David Hingtgen

Hase 1/48 F-16's cost 1/3 as much as their F-14/18's. Buy away---the Hase 1/48 F-16 is the best F-16 you can buy, period. Fits great, quite accurate. And can easily be had for 20-25 bucks. Be sure to try to snag an F-16CJ Block 50 or thereabouts, to have enough parts to build what you want. What exact type are you looking for? Hase 1/48 F-18: Horrendously expensive. Supposed to be pretty nice, never bought one myself. Monogram F-18, while raised-line, isn't bad, shape/accuracy-wise. Fit's not that great, but then NO F-18 kit has really good fit, except the Academy 1/32 F-18. (Next best-fitting F-18 has got to be the new Hase F-18E/F). Note: Monogram F-18's have been permanently modified into F-18C's, whereas Hase ones still allow you to build an A from a C kit. (or even a CF-18--there's really only one mold for the 1/48 Hase F-18 kit afaik, the decals included will determine what parts the instruction sheet has you use--but your basic Hase F-18 includes parts for everything from a Blue Angels A to the latest nigh-attack C---which could explain the price) 1/48 F-14: Hasegawa. Amazing accuracy, not that great of fit. Many people talk about the new Academy, but I can't comment on it. There's a big thread about it here though: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/foru...t=ST&f=3&t=9803 PS---run, run far away from the Italeri 1/48 F-14's. Trust me. 1/48 F-15: Again, Hase. LOTS of people like the Academy, but the shape is just off around the engines and nose. Surprising note: The Monogram 1/48 F-15 is the most well-shaped F-15 ever, of any scale. The shape is just spot-on. Fit's actually decent, too. But it is a 20-year-old Monogram kit, with all that entails. F-4--can't comment on in 1/48. Harrier II--only 2 real options in 1/48, a 25-year old Monogram, or a "brand new mold this month" Hase. Guess which is better. I'm more of a 1/72 guy. (I can talk ALL about 1/72 jets) (My *long* term plans are basically many 1/72 to have lots of squadrons represented for each type (and not spend 100 hours on each model), and 1 or 2 1/48 of each type for detailed, large models of my absolute favorite squadrons---and probably 1 1/32 for each of the "big 4" (14/15/16/18) for my personal fave aircraft) PS--my thoughts overall: Hase's are well worth the money, there are few exceptions (and basically only in 1/72, Hase utterly rules 1/48). There's almost no such thing as a "cheap, sparsely detailed, but basically accurate and good-fitting kit". I wish there was. There's only "bad, cheap, inaccurate, horribly-fitting" and "expensive, accurate, well-fitting, and has 500 parts to display every possible panel and bay open with 4 flap options and 3 nose gears and a 35-step manual".

I was last in Atlanta in '96. Only in and around the airport (though a 36 hour layoever), but heard drawls everywhere. 2004's notably different? Wow. (I agree with the whole "TV influence" thing---eventually everyone will dress and talk the same, and listen to the same music, etc)

That'd be because a huge number of dubs are done in Canada with Canadian actors. PS--I must say the only time I've spent in Western Iowa is when driving through it to Omaha. Don't know what the "local language" is. I'm from Des Moines, now in Iowa City. Parents from NE Iowa. BTW---how often is "warsh" encountered over there? I can't think of any other instance where there's but a single word that instantly differentiates where you're from. PPS--Chicago has a very subtle accent. It's one of those "you can only hear it if they're doing it on purpose to prove it exists". Unless it's the word "Chicago" itself, where it's rather obvious. But far most other words, very hard to pick up. Didn't hear it at all much until college, since we get a lot of people from there. PPPS--that reminds me---"oinge" (orange). No idea where this is from, I've only encountered it with like 3 people, but all Iowans, who don't say "warsh".

Anywhere around you that sells Floquil paint? Model train paint. The stuff dries THIN, HARD, and FAST. You'll want "engine black". Blackest of the blacks. (When dealing with locomotives, we are PICKY about shades of black--they make about 4 of them). It's very flat, and self-levels more than just about any other paint. Polly Scale is the acryl equivalent and is usually easier to find nowadays. (Floquil is pretty "strong" stuff, may eat some plastics, though I've never ever had a problem) Tamiya paint is also generally a good brand for hand-brushing. Clearcoats---I always spray them. You're not looking for a smooth gloss finish here. Unless you're doing model cars, I rarely see a need to get an ultra-smooth gloss coat.

Actually, it's easy to match the gloss. Because black is black, and only the final coat really affects gloss. Ever sprayed gloss clear over "magic" tape? It'll become as clear as the gloss scotch tape, despite being "frosted". So anyways---I have painted many a locomotive roof, and the basic technique/idea is thus: Semi-gloss black roof, of a unique paint that's impossible to match. Just a little more flat than semi-gloss, but far more shiny than even the "shiniest" flat paint. (There's flat black, and REALLY flat black paints). So I usually get my ultra-flat black (since it's thin and dries very smooth) and paint the spot that needs it. Then I mask off the whole section of the roof, and paint it semi-gloss black. Now the whole roof section has the same sheen, and thus looks identical. Because it doesn't matter if you had 4 or 5 different blacks underneath, the final clear coat determines how the black will look. So if you really want a match, paint the spot on the tail with whatever black you like, then spray the WHOLE black part of the tail with whatever clear-coat would be closest to the original. Then both the original and touch-up black paints, though different, will have the same final clearcoat over them, and they should be match. Of course, always test a technique. But I spent a while trying every black paint on Earth trying to touch up some locomotives "sheen-wise", and found out that absolutely nothing else matters besides the clear coat. PS--MM black varies quite a bit depending on enamel vs acryl. Acryl is more like *very* dark blue. Looks black as night when dry, but when next to an enamel black, will be visibly "less black".

About the *only* good thing about Iowa is its lack of accent. Our news reporters and radio DJ's etc are in high demand due to the lack of a noticeable accent. We lose a lot of our local news reporters to major cities like Seattle, Phoenix, etc. Note: rural Iowans have an accent, and we mock them 24/7. It's amazing that someone can grow up 20 miles away from you, and talk completely differently. Iowa doesn't have a west/east split or anything, it's urban/rural, regardless of geographical location. Of course, we mock Minnesotans too.

Gundam markers and the like tend to be either DARK brown, or DARK blue. Not truly black. Much like "black" towels, etc. Won't quite match if it's a rather visible spot. You'll never notice on any other color that they're not BLACK, but on true black paint it'll become apparent. Anyways--black is black, if it's true black. It's the SHEEN that matters far more. (I found this out repainting locomotives). Ultra-flat, flat, sorta semi-gloss, semi-gloss, gloss, and "mirror-gloss" will all look different, even if the same "color". I paint my model submarines flat black, then use various clear coats to get multiple shades, even though there's only 1 single paint actually on it. In summary--black is black, it's how shiny it is that matters--it's everything. "Darker" black is "shinier" black.

Tamiya Cons: First place never goes to *best* model, it goes to *most visually impressive model*--specifically, the one that'll looks best in Tamiya ads. Thus, a good high-vis Jolly Rogers F-14 will always beat a wonderful low-vis Red Rippers F-14, etc. Sure, it has to be quite good to win, but it also has to be "inherently cool". And thus, battleships and carriers almost always win for ships, no matter how amazingly you might superdetail a tugboat. Anyways---small scale F-14? I just posted a lot about the Fuji and Hase at http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=7598 Heh heh--another "fit" fan (like me--nothing ruins a detailed model for me like poor fit--and it simply is more obvious in 1/72). Probably go for the Fuji in that case. Check ebay, they show up for 10-15 bucks MISB, vs $30 retail. BTW---the largest 1/72 F-14 decal maker by far is CAM: http://www.camdecals.com/main.asp?camaction=decals They also make a lot of good 1/32 and 1/48.

The underside does get wear, but very subtle, and not "streaked". Not really visible unless it's a VERY worn wing. (As in, the upper surface has flat-out BLACK STRIPES for wear--then the bottom would be worn enough to be readily apparent) The sealing surfaces are completely different for upper vs lower surfaces on that style of wing-sweep seal. The upper surface is many small metal plates, the lower is a single large inflatable bladder---they cause very different effects. The lower seal is the large dark grey area just aft of the wings. It's basically a very heavy-duty inflatable balloon. (Just going by F-14's, but the VF-0 has the most "F-14-esque" wing-sweep area of any VF by far--which is why I suggested it be done in the first place)

http://www.naritafamily.com/Scalemodel/air...photo_frame.htm Another amazingly mottled/weathered low-vis 1/32 model. Wing-sweep-wear, too. And a carrier launch diorama! Yes, it's an F-14 and not a VF-1, but 99% of the techniques would be the same. Now we just have to wait until he gets his "how-to" guides uploaded. And then we'll all wait to see how wm_cheng's F-14 turns out.

Ditto. I got sick of SEED by the first ep (and I love all the alt-universe Gundam shows), but MEGAS is very entertaining. Though I'm always like "Wendee Lee is not the world's only voice actress". Yes I like her voice, but she does EVERY SHOW EVER nowadays with the EXACT SAME VOICE.

And then we can start listing all the 4 gun/2 cannon planes the Luftwaffe had... 6 guns were pretty standard for late WWII. P-38's had 5, rather unusual.

Hmmn. Depending on what's there: F-18 speedbrake/well, any type. (Almost impossible to find pics of, they're rarely deployed, and they're not painted like other Navy planes') Good odds for Langley F-15's, I'd love pics of the 94FS. Any and all wing or squadron commander/CAG planes, etc. And just in case any F-22's show up... Sigh--I never ever need a pic of something until AFTER I've seen a plane. I'll know exactly what I need pics of 2 months from now. PS--I've heard VF-101 got new colors recently, so definitely get pics of that if you see one. (F-14 squadron, they do the demos, but often show up for non-demos too)

Super Hornet schedule's up: 24 SEP - Barksdale AFB 15 MAY - Andrews AFB (possible) 26 JUN - Quad Cities* 16 JUL - Tri-cities 28 JUL - NAS Whidbey 13 AUG - Abbotsford 4 SEP - Toronto 11 SEP - McChord 26 SEP - Oceana 1 OCT - PT Mugu 12 NOV - NAS Pensacola 16 NOC - Lackland AFB *--really close to me. This is the West Coast demo team, BTW, VFA-122 F/A-18F. I believe there is another team, East Coast, VFA-115 F/A-18E.

How about a different low-vis scheme? F-15 style would look ok on a valk, though it'd need to be modified. And there's Harrier style, F-16 style, Hornet style, etc. And you could always go with the obvious F-14 style. (The current VF-1 low-vis doesn't really match ANYTHING, kind of like a digital Ferris scheme done in early F-15 colors)

I usually like down, since gear is a distinctive part of a plane, as much as its nose or tail. Also, I don't like putting holes in my planes for stands. I'd build a lot more gear-up though, if the gear doors actually fit! It's usually less work to simply build the gear, than to try to make new, fitting, gear doors. (It's a rare model that the "gear down" doors actually fit when closed, and even rarer the model that includes "gear up" doors--then it's easy)

Blue is the best color if you're flying over California. Early F-15's were bright blue for that very reason--then they had their first deployment to Europe, and realized "bright summer sky blue" doesn't exist much of the time in the UK, you need "foggy sky grey". Purple--well, depends on the shade. Dark Ghost grey (2nd most common color for modern air camo) is purple-grey. Most "sky" greys are blue-grey, but Dark Ghost is distinctly purple. Most naval colors are also purple-blue greys. Anyways-- VF's often fight at ULTRA-close range, so there's no better situation for disruptive camo. Ferris schemes, false canopies, etc. Valks don't ever really seem to use camo for hiding at all---their radar has great range, so they fire off a massive long-range missile salvo, then get in super close and use either gunpod or battroid hand-to-hand. Short-range camo is disruptive.

There's always the frying pan/baking sheet method for getting flat tires. I swear it's considered a legitimate method, though I don't have the guts to try. Would actually probably be the easiest, just use LOW heat. I do think they recommend non-stick ones.

Well, IMHO 99% of modelers severely overdo tire flattening/bulging, more so over-weathering. Better to have none, than make it look like it's 50psi underinflated. Of course, all you need is a nice flat surface and a big sheet of sandpaper, and you can flatten rather easily as the very final step. BTW--is that an F-14D®? Glove-vane area looks too nice for any A/B, but too distinct for a new-build D. ::edit:: Why can't I make a capital "R" in parentheses? It keeps substituting a "registered trademark R in a circle" instead. I want F-14D with "an R in parentheses after it", for that's how it's written. Stupid "auto-spelling" etc. I want what I type! Edit 2. Anyone know how to actually type a capital R in parentheses and not have it show up as ® ????

Yargh, I didn't consider that VF's have "ultra-oversweep" either. Well, maybe you can just explain it away that a VF-0 will probably sweep the wings in fighter mode a lot more often than going from fighter to battroid, thus only the "normal" sweep area would show noticeable wear. Currently working on my Blue Angels Hornet. Nothing like a gloss finish to make you get all the seams and stuff SMOOTH. And no belly tanks and weapons to help hide anything!!! (Ironically, I seem to have gotten the gear doors quite glossy, better than I can get on a model car! )

While you're at it, details on how you glue in gear-doors nicely would be appreciated. (and how you ensure straight strut and wheel attachment).

Engines have the largest radar signature of anything. Why do you think F-18E's have baffles in the intake? It cuts thrust, probably makes them run hotter, and reduces their acceleration. But it's considered worth it, since it hides the engines a bit from radar. Nothing returns a radar wave like a spinning blade. 777's have probably the largest radar signature of any aircraft due to their engine blades (especially the new RR engines). A massive amount of the F-117's engineering went into making the engines "invisible". A stopped engine will still give off a large radar reflection, but smaller than a running engine.

Wow, love the rivet details on the v.stab, and the rub-strip ahead of the rudder itself. BTW, with all these close-ups, I realized that's not the Jolly Rogers skull (nor bones). It's *a* "skull 'n bones" but not Jolly Rogers style. Just a trivia note. PS--love stencil data? Build a JASDF F-4EJ or F-15J. I have a 6x8 inch decal that is JUST the stencils for an F-4EJ. About 120 decals I think.

Sir Lister of Smeg. Six!

Started gluing and painting. 1. Fuselage sides. Glue to fuselage lower half first, ensuring the "center" area of the sides are firmly and flushly attached to the lower fuselage in the wheel well area (especially the 'triangle' part--it won't want to stay at all if you do the front or rear sections first) . You can glue the front and rear later. You'll need to fill the front and rear seams anyways, but the gear well is impossible to fix if you mess it up. (And if it's off, you'll have lopsided gear and an obvious gap in the well) 2. LEX "fillers". No idea why they're there, the whole LEX should be one smooth piece. There's no panel line there that I've ever seen, even when I'm at an airshow taking pics of the LEX undersides. Anyways--pieces are too wide, and SLIGHTLY too long. Sand until they fit, glue, then just coat the whole area with Mr Surfacer. Might as well fill the boarding ladder's door while you're at it, it's scribed deeper and wider than the flaps. (It's not INVISIBLE when retracted, but it's more flush and tight than most panels are since it's in an aerodynamically critical area) 3. "aft of the canopy" piece. Too high, doesn't match the rest of the spine. The "correct" approach (to get a 1:1 scale profile) would be to build up and fill the entire spine aft of that piece, from antenna to airbrake. The much easier solution is to sand down the area just ahead of the dorsal antenna. Will still "curve" a little, but looks far better than the step the piece prevents. (It's also slightly too wide, but you can sand it down so perfect you don't even need to fill the seams, they're nice and thin, and there's obvious panel lines there in real life) 4. That's all I have so far, except for the "area aft of the seat" piece is a LITTLE too narrow, and paint will just love to wick its way in the tiny gap while you're painting around there. Do the grey cockpit interior first, then the black sills.