Feynman

By 'white glue' do you mean PVA? Do you use any particular brand? And can you remove it without it leaving any trace that it has been used?

Ukrainian_Falcons

Neither actually, I have half on stands and half on gears. I do have to use blu tak (my preferred method) for the missiles and drop tanks otherwise they sag or fall off over time.

I've had my models displayed for over a year now and the only model that gives me issues and mind you still a rare issue, is the Fishbed, I perfected the gears but the drop tanks have fallen off a couple of times even with blu tak, can't be helped as there's not much for the parts to grab onto that thin wing. They either don't fit from the box or once filed down, too loose

planemark

Interesting Information I found...

History's most famous F-4 is "Showtime 100". Aircraft is shown as it appeared prior to engagements on the afternoon of 10 May 1972 loaded for flak suppression with a 600 gallon centerline tank, 2 AIM-7E Sparrows, 4 AIM-9G Sidewinders and 6 Mk20 Rockeye CBUs on TERS.

Artist's Note: Many interviews with Duke Cunningham for the oil painting Advantage Cunningham in the spring of 1982 brought to light several facts about this aircraft's appearance on the mission of 10 May 1972. Of particular note is the MiG-21 silhouette on the vertical stabilizer of VF-96 F-4s. Signifying Cunningham and Driscoll's kill of 19 January 1972, the silhouette was painted out between 9 and 10 May, right after their second kill of 8 May. Replacing the MiG-21 were two flags on the intake inlet ramp. A well published photograph taken on 9 May of VF-96 Phantoms on the deck of USS Constellation still showing the MiG-21 sihouette has caused many inaccurate depictions of "Showtime 100" during the famous Toon engagement. The aircraft was marked as shown for less than one day as "Showtime 100" was subsequently lost.

Plus the link to this information...

F-4J VF-96 NG100

Wildblood

Photos have been posted on MH3 forum.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
If at first you don't succeed......have you selected the correct ordinance!?

robertjon5

BIGGER PICTURES!!

__________________
I BUY WHAT I LIKE. AND LIKE WHAT I BUY!!!

tker76

Looking good guys, thanks for the pics! This is quick work on AC's part!!

AirCal

I was already leaning towards getting this, but the pictures just settled the matter.
GOTTA BUY IT!

Shawn507

I have two from HM and can't see the expense for the added weapons. You all have fun.

chekur6

I have the Hobby Master release and will be getting this one from Air Commander. One of my favorite framed signed prints on my wall. " Advantage Cunningham" The Black Knight vs. Colonel Toon. 1400 Hours 10 May 1972 by Mark Waki.

Attached Thumbnails

 

tker76

Very nice print.

I'm very jealous

Feynman

It looks awesome and I am very tempted, but I am worried it will put my other models to shame - I want to be able to display them all together without it looking incongruous. I just wish they did a range similar in size to HM; or, alternatively, that HM created models as detailed as this.

Surinam Air 747

Very tempting but i'll have to pass!!

__________________
I WANT TO BELIEVE...

...that one day I will see many more colorful JC Wings MD-11 models and the long-awaited Gemini 200 TWA twin stripes 727-200!

I always fly America's favorite airline: Southwest Airlines and the World's oldest KLM!

Paris was the greatest city on earth! Vive la France! Tokyo 2020!

planemark

Hoping they correct the markings in the final run. As mentioned above, on Showtime 100's final mission the Mig on the tail had been painted over in lieu of adding two North Vietnamese flags on the intake representing the soon to be aces first two kills. My Hobby Master is actually correct on this point. Good to see the correct weapons load that give the collector display options...

At takeoff: 2 AIM 7 Sparrows in aft wells, 4 AIM 9 Sidewinders, 6 GBU 20 Rockeyes and no wing tanks. (That's how I'll display mine)

OR, no Rockeyes to show engagement weaponry and depending on when in the engagement with or without the Centerline Tank.

AC does such a great job and I am excited to add my first to the collection, but they need to get those marking details correct.

tker76

They look great together; I have twelve USN Vietnam Spooks in my collection currently, both AC and HM, and I display them together without the AC ones making the HM Spooks look any less impressive.

That's my opinion anyway. I'm in the midst of unboxing part of my collection into cabinets at the moment (having moved into a new home recently) and will post my cabinets within the next few weeks, at which point you can decide for yourself if you think it works as well as I do.

Shawn507

Put me in that group that doesn't see the AC/XP Phantoms standing out among the HM Phantoms. The only exception would be the silver F-4F and only because of the livery.

Ukrainian_Falcons

I personally don't think the price tag is worth it but defo think it's worth more then a HM costs. Waiting on AirCom to do more colourful MiG killer schemes before I pay that much.

FortunateSon

Preordered!

I have too much diecast to buy anything but real quality any more. I like my HM phantoms as much as the next guy, but to my eye, the XPlus/Ac phantoms are head and shoulders above from a perception of quality standpoint.

Very very few things in diecast any more are likely to hold their value much less appreciate; I suspect this might be one of them.

tker76

I don't buy anything with potential future value in mind TBH, but agree entirely regarding the quality of Air Commander's F-4s. Put simply, they are some of my favourite models - no ifs, buts or maybes.

I won't be selling off my HM Showtime 100, but will be shifting this AC version into its current place in my cabinet and then probably display HA1901 (Ritchie, six stars) with HA1902 (ST100) together (replacing Richie with the five star/signed version in my main cab) as a little bit of a personal nostalgia mini-theme as they were (obviously) my first two HM Spooks.

I would quite happily buy a split run of two VF-96 birds from AC (just as I bought both VF-21 releases) given the plethora of VF-96 MiG-killers to choose from (not just NG112, but also NG106, NG111 and - IIRC - others too).

The VF-92 Silver Kings release will make a good partner for this though anyway, given the squadrons' shared history..

Ukrainian_Falcons

Plz plz plz plz plz next release be normal tail VF-111

Shawn507

VF-51 non CAG, lets be original and not rehash the same old thing IE... Jolly Rogers and Sundowners.

tker76

Also, VF-161 Chargers non-CAG MiG-killer, there's plenty to choose from..

Ukrainian_Falcons

No way anyone could claim Sundowners has been done to death, I'm purely speaking as a collector that missed out on the other Sundowners, all 2 of them. Low ball Jolly Rogers has been done to death, no argument there.

Then CW can dust off the Crusader mould and also do a Sundowners, plently of VN history there.

HoveringCheesecake

Put me down for one. I have not been satisfied with the quality of the last few HM Phantoms I have purchased, so I'm willing to pay a little extra for what I consider superior finishing.

PBRStreetgang

I really wish this was a split run with Showtime 106.

__________________
Fox Hunting Fools who's only military experience is limited to chasing a few BOAR around the South African Veldt!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PBRStreetgang

Requires a different tooling for VF111 Crusaders.

I am unsure if VF111 has the same selling oomph as the skull and cross bones, but the reason why the X-Plus VF111 spook sold very poorly is because it was released around the same time as the HM VF111 spook, which was half the price and a MIGKiller to boot. The X-Plus example was a post Vietnam livery.

I also have both,....but the X-Plus F4 dumped really badly and, along with other releases, spelt the death knell for the manufacturer.

It was a poor scheme selection and I said so at the time. And I have just about every Spook released by X-Plus.Air Commander.

__________________
Fox Hunting Fools who's only military experience is limited to chasing a few BOAR around the South African Veldt!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

tim_1/72

Absolutely stunning. Only 2 shots available but to me it already looks better than HM's. The biggest difference to me are the stencils. I don't care much about the ordnance or whatever mold differences it has with HM. Bottom line is they look the same when you paint them, it's the little details that makes the difference. Take any AC release, and if HM did it with the effort they put up in their JASDF spooks and released it the same time as the AC version, the AC version will stay on the shelf. Imagine if all the US Spooks HM will release from this day looked like this
RF-4EJ Kai 1:72 Diecast Model - Hobby Master HM-HA1991 - $82.95
RF-4EJ Kai 1:72 Diecast Model - Hobby Master HM-HA1993 - $92.95
And then AC comes in with the same scheme, there's nothing AC could offer to justify the Price diff. But the sad reality is it's not gonna happen because for whatever reason it's too much for HM to do it on US Spooks but you can buy the JASDF spooks for the same price with all the added stencils.

Wildblood

I'd respectfully disagree. For me the AC mould is superior as the HM nose section and intakes have more noticeable join lines, even after painting, so in addition to the added stencils and the one piece landing gear it makes it a clear winner for me. That's of course my subjective view and many may disagree. .......

__________________
If at first you don't succeed......have you selected the correct ordinance!?

tim_1/72

Hi Wildblood. Fair points. Those are issues prevalent in HM. But on the other coin there are also gaps in the AC that are more prevalent than HM. Take these for instance

This is also on the nose.



There's also a gap in the vertical stab apart from the horizontal, but I'll only be showing this one as the other isn't as bad.

So with that said I cannot use gaps as the criteria for evaluating which brand is better since to me they are just as gappy as one another.

The biggest difference to me moldwise is this.



Compare it with the real thing. That's not even remotely close. The Xplus/AC version looks inverted. It's very bad. And it just got worse because now instead of a green tint, they're using a blue tint for the AC releases. My Xplus has a green tint but AC releases have a blue tint. This is the most glaring difference for me as this is the most important part of the aircraft they should get right. If you messed up the fuselage or the canopy, the whole model will look bad. The windshield is the very first thing we get to look at when viewing the aircraft from the front and AC screwed it up.


Also I think it's the perfect time to bring up the landing gear. We've heard complaints about HM's sturdiness(fixed now) but believe it or not HM even has the better mold.



Xplus ease of MLG assembly came at the expense of their gear door shape.

Wildblood

Hi Tim,

I take your point about the canopy. The AC nose never strikes me as much as the HM join lines, but as I said it's very subjective. I think it's because my eye is drawn more to the HM gap given it's proximity to the canopy area (and ditto for the intake gaps)? Again, the gear door shape doesn't bother me as if I'm displaying it gears down I prefer the one piece design and I'm mainly viewing the model from above. The AC tail area is just something I'm prepared to live with as I prefer the overall look/finish of the AC 'spooks'.

I suspect the same personal preferences will come into play with Calibre's forthcoming F14s. There will be some very nice aspects to them, compared to CW/HM, and some areas that bug people.

I suppose we should be more forgiving of manufacturers, they really can't please all the people all of the time!

__________________
If at first you don't succeed......have you selected the correct ordinance!?

tker76

I think you make some good points, these things are intrinsically subjective.

Personally, the AC Spook is one of my favourite moulds to which the finish just adds another level of attraction; however, the points Tim raised are also valid.

I also love both my AC/XP Spooks AND my HM Spooks, even if I do have somewhat of a preference for AC, and I hope both manus keep releasing the schemes I want.

I am also quite sure the exact same dynamic is inevitably going to play out once we finally see the CalWings product too.

I think everyone should hold manus to a certain standard when poor QC or lazy mistakes are the issue, but, aside from relatively easily avoidable errors such as that, yes we do need to take these models for what they are and enjoy them for what they are.

Nobody ever made me buy any of my models after all

tripoli

Flatly, if you do not have customers that care enough to say something, you will always see mediocre products. It's those that speak up that give a forum to make positive changes come about. I don't see a problem with that as it benefits both the customer and the manufacturer if they listen.

The AC models pop because of the extra detailing. A few tweaks and good points for both companies, that make them each have their strong points. If HM put in the extra effort, their models would compete extremely well with AC. It comes down to how much work and quality each companies wants to put into their product.

HM did the original Century Wings models and William at that time noted he did not want to put the extra detail like CW due to the cost in because customer already were complaining about the cost. I believe as this market has matured, there is the demand and companies like AC and CW prove that to be the case. I wish HM would put out deluxe limited models, I think they would do quite well and easily compete with AC.

__________________
Jeff

tim_1/72

Good read gents. If HM only put the effort they did for their JASDF spooks to the USN USAF schemes, I don't think many of us would be giving the edge to AC that easily. Is there any HM USAF F-4E in SEA Camo that can even come remotely close to looking as good as this.


That's perfection right there. I don't mind saying that even with the crooked windshield. If the model is done superbly well, maybe people can bypass some of the things that would've been an issue to some.
There's only one SEA CAMO F-4E model in Diecast 1/72 scale that looks better and that's a code 3 model by TEC using the HM mold


Even if we say that paint job is miles too complicated for mass produced models, well how bout this other code3 from Him





This is HM's Version


For HM the paint job is there, just not the stencils. I would love to laud HM for adding more stencils now for their US spooks but it's half baked. Yes they added stencils to the wings but not the fuselage as you can see from the pic. I could overlook them not adding it to the belly but if you're adding stencils to the wings and not the rest of the visible parts, it looks half baked.

Take their newest USN release
Looks decent from top side
http://hobbymastercollector.com/files/HA1976-4.JPG

Slightly undressed from the side
http://hobbymastercollector.com/files/HA1976-2.JPG

And completly naked from down under
http://hobbymastercollector.com/files/HA1976-3.JPG

Eagle_Flyer

Out of curiosity, why would you want HM to produce a F-4 like AC? If AC is already producing a superior model, wouldn't it make more sense for Air Commander to release more schemes on a more frequent basis? Thinking that again, why aren't AC releasing more schemes more frequently?

tim_1/72

I'd still like to refrain from using that term "F-4 like AC" given that HM has released JASDF spooks that is definitely on par with AC's. So if what you mean by an AC like F-4 are the added stencils, then it's not a feature held exclusively by AC at least when regards HM's JASDF spooks. So what I'm trying to say is that it's not so much that I want them to imitate AC, it's just that I want HM to give their USAF,CAG spooks the same treatment they give their JASDF spooks because the staunch difference is astounding and it's undeniable. There is no USAF, USN HM spook that looks as good as this RF-4EJ Kai 1:72 Diecast Model - Hobby Master HM-HA1991 - $82.95
If you look at TEC code3 Jolly Roger Spook, HM can do that. It's not an unrealistic request or dream. If you looked at the first HM USN/USAF releases, none of them had the amount of stencils as HM's newest USN spook(the VF-84). The first releases even had a windshield almost as bad as AC's. Now HM even has a new MLG. They've come a long way, even if we're just talking stencil wise. I also do not think AC is superior moldwise as already stated above. I'm looking at their Vandy and Luftwaffe anniversary spooks and it's nothing special, at least nothing HM couldn't do. It's AC's Mig killers that really shine to me and it's because of all the added stencils a feature HM could do and has done beautifully for their JASDF Spooks. As far as what would make more sense, I dunno. The only thing I know is that your voice and concerns has a better chance of being heard and addressed by HM than by AC. I think you would agree with me that asking HM to add more stencils to their US spooks has a better chance than 1 million of us writing to AC to correct their windshield or asking AC to release a specific scheme

tripoli

Same thing for HM's IAF F-15. Not as much stenciling but with a complex livery and a higher amount of detailing, this model was outstanding.



HM's F-15s ARE on par with CW's F-14 model if they could get the paint right.

No doubt HM CAN achieve a detailed model, it's just whether William would believe there is the demand and a customer base willing to pay for such.

"wouldn't it make more sense for Air Commander to release more schemes on a more frequent basis?"

They may be restrained by the lack of funds to do so, afraid that a higher amount of models may "flood the market" and or that a limited amount creates a "collectibility" factor.

Given the post here, I believe die cast collectors would scramble for such, CW and AC have already proved that.

HM is looking to diversify the line, if they make a special line with higher detail and cost, I believe HM collectors would be beating down the doors to get them. ( AS LONG as HM does not make critical mistakes and makes the models collectors really want such as a high detailed USAF F-4 as an example.) AC's Mig killer had plenty of flaws, wrong paint scheme for the time of shoot down, poorly fitted parts, poorly fitted nose pitot tube, bad canopy and it still is the most coveted F-4 out there due the pick of the livery and the extra work that went into it.

__________________
Jeff

tim_1/72

Gonna have to disagree with Tripoli regarding the new line. If they started one, the lower end models would get neglected. As the more detailed models command better sales it could just lead HM to neglecting the lower end ones. It may even serve as the incentive for HM to purposely neglect it in favor of the Higher detailed ones to succumb you into getting those instead. If there are already HM models like that F-15 you're showing that you consider quality then there is no need to ask for a more expensive separate line of just these models. What this only shows is that HM already has the capacity to make these quality models. And as I've mentioned, I will defer anyone to any of the recent HM JASDF spooks which sells for the same price as any of HM's USAF USN spook. They can do a highly detailed USAF, USN Spook already if they wanted to just like they did for their JASDF Phantoms

Eagle_Flyer

It sounds like from Trip's postings - the absence of stencils can be down to cost. Perhaps as it's only the JASDF F-4's that have them makes it easier to absorb the cost than applying it to every Phantom model. Or perhaps the Japanese distributor paid for the stencils to be added.

By all means you can ask HM if they are willing to apply the stencils but ultimately it is their decision if they are able to or not.

tim_1/72

Perhaps..But all speculations. The only thing definite is that the JASDF spooks sell for exactly the same price as the rest. And yes it's quite obvious that anything value added translates to additional cost but as to how significant is the question. The new US spooks now have the additional stencils on the wings compared to the earlier releases. If cost was that much of a factor then why did they do that for the new releases when they could've just stuck with the old format. I've seen how tampo prints work. They don't print each stencils one by one.

Eagle_Flyer

As I've said, it's their decision. Why don't you contact HM and ask the question - it's not like they're CW and don't reply.

Ladia

Contacting William is the only way when trying to change something.

I´m afraid William is quite busy guy to have time to read all those forum posts / threads. I´m also not sure how is it in China (where HM factory is) with internet access - I mean internet content regulation in China.


Btw, adding wash to panel lines would nicely visually lessen the high contrast of those gruesome intake gaps on HM Phantoms...
(gruesome is maybe a bit strong word, but I really feel these gaps very disturbing)


And yes - the HA1976 (as well as all non- JASDF HM Phantoms) really look kinda bare / slapdash from undersides without a single stencil.

tim_1/72

I'm not optimistic about a change happening real soon. Truth of the matter is there's just no incentive for them to do it. If it sells the way it is, in any for profit company's eyes, their response will be to keep it the way it is. I'm really only commenting on HM's potential to do a Spook on par with AC's as the case with the JASDF spooks since the matter was brought up. Just take my comments as a rant and not really a call for HM to do anything although I would really like them to. I've already emailed them before about it, the same as others have. And credit where it's due, when that Vf-84 spook came out shortly after TEC's code 3, there were calls for more stencils and indeed HM released a Jolly Roger sponsoring additional stencils on the wings. So yes I could still appreciate the added details. It's just that it's not enough. But I guess anything is better then nothing. I vote with my wallet at the end of the day and AC's Showtime gets my greens.

Eagle_Flyer

Unfortunately that very much applies for all manufacturing companies not just diecast. At least with HM, there's always a possibility they will say yes to a suggestion and they have done over the years. I'm still waiting for an F-105G and perhaps one day HM will make one, then again perhaps they never will...

tker76

The F-105G/F is - like the A-26K mentioned by Richthofen in his "Gone, but not Forgotten" thread - one of my top 5 wished for models too.

Really hope HM do get around to producing both these from the existing moulds. I'm sure both would be very popular.

FortunateSon

reading through these various posts about people complaning about HM phantoms is like walking into a pleasant meadow after a storm. man, i used to be flamed for pointing out the obvious before. as many of you know, my particular venom is reserved for HM1930 - that's when it all started going really wrong - since that model in real life was ABSOLUTELY SWIMMING in stencils in real life (since it was a new phantom when they put everything on them before they figured out what was not needed i guess) and hm did it with.. precisely none... while doing plenty on the Japanese models.

Anyway folks - if you have a bunch of HM phantoms (I have about 60) and you want to improve them, there's no better way than this:



these are DRY TRANSFER stencils by the ukrainian company 'print-scale.' DRY TRANSFER means no 'glare' from a wet decal backing and instant satisfaction. plus, easily but not too easily removable.

easy to apply, and improves your phantoms significantly. between that and a panel wash (which i have not done on hm phantoms, but boy that disappointing red tail vf-31 release is asking for it) even a guy like me with relatively modest skills can get decent results.

tker76

Thanks heaps for the tip, FortunateSon

I just ordered a couple of sets to get started with..

I think the first model that I will apply them to is HA1930 - as you mention, it really will benefit from a set of these!!

Ukrainian_Falcons

You'd think that if it's that easy and cheap to produce stencils, why can't HM just print the details on, they have the prints already for JASDF dating back +5 yrs ago

tker76

My stencil decal sheets have shipped already, just received the shipping notice and I chose Express Post, so I guess by Monday they will have landed on my desk

Now I just need to decide which HM Spooks (as well as HA 1930) to decorate. Certainly not the worst problem in the world to have

robertjon5

Well be sure to post some 'before' and 'after' pics!!!!!!

__________________
I BUY WHAT I LIKE. AND LIKE WHAT I BUY!!!

FortunateSon

wow that was quick.

now, im not expert and maybe there's a better way, but my method of applying there was to cut out the stencil in question from the sheet with an exacto knife and then placing it "rub me" side on the sticky part of a small piece of scotch/cello tape. i found the slightly thicker semi-transparent worked slightly better than the super crinkly ultra-clear type scotch/cello tape. anyway, this allowed me to see what i was doing in positioning the stencil on the model. once roughly positioned, press the tape down as needed to get it to stick on even curved surfaces. then, i used a standard wooden pencil to carfully rub-through the stencil. i did this even though i had a tamiya (i think it's a tamiya) metal stencil rubbing tool. when you do it with a pencil, you can see where you've rubbed. be slow and thorough. lift of the tape and voila.

you might mess up a few. don't sweat it. start on the underside.you will have plenty of extras. dont also obess about getting all the decals per the instructions - you'll see it's not worth it.

FortunateSon

i could only find this photo of my first experiments with the stencils two or whatever years ago. i think this was a work in progress when i took the photo.