Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Khan

  • Rank
    Musta Krakish, awaken!
  • Birthday 09/10/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago, IL
  1. Khan

    F-20 Pics

    Talk of this old chestnut brings me out of exile :lol: A couple years back it was suggested that the creature on the center line there is a bomblet or flare dispenser of some kind, Vesper. I don't remember the designation. As for more photos, Lucio, the guy who made the F-20 homepage has since moved his operation to www.f20a.com. I'm surprised he still has the pre-update site up, but the new version has a ton more photos. They're mostly in-flight shots and pictures of various dignitaries, but enough detail manages to sneak in there to make some of them useful for references. There's stil
  2. Primer can accomplish a number of things. Its most basic purpose in any project is to provide a better surface for topcoats to adhere to the surface of whatever you're painting. For model kits the rule of thumb is that you'll need a "hotter" paint than your topcoats. Use enamels or acrylics over lacquer, acrylics over enamel. The solvents in lacquer-based paints can actually etch the plastic chemically on a microscopic level (too heavy a coat and/or too much solvent, and you can seriously mess up a project!). More to the point, by providing a more ideal surface, it primes the surface for
  3. USGS, huh? That's interesting. Kinda makes me want to build one, so I did a search. I actually ran across a picture of the one you were talking about, Rick: http://www.ov-1mohawk.org/N6740.jpg
  4. That's a damned good point, especially about the design philosophy. Still, I don't think the landing gear is necessarily beefed up or strictly unique; it looks like the X-29 struts are from an F-16: X-29 Similar view of an F-16 I don't think Northrop would have been too happy to do that! :lol: The stubs are a great idea. Rocket pods would be pretty sweet, but they'd also be a great place for targeting pods, like Vesper said. During my most recent attempt, I was frustrated by my limited ability to include both mavericks and sparrows without resorting to an asymmetrical load just so I c
  5. The F-20 homepage (http://www.f20a.com) says that development of a higher-caliber gun with caseless ammunition to replace the M39s was subcontracted out to Ford, but their beaurocracy was so difficult that Northrop abandoned the idea and stuck with the M39s. I'm inclined to take that with a few grains of salt, but otherwise I suspect that it wouldn't have been a very reliable piece of equipment. I like your idea about the M61, but I'm concerned that there would be enough space. They redid the forward fuselage of the F-20 to make room for a larger radar antenna while keeping the guns; the ef
  6. Right now this is just a concept. I made a 3-view by scaling and then cutting and pasting from one of an X-29 and an F-20. I increased the area of the wings by 10% as I described, and pasted in the landing gear and vertical stabilizer of an X-29. Here's an original F-20 for comparison (almost, but not quite to scale--you can't really see the changes in the wing): I might get the kits and start the surgery over Christmas break. I'm in grad school now, so I won't get to do any consistent building until my program finishes next spring. On top of that, I have another F-20 that's almost f
  7. I checked the area of the vertical tails for both the F-20 and X-29 and they work out to be the same. Cutting and pasting confirmed that, yes, the F-20 looks better with an X-29 vertical stab. The rudder is bigger (ie takes up most of the trailing edge), so I could just say that accounts for the stronger version of the F404 they were going to put in the later F-20s. I also screwed with a little algebra and figured out a way to increase both span and width about equally, so now the wing just looks bigger. Thanks for the advice.
  8. Well, I had a productive discussion on a group project today, so perhaps I was feeling charitable. That guy does indeed have an axe to grind! :blink: And regarding the paint, kstater, thanks to the new pics I learned that the first prototype got the Beamer treatment before that unfortunate accident in Korea. Also, this would make a pretty neat desktop: http://www.f20a.com/f20sunrise.jpg
  9. My interest in the F-20 has been rekindled by the recent changes to the F-20 homepage, and I'm reminded of a blurb I once read about how the 4th prototype was going to have a 10% increase in wing area. I've read about that done to other aircraft too. How do they do that? Is there some particular algorithm they use to optimize increases in width/span and the chord? Would LERXs be included? I don't have any engineering software or a wind tunnel, so if I were going to put in a strip or two of evergreen, is there some quick and dirty way to figure how to do it aside from just an arbitrary cut
  10. The author of the F-20 homepage gave the site an overhaul and now has tons more history and pictures, like this one: There are a lot of photos with more dignitaries, at airshows, and some very nice in-flight shots. Unfortunately, there still isn't very much that shows details in the cockpit and such. The history is much more detailed now, but the guy isn't the most objective observer: he's very pro-Northrop and his opinion of other players in the industry is decidedly polarized. At any rate, go take a look: http://www.f20a.com :P
  11. I really appreciate all this info. I sure hope your friend has more! :( And your insight into the aircraft industry sure is interesting. It speaks for Cessna's quality that they can take components from existing aircraft to produce something as capable as the JPATS entry apparently was. Thanks again! :D
  12. You and me both. Thanks for the info and history, kstater. It sure is an interesting little aircraft. You wouldn't happen to have a 3-view, would you? It'd be interesting to cut my teeth on scratchbuilding by giving this one a try. I wonder if Cessna would be willing to provide schematics if I asked real nicely?
  13. I was digging around for information on the T-46 the other day and I came across information on the JPATS competition in the 90's for a new joint US Air Force/Navy trainer. They ultimately went with the T-6 Texan II, but I learned a few things about the other aircraft they were considering. The most interesting one I found was the Cessna Citation 526 entry: http://www.cessnawarbirds.com/book/seventeen.html Unfortunately, this is all I was able to find outside of a few references in government documents, and one of the pictures is just that guy's painting. Obviously, there's no kit for thi
  14. I looked closely at the one in-progress pic there is in Thang Le's build of the 1/72 Italeri kit in the gallery. It looks like he had to use putty to fill in a gap behind the intake cover piece. You guys were right. It's interesting: does the main landing gear for this jet look to be taken directly from an F-18 to anyone else?
  15. I've been having a tough time finding sprue shots of this kit. I'm interested in seeing the cockpit details and the intakes. With the latter, is there anything more to them than two slits aft of the canards? For any of you who have built one, do you have sprue shots you could show me, or maybe a scan of the instructions? :)
  • Create New...