Yuri

Last week I won the spanish lottery while this week I won the Microsoft lottery... and I didn't even buy any ticket :wacko: But I feel a bit alone, it's been a while since I got a mail from the widow of some kind of nigerian dictator...

When talking about missiles capabilities you have to consider what it was designed for... As others said, the Phoenix was never intended to be a "dogfight" missile. It was designed to hit bombers and antishipping missiles such as the AS-4 Kitchen (fast but not so agile) before they could attack the carrier group. The Air Force basically had other needs... apart from the fact that they (al least until the '70s/early '80s) could use the Genie (another weapon designed to destroy bombers) they had more bases spread on west and east coast, not to mention Keflavik and Alaska so I suppose that havin

Me too... In fact while the Su-27 has titanium parts around the engines, the MiG-29 is one of the first Soviet planes to have a moderate degree of carbon-fibre parts (such as the fins). I'm not sure about the area around the engines, but as for example the lower engine fairing is a completely detachable part I wouldn't be surprised if wasn't made of metal at all...

Well... basically the Su-9 fuselage is the same as the Su-7. It only has a bigger nose for the radar, and no brakechute fairing on the fin. From memory the undercarriage should be a little different (smaller high-pressure tires) and of course the wing is completely different. I don't think you can use MiG-21 wings, but should check drawings. You'd better build them from scratch, as they are quite simple: just two sheets of plasticard of the proper thickness (so the lower one has a cutout for the undercarriage) and then you can sand to an airfoil shape. A little boring but not that difficult.

Light Ghost (or Compass) Grey... FS36375 (or better the semigloss shade, so 26375). And yes, the flaker is more bluish than the fulcrum

Ah, Pisignano Air Base... I remember beeing there a couple of years ago to see the MiG-29s (there was a joint excercise with Italian Vipers and Hungarian Fulcrums)...

MoFo is right... short-run molds usually wear out after only a few "shots" (maybe tens or hundreds depending on the kind of mold they used). Every time the mold becomes less and less usable, up to a point when what comes out is a blob of plastic... So the original mold in now probably useless... BUT Depending on HOW they designed the mold (old school wood or acetate pattern? 21st century CAD drawings? Who knows?) there could still be a good source of things to make a new one...

Seems the old set sold by ICM some years ago... not that accurate...

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that they are in fact simply spring loaded, so they could be slightly open even with engines shut down when the springs are a bit worn out...

Yeah, but the fire fighting vehicles are more interesting for an airport diorama than the radar set Anyway, 1/72 is the right scale... until I get too old to see small details Also, as we modellers are never satisfied, as they bothered to make new resin wheels for the E-Klass Kraz-258, they could have made also a new resin interior... the plastic one is quite basic... Btw, I'm glad they sell also the "stand alone" trailer because I already have a couple of Kraz-258 (even if without the better resin wheels) now... what about a MAZ-537 tractor? :mellow:

Me too.... In fact I even got the ICM Ural kit and 2 Zil-131s for a similar work: APA-80 and EGU-50, but never started them. Yes the Armory kit isn't really cheap.... I saw it on hobbyterra and was wondering about the value for money... seems really good.

Well guys, it's here... (or better, there). Hannants lists it in the new arrivals. No, haven't ordered mine, yet. Considering the probably huge shipping cost I'd better wait until the LHS gets it...

Oooops , I hadn't noticed from the instruction's sheet that they forgot the flap on the wing glove. This makes the whole thing more and more stupid... just like they did with the Tu-95. You could drop flaps, but not extend them past the trailing edge (as it is on the real thing).

Well, maybe the Italeri wings will work. I'll have to check when I have the kit (even if the level of detail would be different anyway.... Italeri/Esci panel lines are on the deep and wide side...). Another thing to check is if the wings can be glued at the 6o° sweep... What I meant is... ok, you want to provide and extra option such as dropped flaps... but as it's not that common to see a Backfire parked that way (they should raise them as soon as they have landed) making a "normal" Backfire becomes and headache. Ok, you want to provide an ADDITIONAL option, but make it an option, not a mus

No real problem... but it just seems a bit stupid to spend a lot of money on a new kit (caring for the many small differences in detail between M2 and M3) and make such silly mistakes with the instruction sheet... Also, I hate the wings done that way.... having to align and glue so many smaller bits just because they provided separate flaps/slats/spoilers just in case... unfortunately the Tu-22Ms aren't parked that way... they did the same with the Tu-160

Uhm... looking at the instructions sheet, someone at Trumpeter must have been drunk... Apart from the fact that it makes no sense to add the front undercarriace leg so early, they want you to put: - A full load of kh-15 in the bomb bay (that the Tu-22m2 couldn't carry) - 2 Kh-22 under the wings (and without folding the fin it would scrape the ground) - Bombs on Mers under the intakes... What about the possible range of a Backfire with such a load? 15km? Ok, nothing impossibile to fix with some basic references... but think we are going to see a lot of "wrong" Backfires at the next model

Me too ;)

Btw, looking at the sprue shots on the Trumpeter site (one is wrong, unless they installed a german tank turret on the Backfire) seems they also supplied the rotary launcher and the AS-16 Kickback. Useless for an M2 but could be quite interesting for a Tu-95 or 160

HLJ lists it as an April release.... In the last year or so I haven't spent a single hour on my workbench... (it's right behind me covered in dust... just had too many things rumbling in my head...) but when the Tu-22m2 comes out.. who knows

Last news I heard was they were in fact working on making the second aircraft airworthy, because of the request for very heavy lift capability. Btw, what about an 1/72 kit? Even a vacuform....

My ticket for Oasis's gig in Florence. Does it count?

Hehehe, in fact there's some truth in this (even if I'd say at least F-14=MiG-31). Not because they directly "copied" stuff (well, sometimes they did), but in the cold war arms race every time someone did something new the other had to find something similar to face the threat. The MiG-25 for example was developped to intercept fast and high planes (XB-70/YF-12, SR-71), then the americans did the F-15 to fight the MiG-25.... a never-ending story... An interesting thing about soviet hardware was that they had different ideas from the west on how some things should have been done.... sometimes

Yeah, but the Ye-8 (also called MiG-23) had no "real" canards, in fact they weren't powered, but free floating Always liked the Ye-8 design, looked definitely cool.

Yes, if I'm not wrong while beeing a technology demonstrator (to test some of the features of the future EFA), the EAP took as many things "off the shelf" as possible to keep costs down

With a cargo load of 20.000 kg I think it can carry any kind of vehicle that actually fits inside... (apart from heavy tanks)