BinaryFalcon

I'm waiting, at least for a little bit. Mainly its due to the slew of general releases all within 60 days of each other, but slight apprehension about QC issues does have at least something to do with it. If I didn't already have an MP Starscream, Prime with trailer and VF-0A on preorder I'd likely have preordered the -19 as well. But it was the last to the party and I'd already spent a bit more than I really feel that I should, so the QC fears win out and I'm going to delay the purchase a couple of months, most likely.

There was some justification, at least from what I remember in the translation I saw. IIRC, it was mentioned that they only have a few minutes worth of underwater/sealed operation, and at some point I believe they showed the intakes sealing closed. It should, in theory then, be possible to run the engines with an internally carried compressed air/O2 supply. If you look at the thrust equation for gas turbine engines, most of the thrust in a turbojet engine (which is what the VF-0 series was using) comes from the weight of the fuel being burned, rather than the weight of the air. The engines are definitely what would be called "low bypass", perhaps 3 or 4:1 at most, vs a pure turbojet 1:1 (think of the original late 40s/early 50s jet engines) or the modern turbofan engines you find on airliners with a bypass ratio of 15:1 or more. Of course, they didn't get quite that in depth with the technical bits in Macross Zero, but there are enough operational hints and comments given that it's at least as plausible as any other tech shown in use on the VF-0s. So it didn't bug me at all, really. Honestly, part of what I love so much about Macross Zero is that the VF-0s in the series really aren't all that far-fetched. IMO, we're actually pretty close to being able to build and fly something like that. Granted, it wouldn't have the same mobility or combat capability of the example in the anime, but I'm nearly convinced that building a "convertible" type of aircraft like that is technically possible with little more than what we have available to us today. Honestly, the biggest complication I see in making it happen would be reliably carrying and supplying sufficient fuel internally to make it all work or provide any worthwhile amount of range. Structural strength issues during conversion could likely be overcome (or at least gotten around) by setting airspeed limits on changes between modes (much like current aircraft have flap and gear extension/retraction limits). Jet engines capable of delivering megawatts of power are currently in development, IIRC, as well as directed energy weapons small enough to be mounted on fighters (F-35). Flight computers and fly by wire systems have long since had the controllability issues worked out, and even the publicly available information about the capabilities of modern sensor packages is both amazing and a bit scary. There have been significant advances in bipedal robotic balance systems in recent years as well, so that hurdle has nearly, if not fully, been overcome at this point too. I really think that if anyone (read a gov't) cared enough to fund it and make it happen, we could have something quite similar in concept flying within the next 10 or so years.

So far as I remember, you have 2 kits and only 2 kits showing there. The snap kits are both the same kit in a different box, and the other kits are all the same kits simply repackaged with different boxes/display stands. The glue together kits are basically reissues of the original late 1970s/early 1980s X-Wing kit, which is why fit, finish and detail on them aren't all that great by current standards. IIRC, the snap kits are newer in design, but not by much, and are still pretty bad on details and accuracy. I'm also pretty sure they're a bit smaller than the glue together kits.

I'd probably do it, although I'd be more inclined to give it a full week just to be safe. It's rare that I clearcoat any model less than a week after finishing it because I like to be certain that the paint and decals have cured and are good to go before I seal everything up. But again, test it on some scrap first if you're unsure. It's the only way you can be certain.

I have both a Paasche VLS and Aztek A470. Honestly, the only one I really use when I do go for an airbrush is the A470. The Paasche is just too much of a pain to clean, IMO. That said, I also don't make heavy use of my airbrushes. I still tend to do most of my work with cans or a basic $12 Badger external mix "spray gun". I also won't put anything but water based paints through my airbrushes, and I'd never try spraying Future either (except through the external mix spray gun), but that's just me. I'd be concerned about the Future gumming it up too much, and oil based paints are far too difficult and messy to clean out of an airbrush to be worth the effort, IMO. Airbrushes are certainly nice and useful, but the results you get will depend most on your technique rather than the equipment. Excellent results can be had with common spray cans, appropriate masking and the right technique. Well, all of that and practice. For most things though, you don't need to break the bank on an airbrush, as you really only need it for a very few things. This is one of those times where I advocate getting a less expensive "starter" setup and seeing if it works for you and how much you use it, and then moving up from there if you find the need to do so.

Much of that is likely because of the time frame in which you are overcoating the previous layer. If you've ever wondered why you often see something to the effect of "additional coats should be applied within 2 hours or after 3 days", it's related to this. As paints dry they release the volatile thinners that are used to make them workable. There's a definite window in which recoating these paints, especially with different "based" paints will cause problems. Chances are if you were to paint the base coat and then wait maybe a week or 2 (or more) you could overcoat with just about anything you like without any issues. Do it within a few hours or days though, and you're likely to have trouble. IIRC, In general, you never want to put something "fast drying" over something "slow drying" unless you allow for plenty of time (I'd wait at least a week) for all the volatile materials from the "slow drying" undercoat to escape as the paint fully cures. It's the volatile chemicals in the slow drying layer pushing through the fast drying overcoat that tend to cause the cracking and wrinkles/bubbling that you get. A great example was a Saturn V model I was building many years ago. I was using Krylon for the overall paint scheme, with bits of Testors Silver thrown in for the small areas that needed it. Fortunately I discovered the problem prior to applying the paint to the model, but overlaying Krylon on the Testors silver (lacquer over oil) almost immediately caused a rather nasty wrinkling and bubbling reaction. Putting the Testors silver over the Krylon (oil over lacquer) was fine, however. When in doubt, do a test piece. Get some scrap of something (even cardboard) and lay down the paint just as you intend to on the model and see what happens. If it comes out fine on the test article, you'll probably be fine with the model as well. Or you can just go slow and wait a few weeks between each coat. Check the labels of the products you are using. Most will list a "fully cured" time. As long as you allow for that (plus a bit, just to be safe, IMO), you'll generally be fine.

Thanks for the compliments. Sorry for the delay in getting back here, things have been busy. As for what I used to line the kit, I don't exactly remember, as at the time I was exploring several options. I believe it was a Rapidograph pen. No, I take that back. Parts of it were done with the Rapidograph, but I found it was difficult to get a reliable line from it on the paint, and it tended to clog too often to be worth the hassle. The bulk of those lines were done with a simple very fine tipped permanent marker. 0.5mm, most likely. They're fairly common, inexpensive and get the job done. You may want to do some testing with one and clearcoat finishes before you go that route though, as I believe some markers will not react well to exposure to too much of the solvent used in the clearcoats. Or you could clearcoat first, then line it, which should sidestep the problem nicely. Just experiment with different combinations a bit to be sure and you should be fine. I'd still like to get my hands on another of these kits someday, as I'm not fully happy with how that one turned out. I did that one fairly quickly and didn't fully paint it, which I regret. I was also experimenting with various techniques when I built it as well, so I could definitely do it better if I had it to do again. As it is, one of these days I may take that one (or the one I have finished with cobalt blue armor) and strip it to start over from scratch. I just haven't found the time to do so yet (and may never, as it's been probably nearly 10 years since I built that one). At least it's good enough that I'm mostly happy with it, but I know I could do better.

That would explain it, since it seemed to have qualities of both plastic and cardboard. If it is the stuff I'm thinking of (I've seen it used for USPS mail bins), I'd imagine it's a real pain to work with, bond and paint. The engineering of it is great, it could just use some help in the materials and finishing departments. Lots and lots of potential there.

It is about this big: Which you can probably get a sense of from this picture if you aren't sure of the size of a Harvest Moon cow: Unfortunately, I do not currently have access to my kit or other pictures of it, so I had to dig up a couple I had sitting around. I hope it helps (or at least amuses).

Agreed. However, while I am very impressed with his ideas and engineering, I'm not particularly impressed with his choice of materials or the fit and finish of the final products. Much of it appears to be painted cardboard, and poorly painted at that. They'd be excusable as boilerplate mock-ups for figuring out how it should go together and to get a rough idea of how it will look, but as a final product being sold for hundreds of dollars they're nowhere near up to snuff. Still, I admire the attempt and engineering, as it's more effort than I'm currently willing to expend on such a project myself. But I still wouldn't pay the money he's asking for what he delivers in the finished object. If he simply masked and properly thinned his paints before application he could increase the quality of his projects significantly. Given a couple more years to refine his skills, I think he could probably turn out some top notch stuff, but for the moment, it's way overpriced for the quality. I would however probably pay $50 for a good set of plans with proper dimensions so I wouldn't have to engineer it all myself, but could still build it on my own. Ultimately though, I suspect this will get filed away with the rest of my "one day" projects that I never seen to have the time or space to undertake. I love the concepts though. Lots of creative talent at work there.

Beautiful work. I'd be hard pressed to do better myself. Looks great.

What was the other color that made up the last 10%? Or did you mean 45%, 45%, 10%? Looks good.

Depends on what Squadron putty you're using. Green is much better than white, IMO. You just have to be more careful with the green putty because you can deform the plastic if you lay down too much of it at once, I believe. Beyond that, I've had good luck with regular Bondo of all things. However, I've mostly used that on multimedia projects, such as cardboard tube, paper, styrene, metal and resin parts. It's cheap, available everywhere and it seems to work on everything. I hate the white putty though, and tend not to use it if I can avoid doing so. I've also filled significant gaps with CA glue and baking soda. That works extremely well, but it tends to be tough to sand relative to the soft plastic surrounding the gap, so you have to be careful about how you do it. But for a quick, solid, load bearing filler it's hard to beat. The main thing with any putty is to make sure you apply it to a clean, stable surface and build up layers. If you've got a large void to fill, you're much better off applying several thin layers with sanding in between each instead of trying to scoop a ton of filler into it in one shot.

The hardware we're shown also is a pretty good indicator. Most of the identifiable equipment on the UN side is US/NATO gear, and on the Anti-UN side it's Soviet hardware. Since it seems unlikely a country would go to war and then completely swap out its standing military equipment for stuff that was initially produced by "the other side", it seems reasonable to assume that the Anti-UN forces are largely composed of former communist block countries.

Had one on preorder from HLJ and just got it yesterday. My second one supposedly shipped today. I was only going to get one until I saw the SV-51 painted up in the Flanker scheme and decided to do one like that as well, so I ordered another. VF-0D is on preorder. I just wish I could actually start work on them.

Cost can be high or low, depending on what you get and how much you're willing to spend. That's the nice thing about it, really. If you're just starting out and are unsure about how much you want to get into the hobby, I'd actually advise against getting an airbrush right off the bat. You don't need one. They're nice to have, but you can do work of equal quality for less money without one. For starters, I'd suggest finding a kit you like that's not too complex or expensive. I wouldn't go dirt cheap though either, as to an extent, you get what you pay for in a kit. IMO, something like a Hasegawa or Tamiya kit might actually be easier if you're starting out, as the parts fit is overall likely to be better than your run of the mill Monogram or Revell kit. However, the Monogram/Testors/Revell stuff is generally good anyway and it's the kind of stuff I built while growing up. Avoid the snap together kits if you can, or if you do get one, plan on cutting off all the snap pins and gluing it together anyway. Typically snap kits won't go together or hold together as well. For glue, get a small bottle of liquid plastic cement. Skip on the tube type stuff. It's messy and prone to melting the model in ways you don't want if you use too much. Get a set of nail clippers for removing parts from the sprues (plastic runners) and a decent X-acto type knife. Buy the paints needed for your project, plus maybe some basics like red, blue, yellow, black, white and silver that you always keep on hand. Maybe pick up a couple of spray paints in the overall colors of your project. Get a bottle of the appropriate thinner/brush cleaner as well as a small assortment of brushes. Small, medium and "larger" usually work fine. I also prefer to get sable brushes as well. I'm not too fond of the synthetics. However, higher quality brushes are more expensive, but IMO, are well worth the small (perhaps as much as $5-$6 per brush) investment. Add a roll of painter's masking tape, assorted grit wet/dry sandpaper (240, 320, 400, 600) and some filler putty and you should be good to go. Depending on how much of each item you need, you should be able to set yourself up with a respectable set of tools and paints for $30 or so. Going as lean as possible, you could probably manage it for around $20. Add in the cost of the kit and that's where you're at, at least to start. Then, if you decide you like it, you can go from there and consider adding things like needle files, airbrushes, flush cutters, etc. They're all things that can make the job a littler easier and nicer, but are by no means absolutely required to do quality work. Keep in mind the initial costs will be slightly higher, as you'll need to get all of the basic tools up front. From there costs should go down slightly as you'll likely be able to use the same bottle of paint on multiple projects until you run out. For example, the model pictured here: http://s93008310.onlinehome.us/images/nes/discovery.jpg was done with little more than spray paint (Krylon), some careful masking and some pinstriping tape and decals. I do have an airbrush, but didn't see the need to use it on that project. Aside from the kit, I'd estimate it only cost me about $35 or so in materials to finish. However, that's a bit higher than usual because it's a 1/72 scale kit and stands about 3 feet tall. There was quite a bit of epoxy and paint used during assembly, so the price is a bit higher than you'd see for an average plastic kit.

1. Painting depends on the subassembly or part. Usually all the interior detail bits that can't be easily gotten to will be painted, the model will get assembled, and then I'll do an overall paintjob on the rest. 2. Overall color always goes before weathering, unless you're doing undershading with paint. I've found it's also useful to mix media types between base color and detail/weathering with respect to paints. For example, I've done base colors with acrylic (water based) paints and then applied small details with oil based paints. As long as the water based paint has cured properly, you can usually get away with wiping away oil based mistakes with some mineral spirits and not worry about messing up the work you've already done. 3. I think so. Provided it's the liquid based kind. A few years back I switched to a non-toxic, citrus based liquid cement as I found it bonded just as well as the nasty smelling testor's stuff, and it didn't draw complaints from those around me as soon as I opened the bottle (It smells like lemons/oranges). I do keep some "tube type" cement around as well, but it rarely gets used. It does have some uses though so it's nice to keep it on hand. 4. Testors is fine, although I rarely use it these days mostly due to the more limited color palette. The key to brush painting is getting the correct paint consistancy, keeping your strokes going in the same direction, and knowing when to stop. Do it all right and the brush strokes should disappear as the paint dries. It's a bit tricky at first, but once you get the hang of it you can get very good results. Still, if you have large areas to cover, I suggest masking and using a spray paint instead. You'll usually get better results. With proper care and masking, you can do nearly as well with a spray can as you can with an airbrush.

Generally the best way to go is to do all initial painting with flat (matte) paints and then apply a gloss coat prior to decal application. Once the decals have been applied, allowed to cure and are then wiped clean, you can apply the appropriate clear coat to give you the finish you want (gloss, semi-gloss or flat). Gloss paints should generally be avoided for initial paintwork simply because they tend to hide more detail than flat paints (gloss white is typically the worst). You definitely want a gloss finish before decaling though to make sure the decals will stick. As for finish coats, for military equipment I usually go for a flat finish. Anything else (aside from polished or shiny objects like a car), I tend toward a semi-gloss finish. Most objects in the real world tend to be some level of semi-gloss, as they're not truly shiny and yet not completely flat. I find that kind of finish tends to look the best.