Jump to content

mawz

Members
  • Content Count

    1,095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mawz

  1. 14 minutes ago, Illu said:

     

    It is correct.  The Mk.2 & Mk.4 were interchangeable with the F-86E.  Same engine, same systems, same instruments, same everything.  The only difference was where it was built.

    But the Mk2 and Mk4 are not mutually interchangeable.

    The first 20 Mk2's were F-86A's except for the engine with the remainder of Mk2 production actually a mix of F-86A and F-86E features. to model a Sabre 2 you really need an F-86A windscreen on an F-86E airframe for an airframe from unit 21 onwards, for the first 20 you need an F-86A model with the original stab.

    While the Mk4 was close to a later production F-86E.

  2. 44 minutes ago, Illu said:

    The Canadair Mk.4 was an F-86E.  The USAF took delivery of Canadair-built Mk.4s as F-86E-CANs.


    This is not correct, the US acquired Canadair-built Mk4's on RAF retirement and called them F-86E(M)'s, All but 10 Mk4's were delivered to the RAF, 10 went to the RCAF directly (the RCAF also had loaners from the RAF while waiting for Sabre 5 deliveries to make it to Europe). The F-86E(M)'s were all being refurbished and provided as military assistance and not operated by the USAF except for ferry flights to the new owners.

    The F-86E-CAN's were Sabre Mk2's, of which the USAF received 60 new build units, the only Canadair Sabres the USAF ever officially had on strength.

  3. 36 minutes ago, Illu said:

     

    The Canadair Mk.6 with slats had a unique wing that no other Sabre ever had.  It was the original span, 6-3 leading edge extension, and slats.  There was no other Sabre variant of any kind that had that combination of features.[/quote]
     

     

    Also, Sabre slats were usually open when the aircraft was parked, unless the ground crew pushed them closed.  Contrary to comments going all the way back to the beginning of time in the modeling world, Sabre slats were not “pinned” closed, ever.  Three different Sabre pilots and crew chiefs from the RCAF have confirmed that to me.  You could push them closed and they would stay there until the aircraft moved, when any jostling of the airframe would cause them to fall open.  The slats were very easy to move, and were operated by air flow, so with low/no air flow over them, their natural position was hanging open.  You could bonk your head on them when working around the aircraft, thus you could push them closed.  


    The Sabre 6 wing is essentially identical to the F-86F-40 wing with the extension section removed (the F-40 wing is an extended span version of the Mk6 slatted 6-3 wing). So it's quite possible to do a Sabre 6 from an F-86F-40 with a tip trim, some small rescribing as described above and a set of sugar scoops. 

    The Hasegawa kit has a plastic F-40 wing that you remove the section outboard of the ailerons and replace with resin tips, resulting in an accurate Sabre 6 wing. The Airfix F-40 IIRC includes the standard tips which can be fitted after the F-40 leading edge/tips are fitted and the extensions trimmed, making a Sabre 6 wing.

     

  4. Would make more sense that the intake was initially painted as a unit, so whatever the length of the section would be camo. 

    Like Gene, I can't see anything more than the lip itself making sense from a camo perspective, so the only real sense would be what's easiest for the shop.

  5. 3 hours ago, longmc said:

    Interestingly, I recently asked this very question to a guy in our group that used to be a SH back seater. He said the main difference is that the F does the FAC(A) mission. Other than that, he said they did the same mission sets, but that the E had more fuel and on-station time. 


    And the FAC(A) mission comes down to having a GIB to spot and run the radios. 

  6. 9 minutes ago, Gwen Phoenix said:

    So... in order to save some bandwidth on this forum, I'd rather ask you guys here than start another thread.

    I'm thinking about building one of the QF-4S drones in VX-30. Wondering whether it's possible to convert the F-4J kit into an S?

    I'm leaning towards using the Monogram 1/48 kit that is readily available in the stash instead of getting the Zokei-Miura kit.

    Thanks in advance, and hope Dave doesn't mind my post, which I'll gladly delete if he does.

    Cheers,

     

    Gwen

     

     


    Getting an S from a J requires a fair bit of work, mostly to the wing. You can definitely get there from a J, since the originals are upgraded J's

    Steel Beach used to do a conversion set, but it'll probably be easier and cheaper to just buy an S kit than to track down a conversion. 

  7. 1 hour ago, ElectroSoldier said:

    Will you post how the spine part fits into the fuselage and how the nose joins on please.
    I would be interested to know your results.

     I have a small gap at the front of the spine, which I suspect is at least half due to order of assembly. I think if you put the aft canopy hinge coaming on after the spine, you have minimal issues and if you do the opposite you have real issues.

    I had no issues with the radome, but the lower wing/nose section to nose section was challenging to get together right and has minor gaps.

  8. 5 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

    No, the fuselage is not from the E kit. All G specific antenna mods are moulded on and they deleted the nose gun gas vents on the sides. The CAD is of course a common source but the tooling is new.

    J


    Check again, the lower gun housing is separate parts on both the E and G. They actually ask you to do a bit of filling on the fuselage to remove certain E-specific panels on the nose of the G.

    I’m building the ZM G now, the fuselage sprue is the same sprue as the E part, and includes E specific tail antenna on the sprue. The most they seem to have done is had a G-specific sprue inserts used in the nose in 2 spots (the vent and the 3 nose antenna per side). The rest of the fuselage is the E and the sprue is clearly not G specific.

    Sprue A, B,C, E, F, I, L, M , N, R & S are common between the Early E and G kits.
    Sprues D & G are Early E only
    Sprues H & J are unique to the G (for now, H is clearly also intended for a slatted early E, including some tooling to support a TISEO pod among other small items)

    G & H are the wings. D & J are various specific parts. J is the lower nose pod, HARM’s, Tail antenna and some cockpit—specific bits, D is a smaller sprue with  aft cockpit bits and a few other specific bits.

  9. On 12/30/2022 at 11:25 PM, JeffreyK said:

    ...I had totally missed the fact that ZM didn't mould the slime lights onto the fuselage. Since they tooled an entirely new fuselage for the G kit that's inexplicable.

    Otherwise, I still prefer the ZM kit overall. There are too my small issues here and ther on the Meng kit. There certainly are some on the ZM kit as well but on the balance sheet ZM wins for me. But others' mileage may vary.

    J


    ZM tooled a new wing for their G, not a new fuselage. The fuselage sprue is common with their early E kit

  10. 2 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

    I know the Mavrick missile was common on Wild weasels but was it common for it to be carried on the triple rail LAU-88?

    If so how was it loaded?

    Not super common, but 2 Maverick's on a triple launcher was a valid load. middle and outer rail loaded.

  11. That build is looking good. I'm currently working on the kit myself, doing the box scheme.

    Only fit issue I've had is a bit of a gap at the front end of the spine. Not bad at all, just needs a touch of putty (Probably should have installed the spine before the aft hood hinge section), but I haven't got the wings on yet so we shall see. 

    I'm not surprised that ZM tooled a new wing for the slatted E's. They'll actually need two of these (one for slat-upgraded E's and the G's, one for the E's built with slatted wings, which are again different from all earlier models).

    Given these are among the most common E configurations out there, it's more surprising that they did a dedicated S wing than a proper slat-upgraded E wing. 

  12. On 12/16/2022 at 2:00 PM, Ed DeVivo said:

    The thing is, I believe Revell pulled the plug on this kit several years ago.. What a shame!


    I don't think they've popped it since Revell-Monogram USA went bankrupt in 2018 (as part of the Hobbico bankruptcy)

    The current incarnation of Revell is the old Revell of Germany organization which became independent again after Hobbico disappeared, they did acquire the Revell-Monogram USA molds when they were liquidated in 2018, but they have not put many of them back into production.

  13. 6 hours ago, RandyW said:

    I built the Airfix F6F-5 and I truly enjoyed it. Most of today’s kit releases are the same monotonous builds, but these newer kits from Airfix are game changers.  Looking forward to this one.


    To be honest, the internal structure really reminds me of Zoukei Mura's 1/32 kits

  14. The Cockpit issue is generally driven by the same thing across all kits with that issue, which is clearance between the wing and pit.

    On the real thing, the cockpit floor is actually the upper wing surface (same on Allison Mustangs BTW, but not on Merlin Mustangs which have the wing lowered 4")

  15. The big difference is that the F-8C has the small radome and the F-8E the larger one. That means you need to redo the entire nose to get a C. It's non-trivial to do a conversion without a replacement nose (and that means everything forward of where the nose is faired into the fuselage because the entire fairing of the radome into the fuselage changes, including the windscreen).

    The C introduced the dual pylons for Sidewinders and Zuni's.

    the F-8C also was the last version with the rocket pack in the belly, but that's less noticeable unless you want to pose with everything open.

    Here's an old thread on it F-8E to a C - Jet Modeling - ARC Discussion Forums (arcforums.com)

  16. 1 hour ago, Geoff M said:

    I hope I am not derailing this thread but was there ever an A-10B.  If not, why did they skip B and go to A-10C?  Just wondering.

     

    Geoff M


    There was a two-seater B prototype, it was never produced. it's usually referred to as the A-10 N/AW, but it was officially designated as the YA-10B.

  17. 26 minutes ago, skyhawk524 said:

     

    Academy has re-released the Accurate Miniatures kits several times over the last few years, and this is likely to be another with new decals. 

     

    The new A-10 is intriguing...the new tool Zero and Wildcat from them, when Eduard is doing exactly the same, is a bit puzzling.

    Pretty sure the SBD-3 is confirmed as the AM kit.

    As to the F4F and Zero, consider it's the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Midway this year. Bad luck for Academy that Eduard had the same idea, but I think we'll be seeing a lot of Midway-related releases over the next 6 months.

  18. 7 minutes ago, ChesshireCat said:

    call Kittyhawk whatever you want, but I want two more P39's and two Kingfishers. I don't see anybody else jumping on that bandwagon

    gary


    Special Hobby offers P-39's as well, and the main issue with them (too short aft of the canopy) is also present in the KH kit. 

    Kingfisher's are another story. unlikely we'll see them again in larger-run form unless somebody grabs the KH molds and repops.

×
×
  • Create New...