WT Forums

Two 1/72 scale Corgi A-10's are coming ...

http://www.tricatus.co.uk/PreProduction ... _group.htm

shuck

_________________
shuck

Nice, I asked every year on airshows by salesmen if the A-10's are coming as Corgi models. I see "limited edition"!
Thanks Shuck for the news.

Salute Dutchy
------------------------
Termites do it in the dark!
(47FS Barksdale afb)

_________________
73-1664

Well Its got teeth! 3 things wrong with it though,
1. We never carried 6 MAV's back then or with the 23TFW/74TH TFS
2. Its a BLUE TAIL!
3. I'm sorry but Corgi needs to start paying attention to the
Paint jobs on their Jets. I know it might cost more etc... but its worth it.

But I guess someone is Smart enough to make HOG models.

Goose

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Corgi is merging with HobbyMaster, apparently, and that's where this mold is coming from. I already told a HM rep that the three missile was wrong. He said it'll probably be that the ordnance will be loose in the box for self attachment. The pix are early product mock-ups.

http://forum.themodelhangar.com/showthread.php?t=984

http://www.hobbymastercollector.com/hob ... rnews.html

The Second Amendment: America's original homeland security.
Ya just can’t take life too seriously, because you aren’t going to get out of it alive anyway.

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

Not to step on any toes, but we did carry six Mavericks when we only had As and B's. Prior to development of the LAU-117, the six pack was the combat load.

The whole flap/paint controversy didn't come up until later in the '80s.

Once D-models became available, we stopped carrying fill LAU-88s because of the damage to neighboring missile seeker covers during launch.

The drag of a LAU-88 is heinous, I'm glad they are gone, but we do need a good two-rail laauncher.

Coach

>hopping from one foot to another< Ouch! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> So, I guess I'll just have to paint the missiles to look like A/B editions. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

The Second Amendment: America's original homeland security.
Ya just can’t take life too seriously, because you aren’t going to get out of it alive anyway.

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

Coach, I was going just by my experiance at the 23TFW,I got there in 85 and never saw a "6" MAV load even on ICT training.
Then during the GULF we only carried 4 so thats what I was going by.

Goose

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

The most unforgivable goof-up is concerning the SP jet, it appears to be sporting an ACC shield instead of a USAFE shield, and the shield is in colour, as opposed to the real life low viz rendering.
Wonder what the latest is on the return of the Panther heads on the engine nacelles?........and will Corgi take a chance and put them on their model?

I too loaded the 3 mav's on the LAU-88(at Eielson, 1982-3), a major pain in the a_s!, and I was very happy to see the LAU-117. We also loaded the -88 at Woodbridge, but never the three missiles. As for accuracy(!) that A-10 from the Franklin mint has an AAC A-10 with the LAU-105 AIM-9 launcher, which during my time frame and the one they list, didn't exist. I agree, as a collector of diecast aircraft (nearly 100), accuracy is important and is one reason I don't have a FM A-10, as the AGM-65's are mounted to the pylons!

They can take just a little more time, and get it right but they choose to not do the "Info Check"


I'll probably still get them, because their all they have.

Goose

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

The Armour Hog models have too many unforgivable inaccuracies, but like Goose said, they are the only option.
I have the SP example, and try and ignore the Escapac ejector seat, six barrell cannon,back to front gear doors, lack of LASTE antenna etc etc etc<img src=newicons/Whatever_anim.gif border=0 align=middle>

Not for nothing, but there also never existed (to the best of my knowledge) a T/N of 964 at Spangdahlem. Nice looking model in general though.