Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jenshb

  1. Yes, the Thunderbirds kit is OOP. I enquired about purchasing sprues for the NSI and P&W exhaust a few years ago, and they weren't available. Jens
  2. I think Micromesh will be your friend here for a truly polished appearance. Go all the way to 12000 grit with plenty of water, and your master should be as smooth as glass. Jens
  3. I knew that would be a challenge, but you've beat it into submission. Terriffic job. Jens
  4. Just going by eye, that set of drawings are so bad not even Trumpeter would touch them. Check the profile of the nose and the crossection of the rear fuselage - the real one is not slabsided like that. And that is for starters. Barry Hygate's drawings look good, but when you start checking, you will find that the views don't quite match up. Your best bet would probably be to find a Dynavector model kit in 1:48 to take your measurements off and then scale it up. It is even better than the Airfix 1:48 kit that is rather poor in shapes and proportions. Jens
  5. I hope they do the windshield in a similar way to what Tamiya did for their 1:48 F-14. Jens
  6. It will be interesting to see how you do the fairing between the horizontal stabs and the fuselage - the wing fillet trailing edge was a nice "warm up":) Always enjoy seeing the updates to this model, and I've run out of superlatives a long time ago. Jens
  7. What a bummer considering the work you put into it. On the other hand, seeing the Trumpeter parts and catalogue of errors, I'm not suprised you threw in the towel. One thing is adding detail and refining the work of the kit maker, but having to spend a lot of time correct basic errors on their part I find demoralising. Jens
  8. Impressive attention to detail here! Jens
  9. My guess is bare metal, and the lack of light makes the reflections look dark. The assumption being that paint could flake off and when it melts fill the cooling channels in the turbine blades causing them to overheat and then disintegrate. The forward part being white is probably the maximum amount of paint they felt comfortable with and low risk. Jens
  10. jenshb

    F-86F 40

    The Royal Norwegian Air Force flew long-wing F-86Fs, but decals may be a problem... Vingtor Decals did a generic sheet of Norwegian roundels, but that is sold out. You would also need to source our own letters and squadron markings. Jens
  11. The NF.IIs typically had the slim propeller blades rather than the broader chord blades normally used on the FB.VI. Does the Tamiya kit include both types? Jens
  12. Don't know how I missed this - it looks fab. Regarding your windshield/canopy, Tamiya are usually good with selling sprues as long as the kit is in production. I have used a company in the UK on a couple of occasions to purchase sprues; Time Tunnel Models. Any thoughts on the correct configuration of the radome? Some sources claim that Olds' early F-4C did not have the IR sensor fairing under the radome. Jens
  13. This was flushriveted, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rivets were puttied over. The fasteners one sees on the photos are screws or Dzus (or similar) fasteners with the exception of the bare metal panel. If you are doing a painted Lightning, I wouldn't add rivets as your photos demonstrate they aren't visible. However, if you are modelling a bare metal Lightning, then there will be some colour/shine contrast between the rivets and the surrounding sheet metal, and for these you can use HGW rivets in decal form. These will provide a suble contrast to the bare metal that will look quite convincing IMO. Jens
  14. I thought it was pretty good until you lifted the engine cover, and then I thought it was fantastic:) Jens
  15. Oh and another thing I see people miss making the MLU, is that they have the later "double sloted" type of gun cover found in C models. Here is a link to a norwegian MLU on f-16.net http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/f-16-photos/album03/aab.jpg?m=1371910570 The original NON-MLU gun port is like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/F16cannon.JPG \\Dan The gun panel featuring two slots predates the MLU and was not part of the modifications. IIRC, they were introduced on late Block 15 airframes in the mid/late-80s. The strengthening plate above the gun aperture is also not part of the MLU, but all MLU aircraft should feature it. I believe it was the first external structural reinforcement for the F-16. Jens
  16. Some seriously neat work there... Jens
  17. Ideally would want to start with the Tamiya F-16C "Thunderbirds" issue that had the P&W engine and the smallmouth intake. The cockpit is already close enough to an MLU cockpit and the kit should contain the "birdslicers" in front of the canopy. The main problem is that the kit is currently out of production. Once you have sourced a kit, you will need to change the base of the tailfin, modify the rear top of the tailfin and the main gear legs, wheels and doors as these are the "heavyweight" version with bulges doors IIRC. Jens
  18. What a sight for sore eyes! Terriffic result all around. Jens
  19. So the F-8E will cover both the RF-8A and RF-8G? Jens
  20. Thank you for the reply Peter. Back of the fuel tank? That makes sense, and looking clsoely at the picture, there is a gap between the beam that would support the camera and the folded edge of the fuel tank. Fab metalwork Peter! Jens
  21. My question may be redundant, but has the structure of TZ139 been modified since being in military service? The reason I ask is that I started an FR.XIVe conversion from the Tamiya XVI, and it has stalled - primarily because I couldn't work out whether the camera bay would be sealed with a bulkhead as shown in the photo above, or open. As the FR.XIVs didn't have pressurised cockpits and only sideways camera ports, they would be performing low/medium level reconnaissance missions and the pressure and temperature difference wouldn't be as great as higher level photography. My references show that the FR.XVIII did have bulkheads separating the camera bay, but it was also built with vertical camera ports for high level photography. If the structure is unchanged from her service days, the image answers my question perfectly, so I now have to find other reasons to procrastrinate:) Jens
  22. I'm not a predominantly 1:32 builder, and I don't even have the Trumpeter Crusader, but the RF-8 does appeal so much I am tempted. It helps seeing a conversion kit to such a high standard... Jens
  23. The hardest part is probably behind you now - fabulous work on the cowling, intake and those Dzus fasteners. Jens
  24. I haven't made anything the size and weight of the 1:32 Eagle in flight, so I can't recommend any specific size of brass rod - the best I can recommend is that you try and bend one by hand and see, and if you think you've got a reasonable size, but still being unsure, go one size up. If you mount the model off centre on the base, it makes for a more dynamic display - here's one I made earlier. The thing to watch out for is the turning moment that Eagle Aviation mentions. I use a square section brass rod/tube to counter this. This brass tube needs to be securely anchored inside the fuselage, and I use a piece of square plastic tube that is glued at both ends and cut flush with the outer fuselage contours. Secure with epoxy just to make sure. As for the base, the key point is to make sure the centre of gravity is inside the footprint of the base, so although a heavy base is beneficial for stability, the most important thing is that it is large enough to support the model in your chosen attitude. If your base is on the small side, then weight will be more important to balance the model, so I'd be hesitant to have a lighter base on this model. Best of luck with your Eagle in flight. Jens
  • Create New...