Jump to content
SharkOwl

Kitty Hawk 1/32 F-5E/F Tiger II / Special Interest Group (SIG) !

Recommended Posts

On 8/26/2018 at 12:03 AM, Tony T said:

 

Most pilots are required to learn and speak English, and I've consistently found these foreigners courteous, unlike some of the native English-speakers. 

 

So what if the Iranian F-5F is a re-lifed, factory overhaul of a fifty year old design with new avionics? I was four years old when the USAF received its last B-52H, fifty-six years ago. I think the BUFF was designed nearly seventy years ago and is still kept busy. The term "legacy" is also something the military is going to have to get used to. The F-35 will likely be flown by three generations. Boeing's fatigue tested the F-15E to about 60,000 hours, and they are likely to clock up 25,000 before they're boneyarded - think possibly another 35 years.

 

Back to the Kitty Hawk, the F does look nice. Don't know why, but I've always preferred planes with two of everything, especially seats and engines. The exception is the Mirage 2000, and I hope Kitty Hawk will get it out this year.

 

Tony 

 

 

 

To be fair, the B-52s days of flying directly over enemy territory dropping gravity bombs are probably long gone.  It’s pretty much morphed into a standoff cruise missile carrier, which stays out of harms way.  The B-52 can get away with it because it’s a large aircraft with a heavy load carrying ability, so you can just hang on a bunch of cruise missiles, fly to a point hundreds of miles off the coast, let fly, and turn around and go home.  The biggest threat is probably an in flight mechanical problem more than enemy action.  The F-5 is quite a bit different.  It still has to get up close and personal with its targets, and you can only do so much with an old small airframe.  It’s one thing to have a cost effective solution to modernize them to keep them flying and usable against air forces and nations with similar vintage planes.  It’s quite another to make them a real threat to a modern top-tier Air Force.  Also, the fact that they are being used as adversaries in the US is probably a bad thing, because it likely means that the US already has techniques to defeat them specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is everyone so keen on a conflict with Iran? God help us.

 

Iran flies F-5s because it has to. With foreigners rattling their cage they have to have zoomy stuff whizzing around to make people feel secure, regardless of whether they're an effective or not deterrent against foreign aggression, which is why everyone has a military. Not for international thuggery. And it means modellers get to do another paint scheme, all nice and peaceful and as dangerous as a lump of painted plastic with some etch.

 

The US is talking about a re-engined B-52J (again) but the only LSP in existence is at the SAC Museum at Ashland, Nebraska. Went there in 1995 and it was impressive. 

 

Tony 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Out2gtcha said:

From all indications and the few builds I've seen its a very nice fitting kit,  but I think the intake thing has pushed some away (including myself) from buying it.  Ill buy the kit (likely the single seater as Im looking forward to SOMEONE) releasing a two seat T-38 since they look similar, I figured once Gary's intakes come out Ill grab a single seater w/the scheme I like and hopefully Ill see a T-38 in 32nd at some point soon. 

 

The gun bay panels aren't a "very" nice fit.  At least not from what I've seen.  Sheet plastic shims doesn't equal nice fit in my book.

 

Given the size of the intakes on the F-5, the lack of seamless (or other) intake tunnels is way further down the line of "must have" bits than the highly visible cockpit.  That sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

The gun bay panels aren't a "very" nice fit.  At least not from what I've seen.  Sheet plastic shims doesn't equal nice fit in my book.

 

Given the size of the intakes on the F-5, the lack of seamless (or other) intake tunnels is way further down the line of "must have" bits than the highly visible cockpit.  That sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

 

I guess it's all down to what the individual modeler deems as a "must have".

I'm going to wait till I have the kit before I make a decision on what is a "have to have".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can think about is what kind of world would we all live in if we didn’t need individual militaries... only a planetary defence program for celestial threats... humanity and our brain structures and archaic thinking haven’t progressed very much since the last ice age...

Cheers

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, alaninaustria said:

All I can think about is what kind of world would we all live in if we didn’t need individual militaries... only a planetary defence program for celestial threats... humanity and our brain structures and archaic thinking haven’t progressed very much since the last ice age...

Cheers

Alan

 

here here......or better ...hear hear!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 9:39 AM, Clunkmeister said:

I've been following the various builds online and it looks incredibly promising so far. I like!!

Then I look at my kit and wonder why you'd produce a 1/32 jet without intake trunks. Odd.

Not a deal breaker, but it just seems a bit odd. I understand most had FOD covers in place on the ground, but still...

Now to figure out what aggressor scheme to use. Russian blue on blue, or Mig-28? I think that'll be the hardest part of the entire build.

Aw heck Ern, buy a couple and do them all! :lol:

 

I'm probably going to pick up one of the two seaters when they show up for sale locally. Not sure which one I will do though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Dude said:

. I'm probably going to pick up one of the two seaters when they show up for sale locally. Not sure which one I will do though.

 

VFC-13 #30 in a gray/gray tiger scheme, or NFWS #50 in the gray/green Viggen style scheme. Those will be the first two on my hit list B) I'm a sucker for those complicated paint schemes! Fred K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, alaninaustria said:

All I can think about is what kind of world would we all live in if we didn’t need individual militaries... only a planetary defence program for celestial threats... humanity and our brain structures and archaic thinking haven’t progressed very much since the last ice age...

Cheers

Alan

 

Yeah, we could call it Space Force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2018 at 12:03 AM, Jennings Heilig said:

 

(...) The gun bay panels aren't a "very" nice fit.  At least not from what I've seen.  Sheet plastic shims doesn't equal nice fit in my book. (...)

 

Technically correct.

It definitely takes a good amount of extra work to make them a "nice fit". (Individual acceptance levels and perceptions of "nice fit" may vary, though.)

 

Most kits require a good deal of extra work to display them with hatches and covers open. On the KH F-5E it's the other way round.

The entire forward fuselage, gun bay covers in particular, will be the potentially most challenging part of the build.

 

Don't rush yourself, exhibit a pinch of out-of-the-box thinking, dry fit twice, cut/sand once, and be sure to mask off adjacent areas in order to protect the really delicate surface details. (Unless you're suffering from Obsessive Rescribing Disorder...)

 

 

Currently trying to make the stbd gun bay covers a nice fit...

 

 

 

Edited by Ivan Ivanovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This conversation is very nice and no matter what, the kit does look promising HOWEVER! what I would like to know will there be decals for Adversaries???? And a couple of ACMI pods because the F-5E, even though it gives decals for the VFC-111 it doesn't have at least one ACMI pod!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F-5Es with Sparrows? Never seen one.

 

On the other hand, if you're building an Adversary F-5E/F then, the ACMI pod is a MUST!!! Which again, makes me wonder why Kitty Hawk didn't include at least one!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scale_artisan said:

On the other hand, if you're building an Adversary F-5E/F then, the ACMI pod is a MUST!!! Which again, makes me wonder why Kitty Hawk didn't include at least one!!!!

 

Yup..... that would have been nice alright :doh: Fred K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scale_artisan said:

(...) On the other hand, if you're building an Adversary F-5E/F then, the ACMI pod is a MUST!!! Which again, makes me wonder why Kitty Hawk didn't include at least one!!!!

 

I'm afraid we'll never know. 

 

Agreed, the current ballasted AN/ASQ-T50(V)2 pod would have been great addition. IIRC, Two Mikes Resin did a set of TCTS pods a few years ago.

 

Anyway, if deemed another "must-have", the same should apply to the incorrect instrument panel.

(the basic differences of the F-5N pre- and post-GPS/INS upgrade instrument panels have already been addressed earlier in this behemoth of thread)

 

8utk8DK.jpg

 

Well, just another item to add to a long list of errors, omissions, and what some gentlemen might rate "missed opportunities".

IMHO, still a nice kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...