Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CF104

  • Rank
    Starfighter Nut
  • Birthday 03/31/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • Interests
    R/C flying, music and recording. P/C sims. Licensed Aircraft Mechanic currently working on the B757-200, Airbus A300/A310 and have 10+ years Herk experience. Also worked on the B727, B737, CT-114, CT-133 and CF-104.

Recent Profile Visitors

15,555 profile views
  1. Hi Pierre, There are two offset dimensions in play here for the nose gear of the Sabre. The nose gear strut itself is offset to the right in the nose gear forward tunnel and the nose gear forward tunnel is offset to the left of the centerline. These 2 offsets effectively zero each other out so the nose gear strut is on the centerline of the jet. Cheers, John
  2. Except for Classic Airframes with their TA-4J. Cheers, John
  3. Stratospheremodels is a member here but he hasn't visited the ARC Forums since December 2018. Can't help you much beyond that and I hope he's okay. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/profile/2642-stratospheremodels/ Cheers, John
  4. The GWH ejection seats are the same on all of the T-33 boxings. They are kind of a hybrid between an early and late seat but are inaccurate for either one. They will work for the AT-33A but are not totally accurate. The Taiwan boxing gives you the proper pitot tube under the nose. The underwing pylon in the late kit will probably work for an AT-33A but the instructions tell you to put it too far inboard. There are 3 stations per wing and the 2 inboard are for weapons only and the outboard one is plumbed for fuel. This station is just outboard of the flap-aileron junction. The late kit pylon fuel tanks are also not shaped correctly. You could use the late boxing to get the pylons but you would have to source a pitot tube for under the nose. Cheers, John
  5. The Paraguayan Air Force received 6 AT-33A from Taiwan in 1990. Use the Taiwan Air Force boxing. You'll need to source a gun sight, wing pylons, drill the gun ports and maybe add the late USAF T-33 ejection seats.
  6. So, Are they looking at a 4 year release date or something quicker than their last endeavor? I'm not a member of the "Official AMK Fan Facebook group" so a summary of Martins post would be appreciated. Cheers, John
  7. I'm really hoping it's a hoax. As much as I like the Starfighter I'm not sure I'd like to sit through another F-14D thread if they didn't learn their lesson. If it isn't a hoax I hope they do as Kinetic did and keep it under wraps until right before release. Cheers, John
  8. That's an F-104G from the 69th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron. It was based at Luke AFB in USAF markings but was owned by West Germany. West Germany trained their F-104 pilots out of Luke AFB from 1969 to 1982. The 418th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron was also based out of Luke and was also a West German training squadron. Cheers, John
  9. If you plan on building a USAF F-104G (Luftwaffe) based out of Luke AFB then yes this kit will work. It will also work for some NASA schemes as well. Cheers, John
  10. Sounds like you have a personal issue with Danny that's colouring your replies. Whatever that may be, I have had nothing but good dealings with Danny and find his publications very well done and the F-104 update set for the Hasegawa kit was a great addition. Now, getting back to the Kinetic kit, I started building my first one today and so far the fit has been pretty good. The best by far of any Kinetic kit I've built in the past. I'm more concerned with the windscreen fit and will report back when I get the chance to dry fit it. Cheers, John
  11. Let me look through my references. I actually used to own a set of real CF-104 main wheels and nose wheel as well as a set of the rear RWR fairings along with a few other CF-104 bits. This is going back about 22 years. Wish I had the space to keep this stuff. Here's a comparison of the CF-104 RWR antennas from Kinetic, DACO and Belcher Bits. Cheers, John
  12. Didn't say you had to. You might just want to ask if anyone has the DACO set and are not using the antennas. I know I'll have a couple sets to let go eventually. Or just buy sprue C directly from DACO. Cheers, John
  13. The conversation is about the RWR's in the Kinetic kit compared to what's out there. If you have the proper references they're not hard to scratchbuild at all. The trouble is finding those proper references. DACO has the references and made some very nice RWR's for the CF-104. The Belcher Bits ones look like a clone of the white metal offerings from Hasegawa and are not as good or accurate as the DACO ones. If you're looking for accurate, the DACO ones win. Cheers, John
  14. And the Kinetic stabilizer scales out better than both the Hasegawa and DACO ones. Unfortunately you still need the DACO RWR antennas for doing the CF-104. Cheers, Johon
  15. You're correct that the Hasegawa horizontal stabilizer is too narrow in span. Conversely the Daco one is slightly over in span but takes care of the overdone divots. Cheers, John
  • Create New...