Jump to content

sigtau

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sigtau

  1. 7 hours ago, Delanie said:

    The hull (yes i know what its really called but seems more appropriate for a 'blended' design) seems deeper than the B2

    I got the impression from the article above that It's smaller than the B2 or did i read that wrong? I do like the look of the air intakes but can't help thinking they could be a problem at low speed, maybe relief scoops under the body?

     

    I'm intrigued with the idea not having the b2's 'serrated' trailing edge and control surfaces.

     

    One major concern I have with modern thinking though is the idea of remotely controlled aircraft I know we have the 'drones' but I can't help but think the lack of real time feedback to a pilot could be a problem apart from that it's taking the reality away from fighting, almost like a video game or the paper version of 'battleships' when the number of lives destroyed is literally numbers on paper.

     

    What's the B52 j/k (or am I missing the joke?) I can't help but think of the Dale Brown books with the composite winged B52

    • The saw toothed pattern on the B-2 was done to improve low level penetration capability.  The USAF wasn't convinced the B-2 would be stealthy enough for high level penetration, so they wanted to ensure it could still fly low level profiles.
    • The B-21 only has a payload of 30K lbs, half of what the B-2 can carry. 
    • Notice the main gear only have two wheels each.  Gross weight will probably top out around 200 - 220K lbs, making it a medium bomber.
    • Cockpit is VERY narrow compared to the B-2, looks to be single seated or perhaps tandem like the B-47 and B-58.
    • Likely only twin engined, using engines derived from the F-35 program.

    I'm not sure if anyone else noticed, but during the live stream, they kept cutting over to views of two aircraft, the F-14 and X-47B.  There is supposed to be a parallel development program of a next generation long range penetration fighter "Penetrating Counter-Air" (PCA), which would be an escort for the B-21.  Perhaps there's more news coming on the PCA/NGAD projects?

  2. On 11/30/2022 at 10:49 AM, serendip said:

    Weapons and decal options on the Meng are very tempting however. Might splurg and get both just for that.

    Any non-Meng provided pictures of the Meng around anyone?

     

    Thanks,

    Marc.

    Meng doesn't have the best track record as far as the accuracy of their ordnance.  I own two of their Super hornet kits and all of their older ordinance sets.  Some of them look great, some are cartoon renditions of the real thing.  Their GBU-12s and AIM-54s are terrible.  AIM-7s are great.  Aim-9s are OK.  Markings are pure fiction on most of their sets.

  3. On 11/29/2022 at 11:13 AM, Dutch said:

    Oooh!  Lots of changes: new engines, new nacelles, minus the EVS chin bumps, new cockpit (That center panel looks awful empty!), what looks like SATCOM humps over the wingspar area.  Hmm, may require a whole new mold! Either that or the AM vendors will be busy.

    There's currently no aftermarket sets to fully update any of the 1/72 kits to current standards.  In particular, the sniper/lightning pod pylons are badly needed.

  4. I've had issues with Aires parts being undersized due to excessive resin shrinkage.  But in this case, I assume the engine cover fits the length of the finished (yet short) nose correctly.  Given the differences in surface detail, it's possible Aires recycled/adapted an older set meant for a different kit.

  5. 12 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

     

     

    While I understand most of your points, a couple things you need to consider. The Hasegawa kit was first released in 1991, over 30 years ago. If my memory is correct, the use of slide mold technology wasn't being widely used.

    As already mentioned in the other replies, Hasegawa has used slide molding on canopies since the 80's.  I should have clarified I was referring to fuselage components.  

    12 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

     

    Many of the options/features you note weren't even on the real aircraft when the kit was released, so you can't really fault Hasegawa for not including what didn't exist at the time. In a few later releases, they did include a sprue with the dual buckets, IFF antenna and larger, swept back UHF/VHF antenna. 

    True, but they continue to repop the same tired molds that are in desperate need of updating.  As for those optional parts, they only include them in certain releases.  I recently bought a D model kit new from Sprue Bros and it's not included in that version.  Reminds me of their really tired F-14 series.  Some kits include the upgraded parts, some don't.

     

     

    12 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

     

    Regarding the fit issues, I've built five Hasegawa Hornets and never had a problem with the windscreen. The other issues can be resolved with a little tweaking. The Kinetic kit has just as many fit issues, but in different areas. The main wheel bay leaves huge gaps because of the way it was designed and the nose requires a lot of work in order for it to fit correctly. Of the two I've built, both were a struggle and slightly more difficult than the Hasegawa kit. 

    I've had really bad luck with clear parts from Hasegawa F-14s and F-18s.  I've seen many mal-formed clear parts, but mostly on the F-14 series.  This was the first time I had an issue with an F-18.  My current F-18 build was from parts out of a 1999 special edition kit.  The windscreen was about 1 mm too narrow at the rear.  I checked it against a windscreen from another kit and that part was 1 mm too wide.   I opted to go with the narrow one and went to work shimming and blending it in.

     

    I just mocked up one of my Kinetic kits and the nose is a geometric hot mess.  I found once I properly located the nose relative to the nose gear bay, everything dry fits well.  But I could totally see it all getting out of whack if you don't get it just right.

     

    12 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

     

    With Hasegawa, you can easily build an early Hornet, but have to add/remove stuff to get a late Hornet. With Kinetic, you can easily build a late Hornet, but have to add/remove stuff to get an early Hornet. 

     

    The Kinetic kit, while superior in surface details and crispness of some parts, really isn't that much better when 'everything' is considered. As it's already been noted, the Hasegawa kit is also more accurate with regard to shape and is more proportionately correct than Kinetic's. Having actually measured a Hornet with a tape measure, laser level and plumb line, taking over 3000 photos of it and having in my possession almost all of the technical support manuals for the aircraft, I am 100% confident in that assessment.  

     

    The Hasegawa kit is obviously captures the shape, contours, and details of the F-18 quite well.  And no doubt you've probably spent more time around F-18s than anyone else in this group, so it's not my place to debate shape accuracy. 

     

     

     

     

     

  6. I tend to judge kits based on build-ability, not just fit.   I'm on my 3rd Hasegawa legacy hornet build right now and I'm running out of nostalgia for this kit. The Hasegawa tooling is definitely showing it's age.

     

    Hasegawa Problem areas and missing/incorrect details:

    Avionics door hinges are step molded instead of a real piano hinge panel line

    Nearly non-existent panel lines on the fuselage sides under the LEX.

    The fit of the lower fuselage into the upper LEX areas is a hot mess.

    Top of nose in front of canopy has faint panel lines with seam running down the middle of it.

    Terrible fit of gun port, needs reshaping and rescribing of the difficult contours

    Windscreen fit is terrible (some kits are too narrow, some too wide, clearly a molding process issue)

    Poor fit with the spine filler panel

    Most releases only have single chaff bucket parts

    No option for IFF blades

    Lower gun pallet panel has poorly molded early vent type, no option for the later screened vents.

    No swept RF antennas, only short straight type

    AOA sensors are the early vane type, doesn't have option for probe style.

    Speed brake fits terribly when closed

    Rear fuselage side panels fit funky, weird seam locations right on top of formation lights.

    Vertical stab reinforcement brackets are for early A model

    Sink marks on tops of wings where the PS is injected into the mold.

    Intake trunks are less than an inch deep. Panel lines around intake lip and down fuselage sides don't match well with real thing.

    Overall, most panel lines are very shallow and don't take pin washes well

    Optional starboard nose gear door with ECM antenna is molded backwards

     

    The Hasegawa shape is superb, but it's really just an A/B kit with a few C/D parts thrown in to cover the major differences.  Since Hasegawa invested $0 in slide molding technology, 30-40% of the panel lines need re-scribing work done to them.

    I've never built a Kinetic Hornet, but I have two in the stash.  What struck me as amazing was the lower fuselage of the Kinetic kit.  The sides are all slide molded, avoiding the worst short comings of the Hasegawa kit.  It also does a slightly better job of offering the C/D unique parts in the box (including the recon pallet for the D gold release).  For myself, these features rank the Kinetic kit pretty high as far as build-ability.

     

  7. 6 hours ago, stalal said:

     

    I wont keep any hopes for new versions. Its Tamiya. You cant predict 🙂

    You can already see on some of the sprues they are setting up for optional drop in molds.  Those parts on the extended side sprues include the main and nose gear bays.  The nose gear bay is totally different on the F-35C.  There's also an empty side gate on the ordnance sprue.

    a7d433ae097dac859a908fc4c20001b0.jpg

    88b5b9c465807461a85e1d1d7bed7122.jpg

    4161c0a6ac20f748f3c5579fd85e5b75.jpg

  8. I currently have around 60 started builds.  The average work completed on those builds is around 65%  Most are from after I came back into the hobby in 2017.  I could have probably average 15 completed builds a year if I quit starting new projects.  This isn't a new problem for me.  Most of what I've completed since coming back into the hobby were builds started between 1988 and 2004.

     

     

  9. 7 hours ago, Niels said:

    Not really, as they usually attack from minimum medium height. 

    "Usually" doesn't equate to "always", which is why F-15Es can be seen training for low level penetration attacks in the Mach Loop and in Star Wars Canyon.

     

     

    And your statement about F-15Es carrying it for only for ballast doesn't hold water.  Lightning and Sniper pods do NOT contain terrain following radars.  The AN/AAQ-13 is still actively used:

     

     

  10. The purpose of AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod is for low altitude terrain following navigation.  It's primary sensor is a terrain following radar.  I would guess that unless terrain following radar functionality has been integrated into the primary radar system, this pod is still required for low level penetration.

  11. 31 minutes ago, ya-gabor said:

     

    Unfortunately there are many small companies who make some excellent and in some cases pioneering things in our hobby and end up closing down from one minute to the next due to one or another reason.

     

    I never forget the photo showing the dumping into trash containers of masters from the once Verlinden factory. Anyone remember that name???

     

    Best regards

    Gabor

    The entire line of True Details masters (including Black Box/Avionix masters) was sold at auction after Squadron closed.  Greg Cooper bought them and eventually raffled them off for charity on the Scale Model Graveyard FB group.  Whoever won them never did a thing with them, so they are now gone forever.

  12. On 8/10/2022 at 3:58 PM, habu2 said:

    Improved resolution and accuracy would be in the TGP itself, not the aircraft platform. 

     

    17 hours ago, GW8345 said:

    Superior is a subjective word, it's an opinion most of the time and of course every pilot is going to say their aircraft is superior to their rivals.

     

    The LANTRIN brought much needed capability to the Tomcat but overall the Hornet had a better bombing computer/system than the Tomcat so for anyone to say the Tomcat was superior they are basing their opinion on only one aspect and not the whole system.

    The F-14 used a purpose built, second generation Lantirn pod, with superior capability to anything fielded by the US military at the time.  The F-15E used the 80's version of the Lantirn with less capability.  It was in fact more capable than the early Lightning pods.  Here's the detailed explanations from Wikipedia:

     

    The basic LANTIRN was modified into LANTIRN Targeting System (LTS), the navigation pod was removed from the two-pod system and the targeting pod was improved for Tomcat use. The LTS featured a Global Positioning System and inertial measurement unit that provided the pod line-of-sight cueing and weapon release ballistics and eliminated the need for external cumbersome and time-consuming boresight equipment.

    Unlike the early versions, the LTS performed all weapon release calculations and presented release cues that it had generated to the aircrew. The LTS also had a masking avoidance curve display (preventing firing the laser at the jet) and eventually a north orientation curve and 12,200 m (40,000 ft) capable laser. The latter became very useful allowing F-14s to employ LGBs above potential threat systems and it came into its own in the higher terrain in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom.

    The LTS could also generate coordinates for any target located on the FLIR, and a latter software modification, known as T3 (Tomcat Tactical Targeting) increased the accuracy of the coordinates produced by the LTS and allowed generated coordinates for GPS/INS guided weapons (JDAM, JSOW and WCMD). The first combat use of this was during Operation Enduring Freedom when an F-14 generated coordinates for a B-52 that dropped a CBU-103 WCMD from over 40,000 feet (12,000 m). These weapons scored hits on a vehicle convoy that had stopped after the first vehicle was destroyed by the Tomcat with LGBs.

    The pod also featured an internal computer with ballistics data for the various precision munitions carried by the F-14. Data is fed to the pod by the Tomcat's AWG-9 (F-14A and F-14B) and AN/APG-71 (F-14D) radar, but the LTS in turn only sends video and guidance symbology to the crew's cockpit displays. This means that few wiring and software changes had to be made to the Tomcat in order for it to operate the LTS. All pod controls are in the RIO's cockpit, but the bomb release button is situated with the pilot. The LTS had a price tag of around 3 million US Dollars each and due to these high costs, only 75 were bought for fleet use. Typically, an F-14 squadron brought 6 to 8 pods with them on deployment, which would be permanently fitted to the non-TARPS jets.

  13. On 8/1/2022 at 6:49 PM, ElectroSoldier said:

    From what I read its sensor capabilities were not higher, it was overall lower as it did not have the navigation functions of the LANTIRN system it had the advantage over the F-15 in its LANTIRN pod display (PTIDS) had a higher resolution. So they had a clearly picture of what they were hitting. "thats all".

    Not that thats not important, I mean being able to see what you are targeting is very important, but its hardly the massive advantage you make it out to be. And if it is it kind of makes you wonder what the F-15 pilots were doing wrong, rather than what the F-14 pilots were doing so much righter.

     

    I thought the fleet had laser PGM capability in the A-6E TRAM?

     

    Ill be completely honest Im not really looking to get into a fanboy argument about the F-14, its a good jet with a lot of overzealous fans. 

     

     

    Here's a good overview of the LANTIRN integration into the F-14.  The F-14 LANTIRN Pod (AN/AAQ-25) had unique capabilities the USAF pod (AN/AAQ-14) lacked.

     

    https://theaviationist.com/2020/12/26/how-the-f-14-tomcat-evolved-and-became-the-bombcat/

     

    While a 10" high res screen might not seem like a big deal these days, the F-14s were preferred for CAS missions because of it.  When combined with the enhanced LANTIRN pod, it would seem it was the preferred platform in the early years of the war. 

     

    https://theaviationist.com/2012/09/08/f14-vs-f15/

     

    Also, the ROVER system was borrowed from UAVs and added to the F-14Ds very late.  This system allowed ground forces to view the IR video feed from the F-14D LANTIRN pod to assist with target identification.

     

    https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-14d-close-shows-last-upgrade-received-tomcat-retired/

  14. On 7/17/2022 at 9:20 PM, Falconxlvi said:

    I don’t think the MRP international orange is quite right.  I’ve tired it and it’s not as red.  I picked up some tru-color (TCP 1210) instead and it is dead on IMO.   I thinned it with Mr Color Leveling thinner and had great results 

     

    Steve 

    MRP-002 is really the better match to "International Orange"  MRP calls it insignia red, but that's really not the right name.  They also have another insignia red, MRP-299, which is in fact what most modelers consider insignia red to be.

     

    Back to MRP International orange (MRP-232).  I find this to be a closer match to the orange that VFA/VA-86 uses for its squadron markings.

  15. On 5/5/2022 at 9:41 AM, KursadA said:

    Great idea, I am adding the window to the 1/72 and 1/144 sheets.

     

    The smaller scale sheets will have 14 options; four more than the list I posted earlier for the 1/48 scale sheet.

    The additional options on the 1/72 and 1/144 sheets are:

     

    • B-1B 85-0069 "Daisy Mae"
    • B-1B 86-0097 "Iron Eagle"
    • B-1B 86-0109 "Spectre"
    • B-1B 85-0085 "America #1"

    It would be cool to have a modern set of Spectre markings representing it's final scheme before the engine fire and retirement.

  16. 12 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

    Nothing ventured nothing gained.

    Try out the Ozmods parts on it. The FB-111A kit has the same problem as all the others

    I have the HB FB-111 kit inbound.  I'll do some comparisons with the Academy kit to see if the wings are interchangeable.  Seems like fixing the HB kit parts should be easy. 

     

    Unfortunately, the current situation in Ukraine is going to be a problem.  I actually have an order from Reskit stuck in their postal system in Kyiv.

  17. 12 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

    Yes the tracks need to come off too and go back in the right order (which is opposite to how the kit provides them) but I left them on and moved my way down the wing using the tracks in place to level up the veins as I went. My first try I couldnt get the veins to line up to each other and it looked like a Mexican wave in the end.

    Do you happen to have any photos of the correction process? 

     

    Also, I wonder if the Ozmod wing sets for the academy kit could be modified to work in the hobbyboss kits?

×
×
  • Create New...