VADM Fangschleister

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:

OK.... So, I have to hand it to Mr Anigrand for tackling subjects that cover the oft-missed but significant airframes that the major kitmakers just won't do. However, and this still can be a hugely debatable subject and ventures into the realm of "why bother?" on the left side to "at least it's a start" on the right. Those of us brave enough to build an Anigrand kit have choices, of course but there are no aftermarket correction sets for these kits and any shape errors, which this maker has become infamous for, are up to the modeler to correct. I still haven't finished my 1/72 Jetstar of five+ years ago and though I'd like to....I also haven't had the motivation to sit down and re-do everything to my satisfaction. If the kit is built OOB, it's a passing rendition of the machine but loaded with shape errors. the most noticeable and, in fact, quite glaring is the tailcone for which I carved a new one based on blueprints and cast several copies. It changed the entire appearance on the model. Now here we go with the McDonnell 119/220, the competition to the Lockheed C-140 Jetstar that lost. It also failed to garner any private orders although in some respects it was superior to the Jetstar. Here is Anigrand's parts breakdown: Right away I was both pleased and dismayed. The pax windows look great! Seem to be a very close match. Tailcone....hard to tell. However, the wing saddle is way off. The real plane has a subtle wing saddle/box that although does bulge out some, it is not the Brobdingnagian monstrosity seen here. However, if all the resin in there is solid, working carefully with a Dremel® tool will make short work of it...as long as I work slowly and carefully and keep comparing to photos and drawings. Looking at the landing gear, I have to say they are excellent castings. The pilots' seats and instrument panel are quite accurate to the real machine. As for the engine pods, they appear too bulged at the bottom and I might elect to leave them or carve them straighter. The wings appear to be solid pieces of resin which can be good or bad but it adds weight on the gear and a solid piece is likely to warp over time. I might consider drilling long holes in them and putting in steel wires. Finally, the nosecone. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. The real aircraft, of which there's only one, is pointed. Very pointed. Pointy, point, point pointed. After taking measurements of the model and profiles of the real aircraft, I will decide what to do with it. Looks like "Bondo® to the rescue!" as on the Jetstar. Note that I haven't bought this kit yet. It's $98 US plus $16 shipping and if it appears on eBay, it will likely be cheaper. The clear windshield will get the same treatment that I planned for the Jetstar....making the overhead a solid piece and then gluing in framework that I can attache flat pieces of clear to. This model will be easier because it lacks any curved pieces entirely. The Jetstar has a curved center-section on the windscreen. I give Anigrand another B+ for effort and it appears most issues are fixable. The McDonnell 119/220 was a real thing and somehow fell off the face of the earth in production terms. Mr McDonnell is quoted as saying he wished he never built the d__mn thing and would never discuss another business jet as long as he lived. Personally, I think it's a sharp jet and the engines that were eventually intended for use would've changed the look some, making it sleeker and more powerful overall. I will make at least one with the factory paintjob and then maybe one with the USAF VIP scheme and perhaps one or two in some business liveries for the companies my dad flew for in the 60's. The old IBM scheme is sharp but complex. Again, I'm glad that Anigrand at least tries. It's closer than some of his other works and I think I can spiff it up. But...for now I am waiting for cash reserves because I'm still unemployed and it would be a foolish purchase.

There are a couple of reviews out there of RVHP kits. They seem more dedicated to actual fidelity than *ahem* Anigrand. Minor complaints range from an errant bubble in a critical area to the vac-formed clear parts being very thin. But for an actual modeler with some bit of cleverness, these are not major issues. Not shake & bake kits by any means and you'll spend as much time with files, sanding sticks and putty/superglue as you will with paint and decals. For me, if you don't mind indulging me, a "good" kit is almost anything that has the correct shapes and outlines. To me, that's the hard part. Granted, surface detail, panel lines, pose-able parts, etc add to the fun but if the basic shape is wrong and needs correcting, that's kind of inexcusable. I still have Anigrand's Jetstar in a box, 30% complete and another box filled with correctly-shaped tailcones that I made when it was pointed out what a bad copy the model was. Then Mach 2 re-kitted the exact same problems in injection-molded plastic. Back onto the original subject, the RVHP kits look far superior to the vac kits and other examples of biz-jets I've seen. Their Lear 35 is also reviewed by Hyperscale, I think and turns out very nicely. I'm sure the G-IV would be pretty excellent....but be advised, no interiors (generally) save for a couple cockpit seats and rudder pedals molded to the floor, along with a cockpit divider and aft bulkhead. Fashioning an interior might work if you can carve putty and make seats, etc. Folding tables isn't that hard and using decals of wood paneling might work inside, if you were to pose the model with the door open. Also, the metal landing gear has been replaced with resin...but...you may find an existing kit that still has the pot-metal gear. Probably a crap-shoot on that. In 1/72, I'm guessing it would be about 9 to 11 inches long? For the record, I am collecting existing display models in 1/50 scale to make detailed resin or printed kits of biz jets. It's nowhere near anything one would call "production"....More of a "glimmer" in my eye. But since the late 50's and the advent of business jet aviation, there are now lots of subjects to model.

The E models are selling on the Bay for $59.99 w/ free shipping. Other prices are all over the map, some going as high as $109. Some stabilization will occur after the market is saturated with availability.

Basic aerodynamic laws still hold, of course. But...given that the Reynolds number is much lower, that is, you cannot change the size of a molecule of air so therefore, the fluid effect going over a model airplane is less effective than over the full-scale machine, airfoils are more efficient with a more exaggerated cross-section. With that said, I'm sure with some trial & error, you could make a foamie egg plane and might even start a new trend.

Cheapest I saw was $86.99 + $15 for shipping, so yeah. I'm sure once the first rush of "gotta-have-it" has passed, they will come down to (my opinion) somewhere around $50/copy.

Now listed on eBay.

With the advent of styrofoam RC planes, people were bound to get creative. There is a distinct subset of RC foamies and they are called "cartoon planes" with the obligatory cartoonish appearance that you would find in a Sunday comic strip. https://parkflyerplastics.com/cart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=24_62

Thanks, Fred, I know the two machines bear close family resemblance and I once tried to modify the Hasegawa F-5 into a T-38 which is where I first learned of the dimensional differences but decided to try and fake it anyway but gave up due to moves/job-changes, etc. I learned the fuselage was more deep to accomodate the bigger engines and the vertical stab was bigger as were the horizontal stabs. That it shared its wind-tunnel carved shape was more an attribute to the validity of the design than production cost considerations, I suppose but the fuselage was entirely different, thus making it impossible to create a truly accurate 1/32 T-38 from that kit without some intense surgery. But for the life of me I cannot see the difference in the canopies between the F-5B/F and the T-38. My assumption (uh-oh...he said it) is that Northrop would've used then-existing hardware to make an F-5 two seater but.....I am told the fuselage is wider than the T-38. I know better than to compare model kits in 1/48 scale to get any comparison. However, I don't have any tech data to see just how different they are. Got any colored drawings with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what they're about? Just the same, I guess the low interest might be due to it being a Kitty Hawk kit. But they seemed to have made a better effort on this one...not a shake & bake kit and not Tamiya levels of insanity and I hear the cockpit floor is too shallow being the biggest issue. I guess that renders it entirely unbuildable and should therefore be thrown in the trash direct from the mailbox upon delivery. If KH does not do a T-38, I might still use these canopies anyhow. If they DO make a T-38, I'd be interested to see if they make the molds from the F-5F canopies for their Talon....because, even though they SHOULD...they may not see the differences...just as I don't. Please, point them out. You won't hurt my feelings.