Steve McArthur
-
Content Count
50 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Steve McArthur
-
-
4 hours ago, Da SWO said:
U.S. Navy was sued by Kieth Ferris years ago when the used his scheme on F-14's. IIRC they had to pay out.
Got a link for that? It smells like BS to me.
-
The model kits are licensed by the aircraft manufacturer as a trademarked products. This was a change to US law about 15 years ago. Prior to that products developed with US tax dollars like military projects could not be trademarked. This is the fine print on a Tamiya F-16 box top.
-
I think the simple fix will be to wait for aftermarket or a lot more carving. Yay!! more aftermarket needed for a "Gold" kit.
To me it looks like Kinetic plans to reuse tail extensions parts for the A & C models and to make it work screwed with the cross sections. It may work for the C but compromises the shape of the A tails. The basic A and ADF tail bases should have a more trapezoid cross section all the way to the aft end and Kinetic made the rear too square to line up with the tail extension. The A tail extensions should have more taper at the forward end where the C is more of a rectangular box with parallel sides. The A model should have it's own distinct shapes. This is where I would have preferred a little more plastic for full length tail bases for each configuration instead of mix and match among compromised parts.
From a MLU plane on a pole, the tail extension tapers under the rudder to meet the narrow A tail. To me it looks like the widest cross section is at the paneline about 2/3rds to the trailing edge of the rudder and not at the panel line that is used as the joint in the kit. Compare this with the kit and you can see that the kinetic base flares wide way too far forward, but it's not as obvious with the parachute housing unless you know what you are looking at.
From a primeportal walkaround with a little cropping and zooming. Same here, widest cross section looks to be aft of the rudder hinge line and not a the kit joint line.
-
So I got bored and did some math.
Red numbers are defined by the drawing @habu2 included.
I used the coordinates for the MAC location to determine the leading edge sweep, then use that to calculate the leading edge Fuselage Station of the tip chord. Using the MAC and Tip chords I calculate the locations of the trailing edge and then calculate the trailing edge sweep at both of these points. All the numbers worked out consistent with the drawing and gave consistent answers for the trailing edge sweep at both the MAC and tip locations.
One thing to keep in mind this is all looking down in the plan view for the airplane. This doesn't account for the anhedral they are mounted with. This means the horizontal surfaces are about 1.5% wider that the dimensions given in the image. 67.697/cos(10) = 68.741" This should be what you would get if you measured the tail with a tape measure from root to tip.
-
5 hours ago, RCarlson said:
I just saw this on Aeroscale
https://aeroscale.net/news/mirage-ivp-with-asmp-missile-february-release
Is this a new kit or did A & A release one before. I'm not familiar with there stuff, are they not so great?
According to Scalemates it was originally released in 2018. I have no idea about the quality, I only build 1/48.
-
12 hours ago, scotthldr said:
There are 3 versions of the Blk52
Blk52
Blk52+
Blk52 AdvancedI've never seen any F-16 referred to a Block 52 "Advanced" outside of some model box tops. Additionally, I don't think the "Plus" was ever official nomenclature, but just a way to differentiate early vs late production Block 50/52.
With upgrade programs the differences are even more meaningless. The "Tape" version and corresponding hardware upgrades are more important, as this defines the actual capabilities. You can have a USAF Block 50 built in 1991 upgraded to the latest Tape version that is technically a more capable aircraft than a Polish D+ as delivered.
If you want to keep talking Blocks, the first new build Block 70 rolled off the line in November, but Taiwan has been upgrading it's fleet to Block 70 for a couple years. The new build Block 70s look like C/Ds and Taiwan's Block 70s look like A/Bs.
-
1 hour ago, flanker27 said:
supposed to be in 2022
It was announced back in September of 2021, but then an invasion occurred in ModelSvit's home country which may have delayed progress somewhat.
-
I've only seen stuff like that on shapeways
-
2 minutes ago, Mig-21 said:
Have a friend who wants to start building aircraft, so I'm going to show him the ropes and want to start simple
Start simple or start fun? I would not start a newbie off with a mixed media kit. I'd look for the best fitting cheap kit I could find. Something that he won't be fighting with due to lousy fit and poor engineering. Personally I'd look for something like a Tamiya 1/48 P-51D.
-
52 minutes ago, habu2 said:
Why would you do that?
If you only want the small tail stabs just cut down the big tail stabs in your (insert manufacturer name here) kit. Drawings are readily available on the 'net...
Or if you don't want to mess with research and modifying kit parts: $6.49 @
https://spruebrothers.com/qbt48240-1-48-quickboost-f-16-falcon-block-5-10-floating-elevator-48240/
-
One more thing that I just now confirmed with my CC company: Instead of putting ur signature in that signature block on the back, write: 'See Photo ID'. Of course this don't help with on line orders, but makes it a bit harder for anyone to use a stolen card. I guess. At lease they can't dupe ur signature and sell it, too.
I've been doing this for a few years and I can count on one hand how many times I actually get asked for ID. Most people that take your card don't even think to look at the signature.
-
... Take your hose with you so they can set it all up for you or get you 90% of the way. Sometimes one has to source adapter fittings to bring it all together.
I use a Badger hose and a quick release fitting on my regulator. My local hobby shop had the Badger adapter to go from the hose to 1/4" pipe thread. At Home Depot I was able to get a pipe thread quick release that fit the Badger adapter and my regulator.
-
Here's an old thread on CO2 tanks.
There are a few threads on here, but the search engine sucks. Cost will vary quite a bit. New vs used is the biggest cost driver. I've seen used tanks for as low as $10. If you go used the tank better have a current hydrostatic test or you will not be able to get it filled. It was around $40 the last time I needed mine tested, but it took a couple weeks to get it back.
-
Forgot about the large blade antenna mounted dorsally just aft of the wing
Forgot about it in what sense? Did it change? There's always been a big dorsal blade antenna on the first generation Marine Harriers.
-
The only other change I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that the camera in the port side nose was deleted on the C model.
The refueling probe could be fitted to the AV-8A but just wasn't commonly seen until the later years when most had been converted to C's.
The slime lights look like they were introduced as a modification independent of the C conversion. All C's will have slime lights, but A's could as well depending on the time frame. The earliest photo I've got with slime lights on an A is 1980.
-
I have 3 sets bought for different reasons and detail isn't one of them. The ones I have are no better detailed than the kit parts and if anything the detail is worse because the white metal needs more clean up and just is not a good medium for capturing fine detail. Added strength is the primary reason to use them and there are only a handful of 1/48th scale aircraft where there is an issue with the stock plastic landing gear being strong enough to support the weight of the completed model. I honestly don't get the need for them on the majority of kits where SAC has made replacements sets. Besides strength the only other reason would be where the kit landing gear is FUBAR out of the box, i.e. the Airfix and CA B-57s have Canberra nose struts instead of the proper B-57 strut.
I have a set of the SAC legs and I don't think they are all that great. Definitely not the drop in replacements they are advertised to be. I bought these primarily for the strength of the metal over plastic. If it fixed the splay that was a bonus. As replacement parts, at first glance they appear to be clones of the kit parts that have been copied a few too many times. The plastic kit parts have better fit and sharper defined detail, this wasn't a surprise based on the previous white metal parts I've used. They were honestly much cleaner than most white metal parts I've used and required less cleanup of casting seams. However I'm only planning on replacing 4 parts out of the kit, just the main gear legs (parts 8B/9B) and the main fore-aft beams (parts 12B/13B) to hopefully keep the landing gear from collapsing as I've seen in a couple builds.The only reasons to use a kit like this are to correct either a gross error in the kit parts or for a sturdier landing gear. I don't expect them to have better detail. I've never seen white metal parts that capture fine detail better than plastic. Lastly, I find plastic easier to work with, so I tend to only use white metal as a last resort. The only other SAC kits I've got are for B-57s where the kits included Canberra struts instead of a proper B-57 landing gear. I haven't yet opened those up to see what problems those might have.
Problem areas:
1) Along the side of the main wheel well bay nearest the centerline the original kit part has a step cut out of the landing gear leg to clear parts 24A and 26A in the wheel well. If you compare the kit part with the SAC part it's obvious what I'm talking about. Without this step the SAC leg will not fit in the bay around the existing parts. This took a few minutes carving with a mototool to fix. This is only a minor annoyance and just the nature of fitting aftermarket parts.
2) The nose gear had a odd fit for the scissor link (33A). I didn't spend much time looking at this to figure out what was wrong, but it didn't appear to be insurmountable. I'm planning to just use the kit parts anyway for the nose strut. I find plastic easier to work with and don't think the SAC parts add anything useful here, but there don't seem to be any major problems to keep someone from using the SAC nose gear if they wanted.
3) The pin at the base of the main gear leg (parts 8B/9B) is way undersized for the hole into the fore and aft beam (parts 12B/13B). The kit parts have a reasonably tight joint here, the SAC parts are way different. The SAC fit is so sloppy it comes real close to making this a fatally flawed set and I hate to say that about any kit. It stalled my build while I consider my options. If anything I expected the fit to be too tight and I would need to remove material to get a proper fit. Starting with a loose fit where I have to add material back to the parts is just a poor design. I have a couple ideas to salvage the SAC parts, but to me it's really unacceptable to have a fit this bad and it made me consider ever buying their parts again. What is especially troubling is that the fit problems are in the joint that is the primary reason I bought this set in the first place.
-
I'm looking for pictures of the AS 332 Super Puma troop comparment or cargo compartment,military version,civil version would be fine too but I was wondering if they got the boiler-like fuel tank used in AS 330 helicopters,plus other bits and stuff of the rear cargo door
Thanks for looking
Luigi
PM me an email address and I can send you some photos of an AS332C I spent several months with. It was in civilian use was a very stripped down basic model. The only "extra" on this one was that port side had a VIP airstair instead of the sliding cargo door. The Super Puma has the same basic fuel system as the Puma: 5 tanks in the floor. There are options for additional tanks in the floor, sponsons and cabin, but the helicopter I worked on had none beyond the basic 5.
-
I haven't built one since right after Desert Storm so I'm a little hazy on specifics. The only detail that comes to mind is removing the blocky squarish antenna under the nose and tail. These antennas were in the process of being removed throughout fleet at that time. Most planes had been updated by Desert Storm, so it would help to check photos of the plane your were doing. Otherwise the Monogram kit is a Desert Storm aircraft.Thanks again guys. So the Revell/Monogram kit is a good representation of early A-10's then. What kit accurately represents Gulf War A-10's then, or do you need to scratch build from cold war versions?Thanks,
Mike
Armament is another issue: The stuff in the kit isn't really useful. I'm not sure what the bombs are supposed to be they aren't shaped like anything I've ever seen hanging from a plane. The triple maverick racks weren't used in DS. The kit also lacks the dual sidewinder rack. It hadn't been introduced by the time the kit came out.
-
The Revell kit isn't that bad, but it's based on prototypes with skimpy details about equal to the Tamiya A-10. I don't think it had the chaff/flare buckets under the wingtips. The Monogram is much better detailed and at least represented an'80s operational aircraft OOB. I've seen a Revell kit built up as a Desert Storm aircraft and it's doable, but does require some scratchbuilding skills.Yes, that's it! I've seen the original Revell kit on E-bay, is it not as good as the modern day Revell-Monogram kit then?Mike
-
Trojansamurai is correct. Prior to the merger of Revell and Monogram each had their own mold of the A-10 with the Monogram being the superior of the two. Since the merger the Monogram mold has been the only one used.
-
Finding 'foreign schemes in Hasegawa boxings is difficult and they usually are the highest priced kits in the used kit stacks (like at the Nats) where the A-4K and Argentinian B/C boxings were seen for between $45 and $50 bucks
I have the Hasegawa Argentinian B/C boxing. It's has errors if you are trying to build this version, and IMO not worth the premium it seems to carry. Hasegawa includes a resin dorsal antenna fairing that is incorrect in shape for either version. It's sort of in between the 2 different versions. Condor Decals has the correct antennas.
-
To preface this, I've never bought the Hobbycraft kit, nor do I intend to.
The canopy looks squashed and the detail is lacking compared to the Hasegawa kit. With the Hasegawa family being one of the best 1:48 model series I've seen I can't see a reason anyone would buy the Hobbycraft kit. If you are having trouble finding a A-4B, MAW-Decals makes a resin conversion for the A-4C that seems to be more available. The conversion provides a new nose and instrument panel for about $5.
-
Block 20 is an oddball. The block number is chronologically out of sequence, so don't think of it a coming between block 15 and 25. Even though it looks like an A/B with the skinny vertical fin base and is referred to as a F-16A/B model, it's closer to Block 52. Production began after Block 50/52s were rolling down the assembly line, so it uses the same wing and aft fuselage structure as a Block 50/52. This was probably a cheaper solution for Lockheed than to go back to an earlier structural design. The cockpit and avionics are closest to the European MLU planes. They should also be NSI with Pratt F100-PW-220 engines. Being based on Block 50/52 structure it should not have the scab plates added to the earlier blocks as the aged.
Selling arms to Taiwan has always been politically problematic. My company has been waiting for a FMS approval for almost 2 years at this point on a sale to Taiwan, (can't say what, but it's not weaponry). At the same time we have no problems selling crap to the PRC. I would hazard a guess that Lockheed came up with something that looks like an F-16A/B to sell Congress on the idea they were older model aircraft even though internally it was built to a much later standard and equivalent to what was currently being built for the USAF and other foreign customers.
-
I have no definitive source, but I would guess black ones were prototypes and an initial production batch with the cream/white ones being full production run units.
Kinetic Viper Cancelled
in Jet Modeling
Posted
That's why it smells like BS to me that Ferris sued the Navy over it.
I didn't assume you made it up, I think you are repeating a rumor you heard once that isn't true. You presented a controversial story with no evidence. I'm just saying, back it up and show some evidence. If there was a lawsuit there should be a paper trail and at least a mention of it in one of the many, many sites that talk about US Navy experiments with Ferris camouflage patterns.