Lightnings ... um ... edited

[Scotaidh]

Woh! Heavy metal time!


Skean Dhu (a.k.a. Sgian Dubh, apparently) is a great name for a short-range AIM.

Potato, pommes de terre ... 

I've seen both spellings.  'S what happens when one language uses the alphabet of another language. 

[Scotaidh]

Weapons mounted

[Captain Canada]

Very cool ! Bombed to the b'jesus that !

[Old Wombat]

Very cool ! Bombed to the b'jesus that !

Agreed!

Woh! Heavy metal time!


Skean Dhu (a.k.a. Sgian Dubh, apparently) is a great name for a short-range AIM.

Potato, pommes de terre ... 

I've seen both spellings.  'S what happens when one language uses the alphabet of another language. 

I knew what a skean dhu was but decided to look it up on Google, anyway (get sidetracked into lots of fun things that way), & almost everything had the sgian dubh spelling, which I'd never seen before.

[Scotaidh]

Very cool ! Bombed to the b'jesus that !

Agreed!

Woh! Heavy metal time!


Skean Dhu (a.k.a. Sgian Dubh, apparently) is a great name for a short-range AIM.

Potato, pommes de terre ... 

I've seen both spellings.  'S what happens when one language uses the alphabet of another language. 

I knew what a skean dhu was but decided to look it up on Google, anyway (get sidetracked into lots of fun things that way), & almost everything had the sgian dubh spelling, which I'd never seen before.

Thanks, guys.  I think the missiles were intended to be Sidewinder B's, but the nose is too long and the rear fins have an angled trailing edge and are hugely proportioned, so I just slapped on a made-up name.  The Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/skean-dhu) has this to say ... 

I have a hard time with Google, MS Word, and Wikipedia being the arbiters of "All Knowledge" - but I've realized that it really wasn't too much different when I was a child.  But then, the sources were World Book, Compton's, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam's  and the Oxford English dictionaries ...

In my youth I used to build models as fast as humanly possible, and they looked it.  So, I guess possibly as penance, I take my time - allow glue and paint to dry, take the time to obtain the parts and pieces I need - which means that I'm enjoying the  build process much more.  That does mean, sadly, that I enjoy the finished model less, although it does give me the chance to consider what to build next - always fun. 

[Scotaidh]

Markings are a particular pain for me - national, squadron ; you name it, I hate 'em.  I never seem to be able to make them look real.

Especially this is true of the markings I invent.  Financially stuck with an inkjet printer, I have taken to simply printing out my creations and gluing them to the aircraft, usually with thinned white glue.

No more!  I have found a better mousetrap, if you will, and it's called Jot clear glue.  It is made in China (where else) and brought to America at the behest of a company rejoicing in the name of Greenbriar International, Inc. of Chesapeake, Virginia; and in Canada by DTSC Imports of Burnaby, British Columbia. 

It dries clear.  Yes, yes, I know that Elmer's is supposed to do that also, but there seems to always be a white border, a translucency instead of transparency.  Jot dries transparent.



These are the markings I've made up for my version of the Royal Scottish Airforce - the blue-and-white saltire roundels and the squadron markings - the triquetra, the kelpe, thistle, royal lion rampant, celtic cross, and the crossed swords, both with and without the gold background.

The roundels are sized to 3/8" diameter; the plain Squadron markings are 1/2"; and the gold-backed Squadron markings are 5/8".

Brush on a thin layer of Jot where the decal is to be placed; emplace the decal and remove any air bubbles; brush a thin layer of Jot to cover  the decal, and let it all dry.  The glue is water-wipe-up, like Elmer's, but once dry can endure a little water with impunity - the amount of water required to, say, emplace a water-slide decal for things like aircraft number and emergency placards.

I'm very chuffed by this stuff - the Decal Dilemma has been plaguing me for some weeks now.    But, decals are on, matte varnish is drying as we speak, and soon I'll have pictures to prove it. 

[The Wooksta!]

Make sure the resolution is REALLY high/BIG!  72dpi (dots per inch) will look fine on a monitor but printed looks utter cack.  Go for a minimum of 600dpi.

[Dizzyfugu]

Yup, that's the weakness of using MS Paint. You cannot manipulate the resolution/size, and this is confined to monitor format (72 or 96 dpi at best). For printing, a minimum of 300 dpi is recommended.

[Scotaidh]

Yup, that's the weakness of using MS Paint. You cannot manipulate the resolution/size, and this is confined to monitor format (72 or 96 dpi at best). For printing, a minimum of 300 dpi is recommended.

Well, Paint is what I have - it's all I have, so ... My setting is 96 DPI, and you're right, I can't change it. 

<shrug>  "What can't be cured must be endured."

Maybe my eyesight is worse than I thought.  Maybe it's just because that's all I've ever known and I'm used to it, but my print-out looks fine to me, even with my glasses off and the paper an inch from my nose.   

But, with decals as with paint and persnickety small details on a 1" = 6' scale; I reckon that viewing a 1/72 scale aircraft at 1' - 2' viewing distance is about the same as seeing the real aircraft 72' - 144' away.  How many panel lines, small details, and etc. are you really going to see/notice?  With my myopic eyes, even lens corrected to 20x20 - not many.  In my youth I once met someone who painted the hands on the pilot's wristwatch in 1/72 ... I then thought, and still think, he's mad.

Question - at what resolution are decals printed; you know, the ones in the kit boxes?

[Scotaidh]

I can't think of a modern combat aircraft that doesn't have an Inflight Refueling capability, and although it's a bit late in the build, better late than never, I guess.

For the Ground Strike Lightning I decided to use a version of the F.6 fixed probe.  The nozzle was giving me fits, trying to find something that looked the part but was also that small.  I tried lathing sprue, shaping it with Swiss files and an X-acto knife - it looked good, but in 1/48 scale.  I finally settled on the business end of a ball-point pen filler, using dish soap to get rid of the ink.  It's still a bit oversize, but I can live with it.



For the Cloud Lightning I decided a folding probe, similar to that on a Tonka, would be better, so I set about making one.

[Rick Lowe]

That pen point works well - I'll have to remember that trick!

[Scotaidh]

Finally!  The Cloud Lightning, operated only by the Royal Scots Armed Forces, is complete. 

My photography is crap, especially compared to some of you, but I hope you enjoy this pictures anyway.    The model is suspended on 4lb test monofilament (fishing line).  In college I had a chunk of fish net hanging from my ceiling - carefully attached so as to avoid the wrath of the dormitory officials - and stretched and gathered to create separate areas.  I made double-hooks from paper clips (two per clip), which served to attach the monofilament on the models to the netting.  I had little vignettes (pun intended) all over, so I could sit at my desk or where-ever and see dogfights, bombing runs, high-altitude recon, and so on. 
The netting has given way to heavy-duty staples and I'm taking over the basement, much to my wife's discontent. 

[Tophe]

Good!

[Old Wombat]

Like the camo scheme!

[NARSES2]

Like the camo scheme!

Yup, it's quite elegant as well. The extra fuselage length suits it