CF104

My bad, sorry for intruding on your post. Regards, John

Yes, it's ex RCAF with a 6-3 hard wing. Here's more information. https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=17006

As nice as the kit is, I feel it's over engineered in some places. I'm a firm believer of test fitting before gluing and found the gun port panel will not fit with the backing piece if installed per the instructions. Therefore I omitted the backing piece and only installed the gun port panel. The backing piece looks like it's meant for the later open gun port panel. Weird placement of the gun port panel and its associated panel lines as well. Lots of close seam line filling and rescribing to get the gun port area to look correct. Cheers, John

It's designed to create several lower intensity shock waves which reduce the overall noise of the sonic boom created by the aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Spike Cheers, John

These are flight sim (DCS) screen grabs of the Heatblur F-14A. In the sim you can remove the gun camera by clicking on it to allow increased viewing area for the approach. IRL, it's pretty much a standard bolt on item and would be there in 1982. Cheers, John

They are the same. When on the left the static dischargers are on top and when it's flipped to the right side they are on the bottom. They are built that way on purpose so you will never see them the other way around. Cheers, John

And a collection of photos of the 50th Anniversary scheme with a good shot of the WAC HUD. 88-0456 50th-anniversary Cheers, John

That's definitely a WAC HUD. Here's a photo from 2009 showing it with the WAR HUD. Cheers, John

Without a photo or confirmation from a pilot or maintainer it would just be guessing. 🤔 Cheers, John

Sorry for interrupting your post with conversation on a topic I do have some experience on. I'm out. Carry on!

Just being a bit pedantic as I used to work on the CT-133. The Silver Star (We called them T-Birds) Mk1's came in 2 batches. The first 21 were a mix of FY 50 and 51 T-33A's which also had a mixture of fixed seats and ejection seats as seen in photo evidence. The second batch of 10 were all FY 51 T-33A aircraft which had the ejection seats. All of these aircraft, save one, were returned to the US once sufficient levels of the Mk3 were being delivered. The single Lockheed T-33A Mk1 that remained, USAF No. 51-4198, was modified by Lockheed in cooperation with Canadair into the sole R

The above photo is of a Canadair CT-133 Mk.3 21620 (circa. 1967) with the ejection seats removed for maintenance. You can see the seat catapults installed between the seat rails. All Canadair built CT-133's were delivered with ejection seats. This is a much earlier photo of the same aircraft with the ejection seats installed. We received 2 batches of loaner T-33A's for a total of 31. The first batch of 21 Lockheed T-33A's were CDN Serial Nos. 14675-14695 (various USAF Ser. Nos) and were known as the Silver Star Mk. 1. 14695 (USAF No. 51-4198) became the RR NENE

The screen itself wasn't fine enough to block airflow to the point of having an effect on performance. Early turbine engines were very susceptible to FOD damage and this was just a simple way of mitigating this. Even centrifugal engines like the Allison J33 and the Rolls Royce Nene had inlet screens for the same purpose. Cheers, John

The J47 in the video is most likely a J47-GE-27 as used in the F-86F. The FOD screen on the -27 was retractable in flight via a switch in the cockpit. The F-86A had the J47-GE-7 which had a fixed FOD screen installed which could not be retracted. There are 2 versions. Both of which can be seen in that photo. The engine on the right has the original external fixed screen and the one on the left has the internal fixed screen which resembles the -27 engine screen. The F-86A didn't have a switch in the cockpit to retract the screen so flight in any sort of icing producing conditions w

Hey Jeffrey, You do know that if you make it I'll have to buy it. Cheers, John

Nit picking alert! Looking at the kit engine inlet face (part L3) has me wondering why CP went with a super simplified part. The F-86 offset pointed engine accessory fairing was a very unique feature of the Sabre and was done with limited success by Hasegawa/Academy and Airfix did a pretty good job of it. I know the easy answer is that it's hard to see but they seem to have done a pretty good job with the J47 exhaust which is equally hard to see. It's obviously not going to stop me from building the kit but I am scratching my head over it. Fodder for the aftermarket folks I guess.

Really!? Trying to stifle the conversation? Personal observations and opinions are now taboo? If I perceive that something is wrong or needs correcting, I'll point it out. And in most cases back it up with documentation. Maybe this "nit picking" will help others with information they don't have. AND, I have ordered the F-86A and more than likely will order the seats as well. I appreciate that you provided a ton of information to ClearProp for this project but please don't come across as precious and trivialize the posts here. Regards, John

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Granted these are low rez renders but from my point of view they also show some more detail, scale and dimensional issues than just the headrest. Hope that ClearProp didn't pull an AMMO Mig-17 seat faux pas. Cheers, John

My experience with the Franklin engine was limited to the Stinson 108 and Republic Seabee. I found them to be a fragile(high maintenance) engine when compared to the contemporary offerings from Continental and Lycoming. I can see why a Franklin powered L-13 would have had issues. Cheers, John

Just wondering why the NO PUSH markings are designed into the print? These are painted stencils on the real thing. Cheers, John

Saw it a while after I posted. Anyway, we both ended up saying the same thing. 🍻 Cheers, John

That's contrary to the information I have, both photographic and written. Canadair Sabres c/n 701 thru c/n 1400 had the 6-3 hard wing and c/n 1401 onwards had the 6-3 slatted wing right from the factory. This includes the last 90 Sabre 4's that went to the RAF so they had a mixed fleet of slatted original wing and 6-3 hard wing. Sabre 4 c/n 701 was RAF XD780 and had the 6-3 hard wing as referenced in this accident report. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/148705 The RAF may have retrofitted the 6-3 hard wing to more of their earlier Mk.4's but that's only a guess on my part

As far as the Canadair Sabre goes, the kit wing would only be good for the Mk.1 thru Mk.4. The Mk.5 had the 6-3 hard wing(later converted to slats) and the Mk.6 had the slatted 6-3 wing. Cheers, John

Just thinking outside of the box here a bit. Is it possible that F-105D, 58-1149(no radar scope), being the 4th off the line, was utilized in a test role which didn't require the use of the radar? I'm only asking this as the short history I can find of this jet places it at the Air Force Armaments Center in Eglin and it crashed there at the test range in 1965. 58-1149 is the only photo of a F-105D that I can find that doesn't have the radar scope. The plate where the scope goes has some interesting details that might point to a testing role. Large VSI, engine oil pressure gauge, thrust decay l

As much as we all like to dislike Dave Klaus, I think we can all agree that this new Sabre is very much one to like. I just placed my order for one with all of the goodies. I'm more of a Canadair Sabre 5/6 kinda modeler but this one looks too good to pass by. Might do a side-by-side build of this with a Hasegawa F-40 built up as the Vintage Wings Hawk One Sabre (Canadair Mk.5 23314, restored with F-40 wing). Cheers, John