red Dog

Been doing that for ages for my homemade decals needing a white background Here's a small tips you certainly have thought about, Grunticus: When you design your mask for the white paint, always decrease it by a few pixels 'say decrease to 99%) or alternately, increase the decal by a few pixel (say to 101%) That will be invisible on the final result and will solve the possible white flash issue and above all make your alignement of the decal over your white paint much easier.

Unfortunately I don't have the two Tie fighters on the mission tally, but all the rest for 81-0983 is there

love it as well. Great model Peter

None at all !! the flaps affecting the airflow in the radiator is what i remember too. I feel like this kind of information is the real important bit. Once you know the fact you see the logic and why it was done so and why then the aircraft should be in this configuration when parked. This would be the kind of constructive criticism I would love to get after doing the unthinkable (and I confess I did)

Michael, Sorry if you felt my post what in any way defensive or reactive to yours. It wasn't the idea at all The point I was trying to get is that it goes both ways by giving a little bit of the other side of that coin. and rather general broadband at that, not to you personally at all. I quoted your post to illustrate that one can always be proven wrong with pictures (and you didn't mention resting against tires didn't count) By the way, does any one know why the spitfire never were parked with flaps down? I recall there is a specific reason for that. And it's nothing to do with parking, it's rather something to do with taxiing

Even if you know it and have experience, you can always be proven wrong ! Exceptions and mistakes were done and will be done again... Of course some go overboard, but does it really matter? In the end, it's their model. The guy here who never made a mistake throw the first empty paint can The opposite of the argument is true as well I have seen people questioning an aircraft weathering because some ppl think aircraft are always pristine and a pilot would not board a aircraft in such a bad shape. Well operational realities is a hard fact and intensively used aircraft are filthy. It is a shame IMHO that a modelist has to provide the pictorial proof of his work to justify his choice. I have heard judges at contest (as well as spectators commenting models) judging historical accuracy as something not possible and dismissing a model for it. So lack of knowledge is not only on the side of the builder, but also on the side of the viewer - and we are all viewers here on this board So nobody know it all, regardless of the experience level of everyone and It goes both ways IMHO. We thus need to leave room for improvement - on both sides. I also don't think anyone built a historical accurate model right at his first build - so when you judge a model on the forum or on the contest table, do you take the experience level of the builder into account ? And at the end of the line, the guys looking the most at a specific model or diorama is the builder, no ? Not the forum or contest crowd - so who should it please in the first place? And finally, isn't this about enjoying what you build? I reserve my right to be wrong when it suits me

wow Wow WOW Model of the year Niels. !! Congrats

APKWS pod I sourced from two manufacturers as I need many others for a OV-10G project. Flying leathernecks has the pod empty and phase hangar has the pod loaded Unfortunately the pods are not the same length: Top: Flying leatherneck Bottom: Phase Hangar From previous research, I found that Flying leatherneck had the correct length. Problem I wanted mine to be loaded so minor modification required Top: Flying leatherneck Bottom: Phase Hangar The forward tip of the flying leatherneck pod was cut and the inside emptied Khaki painted tubes were then inserted into the 7 holes to give the right impression from behind, then the phase hangar piece with the rockets forward tips was inserted into the flying leatherneck pod. Top: Phase Hangar Bottom: Flying leatherneck Problem solved. Painting these was a lot of fun.

Here's the planned load-out: STA#1: GBU-12 (Eduard Brassin) STA#2: APKWS rockets (Flying leatherneck or Phase Hangar) STA#3: AGM-65 (F/A-18C Academy) STA #4: GBU-38 JDAM (VideoAviation) STA #5: GBU-38 JDAM (VideoAviation) STA #6: empty STA #7: GBU-31 (F/A-18C Academy) STA #8: GBU-54 (Reskit) STA #9: GBU-12 (Eduard Brassin) STA #10: AN/AAQ-28 (Eduard Brassin) STA #11: Dual AIM-9 Launcher (Reskit) with 2 AIM-9 (F/A-18C Academy) GBU-12 Eduard brassin are highly detailed they come in 8 pieces. seeker, the 4 forward fins, body and the tail unit The main body has to be drilled to accommodate the tail unit, which is not easy to do as Eduard planned it. They do provide a PE template to mark the center of the drill point but honestly you're so close to the edge after a 6mm drill that IMO there is no way you can proceed in one drill. I decided to drill a smaller hole first and then carve the hole larger with the proxxon until the tail unit inserted correctly. Having the parts separated like that might be more difficult to fit but it does really help the painting. The forward fins are very delicate yet attach very firmly to the nose thanks to the hole and recess. Eduard also provides a PE template to drill the seeker in it's center to be attached to the bomb' nose. Very useful. The only drawbacks to the kit containing 4 GBUs, were the decals. They were useless as the protecting paper tore the gloss coat and the decals would scatter upon application. I did reapply a coat of X-22, it saved a few of them but many were left unusable.

Thanks Jari, all of this makes a lot of sense. The 3 fuselage pylons are done as well. The other wing will follow, but there's not much to show as it's a boring mirror of the first one.

First wing is now complete with pylons: I used very soft lead wire for the pylon contour. I usually fight copper wire because it doesn't glue and does not bend easily. But lead wire is very easy to work with and sticks very well to plastic. Pins for the sway brace pads will be finished later. The pads are glued to the stores. The outer pylon (11 here) has the integrated deceleronactuator redone Now a little game Sometimes you do mistakes when decalling. Doesn't really matter

Yep I saw the same and that's what triggered my further research. They indeed said that swapping the film on the Anycubic 5s made print quality much better. I didn't know the 5s was delivered with the transparent film. Some guys said that the Elegoo ultra didn't quite suffer from that, probably due to the fresnel lens probably. Anyway thank you all for your input. I'm sure i'll have plenty of questions once I get the printer and start to screw things up

I'm on the market for my first 3D resin printer I felt the buzz of the AnyCubic Mono M5s and I almost bought one but as often before I do I read a lot and look a lot at independant reviews. I started to get a trend that the real advantage of these is speed if you use the right hi speed resin, which is more expensive - and that may come with a print quality decrease So I kinda reverted to the M5, which is slower but apparently provide higher print quality Then comes some elegoo review with basically the same conclusion between the Saturn 3ultra and the saturn 3. Ultra is faster but Saturn 3 is more quality And it seems Saturn 3 might be a bit better than M5. So in a very short time I went from M5s to elegoo saturn 3 Granted, lots of interesting features are missing from the 5s but when I think about it, I'm not in 3D printing for speed. i don't care if it takes 5h or 50 minutes. I have plenty of time when modelling. I don't plan on going commercial with 3D bits, just for my own use and the usual freind production from time to time. So I don't need to consider chain production. Add to that the resin choice which is important and the added costs of hi speed resin. That's another argument in favour of the slower printers but before I buy, what's your guys take on the comment above? Do they make sense to you or am I missing something? The next step will be to find a good resin for our application and stick to it. But I'm getting excited already Thoughts welcome, thanks

isn't the first for Bronco? OV-10 Second looks liek a Skyhawk indeed

Tamiya is not an option for me as I have another project to convert a J to a B and that will be based on Tamiya F-4J My future F-4G conversion will be based on the Revell F-4F indeed. that way I'll fight have fun with both

nah, that's not enough Aftermarket Did you get a short term deadline from someone to decrease or finish your stash ? :D

Tamiya is great but for a first model quick and dirty I'd go old school hasegawa. Much simplier for still a great result

You mean this? All these have to be redone indeed So they are cut from their details, completely sanded because the mold line is really ugly. 2 holes are drilled and small rods are inserted for the screws. They will be against the stores and the bits will be much lower on the sway braces than on the original parts. That's one of the reason I wanted to correct all the pylons, these parts are small, tedious, boring to convert but they will make a huge difference IMHO That's the empty centerline pylon, so the only one with rods protruding above the sway braces

Thanks Thierry I'll press the issue because in search of the best F4G conversion I am really not convinced by GT resin. Can't really spot my issue though, just an impression I quickly testfit the TAC scale nose on the Revell F-4F and It fits rather well I'll see if I can get my hands on scale drawing of the F4G to see how far the TAC scale nose is.

Warning Topic necro I'm starting to research my next project ans I found this topic. Curious about that one. I do have the TAC Scale conversion too I was planning to use and wondered if there could be more infor about what is incorrectly shaped? The kits has 2 Harms + launchers, a nose and top fin antenna, seats and rear IP. It misses unfortunately the various fuselage antennas The two main parts seems pretty ok to me. they are certainly not perfect but when I compare them to the GT nose for instance, I feel TAC Scale parts are actually better Unless I miss something obvious from these ? Seats and Bear IP

Thanks guys I'd like to come back to pylon #4 and #8 with a bad news I somehow knew it but now I have proof they are badly underscaled Let's consider the yellow lines in the above two pictures. As you can see the distance between the rear of the pylon and the flaps bay is very short on the real A-10 and rather quite longer on the model A-10 That's because the #4 & #8 pylons are indeed quite underscaled. Doubting all the others, I printed the best set of drawings I have at my disposal: And compared the Trumpeter's pylons Most of them are okay, Except the #4 & #8 pair Of note as well is that #2 and #10 are supposed to be the same as #3 and #9. But are different in Trumpeter's kit. They are not that badly underscaled as #4 and #8 but are nevertheless different than #3 and #9 But #4 and #8 are really really bad. I am not sure I can fix that issue. It's a reason good enough to go and get the pylon set from Phase Hangar, which as far as I can see are much better in all aspects.

What model are you going to use for that MLU conversion Niels?

That's very wise Station #5, #6 & #7 Station #5 and #7 are identical and station #6 is the central pylon which is left empty when both outboard fuselage pylons are loaded. Same treatment as the other pylons: Fill the panel & rivet lines, drill the bomb rack goodies and fill the rear sway brace location to recreate it at the right distance Then positive rivets. Station #5 and #7. The pylons are symetrical but different from right to left side. Since Station #6 is left empty I added a bit more details on the underside drillin holes, adding rivets and engraving the bomb rack which I'll paint in a trompe l'oeil. There is another thing to correct with fuselage pylons: The locating tabs on the Trumpeter fuselage are wrong. If you place them as Trumpeter wants you you will have two visible issues: 1. The Pylon forward tip will not be hidden by the ventral strake as it should be. We know the central strake is undersized. I didn't really correct that but I did place it more to the rear to overcome the issue a bit. So one might think that the pylon location is right but the visible issue is a consequence of the ventral strake simply being too small? Fair point but no, at least not only - as confirmed by issue 2: 2. As you see from the following picture, the forward sway braces of pylons 4/8 and pylons 5/6/7 are not perfectly aligned. the 3 central pylon forward sway braces are sitting just a bit behind the alignement line of pylons 4&8 forward sway brace Another reference line is that the rear end of pylons 5/6/7 are more or less aligned with the flaps bay which you can see on the above model picture is not the case. On Trumpeter model the distance separating the 4/8 and 5/6/7 reference point is 10mm, which is way too much to my eyes: So the 3 fuselage pylons need to be moved forward by approximately 6mm That will solve issue 1 & 2 by aligning the pylon with the underscaled ventral strake and aligning the rear end of the fuselage pylons more or less with the flaps bays and will also solve the sway brace issue by placing the 3 fuselage pylons forward sway brace just the right distance from the station #4/8 line It was harder to point out the issue than correcting it

General purpose penetrator

You bet Derek I started working on these pylons back in July on the holiday bench without most of my tools. I worked on one pair, did something else and then worked on the next pair. I think you can't really do all of them at once, you'd turn crazy and change hobby quickly. The blue stuff became a permanent resident on my bench. It's great stuff