HubertB

That’s called « being caught by surprise » … Hubert

This is looking great, Martin ! It may be a parallax effect of the photography, but the guns of the turrets seem to be shooting on a diverging path … Hubert

Yes, I found others as well, because I was inrigued. So the two outside protrusions are for the ingnition wires, one for each cylinder. The center one was linked to another device (some kind of coil ?) either on the front, as in Martin's pic, or at the back of the engine, to a similar device. Hubert

Why do we have three spark plug wires exits, for a two-cylinders’ engine ? Enquiring minds want to know ? Hubert

Glad the massage proved successful, Rob 😉🤣 Hbert

Interesting, but a typical « TV show » video. Whilst repeating ad nauseam the same pieces of video, mixing the images of the F7U-1 and F7U-3 when commenting on either the -1 or the -3, it is also taking a totally biased view that there was nothing good in the Cutlass. It was plagued by poor Westinghouse engines, of insufficient thrust. Remember that the Skyray, the Demon, the Skywarrior were also nearly axed because of their inadequate Westinghouse engines, only they could be re-engined with the J-57, when the Cutlass’ airframe could not … It was also let down by its ambitious high-pressure hydraulic system, when manufacturing capacities were not yet able to produce the hardware. But all the issues of the hydraulic system led to improvements which served ALL the next generation airframes to this day. As for the « post-gyration » stall, or inertia coupling, or « Dutch roll », all new high-performance fighters of that time experienced these new aerodynamic phenomena to a higher or lesser degree. It nearly stopped the F-100, before developments ended making it the successful airframe it became. The Cutlass was an agile, and very sturdy aircraft when its engines and hydraulics let it fly long enough, and not a bad airframe at all. Its real design drawback was the inordinately long front landing gear leg, which was not up to the task of withstanding the stress of the carrier landings, and would, after some time, fail and trigger the ejection seat, which was not a « zero-zero » design, to the unfortunate surprise of its pilot. But then the front LG design was the result of the poor engines, and therefore Vought engineers had to increase the take-off incidence angle. Vought tried to bite a big bone at the time, and it proved too much for the contemporary advancement of aircraft industry. But Westinghouse were holding the shovel that dug its grave. Hubert

The first released batch. Anything older than this one, and you’re safe. I would venture that any one in a LHS or online is a « safe » one. If on auction sites, just check the manufacturing date … Hubert

They are fixed, btw, and make just a very narrow slot … Hubert

I am anything than a Phantom expert, but yes, AFAIK, the slats of the stabs are « inverted » compared to what we are used to. Hubert

One piece of advice - which seemed blindingly obvious with hindsight - I read from Marion Ball, one of the GREAT figure painters of the time, is that the eyes of real people are rarely fully open, and always partially covered by eyelids. Hard to paint, but it makes all the difference when you succeed in representing it … Worth a try on your moustached mechanic ? Hubert

Real improvement there, Carl 👍 ! Hubert

Great Progress Scott. I stumbled upon the same fit issue. Only I decided to remove the bleed fis and add new ones. I am probably trying to chew more than my bite, as I decided then it would be a good idea to represent the bleed fins in full, from the horizontal inlet on the side of the fuselage to the exhaust on top. They are IRL continuous and "S" shaped. Only then do I have issues with the compound shape of the fuselage ... This is where I stood when I moved house and then got plenty of life prioroties to keep me off continuing on this one, for the time being HUbert

Two words of advice Scott: 1) The first critical fit issue in the kit is the junction of the top and bottom fuses at the rear of the wings . Besides adding pressure, mine were not great and required a significant amount of filler, and rescribing 2) Second issue is the fit of the front fuselage and intakes. Mine require a 1.5 mm strip each side to ensure a flush fit between the fuse and intakes. And the vanes for the boundary layer exhaust are continuous between the intake wall and the front fuselage ... In theory they are "S" shaped from the face entry to the exit on the top fuselage. 3) Just remember that the "cross" of the engine faces should be vertical. I forgot about it, and although barely visible, I know I got it wrong, and that upsets me no end ! HTH Hubert

Now that is anything but a stealthy way to fly a F-35 …😶‍🌫️ Hubert

I’ll double my Vought, so that adds the A-7 … Hubert

My vote is for Vought ! Hubert

It looks like the first « 1/35 » Tamiya Panther kit of the 60s … Hubert

I am sure you have spotted the asymmetry between the right and left fairings on the underside of the beast, near the nozzle … This said, the result is amazing ! Hubert

Lovely work, and outstanding result. The Captain of the ship must be very proud to have this one on board 👍 ! Hubert

IIRC, the venerable Monogram one was good, but had a major shape issue with the engine cowlings … No doubt, the ICM one is better, especially after reading Fran’s very good review … Hubert

Wow ! Hubert

Since you asked, here is one, in exclusivity 🤫 … Hubert

Mine is was an Irish whiskey. With the current heat, it evaporated in a blink 😏 ! Hubert

I feel for you, Rob. Let me have also a stiff drink as a token of solidarity and sharing ! Hubert

The last thing you want is to have your rigging snaking around. Straight it must be ! Just my Hubert