jpk

I guess the key words are "capable enough" and more "affordable". And again I look back at what the USAF was flying in 2002 and it was the F-15 Eagle and the F-16 Falcon. Both supremely capable in not only their original design roles of air superiority but also later even in that time frame as mud movers. Certainly the combat numbers prove that. The Navy got a jacked up 1970's airframe that was originally suposed to be a light weight, cheap, air superiority fighter " that had lost the competition to the F-16" but was transfigured into a fighter/attack aircraft that the Navy "bought"...... or

I'm not implying that the Navy doesn't upgrade the aircraft over time. Of course they do. I'm sure the latest C/D models are very much more capable aircraft than the A/B models were as the E/F's are over their predecessors. I think you may be underestimating my knowlege, I may not be intimately involved or as well versed as perhaps some of you folks are but I do know they have continuous upgrade programs as the fleet aircraft get rotated into NADEP or other service programs not as involved. It is not a static thing and it occurs throughout their service life. But still my question is.....if th

I'm sure the SH must be an improvement over the legacy Hornet......otherwise why build the thing and get it into the fleet. I don't fly the darned things and I know you're not supposed to believe all you read on the internet but there were critics of the legacy hornet as having short legs, as well as under powered engines. That may have been cured over the service lives of those airframes. I don't know, you tell me. Also if I'm misinformed about the SH then please edify me. With the new Hornet the pylons had to be canted out a few degrees to allow proper weapons separation which also increased

Perhaps, I'm not in the military nor am I an expert on aviation. I'm sure the Super Hornet beneath the external skin is an electronic wonder. Just seems strange to me while the USAF is investing in aircraft that at least to the casual observer offer forward movement, expansion and use of new technology and designs, the Navy is lagging behind there. I'm probably wrong and you guys that are knowlegable and privy to information I am not then so be it. If you are comfortable as to the capabilities of the aircraft and the mission it was selected to perform then I shall defer to those more knowlegea

Well, is the Navy's (fighter) aircraft role used solely to defend the Battle Group? Should they not have a mix of aircraft that can dogfight with the latest airframe design technology or are they only point defence, save the BG types? Their aircraft seemed to have been used for a lot of mud moving in the past few wars and I'm sure they must have been involved with some air to air engagements over the last several years at least at the start of OIF. So why are they relegating themselves to old airframe designs that are mid 70's mindset? Look at the Naval aircraft since the early 60's. All USN "

And I suggest from an airframe viewpoint, the Super Hornet appears to not be much of an aerodynamic/stealth/technology advance from what the Legacy Hornets are. I understand the avionic upgrades, etc., but still, it is basicly a mid 70's design with some bling added. So, the Tomcat was old too, now.....I'm not a Tomcat homer but would it still a more capable airframe vs Hornet if the avionics, etc.. were on a level field or if the same effort was put into modernizing the TC's airframe as they did with the Hornet? Was the TC's high maintainace requirements due to the original design of the airf

......Does it seem like the Navy just doesn't upgrade its jets as frequently as the airforce. Tomcat gone and it too was years before it got an engine upgrade, almost just before its retirement. And look at the Hornet, been around 30 years and the C and D models are as far as its gotten. The airforce has upgraded and updated the F-15/16 it seems numerous times and now their getting the F-22. I know the navy has the E/F Hornets now but it sure doesn't seem like much of an upgrade over the earlier model. The F-35 seems like it will be a dog for the navy. Anything on the horizon for the guys on b

I believe the only 1/72 F-111B kit ever produced was the Revell TFX boxing from the mid 60's. Hasegawa never produced a B model. The other being the really bad Aurora 1/48 kit, very rare now.

My 2cents......Hasegawa if you can afford it. A long time ago I had the Fujimi kit. Avoid it. Regarding Acadamy, I've only seen photos so can't comment there but I've had the Monogram A model and the Revell/Monogram D. The old Monogram kit is good as an alternative to the Hasegawa kit. More simple but pretty accurate for an A model. The R/M D kit while having the updated GE exhaust and a few other D stuff added is the old Monogram kit with those bits added but something happened to the nose. They re-countoured it or the molds went south and they tried to fix it but it is really bad. If you can

I'd be on board for one. I've had several ESCI Furys. Your FJ-4 cockpit would work as the FJ-3's was very similar except for the instrument panel and the area behind the seat. The bang seat is the same also with minor differences. Just one suggestion, do not use an F-86 fuselage as the start for a master, it will be wrong. Mod a HB or GP -4 fuse, you will be much closer.

It won't even get you close to an XFj-2B. The only way to get an XFJ-2B is to use an F-86 and fill the 6x50 cal gun ports and drill out 4x20mm ports. The XFJ-2B was essentially an F-86 with the different guns mounted. The two XFJ-2's were F-86's with modded landing gear and arrestor hooks but they were still basicly Sabre's. The production FJ-2's were totally different. By the way, the wings on the ESCI kit are basicly correct for a Fury. The only thing ESCI didn't mold was a new fuselage....why....who knows. All the parts are ok except the fuse, cockpit and canopy. The canopy is slightly off

Julien, Well then since you are unable to aquire the CA Fury......which is a very nice, accurate kit here's what I can suggest. I did this a few years ago before I bit the bullet and bought the CA Fury. What you will need, An ESCI FJ-2/3 kit and either the Grand Phoenix or Hobby Boss FJ-4 Fury. I used the Matchbox -4 as the other kits weren't around then but I think those two newer kits would work better anyway. I kept the wings, landing gear, drop tanks and canopy from the ESCI kit. Use the fuselage from one of the -4 kits. I cut down and filled the spine of the -4 as well as cut down the

Spend the cash and get the Collect Aire FJ-3 Fury, a very nice resin kit. The ESCI kit is not very accurate.

I also have a KMC F-8 cockpit set if you want it.

The later Stoofs also had a fuselage plug added just behind the cockpit. Don't know the exact length that was added but if you compare photos of early and late S2's you can see the difference.

Save yourself a lot of work. Get the monogram kit and backdate it. It has the parts.

I thought the A-7B's had the 20's and the E's had the vulcan.......Others may know more though.

The molds were designed to allow the switching of noses much like their PBY-5/5A kit. They can still do the fighter version if they wanted to.

The following kits need to be made in 1/48th scale by a decent manufacturer. FJ-2/3 Fury F2H-1-4 Banshee's F7U-3 Cutlass F9F Cougar F11F Tiger Whatever company does these kits will hit a gold mine. Many folks want them but all the kits out of the above aircraft suck. I'm waiting patiently, someone will make them

There are no conversion sets to make an FJ-2/3 from an F-86 in any scale that I'm aware of. In reality there's not much in common between the two aircraft other than there being a similar basic layout. RHVP(sp?) had a 1/72 scale FJ-3 and I believe it is OOP and old, don't recall the medium but I think it was a vac. Don't know how accurate that kit is. The old ESCI 1/48 kit of the FJ-2/3 is for the most part inaccurate, basicly an F-86 fuselage with Fury wings, drop tanks and landing gear. Can't get there from here. Why ESCI didn't just go ahead and cut a Fury fuselage is a puzzle. The only rea

Need to be a little kind in your critisizm of that model of the Huey. Monogram only made the molds in like 1962-3. I'm guessing the molds have seen some use and have been redressed many times. I believe it's still the only 1/48th scale early Huey out there even if it's not quite accurate.

Thanks for the info. It looks pretty good on CA's website but you never know with them although it is a fairly new casting. I was so disappointed with the HC Cutlass when I opened the box and saw the shape of the nose and canopy. Lou always charges top dollar for his stuff so if you want it bad you'll get it bad.

Has anyone bought this set? Worth it? Not worth it? I'd like to build my HC Cutlass but the front end is pretty bad. This seems to be the only way to correct it.

Thanks much!

I know about the speed brake but what else needs help? Not looking to make a contest entry out of it just correct a few of the more needed ones. Thanks I have the BB cockpit set for it so don't need any cockpit related stuff.