Eurofighter 1:32 (Revell)

[silverburn]

Hi all,

My xmas present has arrived...

This one varies from my other models in that I will be consciously taking my time on it, with a improvement in general accuracy and painting quality (and lots of walkaround photo's to be memorised) - so don't expect daily updates. That, and having a newborn to look after!

While I'll be persuing accuracy/quality as much as possible, I'll probably still be limited to colours, which is why I've included my original 1:48 in the foreground (also found here) - this will be the closest colours I can match using rattlecans. Ie it will be a "proper" grey, rather than the blue-ish grey intended. Apart from that...I'll do all I can to match "real life", and to do the model justice!

It will be modelled in RAF config, with engine out, and gear down. Likely I'll replicate the 1:48 load-out too, but more accurate - ie I won't be loading sidewinders and ASRAAM's in the same load out. I think that's right?

Ignore the primed 1:72 Hawk - that's a test rig for a forthcoming project.

Edited March 25, 2010 by silverburn

[Mark M]

looking forward to this, i have some photos of the storm shaddow as i mentioned in the 1/48 thread if you want them

[James V]

Looking forward to seeing this one develop. I am reviewing this one for a web site and just waiting to get it in the post

[silverburn]

looking forward to this, i have some photos of the storm shaddow as i mentioned in the 1/48 thread if you want them

Yep, I was looking forward to doing them again in 1:32 (I'd used the same pic as you)...only to find no Storm Shadows (or Paveway's) in the kit! Looks like it's all air-to-air stuff. Booo.

As you can see:

Shame...I mean check out the steaming mound of plastic in this kit - surely a couple of Air-to-ground wouldn't have added much more to the sprues?

Edited December 18, 2009 by silverburn

[JP Vieira]

Very interesting: keep us informed on the build

[Honeybadger]

Arg! Finish that Stuka first!

Then do this. Do it very quickly so we can all "ooh" and "ahh" over it. Looks like its gonna be good.

[AnthonyWan]

Nice!

Good to see someone's jumping on this one so quick...I've not seen them for sale in the US yet..but I'll be picking one up when they make it over.

That said..Can't wait to see what the whole display looks like done - with the engine out and panels open.

-Awan

Edited December 18, 2009 by AnthonyWan

[LopEaredGaloot]

Silverburn,

I like the boxart.

In fact if they had sold it as was originally shown-

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3109/garyan..._fe857509_L.jpg

They could not have offered it here in the States because it would have been deemed fraud (see the old AMT 'F-4G' which was a hardwing jet with someone else' slat-buildup on the boxart. They yanked that sucker off the shelves in a heartbeat then spent 10+ years selling it in bargain bins at half off or less...).

As you can see here (almost at the bottom)-

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....p;#entry1726951

It is possible to get some air to mud stuff from the Trumpeter kit and my understanding from the Cybermodeler review of the single seater is that their A2A stuff is '2 missiles shy of a load...'. Find someone who needs either AMRAAM or Meteor and do a trade perhaps?

My problem with the 1/48th kit is that it's all basically the kind of million dollar (Storm Shadow/KEPD-350) round stuff that you expend all of half a dozen warshots blowing up some backwater's sole SAM site with before you go back to 'ye olde LGB'. Iraq has proven that precision is good but cheap is better and while that means GBU-12/38/49 for us, for you folks that basically comes down to the decidely meaner looking CPU-123B (if there are any kits left) or GBU-16, along with LITENING AT to replace the TIALD for both services.

Mind you, a triplet or two of Brimstone or AASM (which I guess the Germans are due to pick up) wouldn't go amiss, especially if it came with the inner wing pylon and the large (Tornado?) subsonic tanks that they have supposedly been working on in lieu of CFT.

Would make for an interesting 'StriPhoon' loadout, that's for sure.

Looking forward to seeing your buildup.

LEG

P.S. Was supposed to get one of these from Great Models. Anybody know of someone that has these in the States yet? Thanks.

[FalkeEins]

Hi all,

My xmas present has arrived...

..you didn't ask for that PremiAir G35 airbrush after all then ..?

Edited December 19, 2009 by FalkeEins

[Hurricane363]

Don't forget to add the detail to the wings that Revell left off their kit (the trumpeter kit almost had it right), but other than that, good luck.

Looking forward to this one.

Mat

[silverburn]

..you didn't ask for that PremiAir G35 airbrush after all then ..?

I asked, but this is what I got... Not to worry definitely planning one now. Just trying to find a good brush/compressor combo for £150.

Anyway...to today's progress...

I've seen the loadout I want. It's this:

...not entirely sure how achievable getting 6 LGB in 1:32 will be though! Also had a thought - if I'm running an engine out, surely it wouldn't be fully armed? Ie engine out implies maintenance, and doubt the health and safety brigade would allow it to remain fully armed in the process. I might build it closed (looks to be enough bits), but leave the engine as standalone. I'm definitely building it regardless!

Also, I'm starting on the "naked" engine...and here are a couple of reference pics I intend to use. It looks very much like I'll be scratch building some pipework at this stage...a first for me Not entirely sure why one carries far more pipes/cables than the other though. Suggestions?

Anyway, I kicked off the stand. And boy, was it fiddly...especially the clamps securing the "green" bit to the "blue" bit - gahd. Be wary of this one folks - everything on the "stand" sprue is quite flimsy, and secured far too well to the sprue itself. Very easy to break stuff. And it all seems unnecessarily complicated to build - especially the aforementioned clamps.

And the whole assembly of the 4 "stacks" is unnecessarily complex and prone to error. I've been fortunate rather than skillful in getting them all off ok. Oh, and yes, I know it specifies yellow, but frankly the actual number of styles and colours I've seen for stands, I don't think I should be deducted any "accuracy" points.

A quick dark wash will bring out the steelwork, a laquer, and this'll be done. Ignore the dodgy lighting - these do actually look like steel.

Edited December 19, 2009 by silverburn

[Hurricane363]

Also, I'm starting on the "naked" engine...and here are a couple of reference pics I intend to use. It looks very much like I'll be scratch building some pipework at this stage...a first for me Not entirely sure why one carries far more pipes/cables than the other though. Suggestions?

Not being inclined towards the sumpy persuation, i'd have to hazard a guess that one (with the red cables/pipes) has a fire supression system fitted, where the other one ....errrr... doesn't.

Hope this helps,

Mat

[silverburn]

Makes sense! Grats!

Btw....Sumpy? as that any relation to rivet counting?

[Hurricane363]

Makes sense! Grats!

Btw....Sumpy? as that any relation to rivet counting?

Not quite, it's how the RAF name the trades...

Sumpy = Engines

Rigger = Airframes

(Both now mechanical)

Fairy = Avionics

DF = Electrical

(both now avionics)

I was an Electromagician, now i'm an Avionics Tech (who works on 29 Sqn) so if you've got any questions just ask.

Cheers,

Mat

[mtd350]

Not quite, it's how the RAF name the trades...

Sumpy = Engines

Rigger = Airframes

(Both now mechanical)

Fairy = Avionics

DF = Electrical

(both now avionics)

I was an Electromagician, now i'm an Avionics Tech (who works on 29 Sqn) so if you've got any questions just ask.

Cheers,

Mat

I thought sumpies were sooties

I dunno........ aircraft techies.............they make it up as they go along

[Hurricane363]

I thought sumpies were sooties

I dunno........ aircraft techies.............they make it up as they go along

They are, and yes we do (most of the time)!!!!

It's our right!!

Mat

[silverburn]

Just a quick one - pit underway too. Well..have you seen the weather??? Day for inside, modelling

Seat is pretty basic (only started it in this pic). I know you can get higher detail 3rd party versions - but which version of rocket seat should I look for?

Pit is...ok. The raised individual buttons are tricky to paint - just looks to simple a finish for drybrushing, IMO. I'm going to go over and re-do a few tomorrow along with a few other bits of tidying of straight lines etc - just my brush skills letting the side down on that front, pure and simple. And the buttons on the control stick are black, not red & yellow as here.

Wish I could paint through my zoom lens...when I painted this, the lines look a lot straighter/tidier! I must be turning into

Also - the montana gold is going down too thick...again.

[Dave Gibson]

Seat is pretty basic (only started it in this pic). I know you can get higher detail 3rd party versions - but which version of rocket seat should I look for?

Ayup SB.

A good start and still a week to go to Christmas.

I thought this link may come in handy for you: http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/products/Eje...urofighter.aspx

Dave

Edited December 19, 2009 by Dave Gibson

[Honeybadger]

Looking good, if only slightly premature

[silverburn]

Ok, I got a wee bit distracted by the fuselage today, instead of working on the engine as planned. :shithappens:

For those considering this kit, some more important things to consider:

- The main fuselage can bow outwards a bit, and pit is a tight fit - go round glueing sections at a time, and it'll be fine. Very little filler or sanding required for me yet, which I guess is a good thing. Here's the bow, starting at the tailfin section, and ending at the front of the pit.

- The Nose Cone is 3 pieces, and is a nightmare of puttying and sanding if you want perfection. However, you can get to an excellent finish afterwards - only priming will show this one up, but it's utterly smooth to the touch all round:

- The Tail-fin is less than satisfactory; Revell have employed a novel way of glueing it to the airframe by using a sort of "wedge" on the airframe, and I'm not sure the results are as intended. It's a tight fit, so you *must* superglue the fin parts together first (ie don't use normal modelling glue), or the "wedge" on the airframe will split it. You can do it that way, or resort to sanding the wedge - I felt more comfortable with glueing, and retaining a tight fit onto the wedge. Once attached to the airframe, you have a weird join to deal with (see pic below); I'm about to research it myself, to see if filler is required (ie if this a smooth join in real life). You will also need to press in the lower section of the fin while drying to ensure it remains flush with the fuselage.

- You cannot assemble the wings and slap them up against the airframe, as per the 1:48; you must attach the lowers first, and the tops later, as the tops "tab" into the fuselage, as well as attach to the lowers.

- The instructions get a little weird around step 14; you need to make a decision about whether you'll be running an exposed engine or not before attempting any work on the wings. Which is the step I'm at - I'm still undecided as to how to proceed; I was toying with a take-off config (full load, flaps out etc), but am now wondering if it's plausible to be stationery, engine exposed yet still be fully armed? Would such a scenario happen?

Oh, and here is the pit completed, with the standard seat. Standard seat is merely ok - I might invest in a 3rd party version, or some belts at a minimum. Display decals sealed with "dripped on" Revell gloss.

And at the end of today, we are here:

[silverburn]

Update: the tailfin is a smooth seemless join to the fuselage in real life. Looks like I'll be busy with the filler tomorrow...

[silverburn]

Ok, I have decided - I'm going to go "all out"...ie if it can be opened, extended, moved or rotated, it will be. So that means:

- boom extended

- canopy open

- airbrake extended

- Gear down

- right engine "open"

- flaps deployed

- tail rudder slightly applied

- ailerons deployed (to match the tail rudder, perhaps?)

- leading edges deployed*

- footladder deployed

All of which are possible OOB.

* this is the critical one. From what I've read these are only deployed automagically during high intensity low speed manoeuvres; critically they are not deployed for any reason while the plane is grounded. Can any of the "fairies" comment on whether this is correct or not?

The rest could be (though it does stretch plausibility) while the plane is possibly being serviced or perhaps needs emergency engine repairs - the only reason I can think of to have everything "open" while fully armed?

...or maybe I should just lighten up - it cost £45, so why not go for it???

Edited December 21, 2009 by silverburn

[Hurricane363]

If i were going to do a 1:32 Typhoon (which i will be next..) i would do the following....:

- canopy open

- Gear down

- flaps deployed

- tail rudder slightly applied

- ailerons deployed (to match the tail rudder, perhaps?)

***With these 3 options the rudder would be fully applied either way, and everything else can be moved by hand so it could be anywhere***

As for the rest, i wouldn't bother

(As for being armed, you would never do ANY work on an armed A/C)

Mat

[Metallicus]

I say go for it.!

It will be interesting to watch the updates.

[ScottC]

Mine still hasnt arrived

I'll be watching this one

Scott C