Jump to content

serendip

Members
  • Content Count

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by serendip

  1. Despite the riveting conversation above, I've read the current Trumpeter Hind is not so bad, although I'm not convinced. I love the Hind A so will be buying the kit but am curious what mistakes it will be inheriting from the current Trumpeter Hind (besides the recessed rivets). Marc.
  2. Thanks Aigore, I have this ket which I believe includes the fin, canards and RAT you mention: TAR TA4803M: SAAB JA37 Viggen Please correct me if I'm wrong. Pitot tubes are on order. I thought the reverser petals are not that visible - am I wrong? Wolf 3D design looks fantastic - I am so happy that all these after market small companies are cropping up! Marc.
  3. Hi all, Well TGIF. I've had some great feedback above but can anyone advise on the aftermarket RAT? Which is best: Pilot Replica https://www.aviationmegastore.com/en/modelling/saab-37-viggen-rat-unit-special-hobbytarangus-pilot-replica-48-r-002-132014.html Maestro Models https://www.aviationmegastore.com/en/modelling/ram-air-turbine-for-saab-ja-37-viggen-special-hobby-tarangus-kits-maestro-models-k4892-129322.html or Maestro models other set https://www.aviationmegastore.com/en/modelling/saab-37-viggen-rat-maestro-models-k4842-103504.html Thank
  4. Thanks, Can you advise on the manufacturer of the RAT and seat? Marc.
  5. Thanks for that, I almost bought it separately - it's in the box.
  6. Thanks for the pictures Gabor and what a great story! Shame those pieces of history are not being cared for and are not open to the public. We're in the process of having voted in a government that wants to abolish subsidies on museums and all free public institutions so we're going nuts in the Netherlands also. The saying 'Lord forgive them for they know not what they do' springs to mind. Marc.
  7. Takk Niels! I have the one below which I guess must be the M release(?): Can you advise what is on the M sprue that I do not then have to buy separately? Thanks, Marc.
  8. Thanks Niels, Got it - wrong weapons for ADF variant. So lowered flaps on the main wing should work in combination with lowered canard flaps? Marc.
  9. Great guys - thanks, excellent feedback. I was in doubt also as to the added value of the nose. I'll go for the canards and fin set Niels. I am wondering though if Viggens on the ground also had the flaps out on the main wing, not just the canards (or neither). Agree with both of you that some AM seems to try to create a market for something there is no real need for - something very relevant outside scale modeling also unfortunately. Do like these though: https://the48ers.com/saab-aj37-sh37-viggen-2-rb04e-missiles-w-launchers.html
  10. Hi all, I've bought the Tarangus JA37, kit number TA4803M. I've heard it's not too great and would be happy to hear otherwise. If the fit and detail of the kit is indeed disappointing who can advise on what AM offerings would help. I'm thinking of the following and hoping that these would all fit reasonably well if AM additions are necessary: Ejection seat: https://www.aviationmegastore.com/en/modelling/saab-37-viggen-ejection-seat-cmk-cmk-q48219-164131.html Corrected canards: https://www.aviationmegastore.com/en/modelling/saab-ja37-vigge
  11. Thanks Illu, Indeed the Blue Steel was an addition and not in the original design. I'm wondering though if Airfix's insert is along those modified panels or not - I expect the latter due to the size of the inset. It's the new one - check internet - it's defiantly buildable but it's not great. A lot of people are also having problems with short shot pieces. Even some threads on Britmodeller are critical: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235095867-172-airfix-avro-vulcan-new-tool/page/2/
  12. Hi all, I've started on the Airfix 1/72nd Vulcan, a mediocre kit considering the price and state of the art technologies potentially available to major manufacturers in my opinion. But hey, end of the day my choice to buy it or not - which I did - and the Valiant and Victor - I had a bit of a binge. To my question - I'm going for the version with the Blue Steel and am fitting the insert (D12) for the missile. Can anyone help? I'm wondering if the insert is designed along actual panel lines or should I just putty the insert into obscurity. Thanks
  13. Hi Annie and GW, Thanks so much for your feedback and I should have tried harder yesterday. See below for some great ref shots of AIM 9 and 7's F-18's: Marc.
  14. Hi all, I'm finishing up now on the Kinetic F/A-18C in VFA87 colors, 2014, over Iraq. This kit was not much fun in my opinion - it turned out O.K. but the lazy instructions and mediocre fit at times meant it's remained a struggle. Anyway it turned out not too bad but the kit includes no decals for the missiles that I can find, in contract to the instructions which show decal placement for the missles. So which kind soul can help with which AIM-9X and AIM-7 colors would be suitable for 2014 Hornets? Thanks all, Marc.
  15. Can anyone help . I got the AMT / Italeri 'G with Hound Dogs two weeks ago and the panel lines on the right top wing look embryonic - I guess they popped it out of the mould when it hadn't cooled enough. So as one does I ordered another - same problem. Is it worth ordering another version of the AMT / Italeri kit and swapping the wings around or do they all suffer from this problem. Hoping some other versions which were popped out of the mould in a different batch might be OK. Anyone else who had similar issues? Panel lines on the rest of the kit (except th
  16. Got it Rob, and indeed you are right 2 degrees and half a minute, 2.5 degrees as you say. But help me with the distance between root leading edge and tip leading edge - I see 30 feet and 11 inches in the picture above - I think I'm missing what you mean. Thanks. Marc.
  17. Well spotted Rob! I've got the book myself and I think you've solved the mystery - 2.3 degrees dihedral: Regarding distance at the root between leading and trailing edge this seems to be 30' 11'' but I may be misunderstanding what you mean with your value.
  18. Thanks Habu, 100% clear - info much appreciated. Any chance of sharing your source material or letting me know where it's from? I'm having a hell of a time finding good information on the internet and Boeing isn't forthcoming either. Thanks, enjoy your weekend, Marc.
  19. I chose the last picture especially because it does not seem to be a wide angle lens picture.
  20. Rob, all, I tend to agree the designed anhedral is negligible or non-existent indeed and that the actual anhedral is induced through the engineered flexibility of the wing and (fuel) weight. This would imply that the solution to the unrealistic attitude of the wing on the AMT / Italeri wing would need to be found in the wings themselves not operating on the root moulded into the fuselage. Your thoughts all on this welcome. Great picture Habu! Marc
  21. Thanks Norm, It really does appear that the root of the wing (at the spar) really only has a few degrees of dihedral if any. Curvature seems to start outside of the box structure rather than the box structure being angled itself. Line drawings / blueprints I cannot find but also the pictures I have pretty much support yours above. (All) feel free to criticize if you disagree - I'm here to learn.
  22. Also I am very curious as to how accurate or inaccurate the droop angle of the wing fitments (for lack of a better term) in the fuselage are on the AMT / Italeri kit. Again they don't seem that bad. If anything the droop of the wings at the root on the real thing seem to be no more than a few degrees at most. Most of the droop seems to originate from the weight of fuel. Does anyone know where to find some profile views front, left and right of the B-52? Does Boeing have anything? Thanks again.
  23. If the breadth of the rear fuselage aft of the tail is too narrow this should be fixable. I think someone mentioned 6 mm which is some .2 inches in real money. That's doable. But as Norm and others pointed out the whole gun unit on the AMT kit is also probably underscale. How will that then fit nicely with the widened rear section? I have no idea how to correct the gun unit to be compatible with a widened rear fuselage. All theories and / or suggestions welcome. Marc.
×
×
  • Create New...