Jump to content

The new dark grey F-16 scheme


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This one was not much of a challenge, but still needs some work as I need to figure out the crew name, and the emblem on the port intake. I think I will leave that and the LM company planes until tomorrow, But I feel confident enough to schedule a March release, so I will announce this in my forum.

Excellent, that's great news. Thankyou so much for doing these, I look forward to seeing them in the Hannants new arrivals in March :)

Does anyone have any pics of the Minnesota ANG in Afghanistan, or know what a typical combat loadout would be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one was not much of a challenge, but still needs some work as I need to figure out the crew name, and the emblem on the port intake.

PM's sent

Out of curiosity what color have gone for on the scheme?

Edited by scotthldr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any pics of the Minnesota ANG in Afghanistan, or know what a typical combat loadout would be?

Haven't seen pix yet of an armed Minnesota jet in Afghanistan (they arrived in August 2012 and so far the only pictures I've seen are from their arrival in Kandahar, still sporting travel pods), but it's probably something like 4 x 500 lb JDAMs, 2x120s (just in case) 2 x 370gallon tanks, Sniper ATP & HTS pods or 2 x GBU-12s on a TER, 2 x 500-lb JDAMs (Sometimes with DSU-33s) on a BRU-54.

April 2012

1280px-thumbnail.jpg

May 2012

157th_Expeditionary_Fighter_Squadron_Lockheed_F-16C_Block_52P_Fighting_Falcon_92-3899.jpg

May 2012

South_Carolina_F-16_taking_off_in_Afghanistan.jpg

May 2012

iowa-air-national-guard-f-16.jpg

June 2012

591339.jpg

June 2012

F-16-fighter-jet.jpg

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like 92-0916 also wears the new scheme - there are a couple photos on Flickr taken in November. This was a South Carolina ANG jet, but it did not have any unit markings in the photos. It is likely that unit markings are added by now; and I will add it if I can get some references from my contacts within the next 2-3 days. If not, it is going to print with the options I have named before, will not delay this any longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my point when I suggested to "paint what you see." If it looks like 36118 in photographs and you use 36118 on a model, it will prolly look correct. And we haven't even talked about scale effect yet.

I've been to contests where there have been three or four F-16s or F-18s in the same category. The colors on them were different but none of them looked wrong.

Steven Brown

Scale Model Soup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me,or the new color is just like F-15E?

Definitely not FS36118, the general consensus is it is FS36170 same as the F-35. I personally would say there's a more Brown/Golden tint to it, but like I said above that could be down to the underlying materials reflecting light back through the paint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me,or the new color is just like F-15E?

Nope.

0008_330_zpse0331a3b.jpg

An Edwards jet from February 2012. Frankly, the gray looks closer to 36170 than it does to 36118.

A lot of people claim that this is 36118, but that gray is too light, too blue of a hue to match this.

5975888531_e26e53f9d5_z.jpg

7765048888_42ed1a4a35_z.jpg

7816616274_2365a98479_z.jpg

7782265650_563e138788_z.jpg

4325666233_6808196b37_z.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well too each his own. I will be using Model Master Anthracite Grey Metallic for the color of the F-16. Will try it first on a Fujimi F-35B I'm working on now. Think the FS 36170 actually refers to the trim color for the radome and sawtooth panels. Tony Stark just don't pull the trigger on me for my opinion.

Mark S.

Wolfpak Decals

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like 92-0916 also wears the new scheme - there are a couple photos on Flickr taken in November. This was a South Carolina ANG jet, but it did not have any unit markings in the photos. It is likely that unit markings are added by now; and I will add it if I can get some references from my contacts within the next 2-3 days. If not, it is going to print with the options I have named before, will not delay this any longer.

The firefighting training pix?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, that's great news. Thankyou so much for doing these, I look forward to seeing them in the Hannants new arrivals in March smile.gif

Does anyone have any pics of the Minnesota ANG in Afghanistan, or know what a typical combat loadout would be?

I was only able to find this pic of a partial loadout from an actual MN ANG F-16:

2nkq7hz.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is my perception off, or is the new color darker than the standard 36118? If not, I don't see how 36170 makes sense -- seems like it should be something around or lower than 36100.

Pip

Pip, you are absolutely correct. I should have thought of that sooner, I should have done this sooner...

I pulled out my copy of FS 595b this evening and ran this:

FS595B-58_zpsbed3b9a2.png

And as it turns out, 36170 doesn't even exist on FS595. I placed the closest value to it (36173) on the bottom of that chart just for comparison.

The next-closest color to 36170 is FS36176 - better known as the dark gray in the Mod Eagle Scheme

F-15C_780485_KFMH_16September2007_KenMiddleton_DSC_1263.jpg

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

I pulled out my copy of FS 595b this evening and ran this:

And as it turns out, 36170 doesn't even exist on FS595. I placed the closest value to it (36173) on the bottom of that chart just for comparison.

Could it be that you were using an older edition? I looked at my official FS595C fan deck when I was researching this scheme yesterday, and FS36170 is certainly there. It looks fairly correct to me for both the F-35 and new F-16 scheme. I personally think "mig23"'s painted model looks the part, for modeling purposes. Whether or not it is the actual color for this new coating, I am not sure. But I am pretty confident that it is identical to the coating used on F-35.

For anyone who still wonders if it could be 36118, here is a close-up from a photo showing several F-16s side-by-side. The nearest one is painted in the standard scheme, the one behind is Have Glass 5 (the subject of this thread):

haveglassV_a.jpg

Edited by KursadA
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that you were using an older edition? I looked at my official FS595C fan deck when I was researching this scheme yesterday, and FS36170 is certainly there. It looks fairly correct to me for both the F-35 and new F-16 scheme. I personally think "mig23"'s painted model looks the part, for modeling purposes. Whether or not it is the actual color for this new coating, I am not sure. But I am pretty confident that it is identical to the coating used on F-35.

For anyone who still wonders if it could be 36118, here is a close-up from a photo showing several F-16s side-by-side. The nearest one is painted in the standard scheme, the one behind is Have Glass 5 (the subject of this thread):

haveglassV_a.jpg

Wow; That's like fifth shade of grey from the same color scheme!

It's truly amazing how light varies the color.

The OP pic looks like a three-shades-of-grey color scheme!

Or my first reaction to seeing the pic/thread: Wow; That F-16 looks like it just came out of a coal mine!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool to see how close FS36081 is given the lack of available FS36170 :)/> You can say what you want, but it sure isn`t FS36118 as this is too blue regardless of light.

I also believe that increasing FS number doesn't mean that it has to be a darker color. As an example, FS34092 is not darker that FS34079 even if the number is higher.

Edited by Niels
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything points towards FS36170 as being the correct colour. FS36170 is listed under 595c not 595b which most internet searches will return. I spent several hours trawling the net before I found any official reference to it.

FS595 is a colour collection not a system which has evolved over the years so discrepancies do exist in it. Where it is generally accepted that the last 3 digits in the code indicate the intensity with 000 being the darkest and 999 being the lightest this isn't always the case. Gaps have been left between certain numbers to allow new colours to be added at later dates and when they are they're not always able to insert them where you might expect to find them. If you look at the colour chip above 36044 is a lot darker than 36008 yet it's listed afterwards.

Edited by scotthldr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool to see how close FS36081 is given the lack of available FS36170 :)/>/> You can say what you want, but it sure isn`t FS36118 as this is too blue regardless of light.

I also believe that increasing FS number doesn't mean that it has to be a darker color. As an example, FS34092 is not darker that FS34079 even if the number is higher.

It's generally just the opposite: lighter colors *generally* have higher numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, I think it's just been the aircraft in these images. There may be more, but I have neither heard or seen any others since.

There are several, but they are still relatively rare.

Does anyone have any pics of the Minnesota ANG in Afghanistan, or know what a typical combat loadout would be?

Dual GBU-54s on a smart rack for the most part. sometimes the other wing used a pair of GBU-12s on a TER.

I thought I read (maybe on ARC) that this scheme was just a trial and so far only a very few F-16's had been painted up in it.

It's been around for a few years now, but, yes, it is still in testing. I first saw it in person on the 85th flagship when I flew with the squadron back in 2012. It's really a great-looking scheme.

Jake

48005_profiles_SHG.jpg

48-005_445FLTS_SHG.jpg

48th for now, then I'll do 1/32 and 1/72.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...