Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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

Posted

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.

Posted

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.)

Posted

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?

Posted

Imagine how hot the F-35 will be once they put that in.

Posted

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.

Posted

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...

Posted (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 by Nied
Posted

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!". ?

Posted

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*

Posted

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?

Posted

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:

61740d1283295900-untitled.jpg

Posted
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.
Posted

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

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

Are the engines going to stay exposed like that?

Posted

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).

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...