jenshb

I hope they pay better attention to shapes and proportions and leave panels closed, but with the possibility of cutting them open for those who are into that thing. Oh, and better customer service for missing and broken parts too...

Decals for the smaller, independent bits and masks for the larger areas? Will be a challenge to paint though....

Skunkworks Models (an offshoot of Kinetic) have both the single and two-seater released as kits in 1:48 scale. Mike Valdez was apparently involved with checking shapes, so I'd believe they would be far more accurate than anything else out there. Parts are shared with the Kinetic F-16, so there is some concession to economy and accuracy, but I believe the newly tooled fuselages will be a good template to work from. Jens

I for one never doubted you could scratchbuild Peter... It looks magnificent.

I can see the images just fine. Using Firefox. Excellent metal finish!

I bought the original release from Beatties in late 1983 on a school trip to London, so it's far from new. That release was of the Strike Eagle demonstrator, but had also decals for an F-15B or D as well. It's all right. The gear legs are fragile for such a large model, and unless Revell updated the moulds, it comes with Escapac seats instead of ACES II, but aftermarket can help you there. THe exhausts are likely to be spartan given the current expectations, but again there are aftermarket solutions. From what I understand, the Tamiya kit - expensive as it is - also has issues, so don't expect a painless build with either kit.

RIP Lothar.

At the last Scale Modelworld, there were a range of Reedoak figures displayed and a variety of scales, and they look so real it's almost eerie. Even the 1:72 pilots look like litlte masterpieces.

Tamiya decals. Yes, they are very well printed, but the decal film is thick. This is especially noticeable over a gloss black background. When I built my Jolly Rogers Tomcat, I used the kit decals, applied a few coats of varnish and micromeshed - trying to blend the edges as well as sand away some of that thick film. In the end, I wasn't entirely successful, but felt that I was nearing the border between success and failure, so decided to quit while I was ahead. The Furball decals are a lot better in that respect. They also provide the right style and size of BuNos to be assembled. Tail stiffeners - I see two elongated hexagonal shapes - the same as the Tamiya kit. Nozzles. From what I can recall from Gerry, the earlier Tomcats didn't have the automatic system for closing the nozzle when the engine was shut down with the other one still running (I think the procedure was to shut down one engine first, then the other), but later ones did, so it would be best to check the specific aircraft you're modelling at the specific time you want to show.

As the 2000N is the nuclear delivery version, I'd assume the French would keep security rather tighter on this one than the B, C, D and -5...

The outside of the canopy has a mould seam from the slides in the tool to enable the correct omega-shape of the canopy. This runs the entire length of the canopy and needs to be removed. The lightning arrestors are moulded on the inside of the canopy and will be safe. The only way to tell which mid-breech panel (or gun gas vents if you like) is having a photo of the real thing. From what I can recall, they were interchangeable, so technically, an airframe that came off the assembly line with the style included in the Tamiya kit, could at some stage have the 7-hole mid breech panel at the stage you wish to model it... According to the Warplane Classics/World Air Power Journal book on the F-14, the seven-hole panel was used up to Block 80 airframes (BuNos 159430-159468). 160386 was a Block 95 (Bu Nos 160379-160414) aircraft, so in the absence of pictorial evidence, I'd say it would be as portrayed by Tamiya in that respect.

I hope the gunsights are properly aligned, otherwise you'll be losing points...

Really good work on that wheel well...

What are the FFSMC decals like? Screen printed, ALPS or laser? I see a 2000-5 that I like on one of the sheets. The Berna Decals look translucent and does seem to be risk getting a sheet out of register... I have both the Duke Hawkins book as well as the Eagle Aviation book, and the latter has more of very intimate shots of all sorts of open panels, whereas the Duke Hawkins book has more shots of a variety of aircraft as well as excellent detail shots of the areas we tend to detail - cockpit, wheel wells, general airframe details, and engine. The DH book also covers more variants, whereas Eagle Aviation focusses on Greek aircraft. Unless you plan to open a lot of panels and scratchbuild electronics, I'd say the Duke Hawkins book will be more than sufficient.

Looking at Berna decals on Hannants' website, the lack of registration on this sheet they use to sell the decals makes me a bit anxious regarding the quality... https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/BER32067?result-token=4aPPO I bought a set of Procal decals for Greek F-16s, and the amount of carrier film around the designs is unbelievable. HAve no idea how they will behave, but will definitely try with a decal I don't plan to use beforehand.

It looks like a Phantom, but I'm beginning to think it's not even the same aircraft:)

Dropped by Hannants in Colindale today and picked up the Mirage 2000C that was sitting on the shelf. Thinking about making one with a full load of MICA's - would anyone have a couple to spare? The kit only gives you two. Can swap for other missiles/stores in the kit. BTW, is it just the 2000-5 and -9 variants that can carry the MICA missiles on the fuselage pylons?

Did that Phantom have to go supersonic to catch the bogey? Might also explain the absence of tanks to reduce drag once they had used up all the fuel in the tanks...

If I should hazard a guess, I'd say the 6-3 wing has the sharper leading edge to allow a smooth transition to the existing aerofoil after extending the leading edge. Good craftmanship and research here - thanks for posting.

It is the early mid-breech panel (that's what Gerry Whiteside - ex-Tomcat maintenance guy - caleld it) - the type that the Tomcat went into service with. The panel that Tamiya has in their kit is the type that was replacing this. However, this panel was interchangeable, so you can see this style of panel being used on late 80s aircraft too. Check photos of the aircraft you want to build. I have used this on two Tomcats, and the fit is pretty good. Add some shims here and there and a litte careful filing, and it will go in just nicely and look like Tamiya tooled it:) $13...?

The first time I dryfitted the forward fuselage to the rear, I couldn't believe the precise fit. I was grinning like an idiot while taking it apart and putting it back together just to make sure it wasn't a mistake:)

Looking good...

Thank God for that, because the mockup looks as awkward as that Iranian stealth fighter mockup.

There's a thread on ARC Jet Modelling Forum discussing intakes and other F-111 modelling related stuff - written by Jim Rotramel. Can't find it at the moment, but here's a link to a post on Hyperscale. http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/f111indetailjr_1.htm One thing I've noticed - the TPII intakes appear to be larger than the TPI intakes. The TPI look like a perfect quarter circle, whereas the TPII have a slight straight extension at the top, so it is more of a quartered oval. Anyone else seeing the same thing? Found it! http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/314633-correcting-148-f-111-tp2-intakes/&tab=comments#comment-3021043

Are the radomes of the FG.1+FGR.2 the same as the US shortnose Phantoms? Seeing all the differences in Anthony's thread, it wouldn't surprise me that these would be different too...