Jump to content

John1

LSP_Members
  • Posts

    3,076
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by John1

  1. Hey Jari, Not to go OT on this thread... well actually, it's my thread so I think I will - Speaking of AIM-9 colors, my build will have AIM-9B's (using the Brassin missiles). Any good quality color pics of operational B's are always appreciated.
  2. Sounds like sage advice. Only going to have two rails though. They were on the pylon with an ECM pod underneath. The other inner pylon was “rail-less” with just a TER with a M117 hanging off it.
  3. Just wondering - would the AIM-9 launcher rails on an AF Phantom in SEA scheme have a glossy white finish like the TERs and MERs or the standard underside camo color of flat white-grey?
  4. Just found this thread, really enjoying it. You do a great job on your builds Pete, I love how you take the time to add in all these historical details.
  5. Title says it all. I'm building up some M117 bombs and the set I got doesn't include the single yellow stripe on the nose. Any advice on how to do this would much appreciated.
  6. Thanks for the compliments, guys. Not much of an update to share, I'm in another lull, where I'm just randomly puttering around on various parts. I completed the inner wing pylons. Added a few details on the sides, carved out some of the bottom portion and used some Eduard PE. After adding the very detailed Fundekals stencils (not sure anyone else has ever bothered to provided stencils for the weapons pylons), I think these are pretty much done. Note that these pylons were added to the jets in the field to replace the Navy style ones. As such, they are finished in that very light grey underside camo color, instead of the gloss white that the rest of the undersides are painted. Hard to make it out in the pictures but it does add a nice bit of variety. On most jet's I've seen, these pylons tended to get pretty dirty so I went a bit heavy on the weathering. Also added a few decals to the drop tank and since I found a few pictures showing the bottom surfaces of these tanks pretty filthy, added some weathering to that area as well. Remember, these early tanks were quickly painted in the field, so they are quite different looking than the later tanks that came straight from the factory with a uniform paint scheme. Lastly, I received my M-117 750 lb bombs from Italy. Less than 2 weeks from when I ordered and the quality (and price) are very impressive. I would have spent three times as much to get the same quantity of bombs from the only US source - Wolfpack over at Sprue Brothers. Videoaviation is highly recommended! Going to have fun painting and weathering these bad boys. So that's it for now guys. One request - if anyone can tell me how the kit TER and MER's stack up against the real thing, I would be very appreciative. I need to use a single TER and MER for my proposed weapons load out (fuel tank / 2 AIM-9 with ECM pod below / MER with 4 x M117 on centerline / TER with 2 x M117 / fuel tank)
  7. Hi Folks - I'm building an F-4C circa mid to late 67. Trying to figure out what I need to use for an ECM pod. The one picture of my subject aircraft shows a pod hanging under the inner starboard wing pylon, painted white with the upper surfaces green. I've got the GT Resins "ALQ-71 Short Tail" pod and the pod that comes in the Tamiya kit. I've yet to see a picture of an F-4C/D with the "short-tail" pod. Would I be better served going with the kit pod? I tried to read up on early war ECM pods but it's extremely confusing. Far as I can tell, the first pods (QRC-160) could only be mounted to the outboard wing pylons and were wind-powered by small blades on the nose. A bit later, the QRC-160 was upgraded to use power from the aircraft and could now be hung on the inner wing pylons, so the ram air turbine in the nose went away. This pod later morphed into the ALQ-71, which I think was pretty similar to the QRC pod. Bottom line - I don't think the short-tail pod is appropriate. If I go with the kit pod, do I need to make any changes to it? Any and all info is much appreciated.
  8. Personally, I'd much rather see this guy in the cockpit: Granted, the creepy factor is a bit higher but who doesn't love Pat Patriot?
  9. Barracuda makes a fantastic set of resin wheels.
  10. On a more serious note, since this thread has “dirt roaded” into a wish list (amongst other things), I’ll add my humble suggestion - instead of a pretty much irrelevant subject for their second kit, I personally wish they would have offered up a Beaufighter (ideally a Mk X). That’s a truly relevant subject that really deserves to be released at the quality level of Kotare. Surely a license to print money!
  11. Nice build, I really like the paintwork.
  12. They should have gone with a P-51D. It’s long overdue for a new-tooled kit. The market demands it.
  13. All the respect in the world to the guys who can build something this intricate. Nice work.
  14. I actually forgot all about this kit. Is it me or has this company been radio silent for quite a while now? Seemed that there was an initial flurry of info / pictures and then nothing.
  15. One thing the F-4 was noted for was the absolutely filthy undersides. I started weathering this area previously but had to wait until I had all 200 or so decals in place before I could continue. Decals are now in place, so I went back to work with a few shades of Flory Washes, some AK Used Oil and good old thinned black enamel. Here's a good example of the real deal (although if I tried hard, I could find others that were even dirtier): Here is where I'm currently at. Pre-weathering picture of the outer wing. Got a bit of overspray to deal with on the leading edge areas but I'm pretty content with the way things turned out. That's it for now, thanks for checking in lads!
  16. I don't have words to adequately describe the awesomeness of this build.
  17. Are you kidding, I love nerding out on stuff like this. Feel free to "dirt road" this build log all you want!!
  18. It's a tough time to be buying a car, that's for sure. Venza's were being sold at $7k over sticker price. Sorry Toyota, I get the whole supply and demand thing but that's just gouging. I'm trying to talk the wife into keeping the Pilot. It's still at great vehicle and has it's place doing dump runs, stuffing it with bikes, kayaks and camping gear. It's just no longer feasible for a full time ride.
  19. I looked at Red Fox closely before opting to go with Quintas' F-4C set (see below). 2 reasons - first in the case of this particular set, the Quinta IP's seemed to have details that were a bit crisper. 2nd, Quinta included the inner cockpit sidewalls, which in the case of the F-4, were pretty visible and had a lot of details that the kit parts didn't capture. If I was building something that didn't require sidewall decals, I would have no problem going with Red Fox. Just in this case, Quinta's product better suited my needs.
  20. Looking good so far. I'm starting to get the bug to build another Gustav.
  21. I've been driving a 2007 Honda Pilot. I like the room, I like not having car payments and like the reliability. However - it's got >200K on it, I've got a pretty expensive timing belt replacement in the near future and it's starting to get body rot. All of this I could live with if it wasn't for the fact that $120 fills my tank and that won't even get me through a week of driving (and I don't live that far away from the office either). Based on my calcs, the old girl is getting around 14MPG. I figured it's finally time to upgrade. Thought about a hybrid but the only one that fit my price point and I liked was the Toyota Venza but having dealt with 4 different Toyota dealerships who were some of the scuzziest, old-school, high pressure, bait-and-switch car dealers I've ever come across, I swear I'll never look at a Toyota again. I've been a Honda guy for 3 decades and love the cars. I ran up 300K on my old CRV but the new ones have pretty poor reliability numbers (confirmed by some friends of my who drive new model CRV's) and the Passport had some of the lowest reliability / customer satisfaction ratings in it's class. After a great deal of research, I finally ended up with this: I love it. Pricewise, I got an incredible deal and for a mid-level trim package, the car is loaded Already has a roof rack system so I can put kayaks or bikes on the top (anyone know of a good option for kayak / bike mounts besides those insanely expense Thule ones?). Got a 1.7% interest rate for the portion I financed which was also pretty nice. Best of all, the purchasing experience was amazing. Zero pressure, friendly, "well, just go home and think about it and if you are interested, come on back". 180 degrees from Toyota. If anyone else out there is driving a Subaru in general, Outback specifically, I'd love to hear what your thoughts are.
  22. So about those wingtips. Nick / Cheeta11 raised an interesting point about the nav lights being smoothly faired in to the contour of the wingtips, as opposed to the protruding "bulb" that the kit has. The drawings that Finn posted above seemed to back him up. However - I've been trying to find pictures of early F-4C's with this "smooth" wingtip. So far, I've only found shots that show the kit-style wingtips. From a picture Finn posted above, if you zoom in to it's fullest extent, you can see that the wingtip is the kit version with the protruding nav light. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cam_Ranh_Air_Base#/media/File:McDonnell_F-4C_Phantom_II_of_the_557th_TFS_at_Cam_Ranh_Air_Base,_Vietnam,_in_1969_(176246640).jpg Then I thought that maybe the smooth wingtip was present on earlier jets and modified later. However, I found this picture, amongst others. Early war C's and you can clearly see the bulb type wing-tip light on the closest jet (it helps to enlarge the picture but trust me, it's there). I guess based on all this, I'll stick with the kit wingtip. Behing inherently lazy, that's totally ok by me. If anyone has info they can add to this subject, feel free to chime in .
  23. Nice subject but I thought that specific aircraft was assigned to a state-side training unit, not a front-line squadron? Also - did anyone ever confirm the use of Gull Grey on the undersides? Seems a bit odd.
  24. And to me, that's nothing but a good thing. I'm fascinated by minutia like this, appreciate all the contributors to this thread taking the time to do such a deep dive into this subject.
×
×
  • Create New...