Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hemspilot

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)
  • Birthday 11/23/1962

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Jersey
  • Interests
    Helicopters, Home Automation, Helicopters, Helicopters........
  1. Hi all, I am looking for the Heritage Models resin kit conversion/update kit with the different radar noses. Does anyone know what online store carries it? Thanks
  2. CD48115 - 1/48 AV-8B Harrier II Plus - Part 1

    A big YES, for the Italian one. Perhaps in 1/72 you can do an "International" mix?
  3. AB-212 ASW decals

    Turkey flew the 212ASW, and perhaps Greece.
  4. AB-212 ASW decals

    We, operated the 212ASW in the basic ASW configuration and also had a few EW variants, side numbers 53, 54, 55 and 56. These were externally recognizable due to additional ESM antennas on the nose and tail boom (bumps and lumps), they retained the dipping sonar hollow but had no funnel and sonar cable winch and reel installed. The Italian Navy search radar dome differed from the Spanish ones as being a bit wider and squatter in appearance. The Italian Navy did not change the camo until the early nineties. Until then, we had a grey comparable to British gloss extra dark sea grey or FS 595b 16081/16076 and International Orange (not fluorescent orange assome pictures may lead you to believe). I am not sure about the light greys, but they were not initially referred to the FS system, although any light grey may be close enough, however I am quite sure there were two shades of grey involved 😎. For the record, Crabinieri used 412s and not 212s. Only State Police, Air Farce and Army used the 212 besdes the Navy.
  5. US NAVY adversary F-16s.

    Thanks Kursad, again, all those decals mentioned are in 1/48 scale or larger. I am interested in 1/72.
  6. US NAVY adversary F-16s.

    Currently there are no decals available for NAVY/MARINES F-16s. There are some pretty interesting paint jobs out there.
  7. Su-33UB Flanker-D - 1/72 scale

    Not really Kotey, like I tried to explain earlier Trumpeter should have made the cockpit bulge more but in the end it flares back into the natural Flanker nose.
  8. Su-33UB Flanker-D - 1/72 scale

    Is this what we were looking for? http://www.afwing.com/images/su27/family/wing/3.jpg
  9. Su-33UB Flanker-D - 1/72 scale

    Nice work on the cockpit Ken, I thought you were going to try to replicate the access door from the nose gear bay.
  10. Su-33UB Flanker-D - 1/72 scale

    Somehow "I told you so just doesn't seem to cut it, does it?". They used incorrect drawings as a reference. Anyway I am going to modify the exhausts for the TVC and the kinked canard foreplanes.

    Neffan, that last picture you posted shows my point exactly. The radome is shorter, but the distance from the end of the LERXes is the same. The whole cockpit assembly is in a forward position compared to the single seater as well as being positioned higher to improve landing visibility. However, the diameter at the white demarcation is the same. Ken, I have seen that picture before, the angled cut out is before the blend. The Trumpy canopy is too shallow and that compromises the carachteristic shape of the UB. Look at the number 1 of the 21 code, it is perfectly straight, no curve at that point, now compare it to the kit. Also notice how the cannon blast shield is vertically undersized in the kit. We need a whole new forward fuselage section. Ken, what book is that you are talking about?

    I am not sure anout the diameter difference n ow. I have been eyeng those pictures so long... What is wrong is the shape of the fuselage around the cockpit. The side walls are not straight and tall enough to accomodate a cockpit that should be about the same width of the SU-34's, compare the cannon blast protection area in the real aircraft and the kit. Also the canopy should peak more and the windhield slope should be steeper, then they should blend in with the normal SU-33 nose just past the IRST sensor. I compared the cockpit with the Neomega SU-34 upgrade, yes there is a difference in width at the rear bulkhead where the access door should be. There's no fixing this one.

    Same sprue, like I said.

    All, it just dawned on me that we are discussing a single prototype built between 1995 and 1998, for which there never was even a small production run. we are now almost 20 years past.

    After a lenghty examination of videos and pictures, I came to the conclusion that the only real error is that the canopy is too shallow by perhaps 2 mm, while the length is correct it should have a more "peaked" appearance. There is a carrier trials video on Youtube that lasts almost 7 minutes and shows pretty good cockpit footage. Notice how much clearance the pilots have above their helmets. the canopy sides ought to be quite a bit more vertical. This and the increased chord rudders are the only errors that I can see. As far as the wings folding past the vertical, is perhaps because they need to be lower than the vertical fins.