government gets into it is no longer Capitalism by definition. You're trying to turn Capitalism into a "bad" word because governments have screwed it up?
Now you might say "its the Capitalists in the government that are stealing, etc..." That still doesn't mean its a bad system. Just because a few people use the power of the Federal Government to take advantage of Capitalism doesn't make it bad. Its the people who are taking advantage that are bad. The citizens need to throw these people out. But for some reason they'd rather watch TV instead of educating themselves with the not so entertaining politics. But again, this is what happens when our people embrace the European style nanny state government. They just assume somebody else is taking care of it. This is the biggest flaw of the American people.
-
Great looking build so far
-
And let me be clear that our normal policy is to land below max landing weight. What I've been talking about in the last few posts is an urgent situation or an emergency in which you aren't on fire or falling apart.
For example, let's say that you are flying out to Hawaii and you have a pressurization problem right after you reach cruise altitude. Well, in this case the plane isn't in any immediate danger but obviously you're not going to continue out over the water. You're going to return for landing...or land at an alternate. In a 757, in order to land below max landing weight, you'd have to fly around for about 3 to 3.5 hours to burn enough fuel to get down to you max landing weight since the 757 doesn't have the ability to dump fuel.
In this situation it would be ok to land overweight. This is the sort of situation I'm addressing.
-
I think the taboo about landing overweight probably comes from an "old school" way of doing things...and I don't mean that in a negative way. After all, if you land below the max landing weight then you theoretically won't have any issues with the structural integrity of the plane. Clearly it is better to error on the side of caution. But in this case its not really more cautious since the manufacturer (in my case, Boeing) has said its ok to do.You're right about the manual. If it is allowable under the AFM, then by all means, do it, and if you don't I agree the chief pilot will have some questions as to why you didn't.
I did some checking yesterday, and came up with the following:
-The CF-18 has virtually no restriction on landing weight (kind of). At max all-up weight (51,900 lb), it says not to exceed 600 fpm on landing. Between 39,000 lb and 44,000 lb, it gives the limit as 1,000 fpm, and below 39,000 lb it says "unrestricted". :woot.gif:/>
-A friend flies Jetstreams. He says they have a published procedure for overweight landings, but then he said there was only about 400 lb gross weight difference between max T/O weight and max Landing weight, so that's kind of academic.
-The Challenger 604 AFM just mentions "max landing weight" of 38,000 lb (about 14,000 lb below max T/O weight), but does not mention anything about overweight landings; it doesn't say they are prohibited, nor does it explain how one might go about performing one or what maintenance actions might be required afterward.
We taught our clients in the simulator on the 604 to dump fuel to get down to 38,000 on landing if necessary, but also if there was a reason to get on the ground right away, to land overweight (i.e. uncontrollable fire or a dire medical emergency).
Second topic: I agree with 11bee's assessment that it is not possible to stop in the same distance with a higher weight aircraft. I can't speak for truck braking systems, especially when the weight distribution may come into it, but for an aircraft, the minimum stopping distance is predicated on the following:
-Very precise touch-down speed. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity; 10 extra knots has a HUGE impact on stopping distance.
-Maximum braking with anti-skid, on an ideal surface. Braking effectiveness is optimal with about 10% slip of the wheels. Therefore, with a higher gross weight, there is no way with an aircraft anti-skid system functional that you can get more braking action with a higher weight.
ALF
I know that the fact that fuel has become sooo expensive is what has caused our flight department to change it's stance on overweight landings. To be honest, we just recently changed our policy. It used to be our (company) policy to make attempts to land below max landing weight.
Bottom line: Don't slam it on the runway!
-
Yeah, that's why I'd like to see the video. There has to be a catch to it.As well it should, that is basic physics. I don't understand how Flying Dutchman's van analogy was possible. If all things are equal (condition of brakes, road surface, tires, etc) and maximum breaking force is applied in both scenarios, I don't understand how it is possible that both vans stopped in the same distance.
-
Well the question is because of an item I saw on Dutch TV a while back. They were showing that a van loaded above its legal weight (but with proper brakes) does not stop later than an empty van when making an emergency stop. I know, a van is not an airplane but I was wondering if this applied to both.
That's interesting. I would think that an overloaded van would take more distance to stop. I'd like to see that video If they have an english version.
In our case more weight = increased landing distance. For example a 767 landing at 180,000 lbs, flaps 30, at sea level, with no wind can stop in 3440 feet. If it weighed 351,000 lbs it would take 6290 feet. So weight does make a significant impact on landing distance.
-
Its only a problem if you improperly plan on using a runway that is too short...and that would be a problem regardless of actual weight. I'd be interested to see what exactly your manual says about it. Plus, our 757/767s, 737s & A320s don't even have the ability to dump fuel. The only way to reduce the weight would be to fly in circles for 2+ hours. This is how that conversation would go here:I've dumped fuel at about 10,000 feet; ATC wanted me to be that high to ensure it was fully atomized. As to overweight landing, I have not seen anyone consider landing overweight unless they were on fire and about to explode... the risk of damage to the aircraft is high (imagine a tiny bit of turbulence when you're about to touch down), and braking distance is significantly longer when overweight. Kinetic energy needs to be dissipated, and weight makes it way worse. Abnormal (emergency) procedure checklists all say to dump fuel until below max landing weight. If you don't, you'd better have a darn good reason, or face tough questions from your chief pilot.
ALF
Our Chief Pilot would ask "I noticed you dumped $100,000 worth of gas when the manual says you can land overweight. Care to explain that?"
Me, "Well, I didn't want to damage the plane."
Chief Pilot: "Are your landings really that bad?"
Me, "Well, I didn't want to go off the end of the runway."
Chief Pilot: "You were over the US. There are about 1000 runways over 10,000 feet...and we fly to many of them regularly. How much runway do you need? The 767 can land at 351,000 lbs flaps 30 with poor braking action and still stop in 10,000 feet."
Me, "Uh..."
Here's an excerpt from our manual (which is basically the Boeing manual):
A pilot may consider making an overweight landing when a situation arrises that requires the airplane to return to the takeoff airport or divert to another airport soon after takeoff. Landing overweight is considered a safe procedure. FAR criteria require that landing grear design be based on:
-
A sink rate of 10 feet per second (600 feet per minute) at the maximum designed landing weight and,
-
A sink rate of 6 feet per second (360 feet per minute) at the maximum design take off weight
-
Typical sink rates at touchdown are 2 to 3 feet per second (120-180 feet per minute) and even a "hard" landing rarely exceeds 6 feet per second (360 feet per minute).
There has been no adverse service experience with airplanes certificated under 14 CFR 25 involved in overweight landings. Furthermore, service experience indicates that damage due to an overweight landing is extremely rare. A normal touchdown of 200-300 feet per minute should impose no structural problems.
When in doubt read the manual. I could go on but I think you get the idea.
-
A sink rate of 10 feet per second (600 feet per minute) at the maximum designed landing weight and,
-
I'm not sure about DC-10s or L-1011s, etc. but I imagine its the same for all the passenger aircraft. If you make a smooth landing then weight isn't really a factor. But on the same token, if you make a hard landing maintenance will have to inspect the landing gear and some other things regardless of weight.Interesting, I had always thought that it was impossible to land over max weight, due to either stress on the airframe or being too fast to stop on the runway. Any idea if this only applies just to the modern jets that you are flying or to older aircraft? In the case of that DC-10 at Logan, I was told that they had to dump for quite some time despite having their number two engine disintegrating at takeoff and a fire warning light illuminated.
We have an overweight landing checklist that guides us and reminds us of certain considerations in case we have to do it.
Also, keep in mind that gas was cheap back in the 60's & 70's. So dumping 75,000+ lbs of fuel wasn't nearly as expensive as it is today.
-
In a true emergency, pilots have the authority to dump at any altitude and over populated areas. For less pressing emergencies, they try to get out over the water or if that's not an option, they will try to get to a higher altitude so the fuel will completely vaporize prior to reaching the ground...
In a true emergency we don't have to dump fuel at all. We can land over weight. If the plane's on fire...I'm landing no matter what. Even in less pressing emergencies we aren't required to land under max landing weight.
Landing over weight is really only a problem if you land descending at a rate faster that 150 feet per minute (or something close to that). Landing at that rate or faster would be a very hard landing.
-
So? What's the point? Does that mean it's not inaccurate? Just because you or anyone else doesn't notice it doesn't mean it's not there.
My point is that you and about 8 other people care. Nobody else does so give it a rest already. You don't like Hobby Boss. WE GET IT!
News flash...all kits have some level of inaccuracy.
-
Erm. Chinese is an "ethnicity" not a "race." It even says so in the link you provided. But I'm still correct in that Chinese is in fact a nationality as well.Erm. "Chinese" is actually a race. I live in Singapore but I am ethnically Chinese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese
Mark
And anybody with half a brain knows what Jennings was saying. When he refers to "the Chinese" he's refering to the companies Trumpeter and Hobby Boss. Indirectly accusing him of being racist is childish and simple minded as well as very serious.
And for the record I disagree with Jennings. I happen to like Hobby Boss kits. But I call BS when I see it. And accusing him of racism (based on this thread) is BS.
For anyone interested:
-
He said "Chinese" not "Asian." Chinese is not a race its a nationality. Learn the meaning of the words before you go accusing people of being racist. And apologize to him while you're at it.Can you please point out for me where Jennings said anything anti-Chinese? He and most others are talking about the continuing practices of the hobby companies Trumpeter and Hobby Boss of not putting out accurate scale models of the subjects they have chosen to produce. However it seems that you are determined to turn this in to a racist rant.
-
I can pretty much guarantee that maybe one person in a hundred would even notice any inaccuracies in either kit. Its just a hand full of people on the modeling forums that make a big deal out of it.
-
See if there's anything you may want:
-
This is just your opinion...and that's ok.Actually, there is no match.
When it comes to the Tomcat in 1/48, the Hasegawa offering is by far and large superior under - any respect - to ANY other 1/48 Tomcat released so far. Period.
Here's my opinion: I'd recommend the HB kit.
I've built the Hase tomcat and have a HB in the stash. They look almost identical on the sprues. But the Hase cockpit is a joke. You almost have to buy an aftermarket pit to make the Hase tomcat even worth getting...which increases the cost of the kit another $30.
So take your pick...do you want inaccurate intakes or a POS cockpit?
-
What colors specifically? That's what he's asking. Or do you not want to say?MOdel Master Colors :woot.gif:/>
-
After some thought I realize that you do, in fact, need to use the tape in the first step.Or you could just set the circle template over the spinner and skip the first piece of tape all together.
-
Funny! I have this kit in my stash with the exact same AM...Aires early cockpit, Aires exhausts and the 2bobs BT decals.
I'll be interested to see how it all goes together!
I'm also interested in a GWH F-15C.
2014 wrap up
in The Display Case
Posted
Hamm, cracker, Aigore & phantom...thank you very much! I appreciate the kind words! Hamm, I added the Wolfpack resin flap set and used Xtra Decals for the Hickam markings on the C-17.