DA.C - View Single Post - 1:72 scale Gaincorp F/A-22 Raptors in UK?

ch1466 · 09-07-2006, 02:29 AM

Grrrr.
New Member saying hello. Just got the 'ED'wards coded Gaincorp F-22 version and I must say that I while I like the overall approach taken, the paint scheme and the generally accurate details, I am disappointed in some key areas:
1. It appears that the AIM-9 bays have been _glued closed_. A light attempt to open the doors has failed, they don't respond to the spring catch (nor does the main bay, though it at least opens) and I can see what looks like clear residue from CA or an Epoxy type glue on both the doors and in the recessed groove around them. It also appears that the doors themselves rest with a slight negative elevation inside the bay outlines which of course would never happen on a true LO airframe.
2. The main bay doors have an uneven sit on the aft side, the starboard panel resting slightly high. They also require _careful_ manipulation of the hinges to close fully as they are bifold and the middle hinge tends to hyper extend.
3. There are no JDAM/Pylon combinations anymore. I know that they are inaccurate but are present on 'Spirit Of America' which is strange because that was the rollout only scheme and the aircraft itself has since been retired while the PRPs at Edwards should be the ones doing weapons clearance work.
4. The stance is all wrong. Raptors _do not_ sit 'nose high' with a waddle. They are like dragsters with the nose actually slightly /downwards/ tilted.
5. The six AMRAAM extend as a unified piece. This is incorrect given that each one has is mounted to an individual LAU-142 rail in real life. Also, while the overall shape of the missiles is correct for an AIM-120C, the white radome is FAR too long and the absence of yellow/blue (warhead) plus double brown (live motor) stripes are sorely missed in livening up an otherwise obviously toylike weapons setup. Someone should also mention that all missile fins are actually a dark gunmetal or slightly metallic green color, not painted-black.
6. There are no 600 gallon external tanks or twin LAU-128 launchers for external AMRAAM which are the only 'currently correct' external loadout. The former should look like a cross between the old Eagle 610 tanks and the new Japanese F-2 600 gallon tanks with squared off back ends but with only a single vertical hingepost support instead of the upwards canted twin-vee'd fins.
7. While this is likely a common hazard of die casts, the edges are not sharp. In point of truth, every exposed edge surface on the F-22 has a very finely delineated chine line on it. This is particularly evident in the inlets which, on the kit, look to be separate plastic inserts and are so chunky that they would have something like a six or eight inch edge radius in real life and thus could constrict the required (air) mass flow available to the F119s.
8. While the color definition is good it is way too dark. More like F.S. 36118 and 35164 instead of the silver-grey it should be. Speaking of which, while I would also state that they are closer to the 'dark teflon' IOTE color scheme than with the original release, they still don't have enough of a metallic sheen to immitate the seeming iridescent 'smoked clear over polished aluminum' sheen of the production aircraft as seen from a lot of angles. They also missed the 'stealth ribbon' which surrounds the airframe with a ram segment of generally lighter color (36320 or 36375) on all exposed edges. Ironically, it is present on the inboard (hinge) sides of the wing controls.
9. The overall outlines are fair but around the nose, largely fictitious, as if they exploited the Italeri plastic kit rather than photos of the actual airframe. The Raptor has a very swollen 'body builder' kind of squat look from the front which is compensated for by an overall much more defined slope and edge radius on the chine. Part of this is the canopy which is too rounded towards the front. Part is the location of the cockpit itself and the absence of the gentle blending of the 'beak' towards the discrete radome shape. The latter is another disappointment on the jet because it is 'weathered' in a way which is not terribly impressive and doesn't give the tonal variance you expect of a fiberglass radome (HERE is where I would have used a separate insert).
10. The tailhook mountings are a pain. Largely because their are two holes, the aft one of which is not completely drilled out and so you cannot firmly affix either the retracted or deployed hook. Given the replica sits fairly well (despite the nose high attitude!), there is no reason for the deployable hook, IMO. This is not a carrier fighter and would release the LO-sealed cover on it's stinger ONLY if it had an IFE of some kind which required it to take the barrier at high speed or without brakes.
11. The nozzles are kinda nasty. Thickly segmented with a large step and not very accurately painted. Indeed, you need to be very discrete with the overall look of 'recessed lines' on a stealth platform because it's not only clunky from the standpoint of modern diecast technology. It also leaves the jet too Matchbox-mad-trencher seeming in portraying what is actually one of the smoothest airframes in existence.
12. Again, as with the Italeri model, you can pose the inboard trailing edge flaps but not the LE ones, the ailerons or the stabs. This is not typical as the FLCS will 'pose' all surfaces together based on the flight mode selected and particularly for takeoff but also in most taxi scenarios will usually deploy the LEF and even twist the stabs as part of pretakeoff or recovery behaviors (it's visible in a LOT of photos) and pilot stick commands. I would, by far, rather have the somewhat generic appearing, clean, airframe mix it up a bit with multiple deployed tail/aileron/LEF/TEF options than be stuck with inaccurate external ordnance and a tailhook.
CONCLUSION:
Not a bad attempt. I certainly admire the toned down color scheme in comparison with the original SOA bird which looked too much like Mod Eagle done in gull grey and green.
But there are a lot of areas which could be done better.
The inlets and control surfaces in particular. The nose contours as well, if possible. I would also like to suggest that X8 GBU-39 on a BRU-61 smart rack and AIM-9X for 'reactivated' side weapons bays as few people realize the Blk.20 F-22 is actually quite a competent bomber and this would alleviate the problem with the 'grouped AMRAAM' since there is only one AIM-120 per bay if the jet is hauling small diameter bombs.
Continuing to work on the color schemes with an active-wing deployment tail codes (AK or FF though TY or WA would also be acceptable) would also be welcome and an acquaintance on Hyperscale.com once mentioned a British specialty hobby paint manufacturer that was brewing up a 'special mix' of metallic colors matched to the operational Raptor powder-blue metallic scheme.

KPl.

09-07-2006, 02:29 AM	#13
ch1466 Junior Collector Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2	Grrrr. New Member saying hello. Just got the 'ED'wards coded Gaincorp F-22 version and I must say that I while I like the overall approach taken, the paint scheme and the generally accurate details, I am disappointed in some key areas: 1. It appears that the AIM-9 bays have been _glued closed_. A light attempt to open the doors has failed, they don't respond to the spring catch (nor does the main bay, though it at least opens) and I can see what looks like clear residue from CA or an Epoxy type glue on both the doors and in the recessed groove around them. It also appears that the doors themselves rest with a slight negative elevation inside the bay outlines which of course would never happen on a true LO airframe. 2. The main bay doors have an uneven sit on the aft side, the starboard panel resting slightly high. They also require _careful_ manipulation of the hinges to close fully as they are bifold and the middle hinge tends to hyper extend. 3. There are no JDAM/Pylon combinations anymore. I know that they are inaccurate but are present on 'Spirit Of America' which is strange because that was the rollout only scheme and the aircraft itself has since been retired while the PRPs at Edwards should be the ones doing weapons clearance work. 4. The stance is all wrong. Raptors _do not_ sit 'nose high' with a waddle. They are like dragsters with the nose actually slightly /downwards/ tilted. 5. The six AMRAAM extend as a unified piece. This is incorrect given that each one has is mounted to an individual LAU-142 rail in real life. Also, while the overall shape of the missiles is correct for an AIM-120C, the white radome is FAR too long and the absence of yellow/blue (warhead) plus double brown (live motor) stripes are sorely missed in livening up an otherwise obviously toylike weapons setup. Someone should also mention that all missile fins are actually a dark gunmetal or slightly metallic green color, not painted-black. 6. There are no 600 gallon external tanks or twin LAU-128 launchers for external AMRAAM which are the only 'currently correct' external loadout. The former should look like a cross between the old Eagle 610 tanks and the new Japanese F-2 600 gallon tanks with squared off back ends but with only a single vertical hingepost support instead of the upwards canted twin-vee'd fins. 7. While this is likely a common hazard of die casts, the edges are not sharp. In point of truth, every exposed edge surface on the F-22 has a very finely delineated chine line on it. This is particularly evident in the inlets which, on the kit, look to be separate plastic inserts and are so chunky that they would have something like a six or eight inch edge radius in real life and thus could constrict the required (air) mass flow available to the F119s. 8. While the color definition is good it is way too dark. More like F.S. 36118 and 35164 instead of the silver-grey it should be. Speaking of which, while I would also state that they are closer to the 'dark teflon' IOTE color scheme than with the original release, they still don't have enough of a metallic sheen to immitate the seeming iridescent 'smoked clear over polished aluminum' sheen of the production aircraft as seen from a lot of angles. They also missed the 'stealth ribbon' which surrounds the airframe with a ram segment of generally lighter color (36320 or 36375) on all exposed edges. Ironically, it is present on the inboard (hinge) sides of the wing controls. 9. The overall outlines are fair but around the nose, largely fictitious, as if they exploited the Italeri plastic kit rather than photos of the actual airframe. The Raptor has a very swollen 'body builder' kind of squat look from the front which is compensated for by an overall much more defined slope and edge radius on the chine. Part of this is the canopy which is too rounded towards the front. Part is the location of the cockpit itself and the absence of the gentle blending of the 'beak' towards the discrete radome shape. The latter is another disappointment on the jet because it is 'weathered' in a way which is not terribly impressive and doesn't give the tonal variance you expect of a fiberglass radome (HERE is where I would have used a separate insert). 10. The tailhook mountings are a pain. Largely because their are two holes, the aft one of which is not completely drilled out and so you cannot firmly affix either the retracted or deployed hook. Given the replica sits fairly well (despite the nose high attitude!), there is no reason for the deployable hook, IMO. This is not a carrier fighter and would release the LO-sealed cover on it's stinger ONLY if it had an IFE of some kind which required it to take the barrier at high speed or without brakes. 11. The nozzles are kinda nasty. Thickly segmented with a large step and not very accurately painted. Indeed, you need to be very discrete with the overall look of 'recessed lines' on a stealth platform because it's not only clunky from the standpoint of modern diecast technology. It also leaves the jet too Matchbox-mad-trencher seeming in portraying what is actually one of the smoothest airframes in existence. 12. Again, as with the Italeri model, you can pose the inboard trailing edge flaps but not the LE ones, the ailerons or the stabs. This is not typical as the FLCS will 'pose' all surfaces together based on the flight mode selected and particularly for takeoff but also in most taxi scenarios will usually deploy the LEF and even twist the stabs as part of pretakeoff or recovery behaviors (it's visible in a LOT of photos) and pilot stick commands. I would, by far, rather have the somewhat generic appearing, clean, airframe mix it up a bit with multiple deployed tail/aileron/LEF/TEF options than be stuck with inaccurate external ordnance and a tailhook. CONCLUSION: Not a bad attempt. I certainly admire the toned down color scheme in comparison with the original SOA bird which looked too much like Mod Eagle done in gull grey and green. But there are a lot of areas which could be done better. The inlets and control surfaces in particular. The nose contours as well, if possible. I would also like to suggest that X8 GBU-39 on a BRU-61 smart rack and AIM-9X for 'reactivated' side weapons bays as few people realize the Blk.20 F-22 is actually quite a competent bomber and this would alleviate the problem with the 'grouped AMRAAM' since there is only one AIM-120 per bay if the jet is hauling small diameter bombs. Continuing to work on the color schemes with an active-wing deployment tail codes (AK or FF though TY or WA would also be acceptable) would also be welcome and an acquaintance on Hyperscale.com once mentioned a British specialty hobby paint manufacturer that was brewing up a 'special mix' of metallic colors matched to the operational Raptor powder-blue metallic scheme. KPl.