Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AndrewS

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)
  • Birthday 08/16/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Newcastle, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

8,798 profile views
  1. I'd like to offer some belated thanks to everyone for their contributions, in particular to Todd for starting an interesting discussion and Jim for his excellent drawings. I am not a fan of Hasegawa's Pave Tack pod as offered in the F-111 kit, so I attempted my own improvements a few years ago while building an F-111C (yet to be finished). My approach seems broadly similar to what Jim describes and the photos below show my progress. Most of what you see was achieved by altering the kit parts, but I used pieces from AMT's offering of their F-111F for the pod turret. Here's the basic Pave Tack underside piece prior to cutting, but with corners of the cradle cutout marked/drilled out. There are two pods in t he photo because I imagined that I'd have to combine bits from each (a 'turret end' and a 'pod end') in order to yield a better complete pod - however, it looks as though I didn't need to do this in the end. The bomb bay piece at the top of the photo (with gun fairing yet to be attached) is intended for an F-111D that was underway at the same time. Pave Tack and bomb bays by Andrew, on Flickr The cutout for the cradle removed and slightly deepened: Pave Tack cradle by Andrew, on Flickr I removed the moulded vents at the rear of the piece and filled the resultant voids - these are not applicable to an F-111C Pave Tack cradle i by Andrew, on Flickr The next few shots show slow progress on the turret, its cradle and the separated pod body, as well as some test priming. Thanks to Jim's description, I've learnt about the pod's access doors and intake location - I think by sheer good fortune I've removed traces of the intake and vent as moulded. P1000513 by Andrew, on Flickr P1000518 by Andrew, on Flickr 'Ceiling' added to the cutout (not strictly accurate, just added to prevent see-through). To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that the cradle and turret sit exactly as intended in the cutout, but this thread has made me want to dig the build out of storage: P1000522 by Andrew, on Flickr This shows plastic removed from the underlying fuselage, as I anticipated impingement from the modified fairing: P1000562 by Andrew, on Flickr and for the really curious, the back of the pod cradle on the real thing (F-111C on display at the Fighterworld Museum at RAAF Williamtown). Pave Tack cradle rear port aft by Andrew, on Flickr A version of the door that depicts the pod completely stowed would be very welcome - I don't imagine that an aftermarket offering will ever be released, so should get to making my own... cheers, Andrew.
  2. Thanks Gabor, I'm very grateful for your update on this new version of Eduard's MiG-21, with your insights, excellent photographs and now the bonus of the Pure Plastic build. Please keep it up! Andrew.
  3. I was lucky enough to have bought a Hasegawa Starfighter that contained the Dutch antenna parts; if memory serves it might have been this boxing - SP114 'Mount Olympos'. It took me a while to realise what the bits were for, and once I had worked it out, I wondered about a KLu boxing... pity they didn't. Interesting discussion and thanks for your insights, Mizar.
  4. Hi Zac, The issues may be negligible, or I may be too fussy, but to my eyes the proportions of the numerals on the Printscale offering are sadly not quite right.... Compare those shown in the image on Scalemates with those presented by Zotz (admittedly in a larger scale) in their sheet 32-071 for F-4J Phantom II MiG Killers, as revealed in a review on Large Scale Planes. I feel that the Zotz rendering is much more accurate. Of course, the Printscale sheet would still be very useful for other markings, so I don't wish to write it off. You've done well to score an Academy kit; it builds well, has excellent detail and features for the most part (the absence of separate canopies is annoying but not insurmountable) and looks good when finished. Have at it! cheers, Andrew.
  5. Printscale offer markings for that aircraft on their sheet 72-266, although I'm not totally convinced by their rendition of the BuNo./modexes... Andrew.
  6. Hi Jim, I’ve found a picture of 4385 in this experimental scheme in Chuck Stewart’s Superbase 4 title on Decimomannu, with the caption saying that the photo was taken in September 1985. Unfortunately there’s only one picture, but it does show the left side of the jet. It’s very hard to tell, but to me, both pylons are painted in the ‘middle’ grey of RAL7023; the lighter grey seems a bit too light. In this photograph, the fuel tank on the left hand side is in the original colours of dark grey and white. Juergen, your profiles are very impressive and your information on the scheme is greatly appreciated. Thanks very much! cheers, Andrew.
  7. Oh, I like. I like very much. Thanks again for sharing these images; it's greatly appreciated. cheers, Andrew.
  8. Hello Gabor, My thanks also for your time and effort to give us such a comprehensive look inside the box; I'm even more keen to get my own hands on one now. cheers, Andrew.
  9. Hi Pete, That's looking very nice and I'm keen to see how your painting progresses - hope it goes well for you. I notice in the first photo that you have the fuselage from Academy's F-4J out on the desk... is this underway as well? cheers, Andrew.
  10. Great options and thanks for reminding me that training and test units are just as valid! Now that I think about it, a VX-9 F-14D just became a distinct possibility.
  11. Thanks to you both for your information/confirmation. I can see that I'm going to really struggle to narrow the contenders down; the other units you mention above (VFA-31 and VFA-11) are also very appealing, primarily because they've been around for so long. Decisions, decisions...
  12. Yeah, and that would be a kind characterisation.... ummm, I'm also easily confused; I thought that RVAH-13 wouldn't be a good choice? For one of my builds, I'm leaning towards a VFA-14 F-18E - if I understand correctly that unit has a very long lineage and is still in service.
  13. Thanks Rex. As a matter of fact, I do like bats.... and might even have decal options for that unit. Trust me to be distracted by my own negative example.
  14. I'm still coming to grips with the concept behind the GB, but thanks to your Wikipedia links and the GoNavy site referred by Rex, I think I've got the gist. I won't run through every possible build option that's occurred to me over the last few days, but can I run one example past you to check that I'm interpreting the rules correctly...? A potential build is a 1/72 RA-5C in the markings of RVAH-11 Checkertails. The GoNavy page for this unit's deployments tells me that it existed first as VC-8 (est. 3 Dec '51), then VAH-11 (from 1 Nov 55), becoming RVAH-11 in July 1966 and finally disbanding in 1975. So, this project would appear to be okay. However, if I wanted to build a Vigilante in the markings of RVAH-13, a unit that wasn't established (as VAH-13) until 3 January 1961, then that's not within the bounds? Hope I've got this correct - as I said, the idea is a really good one and I will support it with (hopefully) two builds, illustrating both the breadth and depth of Navair heritage. Andrew.
  15. Hi, Very interesting theme for a Group Build and I look forward to participating (I belatedly voted yesterday). I'm not sure yet what I'll contribute, but the temptation is to complete one project from each of the active and inactive lists... cheers, Andrew.
  • Create New...