Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chek

  1. OK stand down, persons. I was kindly directed to the article where Mr. Vark answers all my questions
  2. Having arrived late to this party , thanks Jim. That's exactly the information I was looking for.
  3. Hi community! I'm wondering if anybody has got close enough to an Aardvark with TP2 intakes (Triple Plow 2 for those unfamiliar) to measure the gap between the inner intake lip/or cone and the fuselage? I have the DMold intakes (one of which is passable, the other one with bubble blobs where the bleed holes should be. Never mind, a bit of needlework required) But some photos of the area I have, whether due to the camera lens or whatever,indicate that the gap between the shock cone and the fuselage is wider - much wider - than an unmodified install will produce
  4. The Thud is a bit of an under-appreciated aviation marvel, which hasn't received the same dues as some of its contemporaries.
  5. Thanks Bill. It might seem a bit weird, but I like a model that helps to understand how things work. Btw the two pdf links aren't working.
  6. Thanks Bill, those photos are a great help. I'll have to build a rig to figure how the flaps actually move, with the hinges pointing inboard but the flaps apparently moving rearwards.
  7. Thanks for the reminder Bill. I've saved many of your WAs over the years. While I had the '385 WA already, I'd forgotten about the detached flap which is very helpful
  8. I've been off models for a while, but recently got a Yahu F-105 instrument panel and want to give it a try again. I've a half dozen Revell/Monogram 1/48 kits that I want to show with the variety of spines and extensions, but I also want to build one with the wing flaps deployed. It's very uncommon as a hunt through my five paper books and 2700 images and several online walkarounds just goes to prove, as apart from landing or take off rolls, I've come up with zero. I think the leading edge flaps are on a simple hinge, but I think the T/E flaps are the Fowler type t
  9. Terrific result John. Making the black of a Black Jet look interesting is no easy task. I hope you'll treat us to a full photo walkaround so we can all appreciate the work you've put into your model.
  10. Well, it just goes to show there's always something new to learn about Phantoms! The dead blog post link can be found here with further info and photos. Although I am a little surprised that McDonnell engineers went all the way to the Middle East when they had the full might of the St.Louis factory's production, test facilities and research personnel to hand back home.
  11. Slats on US Navy F-4Ss were different to the type used on land based Phantoms (E/F/G models), having a blunt lip that overhung the leading edge. Despite having over 30 photos of 153088, the dark blue paint scheme makes it difficult to tell when or even if the slat shape evolved into the F-4S type shown above over the test period. All F-4E Phantoms delivered to Israel were standard production types, the earlier ones having the original 'hard' wing with leading edge flaps, and the later ones (from Block 48 71-0237) were manufactured with the slatted wing. A 1973
  12. F-4J 153088 was originally a Block 27 flight test airframe at NATC with a long nose boom. As part of the research into wing slats for the Navy, it was fitted with fixed slats (no underwing actuator fairings fitted) which were retained long after its Bicentennial scheme reverted to a regular NATC orange fin and outer wing panels, with a regular F-4J nose cone without the F-4B undernose fairing. Interestingly, when it was retired to gate guard status at Baton Rouge, it was repainted in a Marine F-4B scheme but retained an F-4J nose cone. The wing slats and their mounting
  13. The last time I did one in that scale was when making Arnie's AV-8B from the True Lies movie, which indicates how long ago it was. What I did was to as accurately as possible size and draw the pattern - or half the pattern, then fold and trace its mirror image - onto ordinary paper. Tape the paper to the outside of the canopy, then using a fine nibbed mapping pen with white ink, follow the pattern to draw on the inside of the canopy. The ink was acrylic, so could be wiped off if errors were made, but luckily none were. It' works well for 1/72 scale, but you'd really
  14. Very nice and often overlooked attention to detail John. I saw an absolutely beautiful Century-series fighter model recently which looked absolutely exquisite. Until a rear view showed the beautifully detailed jet nozzle set into what looked like something with the barrel thickness of a 20 inch howitzer, when it would have looked so much better with a sheet-metal thickness outer shroud.
  15. If it was a caption competition, the guy in the intake could be saying: "If you weren't planning to hit the start button, how come you've got your ear defenders on?"
  16. Apologies John, it's just a fancy way of saying the pixel signals are processed by the video encoder in such a way as to show a smooth (usually) moving image. The upshot being that the picture is not optimised for crisp still images - quite the opposite, in fact. The mesh itself is just too fine to be detected properly at that resolution, although something like localised brighter reflections look to have been smoothed into the image and appeared as the 'wrinkle' on the FLIR turret. What's commonly called an 'artefact', i.e. it wasn't really there, the process itself made it appear.
  17. Morning John! I regret to say that your build has piqued an interest in the the olde Nighthawk, and I was just trying to hunt down the last outstanding photo of the 64 F-117s built. A couple are beyond finding due to being early losses, but 85-0824 is elusive, despite a few mislabelled ones of 84-0824 out there. But enough of that. The problem with your video still is one of format and resolution. As it's a USAF aircraft, I'm deducing it's a video frame from an american video in NTSC format with a resolution of 720 x 486, judging by the 'stepping' visible on the upper left serrati
  18. Funny you should mention bird strikes John, as that was the main reason I could think of for replacing that aperture panel. As for the turret itself, it would only rotate its sensor window forward on the run in for the attack, and birds would be very rare at the altitude the plane would operate at. Presumably rain would be cleared via diverted air vents like the windscreen. This picture does catch the mesh better than most others. Irritatingly, it's actually coarser than that fabric glare filter I used in the 1/72 Nighthawk I built. F-117A 88-084
  19. Hey John, it's coming along well - love all the routed out mesh inserts. I believe that the difference in the two photos above is that the 2000 photo on the left is of YF-117 79-10781 at the USAF museum, Dayton, whereas the 2003 photo is of a production model with an 80 to 88 FY prefixed serial. The 4 serrations on the upper edge of the FLIR turret aperture remained constant, AFAIK. The only problem with that theory, is that I've a shot of F-117A 84-0812 with the six serrations as per the USAFM example., but it seems to be an exception according to the photos I've collected.
  20. Looks very good John, with the placards applied. I think my diminishing stock of Reheat decals will need an Airscale top up soon. Idly wondering if there are any readable MAC strut ones for Phantom gear legs?
  21. Hi John,just noticed that you've got another build on the go. Lovely detailing on those bay interiors. I thought I'd pass this on, although I'm not sure how useful it'll be. There used to be an older style of anti-glare filter back in the day when CRT monitors were the norm that used an incredibly fine black fabric (nylon?) mesh. It was fine enough the be transparent when viewed through directly, but appeared as a surface when viewed obliquely and looked excellent as coverings for the FLIR and DLIR turret apertures. It worked very well even on the 1/72nd Stealth fighter
  22. Great to hear Tommy - that solves the Christmas present to self dilemma this year! Amazing too that 50-60 years on, new material can still be surfacing. Good luck with the title.
  23. Thanks for the update, RD. I figured it was a case of 'needs must', and not just done for the lolz. I've followed the restoration for years now, whenever a new batch of pictures become available, and the thoroughness and attention to detail is remarkable. That being acknowledged, it's just a pity the windshield is anachronistic. Although it does lend a certain rakish Viggen Iook. I sincerely hope an original unit can be sourced or fabricated as it can only add to the authenticity of the restoration, and I hope the new owner continues with the plan to return to flight. If you h
  24. I'm not sure how temporary 'temporary' can be Gene, but she's been that way since she was moved from March AFB and that must be over ten years ago now. I thought the one good thing about it is it shows that if a standard windshield were to be liberated from AMARC, it would fit and look much better, even if still not strictly correct for an F-4A.
  25. Hi Isaac, Despite trying to figure out any visible physical differences in the engines, I've been unable to despite studying dozens of photos. What I can offer is this from wiki: "In December 2006, Eurojet completed deliveries of the 363 EJ200s for the Tranche 1 Eurofighters. Tranche 2 aircraft require 519 EJ200s. As of December 2006, Eurojet was contracted to produce a total of 1,400 engines for the Eurofighter project" I've presumed to make my own choice, that tranche 2 and onward aircraft for the RAF (from Block 8 FGR4 ZJ945 - ZJ950 and all ZK
  • Create New...