Very good advice. Yeah I am approaching this hobby as I did most other things, including live fire training. Identify mission essential skills, what is needed to get them, and then train. I have ordered a book and extra tools to work with PE, and will continue to practice.
On the paint scheme, I have decided to do the later scheme, where the vast majority of the tapes are very similar to the base coating; however, there are many strips, especially on leading edges that are of a slightly different shade, so these needed to be painted differently. And the rest of the RAM tape has a slightly different sheen (a little flatter) than the base coating. So all these areas will be painted first, masked off, and then the base coating applied (with the Have Glass over-coat). So even though you donât have the different color of earlier RAM tape, you still have to mask off these areas to get different sheens, as seen on photos of operational fighters in flight. The RAM tapes will be the base color, the leading edges and so forth will be a slightly lighter shade (although in many pics this difference appears to be reversed, with these areas appearing slightly darker!). So maybe instead of using white, maybe a tan or something to get a different color, not necessarily lighter, just different shade. Will have to experiment a bit and see what I can come up with.
I just got the Italeri 1/32 F-35A. Boy am I torn. Initially I thought the Italeri kit was superior, but now I donât know. I spent the day studying all the photos I could find, and I think the Trumpeter kit just âlooks rightâ more than the Italeri. Then compared the 1/32 scale kits to the Tamiya 1/48 ones. I like more of the individual details of the Italeri kit, but the overall lines go to the Trumpeter.
My main gripe is the head-on, or maybe 3/4 head on, view of the cockpit canopy on the Italeri kit. The front of the canopy is molded straighter, less bulbous, and is a smidge longer than the Trumpeter. Judging from photos, the Trumpeter kit looks closer to the real deal.
Also the canopy clarity was very wavy with much distortion. I really tried to love it because it had the correct Have Glass look, but Trumpeter appears to have gotten the shape better, even If I have to tint it myself.
Anybody else notice this? Maybe someone else will come out with a proper Have Glass Canopy in 1/32 for it. Iâve seen them for the F-117âs and late model F-16âs.
So what are we hinting at? Asks an armor guy not in the loop.
- the air force is officially doubting the apporach of one aircraft doing everything (F-35) and writes about a âcentury series approachâ making specialised smaller series of aircraft that re-use components of other aircraft and incorporate new technologies that give a breakthrough in one or another field
- the navy launched its seperate studies on âthe 6th generationâ and aims at a new aircraft only for NAvy needs (no more âjointâ)
- the marines feel their F-35 is too expensive and are cutting - are thinking about cutting - drastically the number they would buy. This would be quite ironic as it were the demands of the marines for a STOVL that complicated the design of the F-35 the most.
- with the launch of the B-21 and first results of testing, the air force even seems to doubt the need for a 6th generation fighter, has at some point halted the preparations for the 6th generation because some serious thinking had to be done.
all that is in public statements/publicaitions from the us military
Moreover, what is the point of an aircraft that can do every mission imaginable, when the pilot on board is only trained for a single mission?
If every 10 years technology grows exponentially, It is a crap shoot to read the tea leaves far enough in advance for your equipment to be most effective. The Russians idea of cheap and expendable still has some merit. I plan on losing my stuff as I advance so I will just make lots of stuff. The C version at the moment looks like a good replacement for the FA-18. As far as the Marines go. Newer equipment will cost considerably more in the future. It may have been easier to just design the VTOL as a stand-alone instead of modifying the Air Force design. I know from the shooting side of life that âModularityâ is the thing. Truth be told I donât think real life modularity usage is a big thing. I am not going to be switching parts just because I can.
Drones/ unmanned aircraft and missiles may be more of the future. The tea is still too cloudy to read.
Well, you will find much discussion on this topic, including how drone tech has made these âtradâ fighters obsolete, which Iâm surprised that nobody mentioned. As someone who has watched this mil/industrial scene for decades, I would agree, itâs much like reading the tea leaves and seeing what you think is going to give you the best war-fighting combination of old and new tech. By that I mean, you can go high right and embrace all the new tech, planning for peer-to-peer confrontations, and then get whittled away at by bush/proxy/asymmetric wars. You would really need a crystal ball these days to envision what the next dust-up would be, and what mix of weaponry might be required to fight it. The easy answer would be âall the aboveâ but perhaps be cost-prohibitive. I am of the opinion (and thatâs all this is; you may agree or disagree) that the F-35 program was somewhat of a boon-doggle, but, it actually has some great potential, even if there are protracted teething issues.
Yes, the âone size fits allâ approach can (and does) fail, but in this case, I think the F-35 has actually delivered on the promises made; I find it amusing that the Marine Corps is crawfishing back on their âjump jetâ requirement, and buying more C-models; that doesnât mean they didnât get exactly what they asked for, and then perhaps changed their minds. Speaking of the C-model, it would seem to be the most capable of them all, in spite of the NAVY not really supporting it until the very end. And the A is no slouch either; it has the only internal gun, which depending on what camp your in, is either requirement or nice to have.
These days I find it extremely difficult to separate all the agenda-driven opinion from the actual facts. You see a lot of stuff that might make sense, but then the conclusions drawn from it might be flawed, either by mistake, or on purpose. In other words, the slant on spin being applied to coach you to a certain POV.
But as I said, I think there is a very target-rich environment, if you want to find things to criticize about the program; the question is, do these things point to a program cancellation, or do we need to fight through them to have these unique capabilities. Thatâs the 64-dollar question, IMHO.
And then, back to modeling. In the case of a 1/32 F-35A, the obvious answer here would be to somehow âkit-bashâ both the Trumpeter and Italeri kits. But they differ in significant ways, such as the basic dims of the canopy (Italeri is thinner, longer), so that approach may not work here. I would really love to cut out the Italeri screen hood and transplant to the Trumpeter, but that seems a bit expensive. But then maybe that mimics the actual program, eh? But what I will probably end up doing is carry on modifying the Trumpeter hoods until they somewhat resemble the real thing.
With this new administrationâŚI have no idea what they will support or not.
Yeah this is very true; you want to see them eliminate all this fraud and waste, but then you realize this also applies to this project as well. I think there is no doubt that things were mis-handled, whether by chance or design. So for sure, the mil-industrial complex needs to get itâs act together. But the need for national defense is real, so overhaul, not cancellation, IMHO.
I have to say, looking at all three models now (LM or Trumpeter; take yer pick), Fat Cindy is rapidly becoming my fav. It certainly checks all the boxes to become the next premier carrier fighter/bomber. I think the Jarheads realized this and changed their mix. But I think I will carry on and get Fat Amy done up first. Iâve invested in a lot of sanding on the old girl.
Just re-read this, and someone asked awhile back what squadrons Iâm looking at. Well for Amy, I like the LN/Lakenheath birds, so will probably go that way. Runner up would be the AK/Alaska-marked birds. Becky, one of the Jarhead birds, still undecided. Cindy, one of the Navy birds, still undecided. There is a dearth of decals for Becky and Cindy in 1/32, so there may have to be some improv involved. At any rate, want to get the latest serving schemes currently out there.