Jump to content

Joe Hegedus

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Joe Hegedus

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern Maryland, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

73 profile views
  1. Someone had to have at least tried to build it; otherwise, how would they know what to mark up in the instructions to cut here, or file here, or remove this or that to make it "fit"?
  2. The wings didn't fold on the F4F-3; that came with the F4F-4.
  3. Yup. An IM kit should be less $ than the Silver Wings one, nice as it is (I have one squirreled away also). But I think the SW kit is no longer available, and I'd like to do more than one Stearman.
  4. You might not like it, but it was how the program routinely referred to the A-D models collectively to differentiate from the E/F Supers. It's how we in the test community referred to them, also, so it's not just a bunch of enthusiasts dreaming up a term.
  5. Considering that the Blue Angels have been flying pretty much the oldest, most crapped-out Hornets that the Navy has/had, it would take quite a bit to get them "combat-ready". And honestly, if it got to the point where they had to send the Blue Angels and thier jets into combat, we're pretty much screwed up one side and down the other...'cause those jets are pretty much the bottom of the barrel - no trap life left, non-standard equipment fit, generally worn-out airplanes. It's not likely to change when they transition, either. They'll most likely get the oldest Super Hornets out there, that have equipment fits that are incompatible with front-line needs (read: old lot test jets and FRS airplanes) They may have priority for spare parts to meet the show schedule, but the guys on the pointy end have priority for the most capable weapons system. The Thunderbirds fly much more up-to-date jets, and as such would probably be able to transiton to "combat-ready" much quicker. They ran an excercise in 2013 where they took the show jets, and did the "make it ready to shoot" refit and sent them out to bomb a range, still painted in the show schemes. There's pics out there somewhere of it - one of them shows the right wing and tail of one of the jets, with an empty inboard pylon, middle pylon with a high-speed TER and 3 MK-82 ballute bombs, and an AIM-9 on the outboard pylon. Another one taken of one of the jets in flight, from below, shows there is also an ECM pod on the centerline, and the left wing is loaded symmetrically to the right. It also shows that the wingtips had AIM-9s as well, and they appear to be AIM-9P missiles Still, we're likely in a serious world of hurt if it actually became necessary to do that, though.
  6. ALL of the legacy Hornets are old. The line shut down 20 years ago or so. Only Supers built since then (and that line likely isn't gonna be going much longer either, unless they drum up some more FMS sales).
  7. The big question is, "how am I going to pay for these?" The AT-5 was essentially a P-3 with a less-powerful engine, right? And a P-3 was essentially an F6C-4...
  8. I had to shim the windscreen, too. 30 thou on one side and 20 thou on the other to get it to fit flush. Odd that I had no trouble getting the fuselage to close around the cockpit with no gaps in the centerline seams, but there looks to be a bit of a gap on either side between the fuselage halves and the cockpit sidewall pieces, but not enough slop there to squeeze the fuselage enough to get the canopy to sit even with the sides. Might have to look into Mr. Maben's solution and try sanding the sides a bit to get the back of the canopy to sit properly open. That way, as long as I get the forward end shimmed out enough to be in the right place, any further mismatch going back isn't going to be noticable.
  9. Anyone have any tips on fitting the sliding portion on the new Revell Mustang canopy? My example has the canopy a bit too narrow to sit on the opening properly, so it looks like some shimming is necessary but that does nothing for the way the canopy sits over the aft fuselage if opened.
  10. More than I'm willing to pay for the experience, generally. But I may make an exception for this one if I can finagle the 27th.
  11. MIxing blue and green will yield blue-green or green-blue depending on the mix. You can't get purple without red.
  12. Sometimes ya just gotta make do with what you have; it would be a shame not to use that gorgeous cowl. Happy modeling!
  13. That's beautiful work, and the checkered cowl is outstanding! I'm curious, though, if you realize that the fuselage codes don't match the cowl markings? The LM code is for the 62FS of the 56FG, and depending on the specific time period you're depicting would have either a solid white band 24" wide on the forward cowl (with white theater bands on the fin and stabs as well), a solid yellow band 24" wide on the cowl (with the fin and stab stripes painted out), or a solid red band 24" wide on the cowl (final cowl marking used by the 56FG). the LM-C code is assiciated with "Boche Buster"/Rozzie Geth", one of the airplanes flown by Fred Christensen. The black and yellow checkered diamonds on the cowl belong to the 353FG (same as your P-51). The 353FG had squadron codes of LH (350FS), YJ (351FS), and SX (352FS). Perhaps you don't care, and if so, that's fine, but since you seemed to take such care and effort with the finishing of the model, I thought you might want this info.
  14. I don't know if the hand pump is connected there or not, just that the pump won't have an input into the tank. Somewhere, the CO2 tank has to interface with the landing gear actuators, but I don't know where.
  15. Are you referring to the black tank with the red knob? I believe that is a CO2 tank for emergency landing gear extension. The hand pump would not pressurize that.
×
×
  • Create New...