|
Post by SEAN on Feb 21, 2008 20:57:32 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 22, 2008 17:00:08 GMT 12
Some very nice work, great painting and weathering. A pity it's let down a bit by the rather 'imaginative' ordnance.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 24, 2008 9:26:24 GMT 12
I dunno Phil, I've seen that loadout, at an airshow Nice modelling though, T Bird looks very good
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 24, 2008 10:51:37 GMT 12
I dunno Phil, I've seen that loadout, at an airshow You might have seen something similar, but couldn't have seen any of these. We never had any grey MK83s like the one used for the LGB. We never had any green CATMs (although there was one CATM-9G painted that way in the joe room - note the one on the model is a L). Our AGMs are green (the Bs were originally white but were repainted in the '90s, the Gs were also repainted in the '90s - no grey AGMs on an all over green A4.). The TGMs don't have the steering fins. You can't carry 3x Mk 82s on a TER on the inboard wing stations. And this one's a wee bit picky...the arming vanes on all the M904 fuses have to be in line with the lugs. These arming vanes are secured up until the moment of release by a brass wire that is attached to the rack. It's like pulling the pin on a grenade. If they were seen like this on the ground, the whole base would probably be evacuated!
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Feb 24, 2008 13:26:11 GMT 12
Phil
I notice they they have a notice at the bottom of their photos etc "welcoming" any "critique" where they have made errors...
I wonder if you made comment on the "imaginative load out" if they would take the time to rectify it or acknowledge it.
I have come across that on another forum I'm on, especially to do with RNZAF related aircraft.
They do research to build, how well do they "research" I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 24, 2008 14:03:04 GMT 12
I've offered suggestions to him before, which he thanked me for, but hasn't made any changes.
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Feb 25, 2008 21:40:39 GMT 12
The (1/48 A4K) was made 'under commission' to demonstrate what sort of ordinance COULD be carried by a Kahu Skyhawk so the decision on the ordinance load was not entirely down to the model constructor!
|
|
|
Post by ianbw12 on Feb 26, 2008 10:11:31 GMT 12
Hi there, Thanks for the kind comments about my models. The A4-K and T-Bird were built for other people, who wanted weapon loadings which were representitive of what the Skyhawk could carry, not what it realistically carried in service. (I think the 1/32 A4 is a bit more realistic, but not very exciting The TA-4 weapons-fit was actually provided by an ex-Kahu pilot, so I'm surprised about the inbd pylon not being able to carry 3 Mk.82s. The colour of the weaponry on the A-4 is based on present-day style, not when the A4 was in RNZAF service- maybe a what-if they were still serving and active on overseas deployment, perhaps. Didn't know about the arming vanes Phil- I don't think it's picky and will incorporate on future bomb-loads. Not sure what the suggestions you made to me before were now, but I can't change the models as I no longer have them! I do welcome criticism and you guys raise a good point- I spend a lot of time researching the models themselves but the weapons-load is usually kind of a last-minute add-on... it's obviously worthy of more time. Cheers, Ian
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Feb 26, 2008 10:22:11 GMT 12
Phil, this will impress you no end, but when I was younger and slightly stupider than I am now, I built a 1/72 Matchbox Strikemaster - with AIM-9J Sidewinders on the outboard pylons! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 26, 2008 11:58:32 GMT 12
Welcome to the forum Ian, I reckon your models are excellent. I love that Lancaster, 'The Captain's Fancy', and it's great to see the actual crew members admiring it.
Alan, what is the other forum you mention that researches RNZAF aircraft?
|
|
|
Post by ianbw12 on Feb 26, 2008 14:10:35 GMT 12
Thanks Dave, glad I found it; what a great resource you've got here! I will be making a lot more use of this forum in the future.
All the best, Ian
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 27, 2008 16:42:08 GMT 12
Hello Ian, I hope I can paint mine as well when I get around to it!
There was not sufficient clearance between the gear doors and the bomb if one was carried on the inboard stations on the TER.
Having said that, I've seen photos of three, although not on RNZAF aircraft, and possibly they were Mk81 250 lbers. We never loaded three, even for fire power demos when the aircraft was loaded with as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Feb 27, 2008 17:20:47 GMT 12
Dave Sorry, I think I came across the wrong way re-reading my comments (no reflection on Ian) Some modelers do a lot of research to get it right others well.. I'm on a model forum and we get people on occasion (actually 1 person in particular) who know a little about RNZAF aircraft and tend to lead people astray (usually those from other countries|) what RNZAF aircraft have looked like now, have looked like/ theaters of service etc. When one adds comments that correct what they have said they choose to ignore it or make further spurious comments. A recent comment was that RNZAF served in SEAC (South East Asia Command) no less SBD 4/5 Dauntless I corrected that in as far as I know no RNZAF Aircraft served in SEAC, all were PTO. One poor European guy had already built his SBD 5 in a SEAC build. Needless to say was not happy when I said No Way, (more politely of course) The point is SEAC started at the end of 1943 so even 488 Sqn Buffalo's were not in it The old saying, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Hope that clarifies it for you
|
|
|
Post by ianbw12 on Feb 28, 2008 9:58:16 GMT 12
Cheers guys. Reference three bombs on the TER; I thought that bomb looked close to the gear door when I built it! I think it is pretty much impossible to ever get the perfect model unless you can obtain a complete set of all-round photos of the original (like Anthony does!) and even then, your finish is only accurate for the moment in time that the photos, etc, were taken. I've often wished for a time-machine! From my own experience with civilian aircraft and military vehicles, they are very dynamic, always changing and always individual despite agreed conventions for markings, painting, etc. As an example, I undertook what became a fair bit of research to find out what colour/finish the tubular framework inside the Hawker Typhoon cockpit had... the result was pretty inconclusive, and it could be argued either metal or grey/green, sometimes black, even in the early 40s. In the end, I went with metal for my Typhoon because I liked it better! And Alan, you're right about some even well-known sites and books getting it wrong... often a 'myth' begins: for example, the much-shown profile of Beaufighter P6-F1 seems to have been re-drawn several times over the years, yet always with the '1' the wrong size... I suspect each artist has just used the previous profile for their reference. Then again, maybe there is a photo somewhere proving the profile right! There seems to be a new 'myth' beginning on Hyperscale (I think it is an excellent site, by the way) about differences in the Mk.I and III Lancaster, which I emailed Brett about but have had no response. Anyway, must go to work! Regards, Ian
|
|
|
Post by ianbw12 on Feb 28, 2008 10:09:39 GMT 12
Oops forgot... do any of you know what the white-ish edging is around the glass of the canopy on the Skyhawk, please?
Cheers, Ian
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Feb 28, 2008 11:43:40 GMT 12
Is this what you mean? Also I have a question about the device or air conditioning? scoop:
|
|
|
Post by ianbw12 on Feb 28, 2008 19:24:11 GMT 12
No, more this thanks... Thanks, Ian
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 28, 2008 20:23:45 GMT 12
I'm pretty sure it's an RTV sealant, or possibly PRC (both messy rubbery goo to apply).
Don might know, but it was an aircraft trade job, so I'm not sure exactly.
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Feb 28, 2008 21:31:15 GMT 12
Hello Ian, I hope I can paint mine as well when I get around to it! There was not sufficient clearance between the gear doors and the bomb if one was carried on the inboard stations on the TER. Having said that, I've seen photos of three, although not on RNZAF aircraft, and possibly they were Mk81 250 lbers. We never loaded three, even for fire power demos when the aircraft was loaded with as much as possible. According to Jim Winchester's book on the A-4, the land based US Marine operators in Vietnam would hold the door up out of the way while the inboard station was loaded, then lower the door so it rested on the bomb. From the same source the US Navy did something similar from carriers, but with a 250lb bomb on the inboard station and 500lb bombs on the other two. Not exactly official procedure either apparently. Also not often photographed, if the books I have are anything to go by!
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Feb 29, 2008 0:38:45 GMT 12
Don't know if these old A4G 'drag index' with store station weight limits from NATOPS is useful for discussion?
|
|