Jump to content

Gabe Pincelli

Members
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gabe Pincelli

  1. Thank you! I'm not normally a helicopter modeler, but I'm having fun with it.
  2. Thanks! There is. They will probably be offered by a small resin company owned by a good friend of mine. Will post an update to let everyone know once it's been confirmed. I hope to have these ready to send to him within a couple weeks. Gabe
  3. Figured I'd share my progress on a corrected operator station for the SH-60F. It's not perfect, but the best I could figure out with my limited references. It should look the part once the fuselage is closed up though. Still haven't decided yet whether to attempt scratch building the dipping sonar. They flew plenty without it, so it's not absolutely required. Gabe
  4. Kursad, I'd also like to suggest a sheet covering "Humped two seaters" for use with the Phase Hangar OA-4M & TA-4KU conversions I recently made. I also have an OA-4AR conversion in the works. These would include: USMC OA-4M Argentine OA-4AR Kuwaiti TA-4KU Brazilian AF-1A Gabe
  5. The ECM/RWR antennae include parts D17, D18, D19, E12, E19, E31, F21, and F22. As far as I can tell, you shouldn't need any of them for your build. Forgot to mention, you should use the bent refueling probe, part number E7.
  6. My understanding is that the bent probe was originally developed to eliminate interference with threat detection sensors installed in the Iron Hand capable Skyhawks. An unintended benefit was that it also reduced fuel ingestion into the intake during inflight refueling. But you are correct that many TA-4s had them retrofitted. Most (but not all) of them in adversary service eventually had them fitted. Most with VT squadrons retained the straight probe with a few exceptions. The only way I know how to tell for sure if your modeling subject had a bent probe is photo references.
  7. Steve, That Jet at that time was pretty much externally identical to a J. -No guns -No ECM antennas -No chaff/flare fairing -Use Pitot Tube part number F24 on the nose -Do not use the tail-mounted pitot tube -Use part A6 under the aft fuselage -3 pylons -Use part V21 for the upper UHF antenna on the canopy fairing. -This jet had a second UHF antenna mounted on the fuselage underside just aft of the nose gear. Use the additional part V21 after opening the hole in part V11. Later in life, with VF-126, it was replaced with a different st
  8. Stevez, In adversary service, there were usually very few visible differences between the J and F. No guns, and most likely a maximum of 3 pylons (if that many) installed. Depending on the history of the specific airframe, it is possible that it could have remnants of ECM antennas and the fairing for the aft Chaff/Flare dispenser installed. Do you know what exact jet, squadron, scheme, and timeframe you are modeling? I may be able to locate an image or two that could help clarify some of the details. HTH, Gabe
  9. I was with VFC-13 during the timeframe of the photo. The according to the (very crude) drawings used by the corrosion control shop at the time, it was a three-tone scheme and the colors were 36375, 36320, and 36251. I'm trying to track down my copies of the drawings so I can scan and share them. HTH, Gabe
  10. The gear door is on the M/N sprue, so you're good to go there.
  11. That's correct, except for late wheels. If they release Sprues P/Q as well, we would have the wheels.
  12. M/N also has both TID and PTID RIO IPs, side consoles with TARPS and LANTIRN controls, TARPS Pod, NACA gun vent, Sparrow recess filler pieces, and wing glove ECM antenna fairings.
  13. J & L are the small clear sprues with the TID and PTID parts on them.
  14. Any chance of sprue P/Q being available too?
  15. Gunny, The A-4E & F could carry three different drop tank sizes: 150, 300, and 400 Gallon. The inboard wing pylons could accommodate 150 & 300 gallon tanks, while all three sizes could be carried on the centerline. All three tanks could be configured with or without fins, and the 300 gallon tanks had optional rounded fairings that could be installed in place of the conical fin assemblies. There are plenty of photos online of Marine Corps Skyhawks carrying 300 gallon and 400 gallon tanks on the centerline. If you can show me a photo, I'd be happy to help determine which
  16. Yeah, I think the "Mk 100" label on most kits simply refers to the 100 series with the main distinguishing features from other series being the lengthened nose, RWR fairing on the fin leading edge, and provision for wingtip missile rails. There are numerous detail differences between the various 100 series Hawks including cockpit layout, wing fences, centerline fuel tank/baggage pod, chaff/flare dispenser and other small details.
  17. If Hobby Boss had included the correct parts in each kit, you would've been correct. It was their mistake to include the chaff/flare fairing in the 127 kit.
  18. Due to a mistake by Hobby Boss on which parts are included in each issue, the better kit to build a CT-155, Mk 127, or T.2 is actually the 100/102 kit. Hobby Boss have included the vertical stabilizer parts with the Chaff/Flare dispenser fairing in the Mk 127 kit, while they have included the standard vertical stabilizer without the chaff/flare fairing in the 100/102 kit. I also agree with Colin that the overall shape (especially the nose) appears to be more accurate on the HB versus the Airfix 100 series. The profile of the aft fuselage above the exhaust is also better. It may s
  19. Kursad, Any thoughts on including markings for 200 series Hawks on a Hawk sheet now that the Hobby Boss 200 has been released? Indonesia's new(ish) two tone gray scheme for the Mk.109 & 209 is quite attractive IMHO. Gabe
  20. Their website shows a September 2016 release. -Gabe
  21. It's not exactly a "shake and bake" kit, but with some basic test fitting it goes together pretty nicely. The cockpit tub/nose wheel well assembly needs some trimming to allow the forward fuselage to come together without having to force it. I also used a spreader to spread out the mid fuselage in order to improve the wing root fit. In the end, I used zero filler on mine. On my next build, I'll leave out the intake trunking since you really cant see in there anyway. That'll make it even easier to put a spreader bar in there. Here are a few photos of one I built from a test shot: [/url
  22. It looks to me like it's just a spreader to ensure proper geometry of the fuselage parts as they come together. -Gabe
  23. Pretty sure they were flying Lot 10-11 jets, so SJU-5 would be the correct seat.
  24. Gabe Pincelli

    A-4E

    Not always true. Both carrier based aircraft I've flown (Hornet and T-45) call for significantly higher tire pressures for ship based operations than shore based. The T-45 tires are inflated to 125 psi shore based vs 350 psi carrier based. I don't remember the exact numbers on the Hornet, but it was along the same lines. The Harrier is definitely a different case, and I too have noticed how they always appear to have rediculously flat tires. Arrested landings and catapult launches vs STOVL operations are the reason for the difference. Also keep in mind the A-4E in the photo with the flat
×
×
  • Create New...