jorawar_b Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 this is cool never seen this before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 That's because it doesn't exist. Photoshopped proposal. (And it also shows well why no matter how awesome a camoflage scheme you may have---if you don't paint the missiles and drop tanks too, it's kinda pointless----which is why pale grey is still #1) Plus you can't paint an F-16's nose like that. You could eventually mold it in all brown or all tan, but an actual "pattern" is impossible with current materials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghadrack Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I am sure you have talked about it elsewhere, but why is it impossible to paint the nose like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.V. Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Due to the (non-)metallic elements in the applied paints the reception and transmission performance of the radar might degrade. The various paint coatings could lead to interference in certain frequency bands of the radarwaves, leading to blind spots or false returns in a worst case scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechTech Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Radomes (the plastic covers over radars) don't work as well when painted with some paints. When painted like that, the signal scatters or is received with impaired fidelity. Special paint and/or patterns are often used. It took me a while to learn that one. - MT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Q Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Digital camo seems like it would be difficult to pull off on a kit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promethuem5 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 It's almost completely un-doable on anything smaller than 1/48 if you favor your sanity... a digi-camo finish is doable, but something as complex and with such a fine grain as that is almost impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdf-1 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 It's almost completely un-doable on anything smaller than 1/48 if you favor your sanity... a digi-camo finish is doable, but something as complex and with such a fine grain as that is almost impossible. Unless you make custom decals for the pattern? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowie165 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I liked this other new scheme from DARPA. I heard they were trying to sell a few to Santa to escort the sleigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promethuem5 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Unless you make custom decals for the pattern? That's true, but unless you've got real high-quality decals, and are sharp with using decal setting solutions, it'd be tough to pull that off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I liked this other new scheme from DARPA. I heard they were trying to sell a few to Santa to escort the sleigh. LOL oww my eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechTech Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 That's just wrong - MT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Digital camouflaged F/A-18C: VMFA-314 The camouflage is definitely doable, but it must be a pain in the rear to maintain, especially with parts being removed / cannibalized / etc. It looks great though, but it's not a normal scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 I liked this other new scheme from DARPA. I heard they were trying to sell a few to Santa to escort the sleigh. I think that was in the proposal to make the military less threatening and more family friendly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 It's difficult, but the VMFA-314 is doable: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....c=91272&hl= Most of the links don't work now, but there's a few good ones left. And he did it in 1/72! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promethuem5 Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Yeah, that scheme is doable.... HWR actually did an Armored Core model with it. My point was that the original image jarowar posted is nearly impossible to do bc/ of the much smaller 'pixels' of the camo... it'd be like trying to paint 1/35 modern US figures in the digi-camo BDUs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orguss01 Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Speaking of patterns , is this a pattern or just weathering???F15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promethuem5 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I'm inclined to assume it's just weathering and slightly different finishes on a fighter with lots of parts swapping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Speaking of patterns , is this a pattern or just weathering???F15 I think it's due to weathering plus the aircraft being recently wet (washdown, rain, etc). I'm leaning heavily towards this pic showing an old display Eagle. It's an F-15A, and I don't think the US is flying those models anymore. The surrounding ground of the jet is anything friendly towards active combat aircraft. The flightline is cracked with debris all over the place, begging a powerful engined aircraft to suck up FOD (rocks, etc) and take out the engines. That fence towards the nose also doesn't belong anywhere inside an active flightline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 (edited) I think it's due to weathering plus the aircraft being recently wet (washdown, rain, etc). I'm leaning heavily towards this pic showing an old display Eagle. It's an F-15A, and I don't think the US is flying those models anymore. The surrounding ground of the jet is anything friendly towards active combat aircraft. The flightline is cracked with debris all over the place, begging a powerful engined aircraft to suck up FOD (rocks, etc) and take out the engines. That fence towards the nose also doesn't belong anywhere inside an active flightline. If you'll look closely, you'll see that it doesn't even have engines, note the lack of exhausts. ::EDIT:: And if I'm not mistaken, the wing next to it is of an F-4 Phantom. Another golden oldie. Edited December 11, 2007 by Dante74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Both lovely aircraft eaither way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.