SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

The X-Files Group Build

18352 views
224 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Northern California
Posted by jeaton01 on Saturday, February 17, 2024 11:05 PM

Shades of the Fisher XP-75!

John

To see build logs for my models:  http://goldeneramodel.com/mymodels/mymodels.html

 

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Saturday, February 17, 2024 3:12 PM

M247 Sargeant York

The M247 Sergeant York DIVAD (Division Air Defense) was a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG), developed by Ford Aerospace in the late 1970s. Based on the M48 Patton tank, it replaced the Patton's turret with a new one that featured twin radar-directed Bofors 40 mm rapid-fire guns. The vehicle was named after Sergeant Alvin York, a famous World War I hero.

The Sergeant York was intended to fight alongside the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley in the U.S. Army, in a role similar to the Soviet ZSU-23-4 and German Flakpanzer Gepard. It would replace the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System SPAAG and MIM-72 Chaparral missile, ad hoc systems of limited performance that had been introduced when the more advanced MIM-46 Mauler missile failed to mature.

At the time, most U.S. military policy was based on the US Air Force quickly gaining air superiority and holding it throughout a conflict. In keeping with this, the Army had previously placed relatively low priority on anti-aircraft weapons. This gave them time to mature through testing and shakedowns. In the case of DIVADs the threat was considered so serious and rapidly developing that the Army decided to skip the traditional development period and try to go straight into production by using a number of "off-the-shelf" parts.

Colonel Russell Parker testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 1977 that "We expect this somewhat unorthodox approach to permit a much reduced development time, thus resulting in an earliest fielding date, albeit with higher but acceptable risks... the manufacturer will be required by the fixed price warranty provisions, to correct deficiencies." It was claimed that this would cut up to five years from the development cycle, although it would require problems to be found in service and fixed on the operational vehicles.

Colonel Parker unveiled the DIVAD plan to 49 industry representatives on 18 May 1977. The DIVAD's requirement demanded that the entrants be based on the M48 Patton tank chassis, provided by the Army, which were held in large quantities in surplus depots. DIVAD called for the gun to acquire a target and start firing within five seconds (later extended to eight) of it becoming visible or coming into its 3,000 m range, and had to have a 50% chance of hitting a target with a 30-round burst. In addition to all-weather capability, it also needed to have optical aiming capabilities, including a FLIR and laser rangefinder.

Several companies responded to the DIVADs contest: Sperry Rand, General Electric, Raytheon, General Dynamic, and Ford Aerospace. On 13 January 1978, General Dynamics and Ford were given development contracts for one prototype each, the XM246 and XM247 respectively, to be delivered to Fort Bliss in June 1980. On schedule, both companies delivered their prototypes to the North McGregor Test Facility and head-to-head testing began. In the DT/OT II test series they shot down two F-86 Sabre fighters, five UH-1 Huey helicopters and twenty-one smaller drones.

After the 29-month Phase One trial, Ford's entry was selected as the winner of the DIVADs contest on 7 May 1981, and given a fixed-price $6.97 billion development and initial production contract for deliveries at various rates. The system was officially named M247 Sergeant York when the contract was awarded. The decision was controversial, as the General Dynamics entry had "outscored" the Ford design consistently in testing, nineteen "kills" to nine by most accounts.

Ford's prototype vehicle started demonstrating problems almost immediately. The main concerns had to do with the tracking radar, which demonstrated considerable problems with ground clutter. In testing, it was unable to distinguish between helicopters and trees. When the guns were pointed upward to fire on high-angle targets, the barrels projected into the radar's line of sight and further confused the system. Additionally, the reaction time was far too slow; against hovering helicopters it was 10 to 11 seconds, but against high-speed targets it was from 11 to 19, far too long to take a shot.

The RAM-D (reliability, availability, maintainability and durability) tests ran from November 1981 to February 1982, demonstrating a wide range of operation concerns.[16] The turret proved to have too slow a traverse to track fast moving targets, and had serious problems operating in cold weather, including numerous hydraulic leaks. The simple electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) suite could be defeated by only minor jamming. The used guns taken from U.S. Army stock were in twisted condition due to careless warehousing. Perhaps the most surprising problem was that the 30-year-old M48 chassis with the new 20-ton turret meant the vehicle had trouble keeping pace with the newer M1 and M2, the vehicles it was meant to protect.

In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover. Technicians worked on the problem, and the system was restarted. This time it started shooting toward the target, but fired into the ground 300 metres (980 ft) in front of the tank. In spite of several attempts to get it working properly, the vehicle never successfully engaged the sample targets. A Ford manager claimed that the problems were due to the vehicle being washed for the demonstration and fouling the electronics. In a report on the test, a reporter jokingly wondered if it ever rained in central Europe.

In February 1984 the Defense Department sent a "cure-notice" censuring Ford Aerospace for numerous "totally unacceptable" delays in the program. In March 1984 the Army took delivery, six months late, of the first production model for testing.

In spite of the bad press and development problems, the Army continued to press for the system's deployment as they had no other system in the pipeline to replace it. To add to the problems, another generation of Soviet helicopter and missile designs was pushing their envelope out to 6,000 metres (6,600 yd), rendering DIVADs ineffective at long range. In response, the Army announced it would consider adding the Stinger missile to the DIVAD system, leading to even more cries about its ineffectiveness.

As Washington became increasingly fed up with the DIVAD's problems, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger ordered a $54 million series of battlefield-condition tests. Congress authorized production money to keep the program alive through a test-fix-test cycle but with a caveat; the funds would be released only if Weinberger certified that the gun "meets or exceeds the performance specifications of its contract." The tests were monitored by the Pentagon's new Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E), mandated by Congress in 1983 to serve as an independent watchdog. The tests were carried out late in 1984.

The results were abysmal. When the gun proved unable to hit drones moving even in a straight line, the tests were relaxed to hovering targets. The radar proved unable to lock even to this target, as the return was too small. The testers then started adding radar reflectors to the drone to address this "problem", eventually having to add four. The system now tracked the drone, and after firing a lengthy burst of shells the drone was knocked off target. As it flew out of control, the range safety officer had it destroyed by remote control. This was interpreted by the press as an attempt to "fake" the results, describing it as "sophomoric deceits". From that point on, every test success was written off as faked.

The OT&E concluded that the gun could perform the mission as originally specified, but the tests also showed that the system had considerable reliability problems, many as the result of trying to adapt a radar system developed for aircraft to the ground role.

On 27 August 1985, Weinberger killed the project after about 50 vehicles had been produced. He said, "the tests demonstrated that while there are marginal improvements that can be made in the York gun, they are not worth the additional cost-so we will not invest any more funds in the system."

Most of the production Sergeants York ended up as targets on air force bombing ranges. However, one is on display at the Sgt. Alvin C. York State Historic Park in Pall Mall, TN where its namesake hailed from, one is in the Wahner E. Brooks Historical Exhibit at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Grounds, AZ, another is located at the AAF Museum in Danville, VA, one at the Fort Snelling Military Museum in Minneapolis, MN (now closed), and one located at the Arkansas National Guard Museum at Camp Robinson, North Little Rock, Arkansas.

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Tuesday, February 13, 2024 8:59 PM

Tanker-Builder> Guess those early pressure suits squeezed more than your blood!  Big Smile

Thanks!

Gary

  • Member since
    October 2019
  • From: New Braunfels, Texas
Posted by Tanker-Builder on Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:49 AM

OOOOOOOH!

     Just love these "Go-Fast" Wingy Thingies! Gorgeous!

  • Member since
    October 2019
  • From: New Braunfels, Texas
Posted by Tanker-Builder on Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:47 AM

Gary!

        You did a nice job there. I would imagine the pilot had to change his  flightsuit after that ride!

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Sunday, February 11, 2024 9:51 PM

Bob,

Not much advice on the white paint.  I just suggest a good undercoating with either grey or white primer.

Gary

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Nashville, TN area
Posted by bobbaily on Saturday, February 10, 2024 1:58 PM

John-love the X-15....it does look like a museum exhibit.

Gary-the D-558-2 came out very nicely.  I picked up a Lindberg X-3 Stiletto I hope to add, time allowing-if so, I'm sure I'll be asking for advice with the white paint.

Bob

 

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Friday, February 9, 2024 9:26 PM

Thanks, guys!  It was quite interesting working on such an old model.  I have a "Bell X-5" I plan to do.  It's just about as old and will benefit from the work done on the D-558-2.

Gary

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Northern California
Posted by jeaton01 on Thursday, February 8, 2024 8:52 PM

Any white that doesn't get brown from my dirty fingers looks good to me!  I think it's nice.

John

To see build logs for my models:  http://goldeneramodel.com/mymodels/mymodels.html

 

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Wednesday, February 7, 2024 8:44 PM

Gary: I have no idea how accurate she is but she looks beautiful to me. White ain't an easy colour to get right and yet she looks just right. 

 

Kudos sir! 

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Monday, February 5, 2024 10:37 AM

She's finished.  The model is not very accurate and the decals may not represent a version of the real thing, but it's done.  I'll live with that.

The stand I put together from a wooden base and some doweling to represent her in flight.

If you look closely, you can just make out a scared pilot!

For such an old model, she went together fairly well.  I did sand off the raised decal outlines, and the decals were toast because of their age, but an enjoyable build.

Thanks for looking!

Gary

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Monday, February 5, 2024 10:20 AM

An excellent job on the X-15, John!  You've done her proud!  I'll get her up on the front page.  Congrats!

Gary

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Sunday, February 4, 2024 8:46 PM

Gary: Love how she looks with the decals on. Great save there! 

John: She looks fantastic! Great work! In the shot from the underside in the second photo if I didn't see the shelf beams I'm swear I were looking at the real thing hanging from the ceiling of a musuem. 

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: USA
Posted by keavdog on Saturday, February 3, 2024 8:59 PM

Finished the X-15 last night.  Fun little project.

Thanks,

John

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Thursday, February 1, 2024 10:33 AM

The decals are on, and while they may not be the best, at least you can read them!  The D-558-2 is approaching completion.  I have some shading to do, maybe some touch-up, and a final coat of finish.  I think I'll try something a bit glossier this time, just to help the decals blend in.

Also, the base is coming along.  I'll give it a stain and then gloss coat it also.  Should look fine.

Gary

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Wednesday, January 31, 2024 10:44 PM

That looks great Gary! Even if not the most accurate she's a fine lookin' model! 

Sucks about the decals but as Bob said nice save on them!

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Monday, January 29, 2024 10:20 PM

Thanks, Bob!  Decal printing is not so hard once you get it down.  A good decal paper, and an okay printer makes a world of difference!

Looking forward to seeing the Aerotech!

Gary

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Nashville, TN area
Posted by bobbaily on Monday, January 29, 2024 4:46 PM

Gary-nice save on the decals-I need to research and try coping & making decals-I've had one too many explode in the water.

And the Sky Rocket is coming along nicely.

Hope to get back to the Aerotech this weekend.

Bob

 

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Monday, January 29, 2024 10:15 AM

MBT-70 / Kampfpanzer 70

By the early 1960s, with the Cold War now well into its second decade, Western intelligence learned the Soviets were preparing a vastly improved version of their T-62 main battle tank with upgraded armor, three-man crew and an autoloading main gun. The American and West German armies faced exactly the same threat in exactly the same theater of operation. As a result, the American and West German armies both needed a heavy tank that could move fast, fire a very large round and withstand as much as it could dish out.

But at the time, the U.S. defense planners concluded what was needed was a tank so advanced that it would keep us ahead of the Russians for a full generation, not just a couple years. American Defense Secretary Robert McNamara decided to do something no one had ever tried before or since; he got the West Germans to agree to jointly develop this “super-tank” with the United States. The program was to be called the Main Battle Tank 70 or MBT-70.

Today, many weapon systems are developed as part of a cooperative effort by two or more allied countries. But for some reason, nobody ever tries to jointly develop tanks. Nobody really knows why, although the MBT-70 experience might provide a clue.

There was one very good reason to think that the MBT-70 project might work. Initially, both parties saw eye to eye on the new tank’s basic design parameters; a primary one being that it should have a much lower silhouette than the current M60, which was several feet higher than the tallest Russian tank. Instead of having the crew stations inside the hull, as was usually the case, they were being put inside the MBT-70’s oversized turret, which would be protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) threats. This also made it easier to work out the tank’s armor layout, which they agreed should consist of two spaced layers; an outer layer made of thick, hard, cold-rolled steel and an inner layer made of “soft’ steel that would also protect against “spalling,” or interior fragmentation of the armor.

They also agreed to employ an advanced and complex hydro-pneumatic suspension system enabling it to travel cross-country at high speeds, despite its projected fifty-ton weight. The suspension would also be capable of being raised or lowered by the driver so that the tank could “crouch down” to only four inches off the ground when stationary or be raised up to a full twenty-eight inches when running cross-country.

But after that, there were disagreements. They differed on major elements like the main gun and engine, and even whether the design should use metric or SAE measurements. On this latter issue, they ultimately agreed to use both, which did nothing to contain the rising costs of the tank.

Instead of settling on one gun, they decided to both go with what they wanted, again causing the costs to skyrocket. The Germans chose a relatively simple, auto-loading, 120 mm Rheinmetall gun, while the Americans insisted on using the much more complex XM150 auto-loading, stabilized, laser rangefinder-equipped 152mm gun/launcher system, which, besides using an extensive variety of conventional tank rounds, could also fire the Shillelagh anti-tank missile.

The problem was, the American gun/launcher system never really worked. Variants of the system equipped the M551 Sheridan light reconnaissance vehicle and M60A1E2 tanks, but there were problems with the caseless 152 mm gun rounds, the overly complex Shillelagh missile, and the fire control and stabilization system. The extent of the problems with the M60A1E2 was such that most of the turrets were scrapped and the hulls re-equipped with turrets mounting conventional 105 mm cannon.

When the prototypes were built and testing started in 1968, both German and American contingents were pleased with the tank’s mobility. The German 120 mm gun also proved excellent, but the American XM150 continued to be problematic. As testing continued, they realized they had another big problem. Because the driver would be located inside a turret that would be rotating in battle, the tank’s designers had come up with the solution of mounting the driver inside his own contra-rotating cupola within the turret. Regardless of the direction the turret was facing, the cupola would automatically face forward. The drivers, however, accustomed to being located in a stationary position at the front of a tank’s hull, were becoming disoriented and suffering from motion sickness.

In the end, that was just one problem of several. So many leading-edge technologies incorporated into the tank’s design, from the hydro-pneumatic suspension, laser rangefinder, ballistic computer and night vision system to the remotely-operated 20 mm anti-aircraft cannon and the 152 mm gun/launcher, meant there were problems making these new and complex systems work, and costs rose.

They rose to roughly a million dollars a tank, five times the original estimated cost. By 1969, the Germans had pulled out of the program in favor of developing their own Leopard 2. Congress was also fed up.  The Army tried placating them with a lower-cost system based on the same design, the XM803, but what they ended up with was an expensive version of the original M60. Congress cancelled the program at the end of 1971, and the Army plunged the remaining funds into development of what became the M1 Abrams the very next month.

The MBT-70 project was a massive failure, but many of the technologies that emerged from it were later perfected and employed in the M1 Abrams and West Germany’s subsequent Leopard II tank. A variant of the Germans’ 120 mm main gun, for example, equips the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams today.

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Monday, January 29, 2024 9:55 AM

The decal printing went better than I had hoped!

I guess I'll let them dry and then give them a coating of decal bonder to help stabilize the ink.  Maybe I'll get the D-558-2 finished sooner than I thought!  Feeling happy now.

Gary

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Sunday, January 28, 2024 10:06 PM

Thanks, Gamera!  Not the most accurate model, however.

Well, the painting is done.  I've applied a coating of Future over her to prepare for decals.  Unfortunately, due to the age of the decals, I wanted to test whether they would stay together while applying.  The first shattered into a thousand pieces while sitting in the water bowl!  I guess that answers my question.

Now, I don't think spraying them with decal bonder would work.  They are just too old.  I've made a copy of them on the scanner, but lately my printer has been producing fuzzy images and I don't know what the problem is, so printing a new set might be out of the question.  I'll try, but don't hold out much hope.

My best bet is to try to source some new decals, lettering and stars and bars.  I've seen some that should work and I may end up ordering some.  Until then, I'll hold off on further work on the D-558-2, at least for a couple of weeks.  We'll see about starting something new.

Gary

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Friday, January 26, 2024 11:18 PM

Gary: She looks good! 

And I agree, I like winter up to Christmas and then I'm ready for spring... 

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Thursday, January 25, 2024 11:01 AM

1956 General Motors Firebird II

The Firebird II was one of a quartet of prototype cars that General Motors (GM) engineered for the 1953, 1956, and 1959 Motorama auto shows. The cars' designers, headed by Harley Earl, took Earl's inspiration from the innovations in fighter aircraft design at the time. General Motors never intended the cars for production, but rather to showcase the extremes in technology and design that the company was able to achieve.

General Motors researched the feasibility of gas turbine engines in cars as early as the 1940s. It was not until the early 1950s that the company began building an actual engine, under the direction of Charles L. McCuen, general manager of General Motors Research Laboratories, with Emmett Conklin leading the project.

As these concept cars were not specifically tied to any one division of GM, the Firebird I, II, and III were adorned with the logo of the General Motors Air Transport Section (GMATS).

The second of the concept cars, the Firebird II of 1956, was designed as a four-seat, family car. It had a low and wide design with two large air intakes at the front, a high bubble canopy top, and a vertical tail fin. Its exterior bodywork is made entirely of titanium. The engine output is 200 hp (150 kW). To solve the exhaust heat problem, the car feeds the exhaust through a regenerative system, allowing the engine to operate nearly 1,000 °F (538 °C) cooler, and also powers the accessories. Capable of using different types of fuel, the most common is Kerosene.

The concept car was also the first use by General Motors of disc brakes on all four wheels, along with a fully independent suspension. It also featured a non-operational guidance system intended for use with "the highway of the future," where an electrical wire embedded in the roadway would send signals that would help guide cars and avoid accidents.

GM preserved the prototype cars at the GM Heritage Center in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Models of the cars are in the permanent collection of the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, and the cars still make regular appearances at car shows.

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Thursday, January 25, 2024 10:57 AM

Works been kinda slow on the D-558-2.  I've closed her up and started detailing (what there is).  Weather is holding me up.  Meanwhile, I've been keeping busy on other things (such as an old ESCI / Italeri F-86 E/F) that's also ready for paint. 

I'm ready for winter to be over!

Gary

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Thursday, January 18, 2024 7:43 PM

I like the F-16XL.  Too bad no one choose it as a model to build.  Sad

As for the X-62A, Hasegawa is releasing a model this month, so I was prompted to include a write up on it.  Some interesting systems being tried out.

Gary

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Thursday, January 18, 2024 6:30 PM

Gary: Looks like she's gonna be just plain jane Bronze Green. Yeah, I looked though some Korean War British armour too and it all seems mostly just green. No big deal, I've painted enough US and Soviet/Russian tanks just plain boring green too. 

Cool NF-16D! I kinda wish the USAF had built the F-16XL with the cranked delta wing. The F-16 with the delta wing looks just plain badass. But it seems that despite increasing the range about 50% without any drop tanks it ruined the plane's handling...

 

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:02 AM

X-62 / NF-16D

The General Dynamics X-62 VISTA ("Variable Stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft") is an experimental aircraft, derived from the F-16D Fighting Falcon, which was modified as a joint venture between General Dynamics and Calspan for use by the United States Air Force (USAF). Originally designated NF-16D, the aircraft was redesignated X-62A on 14 June 2021 as part of an upgrade to a Skyborg, with System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS).

The NF-16D VISTA testbed aircraft incorporated a multi-axis thrust vectoring (MATV) engine nozzle that provides for more active control of the aircraft in a post-stall situation. As a result, the aircraft is super maneuverable, retaining pitch and yaw control at angles of attack beyond which the traditional control surfaces cannot change attitude.

The NF-16D VISTA is a Block 30 F-16D based on the airframe design of the Israeli Air Force version, which incorporates a dorsal fairing running the length of the fuselage aft of the canopy and a heavyweight landing gear derived from the Block 40 F-16C/D. The fairing houses most of the variable-stability equipment and test instrumentation. The heavyweight gear permits simulation of aircraft with higher landing sink rates than a standard F-16.

The program was notable for the development of Direct Voice Input and the "Virtual HUD", which were both eventually to be incorporated into the cockpit design for the F-35 Lightning II.

The VISTA aircraft is now operated by the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School and maintained by Calspan at Edwards Air Force Base. It is regularly used in student curriculum sorties, special academic projects, and flight research. As of 14 June 2021 VISTA is in the midst of upgrading. In addition to replacing the VISTA Simulation System (VSS) with a newer, upgraded version of the same system, a System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS) will be added in order to operate X-62A as a Skyborg. One application is as autonomously piloted aircraft, perhaps as robotic wingman to a manned aircraft.

GAF
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • From: Anniston, AL
Posted by GAF on Thursday, January 18, 2024 7:00 AM

The FV2005 is looking good!  Sorry about the spade.  I think whatever you come up with will be okay.  Smile

As to camo, since it was a prototype, I doubt anyone worried about that.  What were British tanks painted in that period?  If you want a "What If" scheme, I'd go with that.

Gary

PS> Being curious, I looked up British camo schemes from the Korean War (being the most likely conflict it would have engaged in).  Not much variation there.  Seems olive drab was the most common.  Maybe you'll have better luck finding something.

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Wednesday, January 17, 2024 8:56 PM

Gary: Thanks! Still haven't started the kit though... Embarrassed

 

However I did pretty much finish up painting the FV2005 and a bit out of order put the wheels on over the weekend. I looked around the internet and couldn't find any British Centurion tank from the same time period with much of any markings. So it looks like I'm going with simple bronze green here. Painting the tools now, hopefully I'll have them on this weekend and ready to put down another gloss coat for the washes.

Only real problem is the spade on the back of the thing is crooked. I've tried bending and flexing it but it won't stay straight. Instead of ripping it off and trying to re-cement it a little straighter I'm thinking of just mounting the thing to the base with the spade already dug into the earth.

  

 

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • From: SW Virginia
Posted by Gamera on Wednesday, January 17, 2024 8:49 PM

keavdog

Thanks.  I'm doing her black - wicked looking.  With the silver tanks like this pic but in flight

 

Very cool. I love that look for the X-15... 

"I dream in fire but work in clay." -Arthur Machen

 

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.