Superheat

Hi Don, Paint the compressor blades and spinner the appropriate metallic shade, preferably with an enamel or lacquer - NOT acrylic! If you don't already have some, get some Tamiya X19 Smoke, a clear gray - very useful stuff. Thin it about 40 paint/60 thinner with an appropriate thinner and add a bit of clear flat or flat base. Do not use water to thin the wash as it will bead up and not flow properly when applied. Apply this wash to the face of the compressor blades. It will collect in the recesses and give the effect of the shadow cast by overlapping blades. It may take a couple applica

Hi Tom, Interesting to see what AMS might do with the Vought seat. The best F5 seat is the old KMC/Black Box/Avionix/True Details seat. It is a very good F5, but, unfortunately, it is for the Monogram kit and is far too tall for the Hasegawa kit. At one point Black Box (as they were at the time) had a new one for the Hasegawa kit, but it was nowhere near as good as the earlier one for the Monogram. An outfit called Aviation Research had one that was all but identical to the KMC seat. CE had one, it was OK but not great, and that is about it for F5's. Aires' F7 is probably the best of that

Hi Tom, Happy New Year I don't know of any other 48th Vought seats. AMS did one in 32nd but I don't think Harold ever did it in 48th. A more readily available Vought seat would be good, and a good Martin Baker F5 as well. Cheers, Another Tom

Antoine, You will have to haunt eBay or the want and disposal forums for them, but Microscale did at least two sheets with F8U-1's on them: 72-301 with VF-32; and 72-493 with VF-142 http://modelingmadness.com/scott/decals/super/ss72301.htm http://modelingmadness.com/scott/decals/super/ss72493.htm It would be nice, though, if manufacturers of both kits and decals would get over the notion that only the F-8E and J are worth modeling. There are some spectacular schemes for early Crusaders that never see the light of day because there are no kits to put them on and few decal producers are wil

Antoine, There IS a substantial difference in the nose area, as the photos should show. I forgot this photo in my first post, it shows the profile difference very well: The APQ-94 radar was much larger than the APS-67 (B & C), or the APQ-83 (D) and required a fairing that extended back to where the intake blends into the fuselage. You can see the crease where that fairing meets the original fuselage in the second and third photos. All that area below the crease down to the intake must be removed to get to an ABCD nose. It requires shoring up the inside of the the nose with sheet pla

Hi Dave, I see you have already opted out, but sure, you can do it, it just takes a lot of work, either DIY or with the Muroc conversion, though that is much the easier way to go, but the conversion is not without some faults. I am traveling at the moment and can't get into a lot of detail on it but here are a couple photos that show the basic differences between noses of the E and the earlier versions. Break, break.......... Antoine, Your assumption is basically correct. For the D use everything in the conversion except the part for the upper left fuselage with the vent, and t

The 'Cobra Company' resin seat was designed for the old Monogram kit but fits like a glove in to the Hasegawa pit. Trying not to get too 'poetic', but it really is a magnificent piece of casting, easily one of the very best resin seats that I've ever seen - full stop. Ian, Nice work! You might want to fit check that seat in the kit, especially if you plan to close the canopy. That looks to me to be the KMC/Black Box (now True Details) seat, or perhaps the Aviation Research. Both are beautiful and quite accurate F5 seats, and fit the Hasegawa tub, but are too tall to fit under the Hasegawa

Ian, You won't have much luck using a Monogram canopy on the Hasegawa kit, it is a scale foot too wide where the Hasegawa is dead on: Opening the Hasegawa canopy is not that big a deal, here is how to do it: (...and for anyone doing the Monogram kit, something similar needs to be done to open its canopy) I am getting the impression that you want to do a J, rather than an E. If that is correct, there are a number of differences which are not included in the E boxing, as well as a couple that are there that shouldn't be for an E. Paul mentioned the two major ones : the double segmented

.....and here it is in living color, photo is dated Feb 9, 1954 ID'ed as 390th Fighter Bomber Squadron. The angle of the speed brake is quite clear. And it would appear that Eduard missed the white border to the blue fuselage stripe. I would really like to do this aircraft but not for $90.00 Cheers, Tom

Snicks, If there is one thing the 144th world needs, it is a good A-7 kit (and an F-4B,C,D!). I would love to see Revell or Platz do both types, but, as is there are three options for a SLUF: the Miniwings, Aeroclub - also an A/B, and F-Toys. The F-Toys are generally assembled and decorated, but that can all be removed and reworked to a higher standard - and it is an E to begin with. Working with the Miniwings, though, as Jennings said, it might be easier to start with a d, since it will have the fairing for the M-61 and all you will have to do is remove the upper fuselage refueling recepta

Brad, There is a small walkaround here on ARC I did some years ago: http://www.arcair.com/awa01/501-600/awa524-Mig21SMT-Weinel/00.shtm Wish it was larger, but it was done in the Pre-Digital Age. Cheers, Tom

Here you go, Otto Be aware that the KMC cockpit is a B/C cockpit, not an F-8E and much of the information on pages 3 and 4 is incorrect. If you need more clarification, let me know. Cheers, Tom

Hi Andrew, It came out very well, but a couple points on your narrative: VF-162 was the "Hunters", not the "Crusaders" - that was VMF-122; and Wyman's kill was a MiG-17, not a 19. Again, though, it looks great, I like your panel line treatment and I'm really glad you did not put on the non-existent lurid yellow sealant around the windscreen elements. Nice to see a "superheat" model. Cheers, Tom

Phil, et al I doubt it is the age of the glue. When tube glue ages it usually gets very thick and stiff and difficult to get out of the tube. More likely it is just a normal property of tube glue. Tube cement is just liquid plastic cement with clear plastic pellets dissolved in it to give it viscosity. It only exists because in the infancy of plastic models, most model cu8stomers (such as myself, for instance) were used to wood models, either solid wood or stick and paper, which were assembled with very viscous tube glues. We were reluctant to purchase and use a bottle of glue (which cou

Andrew, Nice work! And great choice of markings, too! Some notes from a 162 alum. All versions of the F-8 had the small UHTs (horizontal stabs) except the E(FN) and J. The J was essentially an E rebuilt to E(FN) specs to achieve its lower approach speeds. Wind tunnel tests had demonstrated that the existing stabs had too little control authority at the lower speeds (126 KIAS vs 142 KIAS at max trap weight), so the area of the stabs was increased to regain that needed control authority. If you remove 3 scale inches from the leading and trailing edges of the stabs as well as 6 scale inches

Chuck, It's not just you, there are at least two of us cranky old men who feel this way! Cheers, Tom

Possible, I suppose, but much more likely to be some shade of blue. Drop tanks, as well as MERs, TERs, LAUs, etc., often had their tips painted in their squadron trim color to identify ownership aboard ship. If the photo were in color and showed it in gray, that would be definitive, but it is in black and white, so open to interpretation, and mine, based on 8 years in Naval Aviation, is that it is most likely blue. I would also add that there was no set, prescribed (ie FS #) for the squadron trim color. Only the basic color was designated in the regs and anything that fit that basic descri

Hi Brian, I do not think there is any Corrogard on the leading edges in Jorge's photo. Corrogard was basically an aluminum paint and contrasted sharply with the Gull Gray and white when present. Here are are a couple photos to demonstrate the point, both VA-163 aircraft: This second one, though black and white, demonstrates it even better, since Corrogard is present on the wing leading edge but not on the slat: I don't remember there being Corrogard on the A-4's of the 4 squadrons I cruised with (VA-112 - 1969, VA-12, VA-152 and VA-172 - 1970), and going through a lot of A-4 photos se

Well, since the F7 seat in the Crusader had the hardpack chute and the metal parachute pan, I doubt the weight savings theory. It was the rocket motor on the bottom of the seat that made the Mk7 series Zero-Zero seats, and the weight savings would be insignificant to that capability The hardpack chutes were quicker opening than the old softpackss and that is why they were used. And the Mk5 series required 120 knots and no sink rate for a deck level ejection. Cheers, Tom - a satisfied Martin-Baker F7 customer

Jennings, Here is the seat illustration from an F-4 NATOPS manual: and here is a photo of Chappie James sitting on one. If yhou google him, you'll find another one. Haven't tried Robin Olds but that turn up some, too. Hope it helps some. Tom

Otto, Of the two, the Monogram kit is far and away the better kit. As a former F-8 pilot, I was quite excited when the ESCI F-8 was announced. That excitement lasted until I opened the box. It is terrible. I could never bring myself to build it, it was such a poor representation of the Crusader. I would reopen the box periodically, thinking I was being too critical, that it couldn't be as bad as I thought, but I would just find more things wrong with it. There is nothing about it worth messing wit, not even, with all due respect to Habu2, the decals, or at least the VF-162 decals ("USS

Hi Geoff, I don't have a high-res "smoking gun" type photo, but in the ones I do have that show the area, the trunion plate appears to be there. Here is one: Further, these late B's were produced at about the same time as very late J's so it seems logical that the R-B wing would be configured the same as the J, though logic and military procedure are not always compatible. HTH, Tom

Hi Ish, Wish I could join you but not in the cards. If you get no takers, you could take the train to Cambridge from Kings Cross or Liverpool Street stations and take a taxi down, it is not that far and won't break the bank. There is a stop closer at Whittlesford on the line from the Liverpool Street station, but I'm not sure how well you would do there getting a taxi, though it is only a 2.3 mile walk if you are up for that. Have you already done the RAF Museum (and Hannants!) at Hendon? It is also a must see when in the area and easy to get to on the Tube: take the Black Line to Colind

Hi Scott, Welcome to ARC. Below are the NATOPS instrument panel illustration for the C and K (the panels are pretty much identical). Below that is a photo of a C panel, a little dark but it should help. Note that in the NATOPS illustration, the radar scope looks to be flush with the panel, but, as you can see in the photo, it's not, it sticks out from the panel about 3-4". The white and blue cords you see are the leg restraint lines and they extend from the bottom center of the seat, below the secondary firing handle. The last photo is the stick for the A through C models, which lacks th

This should help for flap amgle: Cheers, Another Tom