David Hingtgen Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 I thought at least one of the other kits was a reboxed Dragon---either Revell or Tamiya.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 IIRC, the Tamiya and the Dragon is the same? The Italeri and the Testors are the same. AFAIK, the Italeri has the closest overall shape so I settled for that.
raptormesh Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 In any case thanks for the input guys, I'll try and see if I can find time to build it. Think it's at least 8 years old.
David Hingtgen Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 Testors/Italeri is by far the best. If you want to accurize it, the best thing (and not TOO hard) is to look at the intakes from directly below. The lip isn't angled quite right. Sand away to the right angle, smooth out the edges, and there you go. PS---make it the first, all-gunship grey version. It is molded with PW engines and nacelles.
Uxi Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 I wanna get 2 x 1/72 YF-23's... one to do gunship grey. The other to do in an F-22-style metallic low-viz as if it was a production F-23A
David Hingtgen Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 IMHO, the production F-23A should have had GE engines. (yes, the USAF picked both the wrong design, and the wrong engine)
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 I always thought that Gunship Grey is the best and most fitting colour for the YF-23. I painted my Italeri 1/72 that way, it was a no-contest decision. I am still hoping fop Yamato to release a YF-21 in Gunship Grey and without the stripes.
Nied Posted August 20, 2010 Author Posted August 20, 2010 I wanna get 2 x 1/72 YF-23's... one to do gunship grey. The other to do in an F-22-style metallic low-viz as if it was a production F-23A Modifying a YF-23 model into an F-23A based on the drawings on the previous page might make for an interesting project. Though I imagine you'd have to do a lot of sanding on the engine nacelles to get them to the right size. It might be easier to chop that section off and re-build it from scratch.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 Modifying a YF-23 model into an F-23A based on the drawings on the previous page might make for an interesting project. Though I imagine you'd have to do a lot of sanding on the engine nacelles to get them to the right size. It might be easier to chop that section off and re-build it from scratch. As least for the Italeri kit, I don't think the plastic is thick enough for you to sand away the nacelles. You are going to sand thru it (although I am not sure just how much slimmer the theoretical F-23A would have been.)
Uxi Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 I'm not that good at modeling. I'm mostly talking about just a paint job and low-viz squadron markings (probably using F-22 kit/stickers). Kinda like this guy: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?page=9
VT 1010 Posted August 22, 2010 Posted August 22, 2010 Speaking of the YF-23, I recently visited Wright-Patterson and noticed something unusual on the '23 there. It is my understanding that this is PAV-1, yet on the nose gear door it said "Gray Ghost." Was it a second nickname for both or did they use PAV-2's door?
Nied Posted August 23, 2010 Author Posted August 23, 2010 'Even when loaded internally with two 2,000lb GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Griffith says the sheer power of the Pratt & Whitney F135 is evident. “The engine has a lot of thrust. It’s been fun to outrun the F-16 (chase aircraft). They can’t keep up. If we go to full military power the F-16 has to go to afterburner to keep up.”'
David Hingtgen Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 F136 supposed to get 20% over that, though.
Nied Posted August 23, 2010 Author Posted August 23, 2010 Imagine how hot the F-35 will be once they put that in.
Shadow Posted August 26, 2010 Posted August 26, 2010 The F136 is meant solely for the STOVL B model correct? Would that include both the USMC and British versions? Silly question, I know.
Nied Posted August 26, 2010 Author Posted August 26, 2010 The F136 is meant solely for the STOVL B model correct? Would that include both the USMC and British versions? Silly question, I know. No the F-136 is meant to be installed in all F-35 versions, A, B, and C. Although the higher thrust would be particularly useful for STOVL operations, which is part of why the UK is so interested in keeping the F136 alive seeing as the F-35B is the sole fixed wing component of their carrier air wing.
Nied Posted August 27, 2010 Author Posted August 27, 2010 Aint competition grand? Pratt says they topped 50,000 lbs on the F135. For reference at half fuel 50,000lbs would give an F-35A the thrust to weight ratio of a clean F-15C.
David Hingtgen Posted August 27, 2010 Posted August 27, 2010 So why can't the thing hover very well yet? I think this "more power" PR war is covering up a "trying to hide how fat it is" campaign...
Shadow Posted August 27, 2010 Posted August 27, 2010 Hmm, imagine being able to fit the F135 engines into a Raptor instead of the 119s. Be quite a boast to its power to weight.
Nied Posted August 27, 2010 Author Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) So why can't the thing hover very well yet? I think this "more power" PR war is covering up a "trying to hide how fat it is" campaign... This is the first I've heard about any problems in a hover. The only thing that comes close are the fact that LM has been very deliberate in it's STOVL tests (working in stages to test each phase of the transition from wing-borne to jet-borne flight) and low mission capable rates because of the higher complexity of the B model. In fact the last news on the STOVL tests had them making four vertical landings in the course of a week at the beginning of the month. Edited August 27, 2010 by Nied
Vifam7 Posted August 27, 2010 Posted August 27, 2010 So why can't the thing hover very well yet? I think this "more power" PR war is covering up a "trying to hide how fat it is" campaign... You mean the weight gain by the F-35? If that's the case then couldn't PW later also say something like "We expected some weight gain on the F-35 and our engine was designed to be ready for it. The GE engine doesn't have enough thrust!". ?
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted August 30, 2010 Posted August 30, 2010 Hmm, imagine being able to fit the F135 engines into a Raptor instead of the 119s. Be quite a boast to its power to weight. Well, you lose supercruise ability if you do that.
Knight26 Posted August 30, 2010 Posted August 30, 2010 Wow, there's something you don't see everyday, a B-2 and a 787 in the pattern around Edwards, very cool to see. *Cue DH's head exploding*
Chewie Posted August 31, 2010 Posted August 31, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/video/dallascbs11-15750646/fighter-jet-for-sale-21658755#video=21658755 Someone buy this for me.
Beltane70 Posted August 31, 2010 Posted August 31, 2010 That would be so cool to own. How cool would it be to say, "Hey, check out the SAAB I just bought?", then see the looks on people's faces when they see the plane?
David Hingtgen Posted August 31, 2010 Posted August 31, 2010 You don't see airliners grouped like this (except at Victorville) very often, so it's noteworthy---here's pretty much the entire Mexicana fleet:
Nied Posted September 1, 2010 Author Posted September 1, 2010 Some background for David's pic. And yeah pictures like that are exceedingly rare. The last time I can remember seeing anything like this was during the post 9/11 airline groundings, and those weren't all one carrier.
Graham Posted September 9, 2010 Posted September 9, 2010 Just came across this video of the Typhoon from the recent Farnborough airshow. Loaded with I think: 4 x GBU bombs. 6 x A2A missiles. 3 x Fuel tanks And still amazing manoeuvrability. Graham
David Hingtgen Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 Nice PAK-FA pic: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1775641/L/
electric indigo Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 What's all the red pattern printed on the surface?
Bowen Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 I think those lines mark the panel lines. Don't know why though...
David Hingtgen Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 That's a very complicated no-step pattern. See all the little red x's? Don't step there, or in the regions bordered by the red lines.
VF-19 Posted September 10, 2010 Posted September 10, 2010 That's a very complicated no-step pattern. See all the little red x's? Don't step there, or in the regions bordered by the red lines. Does this mean the techs have to be hoisted from above just to work on the plane? Pretty much 90% of the upper surface is a no go area... Nice camo job though.
Uxi Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 Are the engines going to stay exposed like that?
VF-19 Posted September 11, 2010 Posted September 11, 2010 Are the engines going to stay exposed like that? Given how other fighters in the Russian airforce looks, I'd say probably. I don't think it's too big a deal from a low observation design, as it's on the top of the plane, and thus shielded from view by simple geometry (from a ground radar point of view).
Recommended Posts