Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ziggyfoos

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    eastern NC

Recent Profile Visitors

773 profile views
  1. There are some panels that should be there but for some reason Tamiya molded the panels as raised when they should be flush. For example:
  2. Don't know if they take suggestions but maybe ResKit could look into offering these tubes and also the F-8 Y-racks too? They seem to be relatively new and prolific company covering wide range of subjects including 1/32. Or maybe AMS? I don't see Eduard ever releasing either and I don't think Paul Fisher has relaunched, not sure who else would even consider these relatively esoteric parts.
  3. May depend on how far you go into checkout. It showed their local tax added when I put it in the cart to preorder, but after I logged in and selected my shipping address during the checkout process the tax charge went away. I couldn't resist at $420 and went for it. Now I imagine hundreds more will be spent in aftermarket....
  4. Ya the rockets have weird concave sections and strange rings around them: Real deal with ATAP warheads and proximity fuses and point detonating fuses. Unfortunate that Eduard only provided the one option, the different combinations really change the look of the rockets.
  5. Yes the zuni rockets themselves are the same whether they're in the LAU-33 or LAU-10. Fuzes/warheads could vary on the rockets regardless of what launcher they're loaded in.
  6. I'm same as the what some others have said. I'm going with WW2 option for mine and have your sheets for those already instead, so postwar reserves would be an easy pass for me.
  7. Yes the Trumpeter F-8 kits have two of them (sprue H) and with rocket parts (that look crap). To my knowledge, the Trumpeter F-8 kits are the only option for the LAU-33 in 1/32 unfortunately. Really wish an aftermarket company would make some. Black Ponies need them too....
  8. I’m definitely in. Although I have zero interest in non-military ships, especially cruise liners, Titanic is the sole exception. I will "have to” pick this up - and all the aftermarket to come…. One of my favorite books growing up in the 80s was a then new illustrated Scholastic book on Ballard’s finding of the Titanic. Since then I’ve been hooked on the ship (I still have that original book, first of many). Now wish they’d also do some other 1/200 US WW2 ships, preferably more BBs.
  9. Freetime has preorder of the Titanic at $420, Squadron $430
  10. Have seen some heavily weathered land based USMC a/c in Vietnam, but still they don't have that heavy panel line shading effect, just really dingey/grimy overall (with some heavy soot area on fuselages from A-4 and F-8 guns firing though). These excellent photos look typical to USN carrier a/c at the time for Vietnam. There's overall grime/staining like you mentioned, but agree it's unusual to see one like Spanish weathering method with panel lines smoked over. To each their own for their kit I suppose and I understand the artistic look of that choice. I call it the firefighting approach where it is so blackened and panel lines emphasized so severely that it looks like a/c was involved in a fire. Seen many builds where the underside white ends up being overall light grey instead. My comment regarding the sword was referring to this one specifically having an unusual red painted tip and has blood drips painted on the fuselage. I didn't recall seeing that detail before on their A-3s?
  11. It's an KA-3B so the A-6, F-4, and A-4 silhouettes probably indicate refueling saves of those types. With the A-4 shown I imagine this pic then is from the Independence. Are all the smaller markings under the IFR probe line legible in the original scan? They tanker mission details? Also I like the detail of the squadron's usual standard sword marking being "bloodied" - complete with blood drips. Excellent pic, keep them coming!
  12. I don't have the Trumpeter version of the M117 handy to compare, the M117 was 87.4" long so should be 2.73" in 1/32 (and 0.5" diameter with 0.7" overall fin span). Although in 1/48, there's a good comparison image showing the obvious MER size differences between a kit, Aerobonus, and Eduard: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/306307-148th-revell-monogram-a-6e-tram-intruder/&do=findComment&comment=2941789 Same problem of not being able to fit ordnance on the aftermarket MERs unfortunately. I remember seeing someone's forum build where they cut the MERs in the middle and added a spacer in order to prevent ordnance from touching in the middle, but I can't find the thread now or remember if it was 1/48 or 1/32 build. I have both the Eduard MERs in 1/48 and 1/32. Approximate overall lengths are 3.00" and 4.57" respectively. At 1/1, these would be 144" and 146.25". I've seen pamplet saying length of the actual MER is approx 147". I'll have to defer to someone else who can verify this and if it includes the nose cone or if that isn't really true overall length? Since someone is definitely off. The difference between that 147" and the 1/32 146" is well under the issues seen with so many different ordnance conflicts for fitting on the MERs though, so I have doubts 147" is really correct rather than everyone's ordnance is that far off? I have Videoaviations and AMS Rockeyes for example, and even though both have slightly different dimensions all around, neither really fit the Eduard MERs either (same issue of not fitting back to back). Eduard based their MER on the wrong dimension of 147"? At least the actual rack unit dimensions seems pretty good. The distance between the suspension lugs should be 14" and distance between the sway braces 20". On the Eduard 1/32 MER these measure approximately 0.43" and 0.63" respectively. At 1/1, these would be 13.7" and 20.2", which is reasonable to 14"/20" considering my approx measuring of the spacing with a caliper. Make sure you don't do the same error as reviewer did by installing the swaybraces in the holes for the ordnance lugs: https://web.ipmsusa3.org/content/multiple-ejector-rack-mer
  13. Thanks for sharing that time capsule of carrier ops. Excellent photos, even if they'd have blemishes. Looking forward to seeing more. I too am glad you didn't lose them in the move. I often wondered how many old slides/photos end up in the landfill by family members not realizing the significance of them. If you don't mind, what's the new slide scanner you ended up getting? Also is it still a relatively slow process? BTW "Carrier Air Group" naming was changed to air wing (CVW) in 1963 so it was "CVW-6" by 1968. CVW-6's only Vietnam deployment was that 1968 one but USS America would go back to Vietnam two more times (1970 and 1972) with other air wings.
  14. Damn dementia. Sad to know he was already having its speech effects 5yrs ago, and for a guy known for his comedy. I need to rewatch Life of Brian for the 100th time now that I've got to thinking about him again.
  • Create New...