doctorpepper Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 Hi guys, back on track here... I've masked all the bare metal parts that need to be masked, and started on painting... first up was a base coat of FS36118, thin, fast coat. then came a preshade.... lines, spots and all after the preshade, FS36118 was used to fill in the panels, and make the preshaded lines thinner then, more diluted FS36118 was sprayed over the entire plane, blending the preshaded lines in with the rest of the colours. almost done now... as most F-15E are clean to slightly dirty (with the exception of maybe... Lakenheath birds), the preshading has to be extremely subtle. Most F-15Es also have dirt appearing over the engine humps and slightly in front in a kinda delta wing shape - mainly due to the vortex trails from the leading edges of the wings. the dirt was a post-shaded diluted flat black, will go over it with chalk or airbrushed paint again. i assure you, the photo's colours are waaay too subtle. it's a little more obvious in real life. i'll give it some time to dry, pick out and sand down the inevitable hair/dust bit, spray over and i'll be able to start on the underside... thanks for looking! comments most appreciated Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Mullen Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Looks outstanding from what I see Doc Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 does anyone think the gunship grey is too light? i compared it with a few photos and i'm missing something... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 does anyone think the gunship grey is too light? i compared it with a few photos and i'm missing something... DP, I have seen them that light, and it depends on the look you are going for. It looks good though Quote Link to post Share on other sites
4scourge7 Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Coming on great, Doc Back in September I saw some F-15E up close and their appearance, even at close range, subtly changed with the ebb and flow of the changing light conditions. I`m no authority on American `E` models but I would agree with Ken, and say that there is a little latitude either side of the recommended gunship grey. Cheers, Ian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gbyrnsie Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 That's looking really good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Harv Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 does anyone think the gunship grey is too light? i compared it with a few photos and i'm missing something... Hey, Doc - I've found Gunship Grey really gets washed out by photo flash. Does the color look darker to you in person than here in these shots? If so, I'd say you're probably fine. As others have mentioned, GG on the real bird can look really different depending upon the angle, amount of sun/shade, background, etc. You've got a great build going! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 yeah it does look darker in real life - i don't trust my eyes though, cos i'm colour deficient. i've sprayed the underside, done the whole preshading bit, now i'm waiting for it to dry so i can back and add some dirt... i sprayed the underside a FS36118 right outta the bottle with no white to see if the colour would be closer.. that aside - does anyone have a pic of the rear end of a NESTable fuel tank? would be most appreciated... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 (edited) that aside - does anyone have a pic of the rear end of a NESTable fuel tank? would be most appreciated... Like this? Regards, Murph Edited February 26, 2006 by Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) yes that's brilliant murph thanks, David Edited February 28, 2006 by doctorpepper Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Hey guys - modeller's disease strikes again. i wasn't entirely happy about my upper surfaces, and the graduation of gunship grey tones as well - so i wenty back and redid most of the upper surfaces; darkened the area near the engine humps as well here's a shot without flash and a shot with flash you can see the obvious difference - flash washes out the tonal variations. in any case, i've also learnt from experience that future WILL hide subtleties - so i gotta be a bit more "obvious" in my tonal variations please let me know what you think! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I think it looks great DP! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 I think it looks great DP! i bought this month's model airplane international today - and was reading about this light called "Actulite".. looks very tempting, i might get a simliar model manufactured by 3M (Polarized light). I hope that'll bring better photos... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 right then.. this jet is simply taking too long, almost the time I would take for a 1/32 jet; so i need to speed things up. i've completely painting of the fuselage, and i'm working on the smaller bits now like the gear, fuel tanks, pylons etc. a group shot of what i've done so far - make the fuel tanks "NESTable", convert the pylon to a LAU-129 looking one (i'll need to make another pair of these - i realise most OIF jets just use 4 of the LAU-129s instead of 2 LAU-129s and 2 for the sidewinders), chopped off the incorrectly sized LANTIRN pod, and filled up the unnecessary holes on the pylon. i'll have to rescribe some areas as well... and a shot with the jet. i hope future doesn't change the look - i like it as it is now.. never liked a clean jet anyway. the flash kinda washes out some colours near the nose... i'm hoping to finish this within the next 10 days - excluding the bombs (have yet to go out and buy a hase weapons set.. need 6 more GBU-12s... and i'm waiting for Dave Roof's GBU seeker heads, gonna give that a try) that's all for now, thanks for looking! comments most appreciated, good or bad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 questions to ask: 1. twobob's sheet for saddam hunters puts the common loadout as 9 GBU-12s, 2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAMS. I'm a little unsure of where the GBU-12s go... which stations? 2. taking a look at the shock and awe book by twobobs - some F-15Es have winders loaded on the outside pylon and AMRAAMS on the inner. vice versa. what's the diff? which would be correct? 3. are there anymore common loadouts for OIF? 9 GBU-12s is one and a half Hasegawa Weapon Set Ds... and will leave me with a lotta other nonsense. looking to economise on things here a little thanks in advance Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Harv Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Doc: To answer question 1 & 3, go to the Weapons Loadout Configurations on the F-15E StrikeEagle.com: Strike Eagle Weapon Loads Short answer to #1: 8 GBU 12s go 'on the corners' of the CFT pylons (both center stations on each CFT are empty), plus one GBU on the centerline...see OIF Loadout #1 Short answer to #3: Use the link to take a look at a whole range of actual load-outs. Lots to pick from. Answer to question #2: Murph or others may provide more, but my understanding is that the Sidewinder and AMRAAM wing pylon mounting is interchangeable (as long as the pylon supports either missile - i.e. LAU-128). That's why you've seen them both ways: The aircrew like the Sidewinders on the outboard pylons because of slightly better seeker head FOV; the groundcrews prefer having the Sidewinders on the inboard pylons because the missiles are smaller and lighter and maneuvering room to mount them on the rails is much tighter right up next to the CFTs...SO guess who wins that battle? Ever seen aircrew re-mount weapons during their pre-flight??? I think 'winders inboard/AMRAAMs outboard is what you see most frequently now... I stand ready to be corrected by those who know more...(in other words, just about anyone!) HTH, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 Doc:To answer question 1 & 3, go to the Weapons Loadout Configurations on the F-15E StrikeEagle.com: Strike Eagle Weapon Loads Short answer to #1: 8 GBU 12s go 'on the corners' of the CFT pylons (both center stations on each CFT are empty), plus one GBU on the centerline...see OIF Loadout #1 Short answer to #3: Use the link to take a look at a whole range of actual load-outs. Lots to pick from. Answer to question #2: Murph or others may provide more, but my understanding is that the Sidewinder and AMRAAM wing pylon mounting is interchangeable (as long as the pylon supports either missile - i.e. LAU-128). That's why you've seen them both ways: The aircrew like the Sidewinders on the outboard pylons because of slightly better seeker head FOV; the groundcrews prefer having the Sidewinders on the inboard pylons because the missiles are smaller and lighter and maneuvering room to mount them on the rails is much tighter right up next to the CFTs...SO guess who wins that battle? Ever seen aircrew re-mount weapons during their pre-flight??? I think 'winders inboard/AMRAAMs outboard is what you see most frequently now... I stand ready to be corrected by those who know more...(in other words, just about anyone!) HTH, thanks harv. didn't think of checking F-15EStrikeEagle.. thought it might only be in that osprey book on the mudhen in OIF, which i wasn't willing to buy just to get loadouts... love your point on the sidewinders-AMRAAMS. i really wanna hear what murph (aircrew) has to say about this! :lol: thanks again Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) thanks harv. didn't think of checking F-15EStrikeEagle.. thought it might only be in that osprey book on the mudhen in OIF, which i wasn't willing to buy just to get loadouts...love your point on the sidewinders-AMRAAMS. i really wanna hear what murph (aircrew) has to say about this! :lol: a question now would be: which are the loadouts typical of towards the end of the war? i'm trying to correlate the decal mission markings to the loadouts now - don't want to have a jet in a day 1 loadout but with 10 mission markings eh? thanks again whoops... i clicked "quote" instead of edit... Edited March 10, 2006 by doctorpepper Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 thanks harv. didn't think of checking F-15EStrikeEagle.. thought it might only be in that osprey book on the mudhen in OIF, which i wasn't willing to buy just to get loadouts...love your point on the sidewinders-AMRAAMS. i really wanna hear what murph (aircrew) has to say about this! :lol: :D thanks again Doc, Harv has it right about the AIM-9/AIM-120 mounting rationale; it's mostly driven by the weapons crews. It will be interesting to see if they change it around when/if they eventually start hanging the 9X, because of its maneuverability and to give it a better field of view on the rail. Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Harv Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Doc, Harv has it right about the AIM-9/AIM-120 mounting rationale; it's mostly driven by the weapons crews. It will be interesting to see if they change it around when/if they eventually start hanging the 9X, because of its maneuverability and to give it a better field of view on the rail. Regards, Murph Murph, thanks for the back up. I think you gave me this information about 2 years ago when I was building an OEF Strike Eagle (Operation Anaconda 2Bobs), and I was wondering the same thing, having seen the AIM 9s and 120s interchanged. Doc, you heard the Man...now, arm 'er up, and let's see some more pics! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 dudes and dudettes, need your opinions - should i head for a "realistic" look ie like in photos and not apply much of a wash, or should i head for a "modellers" look and wash every single panel line? and to what degree should i wash them? a chalk pastel wash produces a light contrast between the panel line and the panel, a acrylic/oil wash produces a much greater contrast.... don't want to be overdoing it here.. thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites
raptor22 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 dudes and dudettes,need your opinions - should i head for a "realistic" look ie like in photos and not apply much of a wash, or should i head for a "modellers" look and wash every single panel line? and to what degree should i wash them? a chalk pastel wash produces a light contrast between the panel line and the panel, a acrylic/oil wash produces a much greater contrast.... don't want to be overdoing it here.. thanks Hey Doc, Got a nice Mudhen going on there! I'd say go for the "realistic" look and not apply much wash to it... I didn't apply any wash at all EXCEPT the only part I applied wash to mine F-15E were the bare metal parts in the rear. I mean I have seen a few pics of a slightly dirty Strike Eagle, but most of them are kept quite clean by the AF. My 2 cents Quote Link to post Share on other sites
109g6 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 i agree with Ming, in every pic i saw of a mudhen the only visibly worn parts were the metal parts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 oh dear me... i didn't get a reply for long, so i went and asked murph and his opinion was that an OIF jet wouldn't get much cleaning time and would be significantly more dirty than a stateside jet. So i went ahead and applied the panel line wash everywhere. Oh well... i'll try and take a photo and you guys can see if i've overdone it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doctorpepper Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Ok, took some pics, so here comes a progress report: Masked the wheel hubs and sprayed them. Must say i was pleasantly surprised the edges came out so sharp.. especially for the rear side of the main wheels. I've also finished mating the AMRAAM launchers i stole from 2 F-16 kits with the pylon, glued on the fuel tanks and futured them, ready for washing And here's the main issue: did i overdo the weathering and the panel line wash? a few pics, with and without flash: (remember that flash kinda washed out gunship grey and makes it look much lighter) top side: w/o flash with flash the future's been sprayed so it's quite shiny, had to move the flash to reflect off other areas underside: starboard: close up of the dirtier areas: port side: port rear: please let me know what you think! i haven't put on the decals yet, so it's still not too late to perhaps spray diluted gunship grey to tone down the weathering a bit. i've taken really long on this jet, since jan 10th, and if i have to spend a few extra days to correct some errors, i wouldn't mind (though my hands are getting itchy for new plastic ). i must say, the next time i build this kit, i WILL remember to mate the braces on the CFT pylons FIRST so i can fill in that seam. David Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.