Jump to content

Guard Hog

Members
  • Content Count

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Guard Hog

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Recent Profile Visitors

3,028 profile views
  1. That SATCOM antenna...! Just an assembly error, but it makes me laugh. People are always trying to make things look aerodynamic on the Hog... there's nothing aerodynamic about the Hog! Looks promising overall.
  2. Glad to be of some help, Curt. I think it's great you're thoughtful regarding those details.
  3. Good question and this doesn't answer it... but the Idaho Hog's flaps were extended for painting. Granted, it was a full repaint and they needed to match the rest of the airframe's new color....
  4. Thanks for sharing this. It looks like they have zeroed in on the details that no other manufacturer (except Monogram in the 1980s's!) has gotten right, namely the nose and the windscreen. Even the Academy kit, which looks pretty good, didn't quite get it in those respects.
  5. The increased range and wider performance envelope are the obvious benefits, but one of the critical selling points of that particular tank was the fact that its shorter length allows the necessary gun bay panels to be opened for gun reloads without dropping the tank, both for ICT's and regular turns.
  6. Looking really nice -- good in-depth review of how it builds, too. If it helps your planning, A-10's actually have their flaps in the retracted/up position on the ground when the jets aren't running. Once in a while, you'll see a jet's flap or flaps drooping, but that's not common. It's absolutely accurate to build the flaps up without a pilot in the seat. Hope that helps. Thanks for the follow-along!
  7. Very interesting, Steve! I never knew any of that work went beyond bar napkin drawings. There was talk/hope of integrating the JAGM (Hellfire replacement) with the Hog to replace the Maverick. It likely will never happen. [Removed my comment that started the the thread away from your original question.. sorry, Raptor.777]
  8. Yeah, I want to say it was 2.5x. And technically, it was magnification of the video picture; the clarity and ability to see farther wasn't improved. Might sound like semantics but there is a difference in this context.
  9. Nope, it's a D-model. The EO's (B/K/H) and Laser (E/L) are perfectly clear. Generally, the Maverick is broken down into the guidance section (front), warhead (middle), and motor (back). Over the course of a missile's life, sections may be swapped and replaced, creating those varieties. I'm guessing that original contracts dictated acceptable colors, hence the shades of green, brown, and gray. Here's an AGM-65B with it's original warhead and motor (gloss white) with a seeker that at some point underwent some level of maintenance and was repainted gray. The "SCENE M
  10. And here's a model I built years ago showing to IIR Mavs painted that way. They're a tad bit yellow -- should have mixed a bit more toward orange.
  11. It's been a while since I painted one, but I always started with yellow then mixed in red and brown. For what it's worth, I recommend forgetting about making it clear/translucent -- paint it then gloss coat it. The seekers, even straight out of the casket, are opaque and you're hard-pressed to see any of the internal components even when standing right in front of it. Most seekers are the color you mentioned, but every once in a while you get a D/G with the reflective aviators-type lens. Same missile... don't know the reason for the lens looking so different. The fir
  12. Looks really nice. Glad to be wrong about the wingtip AAR-47. I hope all those pieces come together to capture the old girl's lines correctly.
  13. I guess it comes down to a modeler's skills -- thinking mine would look more like blobs than sensors! Very technically, the AAR-47 (MWS) was a separate upgrade to the A-10, but pretty nearly coincided with C-model conversion. Outside the cockpit, there are not a lot of indicators; an accurate depiction of a specific subject will really come down to references. Boom175's unit was the first to convert... maybe he remembers the specific changes?
  14. They did, but I believe only on the stations that received 1760 cables for JDAMs (3/9, 8/4, 7/5), and it was just some panel changes allowing access inside the pylon for connecting said cables to the bombs. The elevators and rudders pretty much sit neutral when on the ground and powered off, unlike the flaps which on some birds have a tendency to droop without hydraulic power on.
  15. Yeah, a good call on their part. It looked like that part matches the actual jet's windscreen assembly. Even on the good old Monogram kit, getting the seam between the clear part and fuselage to blend was always difficult, and I think when not done right it detracted from the lines.
×
×
  • Create New...