Juggernut

Well, after a little "reconsideration" I'm widening the pool to include block 40 jets. The only problem here is the availability of an aftermarket WAR HUD. I can find the reinforcing plates but that pesky WAR HUD is MIA. Anybody know of one currently available?

Awesome! Thanks, that’s one less thing I need to create.

I would think so, yes.

Much better! LOL. You'll also want to paint that turtledeck flat black.

Hi All, I'm contemplating on building the Tamiya F-16 in the near future and I'm looking to model it in a "current" configuration. What I'm asking about is what's the proper configuration for a late model Block 50 F-16C? Specifically I'm wondering about: Best ACES II seat with retractable pitots (I have the Wolfpack "Late" set on my SB wishlist - they seem to be the configuration I'm looking for but i really don't need two). What's a good, representative warload for today's ops: I have a set of BRU-57's on my SB wishlist and a set of Reskit GBU-54s (500 lb JDAM) on the way from Ukraine. I was thinking on using an AGM-65 on 3 or 7 and a pair of GBU-54's on the opposite station but I'm open to options (including GBU-54s on 3 and 7). I'm attempting to avoid the usual loadout of 2 x AGM-88's, 120's and 9M/Xs. The two gabags can stay.... 370 gallon drop tanks are sufficient? AN/ALQ-131 (shallow) LAU-129 with AIM-120C's on 1/9 and AIM-9X on 2/8 (Jake's book says they're only cleared for 2/8 use). Both AIM's on LAU-129 rails. BLOS addition (BiggTim, is this in your inventory? It was formerly an AMS product) I'm not exactly sure what that is or what it looks like. Looking to maybe replace the static dischargers Tamiya provides with a good aftermarket product. So far, all I find is the Master Model turned metal set....are there better ones? Have Glass V paint scheme with either custom masks or Speed Hunter Graphics Big Scale Vipers Sheet 2. I'd like to do a line jet as they're plain jane without all the shadow shading on the markings so I'm leaning toward masks but don't have a subject yet. So far, I'm thinking: 52nd Fighter Wing (SP) - Spangdahlem, Germany 31st Fighter Wing (AV) - Aviano, Italy Ah, crap...F-16.net says the 31st only has Block 40 jets. Any other unit that has Block 50 jets in the Have Glass V paint... I'm not too picky yet. Anybody aware of an aftermarket JHMCS sensor for the canopy rail? If not, I'll have to take a stab at design and 3D print one of these suckers. Anybody aware of an aftermarket glare shield with the canopy defogger slots? If not, I'll have to look into custom 3D printing a set and fair them into a cutout I'll make in the glareshield. I also have Cruz's F-16 set with the left hand HARM sensor, his decoy launcher (I only got one when I ordered my set), his AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER pod adapter and last but not least, I have a Wolfpack SNIPER pod to put on it. I have Pete's book on the scale viper and Jake's book on the F-16C/D so I'm pretty good with detail oriented references. There's not much out there (that I can find) in photos about the current operations (which is totally understandable - I'd imagine the guys at Aviano would be involved in Syrian strikes but I just don't know....) and warloads that are being used or what the jets look like other than something like this: Obviously the copyright owner is Alamy and is used for discussion purposes only. I know that's a lot to unpack but any suggestions, leads appreciated.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but aotake (blue-green) is totally wrong for any A6M cockpit and at that stage of the war, most likely the fuselage too. The cockpit for a Nakajima built A6M5, which is what you're building, would be a light grey-green similar to (but not the same as) British WWII interior grey-green. Which Tamiya kit are you using for reference? The 1/32 A6M5 kits (60309 and 60318) both call out XF-71 Cockpit Green, for the cockpit.

ITA 2515 at Scale Hobbyist. About $24 less expensive but shipping from SB is half for orders over $100 (and less than $200) so not sure if the total cost including shipping [$9.95 from Scale Hobbyist] would be beneficial. Also, Scale Hobbyist charges no sales tax (at least for now).

Apparently "The Phantom of the Ruhr" has serial no. EE139 (Google result). If true, that would make EE139 a B Mk III. "640 were ordered by A.V. Roe, Chadderton, 1941". "ED303-EE202 (built as 129 B MkIs and 491 B Mk IIIs [up to ED782] and all as B Mk IIIs after ED782 between November 1942 & June 1943." REFERENCE: Franks, R. (2000), The avro lancaster, a comprehensive guide for the modeller, manchester and lincoln, SAM publications, UK (p. 167)

I never got this kit but boy-oh-boy I was sorely tempted. You see, I have an aversion to resin kits. Oh how I wish a major injection molded kit manufacturer would release a 1/32 Typhoon (both car door and bubble top versions complete with options for 4-bladed prop, cuckoo intake doors, Tempest tailplanes, etc.).

I've taken to becoming VERY selective in what I purchase and for the last few years, I haven't increased the number of kits that wind up either on the Shelf-Of-Doom or get jettisoned; the Rye Field Models 1/35 Late Tiger I kit being an exception. Knowing that most of us (me included) lose interest in a given subject from time-to-time, I only buy kits that I'll know I'll build. After starting a kit, I exercise a lot of restraint and stick-tuitiveness (a fabricated word for determination) on the current build and I don't start anything else until the current build is complete, no exceptions. Now WHEN any given kit will get built is an entirely different discussion!

Wee Willie is an example of a late war crew compliment. She went down over Stendahl, Germany on 8 April, 1945 with nine onboard (8 KIA, 1 POW*) (Haavelar, 217). She only had one waist gunner on board that day (Bowden, Appendicies, 23). Image taken from the web. * Bowden indicates all nine were KIA. REFERENCES: Bowden, R. (1993), Plane names and fancy noses, the 91st bomb group (heavy) united states army air force, Design Oracle Partnership, England. (Appendices, p. 23) Haavelar, M. (1995), The ragged irregulars of bassingbourn, the 91st bombardment group in world war ii, Schiffer Publishing Ltd, PA. (p. 217).

I do my best to avoid having to fill seams but if I need to fill some minor seams, I use this: Pentel Jumbo Correction Fluid (for those of you unfamiliar with typewriters, this is what us "old-timers" used to use to make corrections to typed documentation). You use it straight from the tube, it has a ball-point applicator. It's white in color, works well, dries fast, and feathers like nobody's business. You can build up layers so if you have a rather big step/gap, you can make short work of it using this. Otherwise, I use superglue (CA). Caveat: It will NOT fill holes (larger than a #61 drill) or gigantic step or alignment problems (like some old kits have)

Our resident F-16 Expert (Pete) can confirm these (or correct/add as needed): Cockpit: Color is FS36231 Dark Gull Grey (whichever paint range you choose is up to what your eye thinks is the best option). Fuselage/Wings/Stabs: Time frame to be modeled is necessary.... All F-16s were delivered in 3-tone camo (FS 36270 Neutral Grey, FS 36118 Gunship Grey, over FS 36375 Light Ghost Grey). In the mid 1990's, the jets were refinished in FS 36118, FS 36270, dropping the FS 36375. Currently many airframes are being refinished in the "Have Glass" paint scheme. (Melampy p. 135). Radome: (Melampy, p. 4) "The radome is not painted but its neoprene coating is initially about the same color as the forward fuselage (FS 36270). However, the coating is very sensitive to dirt and grime, and quickly darkens as a result of contaminants in the air." So, anything from FS 36270 to a dark grey is possible. Choose your subject and see if you can find a color photo of it at the time you wish to represent. I don't think replacing the intake is necessary on the Tamiya F-16 kit. The Block 50 Viper uses the MCID (big mouth) intake. REF: Melampy, J. (2007),The Modern Viper Guide, The F-16C/D Exposed,Reid Air Publications, OH. (pp. 4, 135)

I'm reacting to YOUR words.... News flash: Tail gunner 50's in B-17s were hand-held guns. Maybe you should know your subject before spouting nonsense. You cannot make unsubstantiated comments and not expect someone to call you on it. You insinuate that I have no idea what I'm talking about despite spending over 45 years reading after action reports, studying everything possible about the B-17, her crews and their lives and expect ME to let it go? Do I know everything about B-17 operations? Hell no, I'll be the very first to admit that but I'm not about to let someone who refuses to post any substantive information supporting their conclusions, expect me to accept opinions (because that's ALL they are) at face value? Oh no..... I know all about exaggerated claims by bomber gunners and know that the ones that remain have been verified and are as accurate as can be possible. Here's just one person you might want to get familiar with: Benjamin Warmer, S/Sgt.

So tell me about B-17 tail gunners; were they self-loading baggage too?

Whatever...

I stole this off the web.... Hardly useless.

Is that your opinion or based on something written somewhere? If it's based on a writing or account, please provide a reference because from everything I've ever read and seen, the guns weren't useless. Several waist gunners, including S/Sgt. Tony Nastal (R waist gunner on the Memphis Belle), had more than one kill using these "side mounted weapons". There are photos with the cheek gun positions faired over but that occurred very late in the war and was (after the Luftwaffe had been pretty much reduced to a residual level of effectiveness), to the best of my knowledge, done at field level and was not a force wide implementation. That post smacks of disrespect for all those brave young men who manned those weapons through unimaginable conditions; risked life and limb to help defeat totalitarian aggression.

The correct color for a WWII circa R-2800 prop reduction gear case, crankcase, and accessory drive (rear of the engine) is Engine Grey; something akin to FS26081 (semi-gloss). Of course you can change it to flat by changing the 2 to a 3 in the FS number. It's also known as Euro I Grey. Vallejo London Grey FS36081 MRP does not make a water-based acrylic equivalent by the same name but regular MRP is: MRP Acrylic Lacquer FS36081 See KD431 below....unrestored.

That may be generally true but not really pertinent to the question as to why those nose guns were still in the forts.

The weakest point (read as most vulnerable to attack) of the B-17 bomber was the nose; that's why they put/kept the number of guns there. You are correct that the nose of the aircraft had two crew stations, bombardier and navigator; and also some of the pieces of equipment. The bombardier sat primarily in his seat, manning either his guns or the bombsight (as required). I don't believe he moved around a whole lot for the amount of time they were in the air under combat conditions (emergency situations notwithstanding). The navigator was free to use either cheek gun depending on the quadrant of the attack, bringing another 50 caliber gun to bear on the target. Either cheek gun could swing directly forward and through an azimuth that I do not remember offhand. That's why they were installed in dedicated "housings" (for lack of a better/correct term) that allowed them to swing directly forward. In an attack, three guns (2 chin and 1 cheek) is better than two; that's why they kept the guns in situ. It is my belief that they were staggered to provide a relative clear path of evacuation should it be necessary (and in many cases, it was). Eventually, it was the radio room gun that was deemed unnecessary and was removed from very late model B-17G's bringing the total number of 50's down to 12. The last reason I can think of for the number of guns in the nose, and tied directly to the first, was the method of attack on the formation used by the Luftwaffe. It was Luftwaffe preference to do a line-abreast, frontal attack with their fighters, each one so far from the next. The more guns you can bring to bear on that target, the better your chances are of living to tomorrow. The B-17 combat box was a very formidable defensive formation. I cannot think of how many aircraft made up the combat box but at squadron level, there are 12 (if memory serves) aircraft. With that many aircraft x 4 guns in the nose of each, that's 48 50's,an awful lot of firepower. Granted only 36 of them can fire at any given time but that's still a whole bunch of high-speed metal flying through the air. You'll also note that I purposely did not include the top and ball turrets which would also be trained on the attacking formation but I considered that outside the scope of the discussion. This is my best answer to your question based on all the documentation I've read. I have ad-libbed a little here and there but done so based on information presented in multitudes of documents on the B-17 and their operations in the ETO.

It’s not an easy build.

oh, I’m game for that!

Yep, that's why I drink!

Contact Jake Melampy (he's jmel on this site) and ask if the shipping is correct as it does seem a bit out of the ballpark for a printed publication (unless there's some restriction that makes it go Priority Mail International or something along those lines.