David Hingtgen

General rule: stuff dries darker, and with more intense color. Example: a medium blue-ish grey, when dry, will be a darker grey, with a stronger hint of blue in it, compared to what you see in the bottle.

I always just use car polish (paste in a a tub) for clear parts. Sure it's a bit more physical effort to hand-buff something, but no worries about it running or leaking. My Lakota's warp nacelles are foot-long hand-polished clear parts. Took hours, but they're friggin gorgeous. Most people believe they are actually clear crystal-acrylic sapphire-blue parts, not painted and polished like that from normal clear plastic. "Mother's California Gold" I think is the specific brand used, got it at Autozone.

I'd start with FS 35237. Medium dark blue-grey.

Cool, I can use that new light-up Akira to go with the Ent-E for a First Contact diorama.

Airbrushing is affected by the barometer, time of day, wind speed, wind direction, time until the vernal equinox, and various planetary alignments. In other words, mixing it up drop-by-drop identical to a batch you did yesterday, or even an hour before, will not guarantee success. Always, always test out a newly-mixed batch on scrap plastic. Also, overthinning is 100x more common than underthinning. Add as little as possible, and see if you can get it to spray by adjusting the air/paint flow. Then if you can't, add more thinner. I usually put like 80% of the thinner I think, then add more *if* necessary. Finally, distance from what you're spraying. The thing I least pay attention to, but may be something to watch for. Every inch is a BIG difference. Post-finally: did you stir everything really well? Stirred paint is thicker than paint that's sat. And did you still the thinner into the paint well? I've never said to myself "I stirred it too much", but many times it wasn't stirred enough.

::can't ignore opportunity to rant:: Or we could all go watch Pearl Harbor, with it's modern VLS-equipped missile destroyers... Not to mention that every single battleship was wrong. (They didn't make each ship individually---they CG'd a few dozen "generic US battleship parts" and put different groups of them on the same hull to represent the various ships--so they had the rough general appearance of each ship they were going for, but every single detail was wrong). And that was really stupid, as: 1. Anyone who didn't know the ships wouldn't know anyway whether the overall shape/outline was right or wrong or the gun arrangement was correct--could have just used a dozen Arizona's and they wouldn't notice. 2. Anyone who DOES know won't be fooled for a second by an "approximation". New York-class bridge+Pennsy-class tower does not equal Colorado class, even if the guns are right...

Even the worst-painted military equipment "scales out" to much finer than the finest brush-strokes. (Man, I've seen F-14's I swear were painted with rollers from Sears) Anyways--spray! I spray everything if at all possible. Little bitty parts. Wheels, tires, canopy, missiles. My basic rule is this: if it's less than one "brush stroke" wide, than it can be hand painted. Since the brush is wider than the part, you'll only need one stroke to cover the entire piece, and thus there will be no brush strokes. (Unless you've got thick paint).

Ok, I'm not painting a Yamato Millia FP but it's a perfect match to the color I do need. Anyone know a color that matches the *paint* used for on a Yamato? (The painted red parts match better than the molded red plastic) I can get Tamiya, but Testors is a lot closer. (15 vs 45 minute drive, each way). (The new Testors acrylics haveike 5 reds, hoping one is close). Or I can just mix if someone knows a formula for it. Anyone touched up the red-painted diecast parts on their Yamato Millia? (I wonder if this would get better responses in the Toys forum)

I have to get out an F-15 book for that level of info ::checks:: MFD goes along with AMRAAM (MSIP II) so yes, all US ones have apparently. (A lot of F-15A's, too, it's nigh-impossible to tell an upgraded A from an upgraded C, it's easier to tell them apart when "as built") FAST packs are about your only clue there. But since C's rarely carry them, you've got to be REALLY close to look for the attachment points when they're not equipped. Japan--yup. Basically an F-15C minus the left stab and right boom antennas. Saudi Arabia--same as Japan. (Though there were some "hasty" deliveries from old USAF planes which do have the enlarged left stab antenna, but it's empty)

I'm just a really anal nit-picker when it comes to aircraft details. (I have a heck of a reputation on several airplane modelling forums) Thunderbirds: used to have F-16A's, now have F-16C Block 42's. Quite recent, with an upgraded (but looks the same) PW engine. Latest PW's are as powerful as the early GE's. But newer GE's are still better (and better looking). F-15C: more of an "operational" thing than anything, but F-15C's will have an antenna protrusion on the end of the right rear fuselage boom. A's have none, E's have one on each boom. (The boom is that little segment just outside of the v.stabs which projects aft and to which the h.stabs attach to--you'll note the A has very pointy tips to them. On the C, the right one will have either a round or square tip, E's will have a round tip on the left and a square one on the right boom) (F-15's my fave plane, so I can rattle this stuff off easy--especially since I've built several F-15 models) Also, all F-15's will have the arrestor hook doors removed by now, and MANY C's have had the fairing itself removed. (there should be nothing projecting rearwards between the engines nowadays, the fuselage stops where the exhausts start). F-15E's were built without the fairing.

You should definitely put the YF-23 in, to compare to the YF-21. Here, a YF-23 is 67feet, 5inches long. Has a 43ft, 7 inch wingspan and is 13ft, 11inches tall.

The engine change is not guaranteed, nor is the intake. SOME C's have GE engines, and SOME of the ones with GE engines have new intakes. This is why we say things like "Small-mouth F-16C Block 30" to indicate a GE-powered one with the original small intake. The rule is: Block 25's have PW engines. (Block 25A through 25D) Block 30's have GE. (30A through 30D) Block 32 has PW Block 40 has GE Block 42 has PW Block 50 has GE Block 52 has PW (F-16A's are from Block 5 to 20, all have PW) Now, for intakes. Generally, most GE-powered F-16C's have the new bigger intake. However, those F-16C's from sub-blocks 30A and 30B do not. This includes all the F-16C's that are ex-MacDill AFB (which is a big chunk, since that was the main F-16 training base). So how to tell an F-16A from F-16C? Bigger fin base. The base of the fin extends farther forward, quite a bit. It also ALWAYS has a small blade antenna on it. Will post pics later when I find them. (Busy this afternoon) Quick guide: the leading edge of the fin's base only goes forward to the leading edge of the flaperons on an F-16A, while it extends forward all the way to the mid-point of the wing on an F-16C. Looking from above is the best way to "learn" what the 2 types look like. ::edit:: that link above only describes F-16C Block 50/52 vs Block 40/42, not the overall difference between an A and a C

Just a quick note FYI: The F-15 is an F-15A, though not as-built, but yet not as they are currently. 80's-ish IMHO. F-16 is an F-16A, very very early (block 5). Not in use anymore. 1979+ (but we got rid of them as fast as possible) All other F-16's have large h.stabs (F-16A block 10 and later, the vast majority of F-16A's), and F-16C/D's have the larger fin. F-18 isn't really an F-18. That's an F-18 prototype. (Though not a YF-17). Probably "F-18" demonstrator #1, possibly #2. (#3 introduced some changes). Wings/h.stabs (and I think v.stabs, though that may be a -17 to -18 difference, not 18 demo to 18 prod difference) are different on real F-18's. This could affect the scale for drawings, as the h.stabs determine the overall length of an F-18. (I'd have to really look to see exactly where the changes were, I don't know if it was leading edge, trailing edge, or both(

1. Redo the intakes, and you're talking AT LEAST 2.5, probably 2.7 to 2.8. 3 is pushing it, but possible. (Those engines are 12 years old now---the newest F120's could probably do even more) Heat is by far the main factor at 2.5+. (It's pretty much a big factor from 2.0+, but really kicks in at 2.2/2.3--you'll see few planes go much past Mach 2.2) 2. YF-23 is very large. It's actually 5 feet longer than a Tomcat. Wingspan is less than a Tomcat's unswept span of course. Only 3 feet shorter, even with the fins canted outwards like that--if they were straight up like a Tomcat's, it'd be several feet taller. Empty weight a lot less than a Tomcat, but mainly due to being newer (lightweight materials). Loaded weights are only a bit less than a Tomcat. It's a big plane (part of the reason given for losing the competition--it wouldn't fit in your standard USAF F-15-designed hangar--but the F-22 was small enough to do so, even if barely)

For shame, confusing the ultra-gorgeous F-23 ATF and the "fugly, but not as fugly as the F-32" F-35 JSF. This is the 2nd YF-23, The Grey Ghost. Fastest of all ATF's---on its first flight, it outaccelerated (in normal power) an F-16 on afterburner--and the F-16 is the fastest-accelerating plane there is. 2nd YF-23 is at least .2 to .4 Mach faster than the 1st YF-23, which are both faster than any F-22. 2nd YF-23's top speed is still classified, it's SUPERCRUISE is believed to be Mach 1.8. Max speed estimated as high as Mach 3, for it's sleek enough and powerful enough to do it, it's just the intakes couldn't handle it. So it's probably limited to 2.1 or 2.2 purely due to intake reasons.

Which kit are those the directions for? Reminds me a LOT of the 1/72 Fujumi F-14A kit (which was actually the last F-14 I built). IIRC, the Hase's have a more complex gear/wheelwell area, among other things. (I must admit, I've never built a Hasegawa F-14---F-14's in general are hard to build, so no matter how cool they look, I stay away from them in favor of F-15/16/18/Tornado)

The funny thing is, Northrop and Grumman were 2 different companies back when Macross came out. They've since merged, and have a logo. Now we just wait for PW and Rolls-Royce to make PW-Royce.

Yep, it sucked. Specific complaints: Beach Head. (Of course). It *really* reminded me of small soldiers. Not for one sec did I think it was supposed to be "real", I constantly thought "r/c tank in a sandbox driven by a Wild Bill figure". And since when was Wild Bill THAT good, in EVERY VEHICLE? He's a chopper pilot, period. Animators have obviously never ever seen a helicopter, and certainly don't know how they fly. They had a jet that could hover (and it didn't even move like a Harrier, either). Destro was like, huge with funky legs. Am I the only one who got the impression that Cobra Commander was REALLY short? (and walked funny, even more than the others) Flint was way ugly in close-ups. The good: Duke didn't suck. Baroness' voice (and outfit).

How'd I forget FF Tactics? (Especially since I'm 20 hours into FFT:Advance) That ROCKED.

Actually that's a not-so-great DC-9-10. But I had to have it because it's Ozark. There's a new DC-9-30 coming out that's just awesome, and I'll be buying LOTS of those. Anyways---they come like that out of the box. I haven't built any kits of airliners in years. And most of them are Dragon Wings. Gemini Jets, Aeroclassics, and Jet-X make up the rest. While Dragon does make many plastic model kits, they also make pre-assembled, pre-painted diecast airliners--which is what I have. So it takes about 5 secs (insert the gear into the holes), and maybe another 5 secs to put them on the stand. Two-tone chrome is VERY difficult to photograph, the official page has better ones than I can take---here's the AA 777 that I have--and they look just like this when you buy them, no assembly or painting required. http://www.dragonmodelsltd.com/html/aa777.htm

Took this pic a few months ago, it'll give you an idea (this is one of my 3 main display shelves)

I'm probably up to 165 jetliners now. (Got 4 yesterday--CO DC-10, EA 747, PA 727, F9 A319) Anyways---737 is by far my least-fave plane. But I of course have several. For the -200 (there are no -100 models, too few liveries to justify the costs of making a mold) I have Frontier final colors (the original Frontier), USAir 1989 scheme, Piedmont final white, Air Florida final, Western Indian-head, Delta widget, and am hoping somebody makes United current and old colors (lowered-stripes variant) and USAir triple-red. As for 1/72 747's-- http://www.aim72.co.uk/TW-list.htm (they also sell a kit to convert their -300 to a -400) If you want a KC-135E, best bet by far is to go for the AMT/ERTL kit. There's a LOT of 707/KC-135 differences between the families. To the point that I wrote an illustrated guide for it. ::note to self--upload newest version of 707 guide to Aerosite and Airlinebuzz :: Finally: 1/400 models can be chrome-plated. They can also have silver paint, or actual polished bare metal. My basic rule is: American Airlines: chrome Other airlines that have bare metal finishes: not-chrome (whatever it may be) AA's planes ARE that much more shiny than any other airline that polishes their planes. AA is so good at it, that as they age, they actually get more shiny, for they are better at it than Boeing. (Thus a 5-year old 777 looks better than one just delivered, for AA will have polished it themselves a few times). (MDC and Fokker polish better than Boeing) A chrome model is *much* shinier than buffed silver paint etc, like you commonly see on model planes. I'll photo some of the different types if you want. Of course, there's always my two-toned ones, which have subtle panel lines due to alternating polishing/chroming methods. All this for $25 or so. Why spend so many hours making your own 777, when you can get a pre-assembled pre-painted one for that cheap? (Yeah, 1/144 is bigger, but there's no way you'd have room for a lot of them)

Heh heh. Xenogears FF 9,6,10,7,4,5,3,1 in that order. Chrono Trigger Kingdom Hearts

1. Nope, those are 1/400 airliners. It'd take my entire life to BUILD 150 1/200 models, but I can buy 1/400 pretty quick. (Jet airliners are my true obsession--other planes rank far below) And I can't chrome-plate American Airlines planes, but some companies can. (Most anybody is impressed by a chrome-plated DC-10 model) 2. Hasegawa 1/200: well, Air Force One (A1, not AF1--trust me) has quite a few mods from your standard late-model 747-200B. I'd have to see the kit. If it's actually an E-4B kit with decals than it should be quite accurate, asides from the IR jammers. If it's a 747-200B w/GE engines, then it's pretty far off. What type of KC-135 are you looking at? I'm a veritable 707 expert, but Aztek is probably the guy you want to ask about KC-135's. 3. Light was good, and my 1/700 Iowa was in the box being dull-coated, so I took another pic: note the helipad markings, and the main guns are at maximum deflection (fore guns pointed aft, aft gun pointed forward) (background stuff is 1/350 Iowa parts)

The wings are out whenever the plane's going slow or has little energy (manuevering lingo). Takeoff, landing, approach, low-speed passes, air combat, etc. Flaps/slats are another issue. Anyways, the problem with the hase kits is that they're always out with the flaps FULLY down and slats out. THAT combo is only for landing. Not takeoff or anything else. (the flaps are only partly down for a carrier launch IIRC, with fully deployed slats--landing speed on a carrier is far more important than takeoff speed--full flaps just add drag, not lift) And it's a lot more work, since there's like 24 support struts for the extended slats... It'd be fine if the wings were locked swept, since that works for ground, high-speed flight, etc. But wings out WITH the flaps fully down? Only landing. (or maintenance, but not very often at all).