Jump to content

Spike72

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Spike72

  1. On 8/12/2023 at 7:42 PM, Brad-M said:

    Exactly, and this is why I purchased the kit. If you print MLU NATO Viper on the box, it should provide you with everything in the box to build it, except seal belts. My opinion, YMMV.

    I had the same issue with the Kinetic late model Hornets, especially the ATARS, when what was included in the box, after a lot of fanfare, needed aftermarket to represent the actual aircraft the markings were made for and on the ATARS, you actually had to get aftermarket decals to get slime lights and other necessary data markings.  When similar comments as yours were made, it was basically “go get aftermarket and be glad we made an ATARS model”.

     

  2. 2 hours ago, Raptor.777 said:

    Thanks. I am leaning towards that way

    I’ve sanded them before and to get it thin enough to look right I sanded too thin and had a hole to deal with.  The last two Hasegawa kits (now using Meng that has them) I cut a hole roughy 3/4 the size of the pipes in the fuselage area and started sanding and whittling with a blade and basically dropped them in. Took a few minutes but it looked better IMO than the sanded and glued on top. Good luck 

  3. Unfortunately I didn’t see this post and recently purchased this kit only to be extremely disappointed.  I thought my kit was missing parts and found this post, realizing it wasn’t, it was a company’s decision to sell a kit that they knew wasn’t accurate.  I had thought of buying one of the Kinetic F-16s but now that I know the company is basically like “spend your money on our products and good news, you get to support the aftermarket companies also” I’ll pass.  Then when someone complains, you give an excuse that it was too hard to do so many different models.  Well, then don’t try and do something you clearly knew you couldn’t do.  Not only do you have to fix the rear cockpit with aftermarket, you have to buy aftermarket decals to get data and formation lights, all apparently to save money. I know my comments wont change anything but hopefully it will push this post up and save at least one person some money.

  4. I wish I had seen this before buying it the other day. I was looking forward to doing an ATARS bird only to find a poor rear cockpit, especially since it’s under the Kinetic Gold line. As pointed out above, the lack of formation lights and other basic decals which are now normal in kits of this cost had me initially thinking I was missing a data sheet, which is disappointing.  

  5. Let me first say I’m not an F-4 guy and don’t mean to cause a stir but I’m a bit disappointed with this kit now that I’m about halfway through it.  The fit is only so so, the weapons are not wide ranging and the decals are for only one bird. Maybe it’s because I grew up on Monogram kits from KMart but I don’t understand the need for over engineered kits with lots of parts that could easily be molded on during manufacturing. Unlike Tamiya’s recent kits, the parts are often attached to the sprue at awkward points that had it been moved a few millimeters, the clean up would not even be visible.  Instead, this is a modern kit that I’ve spent more time than expected sanding and dry fitting, when other manufacturers have chosen to give us both details and ease of building. I’m not asking for a snap together kit and it will look good in the end, but at the current prices, it should be better IMO.  

  6. 18 hours ago, tomthegrom said:

    Thank you for the superb info as always. 

    Do you think they would ever take that SU-CAP loadout with the harpoon, rockeyes and Gbu12 and instead of the wing mounted external tank, slap an aim-9 on instead? I think that's what I would like to load my a-6 with. 

     

    Thank you again. Because of your knowledge over the years a lot of my navy models have accurate weapons loads. 

     

    Tom 

     

    You can.  I remember once having one loaded and me and the guy I was flying with joking that it was a really bad day if we needed it.  I think we may have even questioned if we actually knew how to use it but I digress...

  7. I’ve built 6-7 Hasegawa Supers and after building a Meng E model, I won’t go back to Hasegawa.  Very similar in their build up but having the ECS easily fitted as an option vice having to cut/sand a resin piece along with a one piece nose cone and an easy wing fold was all I needed to come to that conclusion. I’ve heard some complain about the pit but with Quinta set or a figure in the seat, I didn’t have any issue.

     

    Now if we could just get some updated decals....

  8. 2 hours ago, Solo said:

    Frankly said, I don't like such bizzare loadouts for aircraft (especially training one, what I didn't know until now), but also I can't say it drives me crazy.
    Take it easy, it is just modelling, not real life.

    Like I said, it’s your model, you can do whatever you want.  It was a figure of speech, I’m not literally thrusting myself off a bridge...  

     

    With that said, if you had flown or worked on the actual bird, you’d be a bit more invested, after all, in this case, we’re modelling something “real”. If you had, I would hope when you see something that looks silly, you’d say something.  Your original question was asking for options; if you’re going to load whatever you want, then don’t ask, just post the final product.

     

    Good luck with the project. 

  9. 15 hours ago, Solo said:

    Thanks a lot Niels, you explained me all I wanted to know.

    Regarding my model and my plans: I am going to make something impressive (I hope) but not focues on accuracy, as you said.
    I am going to use F/A-18D from Hobby Boss to make Legacy Hornet in aggressor camouflage (BuNo 162864 from VFA-125) but with very modern ordnance hanging.

     

    samolo00.jpg


    My plan is (from station 1 to 9):
    1. AIM-9M
    2. 2xAIM-120C
    3. GBU-32
    4. AN/AAQ-28 LITENING
    5. Fuel tank
    6. AIM-7M
    7. GBU-12
    8. AGM-65
    9. AIM-9. 

    While it is your or your client’s model and if accuracy isn’t important, then so be it.  With that said, -125 was a training squadron (not an adversary unit, just had some painted up that way) and would not be carrying that full of a load. 

     

    Sorry, just my pet peeve. It drives me crazy when I see models of -101 F-14s toting full loads of AIM-54s or a full A-G load, yet we rarely flew with drop tanks loaded, let alone full of live or training ordnance.

  10. 2 hours ago, 11bee said:

    So is that a new camo scheme for all SH’s or just a one-off?   I really like it.  

    Probably just a one off for the CAG bird. They get to make it look different without being over the top in color in case another directive comes out to tone it down. 

    1 hour ago, Spook498 said:

     

    Interestingly enough, VFA-97 is now flying with AJ CVW-8 codes as well. There were flying CVW-9 NG with a mock digital paint job on the vert stabs with a red adversary star. Both are gone now. However, -97 is slated for transition to the -35C.

    Maybe just for admin purposes if CVW-9 was going to start work ups and needed another E model squadron.  They could slot -97 into 8 while they begin transition.

  11. 1 hour ago, Darren Roberts said:

     

    Do you notice what's different about the EA-18G paint scheme? It's not Dark Ghost Gray over Light Ghost Gray. It's Medium Gray over Light Ghost Gray. That's something I haven't seen before. I wonder if this will be a new scheme?

    That has been the CAG bird scheme for awhile. Furball had it on their CVW-8 sheet.

     

    The other thing to note is the NL tail code now instead of the AJ. I guess CVW-8 is still on limited flying hours so they pulled them out of the air wing.

  12. 2 hours ago, GreyGhost said:

     

    Yes but its a single seat jet with DCAG on left and CAG on the right.

     

    -Gregg

    No it’s an F so two seats, if CAG was an NFO, his or her name would be on the left side, just the rear seat.  Depends on preference, some will have the CMC’s name on the right side and maybe the sailor of the year.  In this case, CAPT Ford is an aviator, so unsure why he was on the right side.  I’m curious if all the CVW-17 -00 aircraft were like that.

  13. 14 hours ago, Mark S. said:

    Spike,

     

    Just looked at the photos I worked from and the DCAG was on the left and CAG on the right.  Guess there are exceptions to common practice.

     

    Mark S.

    Mark, 

     

    Sounds good, surprising though.  Keep up the good work!

     

×
×
  • Create New...