Jump to content

Rocky

Members
  • Content Count

    310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rocky

  1. Fujimi has a Norwegian F-16A kit with the extended drag chute tail. Its a poor kit, but I stuck the tail on an Italeri F-16A, and it worked for me.
  2. I have an old F-16 model which was shedding its decals because I applied them onto a flat finish. I have used a used a special decal adhesive product for later models, but lately I decided to try out the proper gloss coat - decal - matt coat decaling technique, and I am having problems. First, I brushed on a layer of Future where the decals were to be placed, and then I applied the decals. After that had dried for a day, I got out a very, very old can of Testors Dull Cote and sprayed the top of my jet. It rained a wet orange peel layer onto the surface. It dried smoothly enough though, and the
  3. I'd like to try my hand at building biplanes, and I've tried to research how to do the rigging. Nylon monofilament has been recomended, but I have not really found precise information on what diameter the rigging should be. Some say they use size x, but they don't say what scale they build with it. If I want to build a 1/32 scale plane, what diameter should the filament be? What would be correct for 1/48 scale? What color should it be? I've looked at photos of actual airplanes, and sometimes the rigging looks silver, other times black, sometimes its grey.
  4. It all depends on the subject. A 1/32nd scale B-36 would be insane, and a 1/144th scale F-5 would require a microscope. But I do like to have my kits in the same scale so I can compare them. I find the best compromise is to build WWII aircraft in 48th scale, but anything after 1960, I build in 72nd scale, unless its something special. A B-52 is already big in 72 scale. A P-51 is already small in 48th scale. So the jets I want in 48th scale would be mostly Korean War subjects. I'd like an F-86A. I'd also like a 48th scale L-39 Albatros. I saw several privately owned L-39s at an airshow,
  5. Has anyone put any thought into kitbashing the Enterprise/lighting kit so that you can take a lightable Enterprise off its stand? I imagine one could mount the male plug onto the top of the support rod, and install the female plug into the Secondary hull. I'm sure it could be done somehow, but I don't know what would be the most workable method.
  6. Now what I want to know is whether there were grid lines on the underside of the saucer.
  7. Ok, I see. It could have been incorrect throughout the remastered Second Pilot episode. That was my point. But they had all the footage of the whole series to look at when they made the remastered episodes. I was delighted that they stayed true to the Second Pilot. I was disappointed they didn't have the AMT style Bridge, B and C decks when they remastered the Constellation.
  8. The Italeri kit is vastly better than the Aurora kit I built a loooooong time ago. Is anyone old enough to remember that turkey?
  9. I've had a burning desire to do a Thunderbirds T-38 for some time. I'm just wondering if I should wait for this kit to be released with those decals, or if existing aftermarket decals will fit it well enough, if I can find any.
  10. Rocky

    AIM-9J

    Really??! The AIM-9J is an Air Force missile, and the F-4B is a Navy jet.
  11. Rocky

    AIM-9J

    If I want to get my hands on a few good AIM-9J Sidewinders in 1/48th scale, are there any options other than the Hasegawa weapons kit?
  12. I saw the movie with my son. As much as I bemoan the deviations from The Original Series, especially the new look, it was the most entertaining Star Trek movie that has been made yet. In fact, it will be hard to top. Most of the things that I could say that are wrong with it are the same things that were wrong with the first J.J. Abrams Trek movie: The charactors are too young, (and in this movie, ENSIGN Checkov is made Chief Engineer (???!!!!), as if he would be remotely qualified), the new Enterprise looks like a hood ornament, the bridge looks like a new branch office of a bank, but with
  13. "I also was helped by a new blade and sandpaper" Thats kind of hard on the paint job.
  14. I saw that movie, but I can't remember what it was called, either.
  15. I just got an idea for a diorama: Build a model of the 11 foot model, and a scale camera, light stands, film crew and Gene Roddenberry figure!
  16. I've gone too far now, but if I was starting this kit, I'd fill in the grid lines with a dark putty as a preshade, and then paint over that. The grid lines would show through the paint, like the fine pencil lines looked, without the overdone recessed grid. On the other hand, if I was trying to make the ship look like the CGI Enterprise, I wouldn't fill in the grid at all.
  17. Not so. If you watch Where No Man Has Gone Before, a.k.a. "The Second Pilot", they faithfully recreated the Enterprise as it originally appeared in that episode. The bridge is taller, the dish is bigger, and the warp nacelles have red domes with spikes. But it doesn't change within the same episode, which was a goofy thing to see in the original version. I'll have to go back and see what they did for Mirror, Mirror.
  18. Oh yeah, thats what I am going to do with one of my old long box kits. You have some extra damage to the aft end of the starboard warp nacelle, but your Constellation is very well done. What color paint did you use?
  19. No, I wouldn't do that. But it does bring up a philisophical question of where do you stay true to original screen model and where do you improve on it. The different bridge, B and C decks are easily explainable as a variation in the ship design, just as there were modifications to the 11 foot studio model Enterprise over time, just like today's navy ships are modified over time. I would not put three dimples on the underside of the saucer, like the AMT kit had. We never saw that on screen anyway. Nor would I include other crude differences, like the fat concentric rings behind the deflect
  20. I saw a Youtube video of some guy taking a dremel tool to his 350 scale kit and cutting huge chunks out of the saucer. I believe he was making a damaged Constellation. The 350 scale kit is a terrific basis for a damaged Constellation. You can go crazy adding detail where the Doomsday Machine sliced into the ship. Exposed deck flooring, cabels, melted metal, wrecked machinery, etc. I have had an AMT kit on the back burner to do a damaged Constellation. (And you have to use the old Long Box kit if you want to do it right.) So if you are going to do the USS Constellation properly in 350 sc
  21. What is/was the color FS 36076 "Panzer Grey" used for? German panzers were not painted in US Federal Standard colors. I just ran into a need for the color, and it seems so oddball. I'm painting a model of the F-16 Full Scale Development aircraft #3, which had a unique camoflage pattern which has similar colors to a standard USAF F-16A, but they are different. My reference says it was painted FS 36076 and FS 36270 on top, and FS 36440 on the bottom. I can't believe Testors is selling that paint for that one particular aircraft, but I have never come across a need for that grey before. Wha
  22. The new Enterprise looks more like an art deco hood ornament than a functional starship.
  23. Is there a good way to strip decals off of a model without removing the paint too? I thought Micro Sol might work, but I didn't have any luck.
  24. I think the remastered Star Trek is a huge improvement. The planets are vastly more realistic, and we get to see the Enterprise from many new perspectives. But I do think the studio model looked more realistic than the CGI Enterprise. One thing they did wrong was to add panel lines to the Enterprise. They were overdone. The new Enterprise is a little darker too.
×
×
  • Create New...