David Hingtgen

Well, just got done from airbrushing the camo pattern on the Iowa's hull. About 98% perfect. Now, upon reflecting, I know how I might have been able to prevent 2 spots where the paint leaked under the tape, but another two just defy explanation. (and dark navy blue on pale pale grey is VERY obvious)

1. Bare hull. Masked the waterline, then sprayed primer.

2. Then sprayed a thick coat of light grey.

3. Then sprayed 2 more coats of light grey a few days later.

4. Masked over that layer at the waterline again.

5. Painted navy blue.

6. Pulled off tape, and found navy blue paint that had leaked underneath all those layers, to "swim" up along some non-existant gap in the primer, and find its way to the very first layer of light grey. WTF? The first layer of tape was SEALED under the primer, as well as multiple layers of paint. *sigh*. Will let dry for a week, and hope the light grey is thick enough that I can scrape off the navy blue, and still have some light grey beneath.

And one piece needs to be stripped down to bare plastic. (Aft funnel's forward director platform). Went pretty well overall, but I was hoping for perfect. (The Tirpitz's hull was perfect, and masked in exactly the same way with the same tape). And will have to brush-paint turret #1's demarcation line. Am considering brush-painting the camo on turrets 2 and 3 based on how #1 went.

I've got to recommend the Testors $18.44 or so set you can find at Wal-Mart. Sprays ok, and is *easy* to clean. Only one piece needs cleaning, and no disassembly to do so. If you're using acrylic, you can clean it in 30 secs in the sink.

Nope nope nope. Go to the site I listed above. Explains the whole SR-71 name. Nobody screwed up, some people just switched some things around on the final version of the speech...

Ah. Well then, here's some advice: a *lot* of painting suggestions/colors are wrong. And unless it gives a specific FS number, then it's only "the closest color we or our affiliates sell is" not "exact match" nor "the closest color anybody sells".

PS--especially since 99% of kits come from Japan, they will almost always suggest Imperial Japanese Navy etc colors---even for the USAF, Royal Navy, Star Trek, etc. Pick what you think looks right, not merely what they suggest. Very rarely are color suggestions officially approved/matched by the people who made the original.

I'm not big on *any* MiG and can't comment off the top of my head. If nobody here is a MiG-29 buff, I'll go find my WAPJ "MiG-29 variants" issue and see what I can find out.

Astrostrain, though not my fave, is by far the best triple-changer. Perfect shuttle, perfect train--and he changes color! Depending on what version, he's either a grey shuttle and purple train, or white shuttle and black train. (Blitzwing also has very good color changes, but each mode isn't quite as good--turret's too obvious as a plane, afterburners too obvious as tank)

I use primer as paint all the time. I've honestly never found much of a difference. I've painted several kits with 50% to 100% primer, and have never had a problem. Everything from Gundams to spaceships to submarines.

1/72 Super Tomcat? Not many choices.

However, if you can find one, the Fujimi 1/72 F-14A+, B, and D are excellent kits. Well worth seeking out, IMHO. (And cheaper than a Hase). (As it is, an F-14A+/B is the closest thing to Shin's, though Shin does have the distintive chin-pod of the "D")

I know there's a Revell 1/72 out there, but don't know much about it.

PS--never buy a kit that's the prototype F-14D (white and red)---they are usually quite accurate *for the prototype* which means quite wrong for all other D's.

Here, maybe you'll find something I didn't:

http://members.rogers.com/ww1aircraftdrawings/

Some 1,000 profiles of 1911-1919 aircraft. 500 from Germany alone. I went through a LOT of stuff and didn't find it. But if you really want to, go look through EVERY plane. If it's not in there, it doesn't exist.

Also, the Arado above is from the same era as the Ju-87. I doubt you'll find an inverted gull wing 15+ years earlier. (And that is BARELY a gull wing---Harlock's is the most gulled wing I've ever seen, more than the Corsairs). BTW, Arado was the prime maker of German floatplanes--they were about the only biplanes of that era (Fairey Swordfish is the other) because biplanes are better when you need absolute minimum takeoff speed. Harlock's not flying a 30's ocean-going biplane.

I'll add another comment to why I think it's fake: No point to the gulling. The reason planes have inverted gull wings are for prop clearance. That simple. Ju-87's and F4U have BIG props. The F4U's is the biggest of any fighter ever. But to gain ground clearance, it'd need huge heavy landing gear. But if you just bend the wing down at the gear attachment point, you can use simply, lighter, shorter gear. That's the reason. Not aerodynamics or anything. But Harlock's plane--well the gulling sure doesn't affect its gear! And the prop's not big enough to need it.

No, because 1/48 would be huge (you think you have problems displaying a VF-1? Try a plane 50% bigger) and there'd be VERY limited appeal. Valks appeal to even the most "casual" Macross fans, while far fewer people have seen M0 (be honest, even Robotechies buy Yamato VF-1's) and would want a non-transforming valk. It's not a bad guy for the VF's to fight, and it doesn't "do" anything like transform or fire off 36-missile clusters.

You could always just watch the show and see what colors they're supposed to be. It's not like an F-15 kit, where there's a "real" one to match paint to---just match the animation.

A is attack. Go figure for the A-12. (Hey, *F*-117.).

Anyways, SR-71 is one of those "doesn't fit the rules". It SHOULD be the R-1A.

U is for utility--nice way of "hiding" CIA/spy functions. "It's just a generic utility plane, not painted black with no markings for any particular reason flown by non-USAF pilots for covert black ops"

M in M-21 (actually the M-12, but since it carried the D-21 it is AKA the M-21) is for "Multimission".

Here's the best site, explains it all:

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/

MiG-25 is rated for 2.8 normally, not 2.5. Even in "normal" operations it's faster than any other fighter by far. Of course, it totally sucks in all other categories. (Man, if you want to dogfight and win, go after a MiG-25)

Also, MiG-25 is such a horrific gas-guzzler, it literally has to INTERCEPT an SR-71 from head-on or thereabouts. It's one of the few planes whose top speed is actually fuel-limited in some situations. As in, it guzzles fuel so fast, if you simply taxi out at max weight, takeoff, and give it full afterburner, it'll run out of fuel while still accelerating. The only way you'll get 3.2 (and not run out of gas) is to be lightly loaded with only 2 missiles. Even the gigantic F-108 was only designed to be able to go Mach 3 for 5 minutes, 10 minutes in an ideal situation. Mig-25's a lot smaller. Probably has about a 30-sec Mach3+ ability.

(I am not a MiG-25 fan, BTW)

After looking through a few hundred biplanes, I'm going to go for "fantasy" as well.

Main point: inverted gull wing-- AFAIK, no biplane (asides from R/C and modern stunt custom-builts) have ever had an inverted gull wing, upper nor lower wing. Also, the lower wing simply looks too big like that. The lower wing is *generally* smaller or equally sized, yet with the gulling, it might have more area than the upper. Again, only stunt biplanes with massive engines tend to use "funky" wing designs like that.

Inverted gull wings were pretty rare, and were used by monoplanes. Ju-87 is the earliest major plane I know of with one. (And of course, the F4U later on)

Cheap, good primer: Krylon automotive grey primer. Stuff rocks. Too dark for a lot of colors though, but red is so transparent it'll take 3 coats anyway. It dries ROUGH and will make anything grab it. (you can make it smooth with a medium-thick coat, but it'll be ROUGH if you just mist it on thin)

Krylon ruddy brown auto primer is actually my first and final coat for US ship hulls. Nothing like finding a primer that's just the right color for something...

I believe he means acetone. Acetate is a type of plastic, acetone is a solvent.

Best source for acetone: nail polish remover.

PS--most hobby shops sell cheap replacement tops for CA bottles (because everybody's clogs---also, try trimming the tip off the top)

I've ordered from here once or twice:

http://www.hobbyplus.net/shopping/default.htm

No compliments, no complaints. Ordered stuff, it came. (Yes, they're in Canada and I'm in the US--but local places had jacked up the price so high it was cheaper to get it from Canada! )

I saved the box, and the MAXL appears to be overall pale pink. Very similar to Vierge. (I actually used Vierge as my painting basis--I know its scheme EXACTLY and I swear one of them copied the other--probably Vierge copied MAXL). Big thing to watch for is the hands. Chick-mechs always have white hands but black fingers, and pink wrists and elbows. (Vierge, Fei-Yen, MAXL)

To add to Nied:

Max thrust is only one aspect of an engine's performance. Also, there's a LOT of different types of "max".

Examples: The last couple (3 mods or so) F-15 and F-16 engines have had little improvement in maximum thrust (with afterburner) compared to previous ones. But they're WAY, WAY better and are being retrofitted whenever possible. Why? Because their non-afterburning thrust is way higher. For VF-1's, this would be "non-overboosted" thrust. Also, engines don't make max power in all conditions. Full throttle at 35,000ft might give you only *25%* of the power you'd get at sea level. Well, what if a new version, which had the same power at sea level as the old one, gave you another 20% at high altitude? That'd be really useful, since that's where you spend most of your time.

More stuff: high subsonic and transonic acceleration. Very important, this is the zone where combat takes place. 30% improvement for late model F-16's. Same max thrust (or SLIGHTLY higher), but the intermediate settings at higher altitude are much better.

Super Tomcats have a 60%+ improvement in both acceleration and climb rate compared to regular Tomcats, despite only a 40% increase in thrust.

Quick summary: jet engines (like all engines) have a power CURVE. You don't get full power whenever you want--only sitting still, at sea level, in cold air. An engine at Denver in the summer will be making 20% less power than the same engine in Juneau in the winter. Everything affects a jet engine. Most people would gladly trade a bit of max power, for overall performance. (This is in fact what F-15C's do--they actually have less power than the F-15A, but the engine is so much better overall in all conditions).

Finally, there's time restrictions (also related to temp restrictions). Most planes have a 10/5 minute limit for takeoff/climbout thrust--any more and it'll overheat. Then there's "max continuous"--just like it sounds, the max power available without limits. There's also emergency settings, available for 20-30 secs depending on the engine. (A Harrier actually has like 5 settings--like a 10-sec rating, a 30-sec, 60-sec, 2 minute, etc) This is why I like GE engines as a rule. Most of the time, a GE engine will have a lower take-off thrust, but a much higher max continuous thrust, and a much, much higher emergency thrust setting. And max continuous and emergency are both used in emergency settings of course--when you REALLY want that extra power. Who cares about max power on a normal, everyday takeoff? But when you've lost an engine and are 2 hours from an airfield, you really want the engine with the best "max continuous" performance. Or if there's a mountain right ahead, you want the best "30 secs emergency" setting.

Honestly, I haven't seen the latest version of Austrailian desert camo on one of their Hornets, mainly their uniforms and ground equipment! But it's not far off from the pic above, the main difference is that the overall color is much lighter--there's not much contrast between the two lighter colors.

Actually, the only places I've seen it were CENTCOM briefings. (Ones from Australia were very rare)

I still have to get one of those... (Hey, anything's easier than making an Excelsior light up--especially since the deflector and ramscoops and impulse crystals and planetary sensor dome were molded OPAQUE) Maybe after I finish my USS Iowa/Ingersoll/Alaska/San Francisco/The Sullivans/Ticonderoga/other The Sullivans/Tirpitz/Scott. (Yes, quite the ship backlog I have--currently have 5 unfinished hulls laying around)

And I DEFINITELY need to get the E: I've got an unbuilt Ertl -E, but the work to make it light up (while much less than my Lakota was), would still be WAY more than correcting any problems the Bandai might have. (And cost about the same, with how much it costs to light one up from scratch).

The main thing is to have the best forward and side vision possible. F-16 is number one by far for this. (No frames forward of the pilot). F-14's suck at this.

Seeing behind is just a bonus. (And as said, you can only see behind and above--not behind/below, straight behind, or behind/side---advantage is marginal for a bubble canopy--but still desired)

Best rearward vision: another guy who's not busy flying the plane. AKA Goose's job in Top Gun.

Now, another thing to consider is: planes don't fly alonw. And formations aren't just "however they look coolest"---they're arranged so that everyone can watch out for everyone else. Nobody can keep up a full 360 search all the time. But there's different techniques and formations for different numbers of planes, so that SOMEONE is always looking in any particular direction.

Finally: just use cameras if you really want a good view. Of course, you generally need a nice big cockpit to be able to have room to add another screen. 777-300's do this. They actually have several cameras, to display the main gear, and h.stab tips. (Biggest gear track and turning radius of any airliner by far, 747's got nothing on a stretch 777 for "hard to manuever on the ground" )

Yaaargh! You got me. ::hangs head in shame::

It's still rare/odd/stupid. (Why not go to AV-8D?) Harriers have such a messed up designation scheme. B is way more advanced than C, B+ more advanced than that...

I'm well aware of F-14 design history. But why not call it F-14C then? (I can't recall the dates of the proposed C, maybe they'd have to go to D, and then what we call the D would be E). "+" is absolutely utterly unheard of. You simply don't do it. Not in WWII, not in the USAF, not the Warsaw Pact, not on Star Trek. + isn't an option, for any aircraft of any era in any service.

You know, I still have that Magenta paint. Haven't used it for anything else though. Of course, now it's so old and dried out that it's more like eyeshadow or soemthing.