CF104

You're assuming that Eduard did their homework and got the F-4C set correct. The thick wing speedbrakes should be nearly, if not identical between all models. The thin wing speedbrakes are different than the thick wing ones. The Eduard F-4C set appears to be fictional when I compare it to all of my references. It doesn't even represent the thin wing F-4B/N. Cheers, John

The OP is asking about the items circled in red. They are obviously electrical connectors which are more than likely used for ground test purposes. Cheers, John

As with most F-104D's that survived in service past 1962, this one had the early downward ejection seats replaced with the C-2 upward seat and 3 piece canopy. https://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wu316.htm Cheers, John

Hi All, I'm collecting all of the parts required to convert an Academy 1/48 F-4J to a USAF F-4C/D. I have everything except for parts J1 and J2 which are the pieces that cover the bridle hook openings on the bottom of the wings on Navy jets. This sprue also has the USAF inboard wing pylons. If anyone has the complete J sprue or just parts J1 and J2, I'd be interested in hearing from you. Cheers, John

Hi Scott, The speedbrakes on the Hasegawa kit are physically shorter in height by about 1/16" and 1/64" longer than the Kinetic. The Hasegawa intakes are slightly larger so I would think the intake covers could be sanded to fit the Kinetic kit. Cheers, John

The canopy definitely won't fit. I have both kits and will compare the speed brake and intakes. Regards, John

Maybe odd parts like pylons and stores but the kits are very different. The Hasegawa F-104 dimensions are incorrect in length and well as wing and H-Stab shape. The Kinetic kit is the gold standard for the F-104 in 1/48 and everything scales out near perfect. Cheers, John

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