Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ijozic

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!

Recent Profile Visitors

5,422 profile views
  1. I'll be sure to keep that in mind next time I'm assembling the wings with such connections.
  2. Solo already explained the original F-15B/D issues. Just take a look at the comparison link he posted, there were some serious errors there (nose profile, rear canopy shape, grill behind the canopy, top engine cover shape, etc.). Though, at least they corrected them, eventually. Also, I wasn't too happy with quite a few areas of my GWH MiG-29 9.13 kit, especially given its high price (pretty bad intake fit requiring a lot of sanding and removal of locator tabs, corrected missile pylons whose relocated locator pins were far too wide to fit the wing made for the initial undersized pylons, bad fit of the lower wing endings leaving wide trenches to be filled, same sized gaps are also present on the bottom side of the vertical stabilizer base; lack of any interior intake detail and same for auxiliary intakes, some mold misalignment, including the missile parts). The kit felt slightly over-engineered in parts, especially the PE parts (e.g. the top IFF Odd Rods antenna with three individual tiny PE sticks that you should glue on a tiny PE base part). So, yes, it is the best 1/48 kit of a 29 now, but it's also the only modern one. For the high asking price, I'm not really looking forward to tackling with some of these issues again, even though I'd love to make an SMT. Regarding the KH Su-27 kit, I like some of the details I've seen on the preview images (like internal detail of the openable front nose section) so I'd be prepared to give them a chance again given more of such detail, a favorable price and barring any major shape or fit issues. But, yes, those separate top wings parts are not exactly filling me with joy..
  3. Fair enough, but these researcher theatrics don't really bother me at the slightest so I'll take the one with a better detail to price ratio. Currently, I like the details I've seen of the KH and the minimum amount of PE provided (just seat belts and a few more bits), but I'll wait for some decent review to see if there are some major issues. GWH made a mess with the F-15B/D apparently and had some issues with the MiG-29 kits, so I'm not taking it for granted that their Su-27 will be flawless. They seemed to have doubled down on the research part on this one, at least.
  4. It's probably cheaper this way with smaller tooling pieces required.
  5. It seems it's basically ready for release and looks pretty detailed (at least in the parts shown). It will be interesting to see how it compares to GWH, I presume it will be cheaper, but I hope it will fit well.
  6. From skimming over the video, it looks like an upscaled 1/72 kit detail-wise. I'll still get one, though, hope the price will be set accordingly.
  7. That doesn't look like a cart, but like more detailed intake and exhaust parts for the TS-21 APU installed internally on the MiG-23, I presume. As for the original question, I'd presume it's present on all MiG-23 and MiG-27 variants as most of them used variants of the same R-29 engine which used TS-21 APU as a starter. Not sure about the earliest variants with the R-27 engines, though.
  8. Can't help you with the question (as I went the 1/144 route), but for these bombers I feel like there's a missing scale (kind of like 1/48 between 1/72 and 1/32) - at 1/72 most of them are much too big (e.g. Tu-95 and Tu-160), while at 1/144 they're too small and lack detail. Maybe 1:100 would be something to try here, kind of like it would be great if they would make some bigger military vehicles in 1/48 scale instead of 1/72 (e.g. an S-300V system is almost too big in 1/35, especially to have one of each sub-types, but it's also kind of toy-like in 1/72)..
  9. 1/72. It's written in the related FB post.
  10. According to this page, it was carried by the A's only in training, but I guess it was post-Vietnam when F-111As were relegated to training squadrons. http://www.f-111.net/models/weaponsloads/index.htm
  11. These things are planned and paid for in advance, I guess. IIRC, the Tomcat was supposed to have been kept for longer (2010, then 2007 and finally 2006), especially if the Super Hornet introduction got delayed due to some issues.
  12. It's not really comparable as the sensor mounted at the front of the fuselage has the nose curving down ahead of it factored in with the fact that the IRST sensor covers only a limited angle (e.g. 30 degrees in elevation). Additionally, the top nose location is normally more useful tactically as then you can scan the area above you (that is, if your IRST scanning elevation can be adjusted) which can be used for stealthy approaches to a target from a lower altitude (ground clutter).
  13. IIRC, the Soviets envisaged it as a backup to radar for intercepting US bombers in case their ECM renders the radar lock impossible. The center fuel tank location seems like the cheapest option, but it does have some issues. Besides the potential damage from FOD as already mentioned, it also has a pretty big blindspot from the fuselage above it. I guess that's not an issue when a wider spaced formation is used, though.
  14. And the F-35A/C in general would have looked more streamlined (longer and less fat fuselage) and less draggy and thus would have a more useful performance and range. That VTOL variant for the Marines (and allies like UK, Spain, Italy) should have been a separate design altogether with commonalities where it made sense (cockpit, engines, radar, etc.). Instead, it severely hampered down the performance of the main variants, while making them way too expensive for what they offer.
  • Create New...