Guard Hog

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.

Glad to be of some help, Curt. I think it's great you're thoughtful regarding those details.

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....

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.

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.

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!

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]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Based on the limited views of it so far, I would agree that they do look significantly shallower than the real thing. Could be a pretty easy fix, and certainly an opportunity for the aftermarket guys. I'll try not to get too in the weeds with speculation 'til I can look at it with my own eyes, though. It's just really nice to see a new A-10 in this scale.

Yeah, I guess they could be the clear pieces you showed. But I didn't see them on the photos from the build displayed at that model show a few weeks back, nor on this full build: https://hyperscale.com/2022/reviews/kits/academy12348previewbg_1.htm Anyway, I'm not complaining or chucking spears, nor do I expect perfection. I hope it's a great kit!

Thanks for the link... looking forward to some build reviews. For whatever it's worth, a couple thoughts from a guy who has been around the Hog every day for over 20 years... - Looks like, while the tail cone AAR-47 sensors are present, they didn't include the wingtips ones. The sensor is a complex little detail that may be tough to add; hopefully the aftermarket guys will come to the rescue. - The ECS housing ("doghouse") between the nacelles is way too tall, but it should be straightforward to just knock it down in height with a file and plastic card.

Unfortunately, the BSU-49's are pretty much now out of use with the USAF, but one of the most common fuzing options employed (at least on the A-10 side) was the 904 in the front and an FMU-139 in the back. That configuration was/is known as a Mk 82 Air Pilot Option(1) -- the pilot can select from the cockpit whether he wants the BSU-49 to function (hi-drag delivery) or not (low drag bomb). The USAF uses the 904/905 combo quite a bit still, at least in training. My guess is it's because there are tons in the inventory and they're quite reliable.

The USAF designates that pod the LAU-131A/A. It's 11 inches longer than the standard pod. Because the laser code can't be seen once the rockets are loaded, it will be greased onto the side of the pod... a cool little detail for a model. - Tom

Very cool to see a new A-10 kit on the way -- thanks for posting the pics, Dave. The guy who built it executed a very realistic weathering approach. I'm interested to see some full-build reviews, as no one since Monogram circa 1983 has really gotten the shapes of the Hog correct... first look here is promising for bucking that trend. Crazy how far the engineering has come the past decade! Thanks again, Dave. ** Edited after visiting HomeBe's link where it states these were test runs for the display; I commented that the AAR-47 MWS sensors don't appear to b

Evening, I'm looking for a complete clear parts sprue and the open speed brakes. The little boy next door found a mostly complete Monogram A-10 and I'm helping him build it; those are the two pieces missing. I'm happy to pay with money, send you some patches from my squadron, or offer up some complete decal sheets (let me know what you're looking for and I'll see what I have). Thank you!

Afternoon, That's the housing for the connection point for the 1760 cable from the jet; it's where the jet's cannon plug connects into the bomb's receptacle so the bomb and jet can "talk" to each other. As for which one to use, I don't know. That said, the first pic below is the best I have of that point on a USAF GBU-54 in 2016; the second is of the same point on a GBU-38 during the same period. If I had to guess, I would venture to say the different versions allow for slightly different mating points on the bomb, depending upon which type of aircraft/pylo

On the USAF side, I think we're prohibited from flying training missions with a mix of live and training missiles *of the same type* because of incidents like this: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38216/an-eagle-named-opus-the-legend-of-the-air-forces-most-notorious-f-15 I won't try and speak about other airframes, but in the A-10 we're prohibited from carrying a mix of captive/training TGM-65's and live AGM-65's. Doing so would just be an inevitable accident waiting to happen. It makes sense. Tom, I know that doesn't answer your question about the F

You're correct -- Barnes never flew the C-model.