Rocky

I found this quote on another site: "Having now reviewed a large number of the Kinetic kits and building at least five, I can confidently say that Kinetic has corrected the nose droop that was apparent in the very early single seat kits. This was confirmed in a recent meeting with the CEO of Kinetic model kits." http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/reviews/kits/kinetic48004reviewme_1.htm So how do you know if the kit you are buying has the corrected or uncorrected nose? Are both versions still in production, or did they correct the original molds? http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/in

Thanks, guys! It helps a lot just to know what they are called, to do any research. Its easy to find references on weapons, but you never see a photo caption that mentions the missile launch rails. Kinetic doesn't itentify them by anything other than their part number.

My Kinetic F-16 kit has two different optional AAM launch rails. Is one kind for AIM-120, and the other for AIM-9, or is either one good for both missiles? Did one replace the other? Whats the deal?

My 1/48 scale Hasegawa F-86F pilot sits so far forward in his seat, that there is a big gap between his back and the back of his seat. I scratch built a parachute to fill the gap, but it didn't do the job. Was the seat supposed to move forward? What is the best way to deal with this?

That link is a great resource. Thanks! From what I read, it seems that the two colors are one and the same: "The name Cockpit Green has gained the official status only briefly in the 1943 ANA (Army-Navy Aircraft) colour agreements, where green-tinted Zinc Chromate was briefly called Cockpit Green before the final name Interior Green was assigned as described below. However, despite an official colour chip being provided in the ANA standard, it is believed not to be widely adopted, especially as the standard proved short-lived and the instructions usually called for existing paint stocks to

F-86F. Does that make a difference?

In the Hasegawa universe, is "interior green" the same as "green zinc chromate"?

I didn't like it. If anything, it is a bit on the dark side, but it has a beige look to it. I'm going to try a mixture of light ghost grey and white. I don't doubt that the studio model was darker, but "reality" for me is what appeared on the tv screen. I saw a pale grey Enterprise.

I was just reading the instructions to my Hasegawa F-86F-40, and it says that the interior of the jet exhaust pipe should be painted silver. I've seen light grey interiors in F-15 jet exhausts, and I think soot black in the J79s in F-4s, but silver seems very unlikely. Its a Blue Impulse aerobatic team jet, but I can't imagine even a spiffy jet like that having a polished jet pipe interior. Have any of you aviation proctologists out there ever seen a silver jet exhaust pipe interior? Would a flat black exhaust pipe be the most likely color inside a J47? And no, I am not misreading the ins

An F-8FN in Brazilian colors, to go with their Skyhawks.

Does anyone know what version the Lindberg kit is? If its a B-1, I could chop out parts of it and use them to modify a better kit...

According to my reference, Ju87 Stuka in action, its not so simple. Late production Ju 87B-1 also had the ejector exhausts. But in addition to the differences you have mentioned, (props and cowling flaps) there are these as well: "To further increase the airflow into the radiator [of the B-2], to cool the more powerful engine, the mouth of the radiator bath was enlarged and the upper lip was raised to a shallower vee-section... the forward angle of the landing gear forks were increased, causing a slight enlargement in the toe sections of the exterior spats. Additional modifications includ

I recently decided that I wanted to build an early war Ju 87B-1 in 1/48 scale. I took a look at what was available, and found a zillion Ju 87B-2 kits, but no Ju 87B-1. Is there anything out there? A conversion kit? How is it that there are so many Stuka kits are out there, but no one has done the Ju 87B-1?

I've been waiting about 13 years for the next issue of my subcription to Air Combat magazine...

I've used cat whiskers for the bracing cables on a Kingfisher float plane.

This reminds me of a 72nd scale Chinese MiG-15 I built in the 1970's. It had orange wings and Chinese characters down the length of the fuselage on each side. Years later, when I was in graduate school, I had a Chinese roomate. I asked him to translate what it said. He told me it was meaningless. I think even the characters were just made up squiggles. He didn't use the word, but I think "gibberish" was what it was. Kinda makes me wonder how they came up with those kit decals.

Quinto (?) ditto! I remember the first time I saw it. Sort of like when I saw Challanger blow up on launch. Its just wrong.

Make sure that the glove vanes are retracted. I've seen really nice models of F-14s with both the wings and the glove vanes extended, and that is so wrong. Those glove vanes only came out at high speed, never on the ground/catapult.

What makes you think an F-18E accelerates any faster than it did 15 years ago? It still has the same engines. It still has the same airframe. The pylons are still out of alignment.

Then just imagine what an F-15 could do to an F-18E.... And a Su-27 can outfly an F-15. Just imagine what a Su-27 will do to an F-18E if it gets WVR. "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them." - A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F-18E/F Super Hornets. The F-18E is significantly poorer in acceleration than the F-18A, its combat ceiling is substantially lower, and its transonic drag rise is very high. The F-18E has wing slots to cure a wing drop problem the jet had when it stalled. One wing would stall be

Factoid I came across: An F-18E/F in maximum afterburner cannot exceed Mach 1.0 in level flight below 10,000 feet even in a clean configuration. At 10,000 feet, the F-14D can exceed Mach 1.6.

True, but my point was that even carrying the bigger Sparrow missiles, the F-14 had far less drag and was much faster. The F-14 could have been fitted with AMRAAMs, and then there would have been even less drag. I have been comparing the F-18E to the older F-14D. Had the Navy stuck with the F-14, it would have been the much improved Tomcat 21, which would have had more advanced avionics and an even bigger load carrying capability.Now if someone will just produce a kit of the Tomcat 21...

Only twice by the US Navy. The first time was against an Iraqi Foxbat at extreem range. The Foxbat turned tail and ran. The Iraqis had experience against Iranian F-14s, and the Iraqis typically ran anytime an F-14 radar came on. AIM-7M and AIM-9M are almost completely different missiles inside when compared to Vietnam era Sparrows and Sidewinders. And the F-4 never carried Phoenix. Oh Lord, no. That might describe the F-111B that the Navy rejected, but the F-14 was supposed to be both an intercepter and a dogfighter. The F-14 was a compromise, and the F-14A was badly underpowered.

You could stick F-18E radars into F-14s, and they could have bigger antennas to boot. You could wire up F-14s to carry anything the F-18E carries. You can't make an F-18 fly as far or as fast as an F-14.

The problem with statistics like this is that so much depends on loadouts and mission profiles, and so forth, that the numbers can become almost meaningless. What use is a clean F-18E? Bolt on two fat weapons pylons and load them up with four AIM-120, and then twist it all 4 degrees out of alignment, and the drag goes waaaay up. Compare that to an F-14 with four semisubmerged Sparrows, which still has the ability to supercruise.