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.
Iâm working on my F-35A, and I want to do it in the (speculative) markings of the 104th FW, Massachusetts ANG. Theyâre replacing their F-15s with F-35s. So Iâm assuming theyâll have the new gray paint scheme, and the markings will be similar to other F-35s, except different badges and âMAâ on the tails. It seems theyâll take over the F-15âs air-defense mission, so do you think the Mass. F-35s will typically carry bombs?
Typically no but occasional range training to keep âproficientâ.
Thatâs what I figured.
if you look at the gross profits of Lockheed Martin over the years, there is no doubt they have their act together (at the expense of the tax payer)
- 2024: $6.93 billion â an 18.27% decline from 2023
- 2023: $8.48 billion â a 2.32% increase from 2022
- 2022: $8.29 billion â an 8.54% decline from 2021
- 2021: $9.06 billion â a 14.56% drop from the 2020 peak
- 2020: $10.60 billion â the highest gross profit in the period
I wonder if that will be succesful, it doesnât seem to be easy to me
If youâre building the Tamiya 1/48 F-35A: STOP, STOP, STOP!!! DO NOT START STEP 1!!!
Before you do ANYTHING, do not, repeat DO NOT drill the holes, as shown in Step 1. Before you drill anything, decide if youâre going to build the Dutch AF version. If, and only if you are, then drill the holes in Step 1 to add the parabrake housing. Otherwise, those holes drill right into the molded-on RAM tape on the spine of the plane. Not only into the tape, but into the POINTS of the jagged edges. Fixing the mistaken holes while keeping the detail on the RAM tape is a damn nightmare. Tamiya could very easily have moved those holes about 2mm away to a place where thereâs no detail whatsoever. Iâm about ready to bin my whole model from trying to fix that error.
Also, I usually start by building subassemblies like the wheel halves or drop-tank halves, etc. It saves me some time later on and makes me feel like Iâm making progress fast without having to do a lot of painting yet. On the F-35 kit, do NOT assemble the various doors yet. Many of them will have part of the door thatâs white on the inside, and part thatâs âfuselage colorâ on the inside. If you assemble them before painting, youâre going to have to mask a lot. If you paint the door parts, then assemble, youâll have a much easier time of it.
Finally, whatâs with adding so much of the painted detail as decals?
Well, as an update, just got back to a little modeling and Fat Amy. Decided on doing the Trumpeter 1/32 over Italeri. ResKit just dropped their F-35A cockpits, in 1/32, along with canopy frames. This is a quantum leap forward.
Closing all the weaponâs bay doors has been challenging; much filling and sanding to get things smooth. Then I am having to learn how to re-scribe all the door seams.
With the ResKit canopy frame, you get the explosive charge cords molding separately, which means you have to sand them off the kit canopy. So until AFV does a Have Glass canopy for the F-35, you have to sand and polish the canopy smooth. I have been struggling with this. Iâve tried both hand sanding/polishing and a dremel polishing wheel. I canât quite seem to get all the little scratches or fogging out. Iâve gone down to 3,000 grit sanding sponges and then tried polishing compound for the win, but canât seem to get it across the finish line. Does clear plastic require finer grit sanding? Do you have to polish it out by hand? The Dremel seems to scratch it more than smooth it out! Any help here appreciated.
Sand paper may be too agressive, even at 3000 grit;
you could try a cotton cloth and polishing compound from Tamiya:
it comes in 3 grit sizes coarse, medium and fine.
On the Revell F-15 center seam, I went down to 12,000. I always polish by hand.
You can find a set like this at Hobby Lobby or Michaelâs sometimes.
Adding to what @Tank_1812 Ryan writes:
I saved foggy canopies using that polishing kit (do follow the instructions about sanding directions, do one grit in only one direction then do the next finer grit at 90 degree angle to the previous grit).
After all the polishing I finished off with floor polish.
The end result was smooth and clear as glass.
Thanks guys I finally got this figured out. Dremel is too fast and scratches softer plastic. So you gotta polish out by hand. I got the Novus system and it worked pretty well. I used 600 grit sanding sponges to take out cord detail, then sanded progressively smoother with 1200, 2000, and 3000 grit. After this, I used Novus coarse scratch polish, then fine scratch polish, using their supplied polishing rag material. Worked like a charm. I polished out all the 3 canopies, for the Amy, Betty, and Cindy models. The ResKit cockpits fit right into the A, and C models, but the B model requires some modification. You cut the rear bulkhead off the kit cockpit, and cut the rear bulkhead of the ResKit. Then by sanding the ResKit cockpit to the required angle to fit a B model rear bulkhead, the ResKIt fits right into the B model fuselage. Iâm not sure if theyâre planning on doing a B model cockpit in 1/32, or if they just figured you could do this on your own.
The next task will be figuring out how to âgold plateâ these canopies. Iâm going to try and mix some bronze-color with a clear coating and see what happens.