Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

ChernayaAkula

Members
  • Content Count

    9,913
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ChernayaAkula

  • Rank
    Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...???
  • Birthday 02/26/1983

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    between Hamburg and Fulda Gap, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

30,256 profile views
  1. They better have a VERY good explanation for this. Otherwise it's going to blow up in their face.
  2. Woohooooooo! 😍 Fantastic news!
  3. Wow! The cockpit sidewalls and instrument panel look really nice. Even more impressive given that the resin cockpit is a tub, which probably doesn't make painting any easier.
  4. In my opinion, yes, it doesn't hurt to have the figure as detailed as Reedoak's. The more the detail there is on the figure, the less detail I have to try to "paint in". 😉 Working on a couple of Fishbeds and a Foxbat in 1/72 at the moment. The Fishbeds get resin pilots converted from a standing Aires/Aerobonus figure that is nicely detailed. The Foxbat will get a pilot from a Zvezda MiG-21bis. The Zvezda pilot is okay by plastic pilot standards, but nowhere near as detailed as the resin pilots. Painting them with the same colours and techniques, the resin pilots will look WAY more convincing than the less-detailed plastic guy. The detail on the resin guys is quite crisp. It's easy to paint because the demarcation line between, say, visor and helmet are sharp. You can easily tell which part is visor and which part is helmet, making painting a whole lot easier. On the plastic guy coming from a two-part steel mould? Not so much. 😆 You're quite right about the helmet and chest part, though. They're the most visible parts. At least in 1/72 and certainly when sitting in a Foxbat or Fishbed cockPIT. I suppose once you go up in scale and in types like the F-16 or F-15, even the legs become quite visible.
  5. Oh, as far as accuracy goes - absolutely. Most shape mistakes in kits could've been avoided at no extra cost. And I'm all for having the most accurate kits possible. I just think this point that "Kitty Hawk is just in it to make money" is somewhat nonsensical. Kitty Hawk wants to make money. So what? Which manufacturer doesn't? I'd venture even everybody's favourite Tamiya likes to see not just a break-even, but also a profit. If enough people are okay with the product Kitty Hawk puts out, where's the problem? If the manufacturer is fine with amount of kits sold and if the modellers are fine with the product they get, whose joy is being stolen here? Detailed engines that no one will see are stupid. Putting ejection pins on panel lines is stupid. No argument there. But this argument that manufacturers don't care about the product and only want the money is absurd if people are okay with the product.
  6. So... if the modelers don't seem to care, where's the problem, then?
  7. They're engine cooling louvers. They open on engine shut-down and are closed when the engine's running again. SOURCE (on page 6-31)
  8. Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like you posted while I edited my reply.
  9. That's 43+85 all right, but not the 43+85 Jim's looking for. ;-) It's at a different time, in a different squadron, a different paint scheme, a different branch of the German military even. I'm not versed enough in the Luftwaffe or Marineflieger aircraft numbering business to know whether a certain combination of numbers was attached to an airframe for its entire life or whether they could change over time. EDIT: The number before the cross refers to the type, with Tornados having been assigned 43 to 46. The number after the cross refers to a specific airframe.
  10. I've done some diggin' on flugzeugforum.de. Apparently, pics of 43+85 are as rare as hen's teeth. User 'viking' has one picture of the left side. He was asked not to distribute it. He stated, however, that the markings and stencils were similar to other Norm 83A and 83B Marineflieger Tornados. That would indicate only one cross per wing. Strangely enough, THIS BOXING of Revell's 1/32 Torndao has a pic of the right side of 43+85 on the box. A low quality pic was posted on flugzeugforum.de. Send me your email address via PM and I'll forward it to you. It really isn't much, though. Maybe it would make more sense to ask if someone on ARC has that boxing and could take a better pic of the picture on the side. Even though it's pretty small, it appears there's no cross on the upper right wing. An article in either the 03/1986 or 06/1986 issue of the German modelling magazine "ModellFan" has a plan of the scheme. Don't know whether or not there are additional pics, though. Regarding the timeframe. The Revell kit is from 1985. Scalemates states "July 1982" with regards to the scheme in the Italeri kit (LINK!). 'viking' on flugzeugforum.de states it was tested before MFG 2 transitioned to Tornados, which was in mid-1986.
  11. Coincidentally, the Revell/Monogram F-105s have pretty decent pilot figures. In-flight 1/72 Thud? Surely there has to be an in-progress thread.
  12. Maybe I remember it incorrectly, but wasn't there a stickied topic in "In-Progress Pics" that was was named "What is everyone building at the moment?" or something to that effect? IIRC it allowed you to post some pics of build that you didn't feel the need for a dedicated topic for. Was there ever such a topic? And if there was, what happened to it? I've looked thorough dozens of pages thinking it might have been un-stickied at some point, but couldn't find it.
×
×
  • Create New...