David Hingtgen Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Our first Aggressor blue F-15 is painted, and it's a D model: http://www.f-16.net/modules/PNphpBB2/files...ueeagle_831.jpg
ghostryder Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Our first Aggressor blue F-15 is painted, and it's a D model:http://www.f-16.net/modules/PNphpBB2/files...ueeagle_831.jpg 370990[/snapback] Haven't seen that... is that supposed to simulate opponents flying Su-30 variants?
David Hingtgen Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Basically, but the scheme is nothing compared to the F-14 and F-18 schemes. Those use false edges, silhouettes painted on the wings and tail, fake details and everything to try to make it look like another plane from a distance. The Hornets have the entire back end painted sky blue because a MiG-29's rear fuselage is so much shorter. They have fake angled intakes and slots painted on for that Fulcrum look. The F-14's even have the distinctive Flanker fin leading edge antenna painted on, and use a combination of sky blue and black paint to visually re-shape the tail fins. And at any distance it really does look like a set of Flanker tail fins. Must be a Navy vs Air Force thing--the Navy does a LOT better with simulating other planes. If you've ever played Ace Combat and noticed how the F-15 schemes in the games often have "false edges" painted on the wings and stabs that really mess up the plane's outline, it's that sort of effect. Only they specifically try to get a Flanker or Fulcrum effect. (The F-4 prototype was also painted with false edges to disguise the true shape)
David Hingtgen Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 Yes, but I've never seen that one. Usually they're desert camo with sky blue. The grey really doesn't "blend in" with the blue sky. If you ever find a photo of a desert/blue one against a blue sky, the effect is really good. Or I guess this one against a rainy, cloudy sky.
Skull Leader Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 I keep hearing rumors that the Fighting Omars are going VFA, but I've never seen any proof... David, you know anything?
David Hingtgen Posted February 19, 2006 Posted February 19, 2006 Haven't heard a thing. Anyways----pictures of the Black Knight's Super Hornets are hard to find, ESPECIALLY the CAG. So here's a really nice pic that makes great wallpaper of their new CAG: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003871/L/
Skull Leader Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) Pulled these two from Airliners.net some time ago... about the only other CAG shots I have at the moment. They're one of the F/A-18F squadrons using pre-lot 26 jets (with the original WSO pit in them instead of the ACS pit) Edited February 21, 2006 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 Yup, those are the two I have. Strangely, I can NOT get them to show up now! I've searched for that photographer, that serial, "NG 100", VFA-154, and every other way I can but A.net just doesn't seem to have them any more. Either way--that is the least-photographed Shornet out there.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Posted February 24, 2006 Forces of VAlor has a new 1/72 F-14A tomcat coming out that does not look panel lined to death. its a VF-154 black knights bird, and I hear its a new mold. Anyone else see this thing or have more info?
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 No idea, but I'm waiting to see what the Witty F-14 will be like. Their Super Hornet blows away all the others (because it's a perfect copy of the Hasegawa kit). If they copy the Hasegawa F-14's they'll beat most kits! First release is rumored to be Black Knights final CAG F-14D. Being a D model we'll know in an instant how well they researched the F-14.
Gaijin Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 Raptors in JSDF someday? http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,8...C=airforce-a.nl
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 That's been the news. I'm all for it. The more they buy, the more we can buy. Also, Japan is about the most trust-worthy country we could sell it to AFAIK. The vast majority of (and I think all of the "big") US military secrets are sold BY AMERICANS to foreign countries for the price of a new car. China's the last place Japan would give military secrets to.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Posted February 24, 2006 Best pic I could find http://www.diecastdirect.com/asp_modules/a...uctCode=FV85037 This is the FOV one....WAY better than the first one! And its an actual F-14A too!
Skull Leader Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) Best pic I could findhttp://www.diecastdirect.com/asp_modules/a...uctCode=FV85037 This is the FOV one....WAY better than the first one! And its an actual F-14A too! 373325[/snapback] Looks like it's an exact replica of the Hasegawa kit... right down to the huge friggin seam right behind the canopy. Yes it is an F-14A, but they still managed to malf things up. It's got the early F-14A gungrills on it (which by the time they squatting Otis was on the tail in 2000, they'd been using NACA ducts for almost 10 years... Not TOO bad on the paintscheme, but I would've made the glove-sealing plates a less obvious shade of green... nothing 5 minutes and a paintbrush can't cure though. Also, I'm fairly certain the aircraft didn't have black piping on the outer edges of the wings and h-stabs. I'll look through my pics to check that out though. [Edit: Ok, checked my photos, it DOES have the black piping... that's good!] Edited February 24, 2006 by Skull Leader
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Posted February 24, 2006 Best pic I could findhttp://www.diecastdirect.com/asp_modules/a...uctCode=FV85037 This is the FOV one....WAY better than the first one! And its an actual F-14A too! 373325[/snapback] Looks like it's an exact replica of the Hasegawa kit... right down to the huge friggin seam right behind the canopy. Yes it is an F-14A, but they still managed to malf things up. It's got the early F-14A gungrills on it (which by the time they squatting Otis was on the tail in 2000, they'd been using NACA ducts for almost 10 years... Not TOO bad on the paintscheme, but I would've made the glove-sealing plates a less obvious shade of green... nothing 5 minutes and a paintbrush can't cure though. Also, I'm fairly certain the aircraft didn't have black piping on the outer edges of the wings and h-stabs. I'll look through my pics to check that out though. [Edit: Ok, checked my photos, it DOES have the black piping... that's good!] 373327[/snapback] I find it amazing that Forces of Valor is making a more accurate tomcat than Dragon. Dragon is slipping hardcore!
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 Dragon is just F-ing stupid in many ways. See their Super Hornet--which has HARM launchers carrying AMRAAMs, which can't carry Dragon's own HARM!!!! It's incompatible with their own weapons. And their CVER rack on the Super Hornet has lugs to mount 500lb bombs--but Dragon doesn't have any that fit because all of theirs are permanently mounted to F-16 racks! Yaargh! And then we could talk all day about the mold itself... Anyways---well, VF-154 did have among the most unique Tomcats at the end, being the last operator of the A model along with VF-211. So there's bound to be things off. Skull Leader--I've never liked the SD Knight version, and so have almost no pics of it. I never knew it had black tips---that's VERY rare on a Tomcat, only early VF-124 and 32 had painted tips AFAIK. Any good pics showing the black tips? My Witty Super Hornet should be here next week, will post a bit about it. I'll be very interested to see pics of the actual retail version of the FoV Tomcat, as well as Witty's. FoV listed for end of Feb, while Witty's is listed for March. Either way I think they'll both blow away Dragon. Revell is still #1 for accuracy so far, but it's got too many seams and screws, which is unacceptable nowadays. (And they've still only made 1 scheme for each type) PS--Witty's Super Hornet is a Hasegawa copy, and if their F-14 is too, it'll be VERY interesting to compare to FoV's Hasegawa copy.
Skull Leader Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) Not SUPER easy to see, Dave, but you can tell the wingtips and H-stab tips are black. Also checked the paint instructions on the "Black Knights History" kit I have, and they also say it's accurate. Odd, but I guess WoV got this one right! It's also worth noting that on their last tomcat cruise, VF-154 was flying some of the oldest Tomcat airframes ever produced and still managed a busier and more effective combat record than a lot of the super tomcat squadrons participating on OIF/OEF. They DID lose one jet to an engine failiure, but I believe that was due to an ingestion of some sort, not sure. Edited February 24, 2006 by Skull Leader
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2006 Author Posted February 24, 2006 Dragon is just F-ing stupid in many ways. See their Super Hornet--which has HARM launchers carrying AMRAAMs, which can't carry Dragon's own HARM!!!! It's incompatible with their own weapons. And their CVER rack on the Super Hornet has lugs to mount 500lb bombs--but Dragon doesn't have any that fit because all of theirs are permanently mounted to F-16 racks! Yaargh! And then we could talk all day about the mold itself...Anyways---well, VF-154 did have among the most unique Tomcats at the end, being the last operator of the A model along with VF-211. So there's bound to be things off. Skull Leader--I've never liked the SD Knight version, and so have almost no pics of it. I never knew it had black tips---that's VERY rare on a Tomcat, only early VF-124 and 32 had painted tips AFAIK. Any good pics showing the black tips? My Witty Super Hornet should be here next week, will post a bit about it. I'll be very interested to see pics of the actual retail version of the FoV Tomcat, as well as Witty's. FoV listed for end of Feb, while Witty's is listed for March. Either way I think they'll both blow away Dragon. Revell is still #1 for accuracy so far, but it's got too many seams and screws, which is unacceptable nowadays. (And they've still only made 1 scheme for each type) PS--Witty's Super Hornet is a Hasegawa copy, and if their F-14 is too, it'll be VERY interesting to compare to FoV's Hasegawa copy. 373348[/snapback] I guess the thing that dazzles me most is how much of an improvement the 2006 FOV version is over the previous one. It truly blows it away in sculpt. I wouldn't mind retractable gear, I really want something I can play with rather than just stare at. I have relegated my dragons to display since I feel they are not made to be played with, I had a misconception that since they were diecast, they could be played with, like the old Force One toys, I was WRONG! Definitely feels like a model just made out of metal. So I hope the FOV version is durable, also I think it may be sold in target, target has their tanks and warbirds for a good price, and although they do not have as much weathering as the hobby editions, etailers and fans alike say the mass market ones actually look better(the weathered ones were grotesquely overdone). I also heard FOV will be putting out a VF-41 F-14A. I hope they do a VF-1 Wolfpack version as well.
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) Part of the reason VF-154 had such good results was that being the last F-14A squadron in combat, they had access and permission to use every last F-14A spare part in the inventory on that cruise! Nothing like having spare parts for a hundred planes to keep 10 flying... They didn't repair or test a thing--if something didn't work they replaced it. Plenty of spares, and no point to fix anything when the planes will be leaving in a few months anyways. Kind of the opposite of what the B-1B squadrons are having to do. They're scrapping young, perfect condition planes just to get parts for the others. The B-1B order apparently had NO spare parts and NO attrition planes. They've had godawful serviceability/readiness/availability rates since day one, purely do to lack of spare parts. It's practically "Iranian F-14" level---stuff is designed to wear out and be replaced every X number of hours---and the B-1B's just simply don't have them. Edited February 24, 2006 by David Hingtgen
Apollo Leader Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 Part of the reason VF-154 had such good results was that being the last F-14A squadron in combat, they had access and permission to use every last F-14A spare part in the inventory on that cruise! Nothing like having spare parts for a hundred planes to keep 10 flying... They didn't repair or test a thing--if something didn't work they replaced it. Plenty of spares, and no point to fix anything when the planes will be leaving in a few months anyways. Kind of the opposite of what the B-1B squadrons are having to do. They're scrapping young, perfect condition planes just to get parts for the others. The B-1B order apparently had NO spare parts and NO attrition planes. They've had godawful serviceability/readiness/availability rates since day one, purely do to lack of spare parts. It's practically "Iranian F-14" level---stuff is designed to wear out and be replaced every X number of hours---and the B-1B's just simply don't have them. 373363[/snapback] I've heard some people whine about the military getting enough spare parts and replacements to cover it's aircraft, tanks, equipment, etc. for several decades or more, but what's going on with the B-1B shows why you need to have plenty of spare and replacement parts on hand especially when said piece of equipment will have to be used for several decades or more. If the car manufacturers were forced to make few replacement parts for the vehicles they manufacture, there would be nothing but broken down vehicles all over the place!
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 Well I'm currently engaged in a debate on another forum about the Witty Super Hornet's weapons. The AIM-120C and AIM-9X on it are gloss white. His current argument is "well MOST are grey but there's some white ones so they're still accurate". Well I'd be very interested if anyone has a pic of a real (not a mockup or prototype) AIM-9X or AIM-120C that's white. Even an AIM-7 would do, just so long as it's a recent air-to-air missile, and preferably on a Super Hornet. PS--anyone know the color of the very first testing AIM-120's? On the F-14? I know the pic is SOMEWHERE but it'd take forever for me to go through every Tomcat pic I know of. Same question for the AIM-9M--I know 9J's were white early on, is the M new enough to have always been grey?
Skull Leader Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) I have pics of the tomcat that TESTED the AMRAAM, but no pictures of it carrying one. (as an interesting sidenote, the plane that did the AIM-120 testing was the 80th and final Ali-Cat airframe that Iran did not receive. Since so much was removed from the aircraft for delivery to Iran, it was deemed perfect for test service. The test missiles were likely in white, but I doubt seriously that there has been a service AMRAMM that was anything but light grey of some shade or another. Same with the 9mikes and 9xrays... test missiles were probably white, but I don't think any went to the fleet like that. You might find the occasional 9lima or Sparrow that is still white floating around the fleet, but most of those have been fired off or dismantled already. (my friend who served on the Kitty Hawk through 2001 said that Black Knights Tomcats, Royal Maces AND Golden Dragons legacy hornets occasionally wore a white sparrow, and more often than not, they didn't come back with them. He saw a white sidewinder one time, but he can't remember who's jet it was on. Roughly 1/4 of the Phoenix missiles 154 was jumping off the boat with were still white. (as another sidenote, I have the opportunity to snag one of the AMRAAM pylons for our museum tomcat... there were only 4 made, I'm hoping we get one!) Edited February 25, 2006 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 You darn well better take a thousand photos of it if you do! Every 9X I've seen is grey, even the earliest mock-ups and prototypes seen 5+ years ago.
Skull Leader Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 You darn well better take a thousand photos of it if you do! Every 9X I've seen is grey, even the earliest mock-ups and prototypes seen 5+ years ago. 373529[/snapback] Got it... 1000 photos if we get one (hope your inbox is big...)
David Hingtgen Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 Will you be able to get an AMRAAM for it? Man, it'd be fun to stand around and watch "guys who know planes" argue about an AMRAAM on a Tomcat at a museum... (The vast majority of people "who know planes" that you find at museums and air shows know less than a well-read 10 year old)
buddhafabio Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 usa to day from last friday sad f-14 last combat mission was on the 8th of feb.
Skull Leader Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) Will you be able to get an AMRAAM for it? Man, it'd be fun to stand around and watch "guys who know planes" argue about an AMRAAM on a Tomcat at a museum...(The vast majority of people "who know planes" that you find at museums and air shows know less than a well-read 10 year old) 373567[/snapback] Even if we couldn't get a AIM-120 (and I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't be able to get one), the local model-rocketry club in Tulsa could probably fashion a replica for us. They built (and flew) our AIM-54C replica (now bolted improperly to station 8B) Here's what we're planning to get for our jet (if our budget will allow us to ship it out) -2 LAU-138 BOL sidewinder rails (NAS Oceana and Pax River evidently have a surplus of these, getting a pair is almost guaranteed) -2 LAU-92 (I think that's the number?) Phoenix rails with fairings for under the jet -2 Bomb-rack adapters for said rails. The actual bomb-shackles are evidently still in use with hornets, so they're not getting rid of those -1 Phoenix missile pylon for Station 1B -1 AMRAAM pylon for station 8B OR 1 LANTIRN rail (if we can't get the AIM-120 adapter). The 4 AMRAAM adapters are still sitting out at "Pointless" Mugu. We could evidently get a TARPS pod if we wanted one however, our Tomcat is not a TARPS jet, and I have no inclination to drain the Museum's resources on something THAT big if we're not gonna stick it on the jet, lol. No idea about droptanks though. Edited February 25, 2006 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 Hmmn. Being that there's so little known about the F-14 AMRAAM rail, could you put Sidewinders on them? All other AMRAAM rails are backwards compatible. Surely you can get dummy CATM Sidewinders or something. PS--I'd put a Sparrow at the rear of the tunnel. Perfectly fine with 2 forward Phoenix pallets, and looks much cooler than a TARPS. PPS--I personally would ignore the bomb racks on the Phoenix pallets. If you can't put bombs on them, leave them 'clean' as if they were in a Phoenix carrying configurations.
Skull Leader Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 Hmmn. Being that there's so little known about the F-14 AMRAAM rail, could you put Sidewinders on them? All other AMRAAM rails are backwards compatible. Surely you can get dummy CATM Sidewinders or something. PS--I'd put a Sparrow at the rear of the tunnel. Perfectly fine with 2 forward Phoenix pallets, and looks much cooler than a TARPS. PPS--I personally would ignore the bomb racks on the Phoenix pallets. If you can't put bombs on them, leave them 'clean' as if they were in a Phoenix carrying configurations. 373620[/snapback] Since our tomcat participated in the bombcat trials of the early 1990s with VF-101, we want to configure it as such (with bombracks). I don't know much about the Tomcat AMRAAM adapter, having never seen a picture of it myself. I would *assume* it's probably not much different than what is used on the Legacy Hornet/Super Hornet, and if it were indeed like that, one could reasonably assume that you could launch an AIM-9 from it. We'd have to talk to some of the guys out at PMTC who were part of the program to be sure.
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 I had no idea it was a Bombcat--based on what I knew of its age and history I figured it was just a "normal" F-14A. Understand the desire for bombracks now. Hmmn. Depending on exactly what's missing from the bombracks you should be able to get parts----the actual mounting lugs are utterly standard on all jets, from Marine F-4's to USAF F-22's. 14in and 30in spacing are the only options. And there's gotta be dummy Mk.82's available.
buddhafabio Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Crazy russian pilots, trying to save the us government the mony it would cost to shoot down a mig..........By attempting to fly through Chinese cave. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060228/ennew...DRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
Lindem Herz Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Crazy russian pilots, trying to save the us government the mony it would cost to shoot down a mig..........By attempting to fly through Chinese cave.http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060228/ennew...DRpBHNlYwM3NTc- 374970[/snapback] Well it has been done before... in a plane half the size and speed of a 27, of course. I don't know why, but I think the russians are crazy enough that they just might pull it off.
David Hingtgen Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Wow, I'd pay to see that. Not 840 bucks, but like 40. Also--who wants to bet there'll be fewer Flankers in the world after that day? Anyways... Got my Witty 1/72 diecast Super Hornet today. VFA-102 50th Anniversary scheme. (the one with the red tails and spine) Want pics? Go here: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/showthread.php?t=49130 or http://www.flyingmule.com/Merchant2/mercha...e=WT-WTW72008-2 (this is also where I bought it--FlyingMule is highly recommended and they always take many photos of the ACTUAL release, never samples or pre-production models) Quick general summary: It's the Hasegawa kit, in metal. Very similar to Dragon's planes in fit/finish. There's no little pieces to add like a Corgi or Dragon, it's 100% built when you get it. Most people will open the box, think it's perfect, and be very happy. But then there's me, nit-picker extraordinaire. Detailed summary: First thing that's really different is the stand. It's BIG, and black-painted metal. Really nice. Even taller than most Corgi stands. Has a pivot and swivel, so you can pose the plane at various angles. Not a whole lot of movement, maybe 25 degrees in yaw and roll. (pitch is fixed). The stand is designed so that it plugs into the afterburners from behind, the plane is unsupported from below. It works well, and it is a very stable and sturdy design. Fit/finish: Just a notch below Dragon quality-wise. They are constructed much like Dragon---few seams, no screws, just a few plastic parts like pylons and nozzles. However, quite a few of the pylons/flap hinges/missiles were not glued on straight. Some slightly, some quite obivous. Looking at it head-on made it obvious one AMRAAM was quite tilted as were both CVER's. Paint seems to chip easier than Dragon. Upper surface grey seems dark, more like 35237 than 36320. Undersides slightly dark, but close to 36375. (A lot closer than Dragon's gull-ghost-grey belly color) Red certainly a LOT closer to Insignia red than anything any other company's ever done. Too many models come in neon scarlet red, when the real thing should match an authentic US flag--almost a blood red. It's it's a US warplane with red, it'll be that shade and only that shade. Accuracy (the plane itself): It's the Hasegawa kit, rivet for rivet. Interestingly, one of the few errors on the Hase kit has been corrected--the asymmetrical positioning of the auxiliary ECS ducts. (Yes, I know that off the top of my head) The aux ECS ducts are totally new, both slightly forward of Hase's and larger. For those who know/care, the model has HIPEG style launchers on the wingtips. That's correct for almost every squadron, unlike Dragon's. Now, Witty has a thing for working canopy struts. They all use the same basic design--it's really off for their F-15, but for the Super Hornet it's not far off from the real thing. There's a sliding piston and a movable hinge, and it works quite well. I of course broke my canopy and hinge in trying to get the canopy off. It's VERY, VERY hard to fix, so don't try pulling the canopy off. Weapons: here we get to my only real issues with the model, both quality and accuracy-wise. First, everything is already glued in place. Gear, weapons, pylons, drop tanks. It is absolutlely 100% done when you buy it. Some of you will love that--no fiddling with poor-fitting weapons and gear on a Dragon or Corgi... However, that means everything is only as well attached as the factory worker felt like. I'm one of those people that finds a level shelf, gets and ruler, and squints at the model with one eye to make sure everything's lined up and even. And most of the stuff on the wings isn't. Specifically: All the pylons are canted. Now, all Super Hornet pylons should be angled, but only the outer ones are canted. In other words, like every other plane on Earth, the pylons should hang down from the wing vertically when viewed head-on. Except the outer ones, which are canted out like the tailfins. However, Witty seems to have made it so all the pylons cant outwards. They are all too consistent for them to have been merely glued that way, it seems to be a mold issue. Now, the drop tanks were all glued quite squarely onto the pylons, but since the pylons are angled, they look a bit off. Related to that, the CVER's (dual bomb racks) on the middle pylons are DEFINITELY molded at an angle. (I ripped them off a reglued them, checking the attachment points carefully). I'm not sure if that's to counteract the angled pylon (it makes sense if you assume Witty thought all pylons should be angled, and molded everything else at the opposing angle so the weapons would end up straight). Either way, it doesn't work and the CVER's are anything but level from head-on. And the CVER-to-pylon joint is a whole lot stronger than the pylon-to-wing joint. Outer pylons: Being a copy of the Hase kit, it has the same error. AMRAAM's on a HARM launcher. Normally not a big problem to fix (switch launchers or switch missiles) but Witty molded the HARM launcher to the pylon. And sort of "mixed" the actual point they meet so you really have a "pylonlauncher" and you really can't remove the HARM launcher, and even if you did grind it down, you wouldn't quite have the bottom of the pylon to put anything else on. The only solution is to find HARM's and put them on. Or just not care and leave the AMRAAM's on the HARM launchers. However, the AMRAAM's were the most "off" of all glued things--one was like half it's own width off the pylon, and angled like 30 degrees. I have currently removed mine, and I might just remove the pylons entirely--it is very common to see a Super Hornet with the outer pylons removed. (I'd prefer no pylons than a pylon with the wrong launcher and missile--but that's me being anal) Finally, all the missiles are white. AIM-120C's and AIM-9X's haven't ever been white, and every older missile was changed to grey many years ago. You'll find a FEW last AIM-7's and AIM-54's with white still, but 99% of the missiles out there are grey, and the -120C and -9X are too new to have ever been grey. Also, stripe-wise, they have impossible combinations. Blue front red rear, and yellow front, blue rear. The entire paragraph above also applies to the Hasegawa kit---Witty copied the missiles/weapons EXACTLY, from mold to placement to painting. (Hase also made the HARM/AMRAAM mistake, but Witty simplified the mold and combined all the parts for the outer pylons, which makes it very hard to fix--for the Hase you can simply use the correct parts, rather than follow the instructions) Crew: Pilot and WSO, they could be removed but there's no reason to. They fit better than Dragon's, but don't look quite as good. (Mainly the helment shape) Cockpit: No instruments at all. Just blank black plastic. Like you see on a lot of Corgi's. Not too much of a problem with pilots sitting there though, they hide the panels a lot. Detail I have to point out: They actually printed "do not paint" in itty-bitty letters on each and every antenna. Error I have to point out: if you get a magnifying glass and read the aft warning labels, they read "Danger, Ayvesting Hook" and "Iewafe of Blast". Of course, Hasegawa's decals usually have similar Engrish upon close inspection. As do most Bandai Gundams. Overall---generally about the same as Dragon's Hornet, which I still consider among the best 1/72 diecast. A few things better, a few things worse. For the average collector, they'd probably consider it among the best you can by. Anxiously awaiting their F-14, for the F-14 doesn't have many pylons or weapons to screw up. (You can't possibly try to switch Phoenix pallets and Sidewinder rails around)
David Hingtgen Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 All that and no comments? Anyways, stuff I forgot: They're AIM-120B's, not C's. Have had C's on the brain lately. Rudders are movable, and surprisingly not floppy despite the working hinges--they will almost click into place when centered. Stabs are movable like most jets. Wheels roll.
Recommended Posts