Wow, Dean, that’s pretty much the best compliment I could get. Thank you! 
I indeed have the J-10. I really do need to take a break (building these things can be mentally exhausting, although a hobby should be relaxing, right?), but I might could be persuaded into a build in a few weeks… 
In the meantime, gonna post pics to the main page.
PB- that is fantastic!! I love all the little details (grab bars on the backsides of the rocket pods!) that set this one apart from my version… yours has the more accurate details that Trumpy just fudged.
Those honking big Bison decals scare me but look damn good. Gotta wonder why they used a Bison when the bird is a Rook?
Anyhoo- great job on the camo and markings- where’d you get those?- and the load-out looks ‘right’ to me.
If this was a test-run for a Su-27, then I can’t wait to see what you do there.
Dean- no, I haven’t yet had a chance to try one of those…
Thanks for the compliments, Dre! You guys are gonna start making me think I’m a decent modeler.
Unfortunately, I don’t know the story behind the Bison decals (haven’t taken the time to do any in-depth online research). From the photos I did find, though, it seems like this bird was retired and then maybe restored for display or touring or something…? There is an early photo of it under wraps and looking badly weathered, then a later photo where it’s all shiny and new. Who knows? Never can tell with the Russians.
You can imagine applying those decals was definitely a Cold Sweat Moment. Yikes. I went overboard on the decal solution to make sure they didn’t rip.
And all the decals came with the kit. The Eduard limited editions are expensive, but you get a lot of options for markings and profiles. I think the Su-25 limited edition came with six. If you’re bored, you check out the instructions here:
In any event, reviews indicate that the OEZ/Kopro kit (on which this Eduard rerelease is based), is still the most accurate Su-25 model available (even though it came out in the late Eighties and isn’t 100% accurate, either). I don’t know anything about the accuracy of your Trumpy, but I think the Monogram Frogfoot was based on an early prototype, not production aircraft.
Cheers,
PB
Based on the photos I’ve looked at for the last year, that OEZ/Kopro is definitely more accurate- things like the doors in the right places, that shroud over the driver’s seat, the ladders. Trumpy just kind of winged it on those things.
Yeah, I can see a little terror going down when those decals hit the water…I hate huge decals.
Dean, no one here in KC seems to have the bar stock to make this drink, not even a higher-end steakhouse! I feel lucky to find Guinness stout on tap here in the heartland… but the beef is out of this world, tonight I’m fat, dumb and happy on rich red meat (God help my cholesterol).
Easy, just buy the stuff from a super market, Lager, Cider, Blackcurrant, I can’t believe a bar has not got those 3 ingredients lol, If you ever come to Belfast for whatever reason just get in touch and I’ll buy you one lol.
Deal!
im might build the 1/48 Mig-17F fresco C
That’s one of my favorite planes! You should give it try. Here’s a few pics of mine, the Hobby Boss MiG-17F:
I just ordered a set of No. Korean/Iranian decals for my MiG-29, for whenever I get back to it…
GREAT finish on the Su-25, Porkbits. I like the tail art, not something you see often on Soviet machines.
Thank you, Vance!
Here’s a pic of the actual plane (in case you guys wanted to see the real thing):
Nice picture, you know again I notice the panel lines are not visible on the real aircraft from this distance. I remember the Sea Harriers on HMS Illustrious they were dirty around the aft fuselage but not around the front, Even at that they panel lines were not visible, or on the Embarked RAF Harriers. Or any aircraft from a distance with the odd exception. I say this as I have ruined a million models over some years frying to get the panel lines right, and I still sort of wing it even now as I have not got one technique that works every time, I must be doing something wrong!
I agree that real life Aircraft don’t usually show the weathering that we like to give our models, but a model without some panel washing just looks unfinished… solid black is too strong, but a medium grey is just right for panels IMO. Payne’s Grey seems to me to be the best match for the grime I see on operational aircraft.
I don’t know if one can over-weather a Russian airplane…
texgunner, thats amazing, keep it up! i will have to defiantly try it out. if we where doing german planes i would do the 262 from red tails. haha
Yeah, Dre and Dean, I constantly go back-and-forth re: panel line debate. Since we’re building in scale, anything that makes a model look less toy-like helps, but I’ve also seen panel line washes WAY overdone. I think it depends on the subject.
In any case, it’s truth that you can never overdo a Russian plane.
I guess you guys are right, but I have to say I think it’s the Sudanese Flankers are matt green/brown camo and its nearly impossible to see the panel lines, having said that I agree it adds realism, even though it may not always be realistic which is an odd concept. At any rate I think I will use artists oils over a really good gloss finish and see what becomes of It. I know the acrylic/oil routine but does anybody know, is Tamiya clear a gloss varnish?
For the Sudanese Flankers, to use your example, I’d guess that they have more sun-effect weathering and fading than they would accumulated grime in the panels just because I can’t imagine them actually getting much flight time compared to other foreign operators with better operations budgets.
I don’t know about the Tamiya finishing sprays, but I imagine that they have a gloss and a dull like Testor’s does.
I agree, Dean; with some a/c you just can’t see the lines. Sudanese Flankers sound like a good example of that.