aircal62

Members
  • Content count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aircal62

  • Rank
    Canopy Polisher
  1. My what if using parts for a Caracal T-38 sheet, build about a year ago before changes were made to the USAF T-50 contender.
  2. Everything that has been done is long gone and much of what has been done is not accurate in light of new info. I think you will actually end up doing 2 sheets as there are so many interesting subjects. Some of the USN training aircraft, early USAF, Air Guard and of course Korean service, that is a lot of territory.
  3. Interesting information always on Russian aircraft and histories of units. insignias and aircraft variations. I am glad I am not into armor as the number of subtypes would be more than a mind could comprehend. As for ICM doing a fighter version of the MiG 25 I guess you could see that in the future, but my guess is that they were being a bit careful with the market with Kittyhawk already doing a Fighter and AMK saying they are going to do one. I have hoped for a couple of years that ICM would do a new wing on their excellent C-45 with the longer nacelles and cranked inner wing, but I don't see that happening. Anyway I am busy building the ICM MiG and it is a wonderful build. With a bit of care, the fit is very good and the kit seems generally very accurate. ICM started out with their good Spitfires way back when and those were the best out there for a long time, just with ICM's inexperience the kit was overly engineered. They have learned, and continued to learn until today, the MiG-25 and C-45 are as good of a kit as any on the market from any company. I sure hope that ICM one day will bless us with a 48th scale SU-7 kit.
  4. Reading this discussion I was a bit surprised at the suggestion on the Testor's small bottle color. Why I had not done this before I don't know but I have a copy of a 1943 ANA color book with 3x5 inch color cards so I pulled out the ANA 616 color so see how pink it was. The color is not "pinkish" at all like SAND 26 found in Bob Archers US Army Air Service...color guide. The color is a warm brownish tan with a reddish hue in it, I don't see what I would call apricot in it like Dana Bell mentions, but each of us have different color perception. I would see this paint fading under strong UV Desert sunlight with a more yellow/pink tint. The color is certainly not yellowy RAF midstone color. I do not have the small Testor's paint 1170 but will have to pick up a bottle to see how it compares as well as a bottle of Model Master Desert Sand 616. This has been interesting to read everyone's insights into this color
  5. I am excited about the ICM MiG-25, and I hear that ICM might be doing a couple of other variants in 2017? Anyway, the ICM kit looks far better than the Kitty Hawk MiG-25. What variant is the Kitty Hawk MiG-25? Asking because might use the nose parts with the ICM kit as well as the weapons. Are there any simple side views showing the differences in each variant of the MiG-25?
  6. Beautiful! Nice to see an early eagle!
  7. Yes!! Please consider an H-21 shown in the book Aircraft of the Military Air Transport Service with the blue and white USAF scheme and also the H-21 seen at Edwards AFB in shots of the X-15 with all the dayglo. My wallet is happy to support all your great projects like this!
  8. I just saw that the Italeri 48th scale H-21 is about to be released. Any news on when or on kit quality?
  9. Also don't forget Darren's awesome F-18G conversion parts, with all the Furball Growler schemes there are a lot of great looking super hornets
  10. Not sure on the Meteor about the two seat option, there is however what looks like a mold insert seam on the inside fuselage core just behind the wing. The PR 9 just requires a new nose piece, instrument panel etc...so the fuselage mold insert would not be necessary, a Mk 4 would require an all new fuselage so the most logical it might seem would be the two seat fuselage keeping the Mk 8 rear fuselage. The young design team at Hornby seem at the top of their game and are incorporating future variants in the design of new kits. Like the Hurricane, it includes the parts for a Sea Hurricane and the way the wing is molded, there might be another wing variant, as might the Spitfire Mk Vb have another wing variant. But then again I may be seeing things that are not there.
  11. I am not familiar with the Tempest and Sea Fury aircraft but the Sea Fury looks a lot like the Tempest with the radial engine. Might it be possible for Airfix to have a Tempest sharing some parts with the Sea Fury? As for other kits I am betting that Airfix will have a 2 seat night fighter Meteor out at some time. But back to the Sea Fury, I am excited about this kit and look forward to it.
  12. Building the HB Tomcat currently and I will say this about the Hobby Boss kit. It is a kit I have had in my build pile for a while, so it is already paid for. It is well engineered, open panels I am closing fit very well. Detail is good. I built the wings with everything closed up and all the slats/flaps fit well. I have also built the Hasegawa kit, and the flaps and slats did not fit well in the closed position for me. My big complaint on this kit is that it is overly complicated when it does not need to be and for me what is becoming a big issue is the design of the wing pivots. They are weak and the wings will droop as time goes by with this kit on your shelf if they are extended forward. I am building the kit with the wings glued in the swept forward position. This nothing internal to help support the weight of the wings as there is with every other Tomcat kit on the market. I have not looked at the nose shape too much yet, but when I put the radome on the fuselage it does appear misshaped somehow but honestly I am not sure about this at this point. The intakes are what they are, I decided to accept that they are not as they should be. Honestly at this point I find myself at the point of putting the kit in a box and coming back to it in the future because of the wing issue for me. Of the Tomcat kits I have built over the years I would rate them as follows and all are to !/48 scale: I rate these on a 1-5 scale with 1 being the best... Hasegawa as #1 for shape and detail but #5 for build and design quality. Monogram now Revell #2 for shape accuracy (very very close with Hasegawa here) and #3 for build ease. The design of the kit makes getting a good finished model a lot of work. Italeri, I would rate as #3 for shape with weak details (a lot of the vents are decals and a really poor cockpit) but rate this kit as #2 for ease of build. Academy I would rate this kit as #5 for shape - the forward fuselage and #2 for build ease. The Hobby Boss kit I would rate as #3 for shape and #2 for build quality with the exception of the wing pivot - this may be the killer in the long term. I have the new Tamiya kit but have not started it yet. I would guess from what I have read it would be my #1 for accuracy and a very strong #1 for ease of build. These of course are my feelings on the kits and of course many will rate the kits very differently. The Tomcat is not an easy aircraft to design a model of. There have been many kit design approaches - and a lot of technology advances from the early deigned kits to todays Tamiya beauty. The Monogram kit was a hand drawn design (engineering drawings for each part were drawn by hand on paper with major parts drawn to 1/24th scale to improve the ability to get shapes correct and have a bit more detail. Some detail parts were 4x size on paper) and then wooden master patterns were made to create the 3D tooling masters. The Hobby Boss kit was a 100% CAD design as is the new Tamiya kit. Again these are my personal thoughts on these various kits. All can be built into stunning models.
  13. Actually a good suggestion, but I might add, that rather than the US-2A, perhaps a series of sheets covering these aircraft. Maybe a sheet every quarter or so. Series of aircraft being the Bi-cent. aircraft.