Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BillS

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In my USAF days I saw multiple variations. There is no specific color for the GCU so don’t worry about exactness. All the images in this thread are great examples. Pick one you like and run with it.
  2. I’ve built several of each. Tam reflects mid 2000s technology resulting in crisp moldings and detail. That said, Hase makes in to a nice jet. I’d throw in a Quinta cockpit and better, non-yellowing decals, maybe a new seat, wheels and ordnance. If you want better gear wells, check out Aires. You can go nuts detailing to your particular taste and pocketbook. No matter what you choose, Hase is still quite nice.
  3. For the discerning folks, the photo of 060 clearly illustrates erosion strips on the leading edges of the wings, fin and stabs. It appears to be lighter gray than the surrounding camo. This material was adhesive backed and may have been teflon or something similar. I first saw it in the late 90’s or early 2000’s. I don’t know which directive or T.O. addressed it’s use or know the exact timeframe of it’s use. Not all jets had it and it may have been applied at USAF Regional Paint Facilities. I saw it on F-15E’s as well but in a color that almost matched 36118. It most certainly didn't exist in
  4. The best description I can offer is a transparent light tannish-gray tint.
  5. Outstanding modeling skills on display!
  6. Very sharp and well researched.
  7. Unfortunately all of the negative chatter about ZM has biased you. The ZM kits are great and are satisfying to build. In my hands the Tam B is a mere “schticle” better. I look at the various kits like chianti from different vineyards…it’s all good! Oh, I’ve built 2 Tam and 9 ZM.
  8. What has the modeling world come to? The barn door is open now!
  9. The MCC are great but Sparkit’s are appreciably more accurate and detailed. Beware the Greek’s may have had a different harness system and survival kit arrangement vs USAF MK 7. I’m not sure about this but if you're a stickler you might investigate further.
  10. I bought and built the model upon it’s release. Mine was purchased from Hannants and was in perfect shape. In a nutshell, this is a solid “good” kit. Everything about it is “good” except the decal and plans which are “great”. Be prepared to fill a bit, get the wing folds to align (wing spread)and contemplate how to deal with seats and harnesses. Attention must be paid to the back seater’s position as there are multiple variations depending on version and time frame. Even a good google search didn't get me conclusive answers to that.
  11. I never built or even owned the Hase. kit but have built 2 Airfix; the Mk IV and the Norwegian -40. Truthfully, I expected a bit more cosidering some of Airfix smashers. In a nutshell the scribing is overdone and surface detail is just OK. The cockpit is a real downer. There’s a tub with no console detail, very unconvincing decals. There is an engraved instrument panel with a decal and very basic seats both USAF type and MB. The stick is a thin piece of plastic with a blob on the end. The struts, wheels and speed brakes are nice, the clear parts are well done and the really excellent decals ar
  12. The pylon is vanilla. Whatever store that is has a unique adapter mounting to the standard pylon giving the look of something unique.
  13. The AIM-120s on the depicted jet are captive carry; blue bands on their bodies plus the range pod is a training configuration. That said, I’m 99.9999% sure the aggressors are fully combat capable. Removal of equipment would change weight and balance values for one thing, effect cockpit switchology and make the airplane ineffective for training.
  14. Hell, I’m a 67 year older and have built 8 ZM F-4s and 2 Tams. I’m just getting started. 7 A-10s is chicken feed!
  15. Seems to me Meng would have made a bigger splash with a slatted E with TISEO as an option thereby beating ZM to the market with that variant. It’s worth noting the ailerons are fixed in the streamlined position yet the flaps are portionable. I’d rather see separate ailerons. They drooped while static. Other observers of the computer drawings are correct in that the stabilator reinforcements, aka “fish plates” stand proud and the wing reinforcement strap seems absent. G’s had them. I chuckled at the drawings that show a rearview mirror mounted to the canopy archway and one mounted on the rear c
  • Create New...