
jonbryon
Members-
Content Count
941 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Everything posted by jonbryon
-
That's good info - thanks. Jon
-
Here are some photos I've found of 157667 which would indicate a very light brownish grey would be correct:
-
Well, surely you agree the highlighted sections aren't black, weathered, faded or otherwise? Unless I'm missing something really obvious?
-
I have to confess to being a bit confused. 157664 was originally an F, but should have had fibreglass blades by 2006? Here's some better images from the instructions. I think you can see why I'm tempted to go with a very dull metallic colour: Jon
-
Thanks. That what I would have thought, but a CH-46 mech on FB has just informed me it should be metallic, so I'll go with that. Cheers Jon
-
I've a feeling I might be asking quite a few questions of this group... I'm making the CH-46E in this image, from AOA : The rotor blades are pretty worn, but what I don't know is what colour they wore down to. It is metallic, or grey? Any help is appreciated Jon
-
Fantastic - thank you! Jon
-
Much obliged - will do! Jon
-
Hello, I'm starting Academy's 1/48 CH-46E today and will be using the AOA decals to model 157664 EH-03. AOA supply three great photos of this airframe, but they are a little small and only partial on the left side. I've done quite a lot of Googling, but not come up with any more images. Is anyone aware of any more photos of this airframe from the 2006 USS Bantaan deployment with HMM-264? Just looking for more references. Many thanks for your consideration Jon
-
That is a -6. This is an interpretation of the original scheme - there's at least one more (e.g. with floats in blue). There is a photo of the original airframe kicking around. 8563 also wore a different silver scheme earlier in its life. Jon
-
The -6 also had a different front fuselage behind the cowling and the cowling itself was different to the earlier variants. None of the 1/48 kits have it correct. It's not widely remarked upon (e.g. not mentioned at all in the Ginter book) but obvious when you start comparing photos of -5s and -6s. Jon
-
Works for me too. Jon
-
No problem and thanks for the answer. Looks like such a great scheme I'll get the sheet anyway 🙂 Cheers Jon
-
This poster has not been on ARC since 2017, so I don't think I'm going to get any joy, but did any of the photos he had get posted or published anywhere? I would like to buy this Caracal sheet and make 'Cilda' but I need to know if this aircraft had the large drag chute housing or the smaller ventral keel? I think it probably had the larger housing, but 45th TRS polka-dot aircraft had both kinds and I'd like to be sure. I don't fancy converting the Tanmodel kit to remove the large chute housing as that's already proving enough of a ballache on the Kinetic F-84F I'm backdating...
-
AMP 1/48 Kit 48019 HH-43B Huskie
jonbryon replied to Steven H. McLain's topic in Helicopter Modeling
Here's a HUK-1: https://jonbryon.com/amp-1-48-kaman-huk-1-huskie/ Jon -
New tool F-16AM MLU in 1:48 announced by Kinetic
jonbryon replied to falcon91352's topic in Jet Modeling
Thanks 😊 Glad I saved you some cash! Jon -
AMP 1/48 Kit 48019 HH-43B Huskie
jonbryon replied to Steven H. McLain's topic in Helicopter Modeling
I've built the HUK-1 and have the HH-43B. The sprues are all different. The rotor blades look very similar if not identical. It should be described as a new tool in my view; I can't see any commonality. Jon -
Maybe. Maybe not. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235108534-148-fairchild-republic-thunderbolt-ii-warthog-by-gwh/#comment-4371503 Jon
-
New tool F-16AM MLU in 1:48 announced by Kinetic
jonbryon replied to falcon91352's topic in Jet Modeling
Thanks Gene 😊 Jon -
New tool F-16AM MLU in 1:48 announced by Kinetic
jonbryon replied to falcon91352's topic in Jet Modeling
Thank you 🙂 Jon -
New tool F-16AM MLU in 1:48 announced by Kinetic
jonbryon replied to falcon91352's topic in Jet Modeling
Yes, e.g. https://jonbryon.com/kinetic-1-48-lockheed-general-dynamics-f-16b-fighting-falcon/ Jon -
Pleasure. I spent a lot of time on Google when I was making mine... Jon
-
OB-924 (44-93224) is usually drawn without red areas. Below are photos I believe from 1950. OB-999 is also usually illustrated in the same manner: 44-33939 did have the red areas. The same photos are variously captioned from 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1952 depending on the publication. According to http://usafunithistory.com/index.html, the 4th RS was based in Guam until September 1949 when it relocated to Hamilton, California, which possibly casts doubt on the June 1948 date for these pictures.
-
If you mean this airframe, it's the only one I can find marked up as such. All the other photos I could find for other airframes did not have the red, but I'm limited to what can be found on the internet. This is the Revell 1/48 kit in the scheme provided in the box, although it's so inaccurate all the markings are masked and airbrushed. Jon
-
Thanks guys. This is encouraging! Jon