VADM Fangschleister

One of my secret projects, needing a 1950's era British jet engine. My online searches turn up bupkis, so...anyone here know of any?

Not to derail the topic....as I've been curious about this release also but...I was kinda sorta, y'know, thinkin' about it and sorta wonderin' maybe if they had forgotten all about the (soon to be released) 1/32 F-84F. Guess the T-Flash didn't do so hot? Was that grounds for not popping the 'Streak? (Asking for a friend)

Some shipping rates are ridiculous but the prices that people are demanding seem skewed to me. But..."people will pay what the market will bear", I guess. Oddly, the replies to my request are showing up 19 and 20 hours after-the-fact. That's annoying. I have a tentative deal with a seller but will keep rpm1947 in mind. Thanks very much. Will let you know, rpm.

Not sure where you're located or if you have an eBay account and all the necessary accoutrements thereof to purchase but there are some of those kits on there. Not too bad on the prices.

SapperSix, I worked F-4's at Spangdahlem for two years from 80 to 82 and one thing is for certain, not every airplane had every placard or important decal everywhere on the plane. The ones most commonly omitted were the stenciled panel info ones. "NO STEPS" were most commonly found on the G (Weasels) models but I worked D's, E's and G's and there was wide and varied, uh, "coverage" when it came to those things. I never asked but I supposed in my own little head that certain ones were more important than others and had to be there. Others were of lesser importance and could be omitted at the discretion of the MajCom. Sometimes, the base painted its own planes while others came back from depot with fresh paint but lacking only the tailcode and Ser No and squadron color fin-flash. Back then, there had been a concerted effort by SOMEone high up to "de-glorify" everything and to also go "subdued" on everything so the bright squadron emblems were slowly reduced to a smaller stick-on emblem and less pronounced fin colors, or...covering a much smaller area. Then in NATO, the really hardliners hit and "everything went black". Our uniforms did too. The bright colored patches we all wore on on fatigues were redesigned to have no stand-out colors and backgrounds that matched the OD green of our uniforms. On your model, if you omit some stencilling, no one can say if it is accurate or not. the placard on the speedbrakes...I saw dozens of jets without it. The landing gear almost always had the placards and the big black and yellow "map key" on the nosegear door was always there as well. Ejection seats had all of them, as they were maintained by the egress shop. I'm not telling you how to build your model...and it appears to be coming out really well...just that they didn't all get the "golden crew-chief" award for their placarding. Yes, it was covered by AFR whatever but not to a devoutly religious level. Some omissions can happen and sometimes they even peeled off based on improper adhesives used. That sometimes happened as well. Not the painted on stencils, of course but the sticky-backed decals. I've seen stars & bars that have peeled halfway off, other 'stickers" as well. If you've ever seen the "decals" used on the real machines, they are usually made at the base's "print shop" (the flightline one, not the base t-shirt shop) and are silkscreened on a vinyl like material with pinholes in them about every inch and a half. The holes are there to help eliminate bubbles when applying them. HTH to some degree. Your model will be a very nice museum-level piece.

I think if you can get ahold of some "pearl" based paint....you may just nail it. It's a tough one but I'm sure SOMEone has cracked the code on it. Not bad looking at all though. Certain lighting it would be convincing.

Looking for a Monogram 1/48 B-29, complete. Box condition not important as long as all the parts are there. eBay is selling for too much money, which I guess is the evolutionary process where once a thing becomes established as a source, the outliers who sell for low prices drop out leaving the ones who can afford to wait for big money. Plus, kit sellers want huge money for shipping even if it's a CONUS seller. I'm on a budget and can pay about $50 for the kit plus shipping. Let me know. Thanks Edit: Cut a deal today. Thanks to everyone who responded. Much appreciated.

Something I've been working on. Can't say as it's anywhere near marketing yet but hope in the next couple of years it will be. I have to get a job first and then set up shop to make this either with 3D printing or resin. Close to 1/48 or 1/50 scale. Doing it with calipers and drawings and photos...so...not easy. The toughest part will be the landing gear. A resin model in this scale will be heavy. A second project is the Gulfstream II. I also have plans for a Falcon 20, DH-125 and Saberliner in 1/48 to 1/50.

Anigrand has a resin 1/72 rendition. I have not looked it over. They did the Lockheed Jetstar which was a “close” approximation. The Collect-Aire 1/48 is very nice. The one built up by one of our own expert modelers looks fantastic and there are many military schemes plus, if you look through airliners.com photos you can find some really sharp corporate paintjobs. My father flew them for IBM a long time ago and their paint scheme was boty complex and expensive. But IBM was an original fortune 500 company and they were very proud of their flight department out of POU. It was sharp.

Hello, The thread is really just a review. I haven't the time right now to build it. There is a consensus that Anigrand doesn't use any technical tools to make his kits and instead just uses the Mk 1 eyeball. This results in some serious shape errors and for those of us requiring more fidelity, we are forced to make the modifications ourselves. In this day and age, it's a bit of a paradox where there are many tools available for even the garage-industry types to get a reasonably accurate model but Anigrand seems immune to accuracy and instead goes for the "TLAR" method. That Looks About Right. I would not be too quick to condemn because he does produce models of obscure subjects. For that I'm grateful but my first foray into his products was the Lockheed Jetstar and I had a lot of work to do to make it correct and I gave up a long time ago...and it sits in the box, unfinished. I may take it up again but it'll be awhile as I'm moving and have little time to do anything with models.

Interesting. Never considered it in that light but you’re right. The Lockheed Jetstar prototype first flew with two Bristol Orpheus engines of some 5,000lbs thrust each. Potential buyers (USAF) were reluctant to purchase an aircraft with non-US propulsion as well as Bristol engines being less than accommodating with potential contracting/licensing. Pratt & Whitney had been developing a 3,000 lb thrust jet engine for use in the BOMARC and other weapons systems but it was getting delayed. Four of them would be needed as the US had no turbojet engine in the 6,000 lb thrust class and none were on the horizon. Remember, this is ca 1958 and jet aircraft were still in their infancy. The typical jet engine of the day was an extremely thirsty machine. In fact, a typical fuel burn for the Dash 8 Jetstar of 1965 vintage has almost an identical fuel flow @ cruise as a 737-300 with CFM-56 first gen high-bypass fan engines. The first gen CFM-56’s had a static thrust of ~ 28,000 lbs. @ SL, standard temp/standard day. Naturally the Dash 8 gave way to the Jetstar II or “731 Jetstar”. Range was just about doubled. But I digress. The McDonnell was powered with engines of similar class to the as-yet-to-be-developed JT-12’s of which two powered the original Rockwell Sabreliner. But four would be needed to push the Jetstar around, necessitating the need for several thousand pounds more of fuel to get the range that Mr Kelly felt was required to make the airplane marketable. Remember, Jet-A was about 15c/gallon in 1963. The McDonnell 119/220 was to get the P&W JT-12’s also which would’ve changed its appearance some. All reports about the jet were glowing. It flew well, landed well, took off well, was roomier than its competition and should have been purchased in addition to rather than instead of the Lockheed. As I said, Mr McDonnell lived the rest of his life hating the machine. Not for its performance but for its failure in marketability. It seems that any potential customer went with the sexier-looking and much more complex Lockheed. The 220 spent its days as a McDonnel hack until it was donated to the Flight Safety Aviation Museum. I can easily see it now with two large turbofans under the wings and flying 3,000 miles on one tank of gas. The Embraer 170/190 have taken up that mantel.

It appears that the fuselage is too short, windows not properly stationed, tailcone needs extending, nose cut and a plug inserted to make the cockpit properly placed and Bondo used to reshape the nosecone.

The real machine, take 2

The real machine: