Tailspin Turtle

Members
  • Content count

    1,112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tailspin Turtle

  • Rank
    Full Blown Model Geek

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://tommythomason.com/
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

9,904 profile views
  1. They probably are. The problem is while the -8s are obvious if you can see the collar (the upper portion of which is generally hidden by the A-5 airframe), the tips of the outer petals (they are not terminated straight across but have sort of eyelet on each end), the exterior of the outer petals (they do not have a smooth surface), the interior of the petals (there is an obvious longitudinal rib), or the nozzle is completely closed down as it would be between idle and military power, some pictures do not provide a good enough view of those features and in fact the most obvious, petal tips and interior actuator, are hidden by the red cover in the above pictures. However, the nozzle does appear to be closed down like a -8's and the exterior of the outer petals is not smooth.
  2. As far as I know, it was. That's in the first link. There was also a different fairing added to the tip of the vertical fin for an antenna at some point. And a pair of antennas or sensors appears to have been added to the top of the fuselage on a few aircraft but nobody has told me what it is yet.
  3. There wasn't a very good illustration comparing the nozzles in that link. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/j79-exhaust-nozzles.html However, I'm still looking for good pictures of the -8 and -10 nozzles in the A-5.
  4. Note that engines were different too, among other things: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/12/vigilante.html
  5. In 1949 (see Revolt of the Admirals), the U.S. Navy was convinced that it could detect incoming B-36s with radar and successfully intercept and shoot them down with F2H Banshees. A version equipped with a radar in the nose was developed to provide an all-weather and night capability; one Banshee was also evaluated with a McDonnell-design afterburner to increase the rate of climb. The superior performance of the MiG-15 at altitude compared to the F-86 and its armament was the direct result of the requirement to intercept B-36s. That's not to say that some Peacemakers wouldn't have gotten to their targets.
  6. http://combatace.com/topic/87731-do-we-have-an-an-alq-81-ecm-pod/
  7. Note that these are both F-4As (different inlet and inlet ramp)
  8. http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-navy-bombs-up-through-wwii.html http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/09/f2h-2-external-stores.html
  9. For what it's worth, I just ordered and received a Blackburn B-48 Firecrest from Atsushi Koyanagi, who is Akatombo (see https://www.facebook.com/atsushi.koyanagi.520 on Facebook). I paid with PayPal and the kit took about a month to get to Connecticut from Japan. It looks great for a cottage-industry product. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an on-line source in English listing his product line, much of which is out of production in any event. However, he responds almost immediately to requests in English by email for a current list of what he has available, almost all of which consists of odd-ball, one-off aircraft, most non US.
  10. Note that if the ejection seat is the scale width, then the consoles must usually be narrower than scale because of the thickness of the side of the kit fuselage. There may also be a problem in height if the cockpit is over a nose landing-gear well of the correct depth. Also see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/09/fitting-in.html Kit manufacturers deal with the problem in different ways. I'm told that the Kitty Hawk 1/48th F2H-2 cockpit is proportionally accurate but subscale, about 1/57th.
  11. Pretty good A4D drawings (the one in the Detail and Scale book is somewhat off, at least as printed). http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/08/a4d-skyhawk-one-more-time.html
  12. Deploying the F-4's drag chute on final was a no-no according to the flight manual but was sometimes done (deliberately) to minimize the landing roll if field length was marginal.
  13. This will help understand the F8U rocket pack versus the speed brake: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-brief-history-of-f8u-crusader-armament.html
  14. Some build notes on the landing gear: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2014/02/hasagawa-p2v-neptune-kit.html
  15. Part of the F-111 image problem is that it wasn't a fighter, per se, certainly not an air-superiority fighter. The F-111A was a bomber. The F-111B was a missile truck (I don't think that there is a letter designation for that) optimized to shoot down enemy bombers and cruise missiles (big radar, six heavy missiles, long time on station, dash speed to engage the threat as far from the carrier as possible). The F-14 was a fighter, albeit big, that could do 75% of the Phoenix fleet-air-defense mission as an overload. The F-111B would have been better at the Phoenix mission (bigger radar dish, longer time on station, bring back all six Phoenixes, less wind-over-deck for launch and recovery) and potentially a replacement for the A-6 with a different suite of avionics. The carrier air group's air-superiority mission would have to have been fulfilled by something that looked like a Super Hornet.