MiG31

I see they've released kits of the F2H Banshee, but that is a totally different aircraft. For 1:48 Collect-Aire released a kit. See a review here.

The paint I used recommends Testors acrylic thinner, which is the thinner in question. I've tried distilled water in the past with Polly Scale, only to have it frost. As I mentioned I've had cracking occur on a previous model, and I would agree that surface contamination is the culprit. The complicating factor to that is that I applied decals between two sessions of Future. Beneath the Future is MM enamel paint. Most likely I'll sand to remove as much of the surface finish, and then have a go at it with a (thin) layer of clear flat. Hopefully it'll fix the problem. Thanks for the tips

This is an issue I've had in the past, though with less severity. I've just airbrushed my F3H with three coats of Polly Scale clear flat, using an acrylic thinner. After waiting a half-hour or so I checked the model, and discovered the finish is cracked from nose to tail. The clear coat was applied over a month-old application of Future, and it had been a couple weeks since I had done a panel wash using MM paint and Testors brush cleaner. Has anyone encountered this problem before? What's the cause? Perhaps I used too much acrylic thinner? How do I fix it? The cracks appear too deep to

I'm really interested in seeing comparisons with the Airfix/ICM kit. The wheel wells look like they're a pig, but they might be correctable. That's the biggest issue I can see from looking at the photos. It looks like at least three Trumpeter Flankers are somewhere in my future.

Something along the lines of 139.61", if I'm reading one of the drawings in the Warbird Tech Series book correctly.

Have a look at Yufei's (haneto's) MiG-31 build to see the issue. Basically it's a matter of the configuration of the dorsal bleed air vents.

The earthquakes have been centered in Oklahoma, east of Oklahoma City. And the damage is a little more substantial than that. Given the plains aren't known for earthquakes, it was quite unsettling.

Here's what I would suggest: -Mark where you want the doors to be located -Mask the surface surrounding the doors -With the Dremel, remove the doors and fashion replacements out of sheet styrene The tape should serve as a guide and protect the area around the openings.

You posited the same question in this thread back in June. Have you tried the folks at Starship Modeler? A fair number of them are experienced in similar resin casting, and might be able to help.

The dashed outline is an indicator of the panel itself. In any event, it doesn't perfectly match the outline of the wheel well itself, but it corresponds to it quite well. There's no reason to suspect the wheel wells themselves are angled, except from certain photograph angles which themselves are a poor means of judging the shape anyway. The fact that the outboard-swinging door is hinged at an angle tangent to the centerline does not mean the fore, aft, and inboard bulkheads of the well are similarly angled. Photos on pages 31 and 32 of the Squadron walkaround confirms this. Good grief,

Sigh. Again, look at this photo. Note the dashed-outline square panels on the wing roots beside the airbrakes. Do those look angled to you?

They might be mostly hidden once the model's assembled, but the bays are not supposed to be angled. See the various photos that Berkut, Flankerman and I have posted. That said, I might try to correct them depending on how the kit goes together. It might be one of those things I have to live with.

I've already suggested that the top skin wing root panels are an indicator of the bays' orientation in this post.

The F-14 could be called a fighter-interceptor, but there are often occasions where pure interceptors and attack aircraft get the fighter label. Have a look at the YF-12 and F-117, for a couple examples.

It's worth noting that there are a pair of skin panels above the main wheel wells that appear on the dorsal wing root. Have a look at this photo. Note the dashed marks around the panels, which are abaft the dorsal airbrake. Trumpeter got it wrong.

I'm asking the same thing in reverse. Thanks for the ad hominem. Fair point. At least you note that it started out as an interceptor, but I had forgotten about the fighter-bomber variants. Regardless, I doubt you could really call a YF-12 or F-94C a fighter, unless you consider interceptors as fighters.

That wasn't a point I was getting at. You responded to a comment about how Lockheed had not produced a fighter prior to the F-22 by presenting a number of aircraft that were decidedly not fighters. I don't disagree that Lockheed shouldn't be discounted for producing fighters given their track record.

The P-80 and P-38 are the only fighters I see out of that line-up. The rest are interceptors and a light bomber.

What double standard? Until you made your post in this thread no one else had made a similar comment. Who else did it before you?

I've lost count of the number of times I've read insults that are supposedly "just a joke" because the writer added a smiley.

And that has to do with what?

Have a look at this photo to get a sense of the nose mods for Operation Corporate, should you change your mind on doing a Falkland GR.3. Note the scabbed-on transponder and blade antenna under the nose. There were also drain holes added for sea-based operations, and additional tie-down rings on the outriggers. I agree that the Esci/Italeri kit is the best GR.3 Harrier in 1:72 scale, followed closely by the Fujimi kit. The same goes for the FRS.1 Shar. By the way, what's a Harrier GR.6? Do you mean a GR.5 or 7?

The exhaust nozzles on the Zvezda Su-47 are actually more accurate than those in the Hobby Boss kit.

It's already listed as a future release on Hannants. Any plans for this beast? I've got the RoG Concorde and the Anigrand XB-70 as decent accompaniments. Now if only there was a 1:200 Tu-144 to go with the RoG snap-tite and Revell B2707 kits....

Or Su-27P. Either way, the Hasegawa kit represents production Su-27 Flanker-B following mods made after the early production batches, including deletion of the anti-flutter weights to the vertical tails and addition of countermeasure side boxes to the tail boom.