F-16's In stock

Post by **aferguson** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:12 am

Then nose cone, which houses the radar, is supposed to be a different colour. I've had my F-16 standing for several days with zero sign of undercarriage warping or bend. It is a bit loose from all the joints and i plan to krazy glue it in place as i intend to have it permanently displayed on its undercarriage. I suspect that once glued it will remain rock solid.

stv9000 · Post by **stv9000** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:56 pm

I sould clearify myself on that nose cone. What I ment to say was that it
doesn't fit right.

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:57 pm

anyone notice that the F-16 sits noticably tail heavy? It's not due to undercarriage sag as the u/c is still as straight as it ever was but i think that the main u/c is just too short, by about 1/3 of an inch which makes the model's tail point down towards the ground a bit instead of being level to the ground.

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:43 pm

upon further examination of the problem it is the nose gear that is too long...by a little over 1/4 inch that throws the whole way the plane sits off. I find it really affects the way it looks sitting on its u/c.

Website · Post by **Teamski** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:50 pm

mmmmm I never noticed it, but again, I had mine hanging before I knew it!

-Ski

tmanthegreat · Post by **tmanthegreat** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:25 am

Perhaps there is a way one can pop off the nosecone and place some weight in it to make the front heavier...

Post by **aferguson** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:12 am

no i didn't mean tail heavy in that it falls backwards; i meant tail heavy in that the tail sits too low, or to be more correct the nose sits to high. The whole effect is that on its u/c it sits wrong with an upward angled look to it rather than a level to the ground look that the real thing has. It's because the nose gear is too long..

tmanthegreat · Post by **tmanthegreat** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:41 am

OK, got what you mean! I've noticed it too with my plane, sitting on the display table in my room. I doesn't entirely bother me...

Sgt. Fury · Post by **Sgt. Fury** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:12 pm

Anyone have problems with the painted line boxing around the pilot's name on one side of the canopy being too large or out of font. Secondly, the Sidewinder missile (AIM 9P) is too large. The Hornet's Sidewinder missile seems more in scale with the actual 5" diameter and 9'-11" length. Thirdly, the Sparrow missile (AIM 7) is supposed to be an actual 8" in diameter. Both missiles seem scaled too large. Which is more accurate?

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:26 pm

It's not an AIM 7....it's an AMRAAM....and it's scaled pretty well but looks a bit chubby. I don't get the oversize sidewinder though, unless it is some new updated larger version..

Lots of little nits to pick on this and indeed every plane that has come out by both BBI and 21C. I still love 'em all though..

Sgt. Fury · Post by **Sgt. Fury** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:08 pm

The Amraam (AIM 120) fins are almost identical in size, front and rear while the Sparrow (AIM 7) fins are larger mid-missile (3'-4" wingspan) and smaller at the tail. The profile and in-scale proportions mimic those of the Sparrow. Additionally the Amraam's diameter is an even smaller 7" as opposed to the Sparrow's 8" diameter, and a mere 2" larger in diameter than the Sidewinder. Silhouette recognition flashcards would most certainly suggest a Sparrow rather than an Amraam. We only nitpik at near-perfection.

Aferg., I'm new to this site but have been following the posts from the previous site. I love the debates and sharing of info the members engage in. Love to learn. Thanks for carrying the torch. And yes, I love'em too.

Source: http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/armament.html

Sdup · Post by **Sdup** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:16 am

Sparrow or AMRAAM???

My geuss is that it's the AGM-88 HARM. The HARM has a similar profile to the Sparrow but is slightly larger in diameter and length.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-88.htm

We should just set up a poll and vote on what we think it is

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:31 am

it does look like a HARM doesn't it. hmm...i think we have a sort of generic missile here that mimics three others..

F-16's can carry HARM's so maybe that's what it is...

Incidentally, according to my research the F-16 would not carry both the bombs and the full load of missiles (regardless of what they are) on a real combat mission. It would be either the bombs or the Sparrow/HARM/AMRAAM (plus the elephantatic sidewinders in both cases..).

Website · Post by **Teamski** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:13 pm

OK, so bbi gave it a generous loadout.......

-Ski

buzzard · Post by **buzzard** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:15 am

It's definitely not a HARM but an out of scale AMRAAM, or, a Sparrow. Looking closer at the HARM:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smar ... vic424.jpg

(BTW, thanx for the link Sdup.)

one will notice that the fins in the mid-fluesage of the HARM differ from those of the AIM-7, the former also has a larger diameter as can be seen from the pics.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/miss ... 7-wsmr.jpg

though they look similar from afar or at first glance. Only ANG ADF-model vipers carried the sparrow. The only exceptions to this as far as I know are the export birds.

Payload wise, the Vipers did carry a full load of AIM-9s/AMRAAMs & air-to-ground PGMs in combat. The loadouts mentioned by Aferg were used as well. EG, during Allied Force over Kosovo in '99, both USAF & NATO F-16s did carry 4 AIM-120s along with bombs & HARMs during night missions for instance when visual dogfighting would undoubtedly be harder & it was thought better to take out bandits with BVR missiles. My 2 cents.

Small Scale Military Headquarters

F-16's In stock

Mystery Missile