Jump to content

Sprue Shots of the CA TA-4J are now online


Recommended Posts

I'll get the kit,mainly because I parked more than a few TA-4's while I was in the military,always liked the two-seaters the most out of the variants.

Sorry for the post above but I was seeing this thread going down the road of a CA/CA TA-4/Jule's bashing more than a discussion,just tried to do a Barney Fife and nip it in the bud.I'd rather see/hear how people will tackle the kit with what is not in the box rather than complain whats not in the box.If Jules put everything that everyone wanted in there it would come out to a C-note kit or more.

Me,I'll pick one up,grab a Afterburner decal sheet when they are released(I want to do a Training Command bird),and then see what I can do with the kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

God Bless the Marine Corps :cheers::cheers: Erick

First, let me point out that my comment wasn't directed at Fuji personally. Had any one of the 9000+ members of ARC made the same assessment, my comments would have been the same.

I stated as a matter of fact that it didn't surprise me that some were complaining about the kit. It has become standard here and on every other modeling forum.

I did NOT say they couldn't share their opinion, or that their opinion did not matter. I said I wasn't suprised, period.

The comment about not liking free food was a general comment, again not pointed at any one individual. If anyone took it personally and it hurt their feelings.....you'll get over it.

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you're basically complaining about other guys complaining then saying hey, I got the right to say what ever I like so deal with it. And being applauded for it. Productive.

I stand by my observations. The CA kit could have been better. The places where they missed the mark were obvious ones. It would not have significantly raised the cost of the kit to do the ADU/LAU combo correctly or the bent refueling probe, or the flaps or the brakes or the guns (thanks Sammy). Corners have been cut which mean the modeler has to go to greater lengths and expense to get what should have been in the box.

I sometimes think people are too critical of the Chinese manufacturers but you get much more bang for your buck with a Trumpeter kit, unless you're a rivet counter, than you do with this kit. I am by no means a rivet counter but CA's F-5s were a better buy and done better. I give props where they are do I do not complain just to complain. You can look up my posts if you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on now, let's not get crazy saying stuff we'll regret later. :lol:

Well OK, lets say they were more complete and when you only have the old Hawk kit to compare it to, very well worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks ok.

It will be great to have the gap filled.

Seems CA made the kit as the USN made the jet

plain and simple.

Nice touch to have it compatable with the Hasegawa kits, I guess it means the builder has more scope of versions to build without the manufacturer of the kit making the effort to produce the scope themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only deficiency I see with the new kit is that it's not in my hands yet.

Can't wait to have a TRACOM Scooter in orange and white.

Depending on how finely executed the end product is, I may end up replacing a lot of parts with their Hasegawa counterparts, but for the most part that will be fine since several of my Hasegawa scooters are destined to be displayed in-flight.

Who's the man? Jules is the man!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only deficiency I see with the new kit is that it's not in my hands yet.

Can't wait to have a TRACOM Scooter in orange and white.

Depending on how finely executed the end product is, I may end up replacing a lot of parts with their Hasegawa counterparts, but for the most part that will be fine since several of my Hasegawa scooters are destined to be displayed in-flight.

Who's the man? Jules is the man!

I couldn't agree more. May not be perfect, but an imperfect kit is better than no kit at all. :salute:

Link to post
Share on other sites

whow;..that's the first time i heard about canons on TA4J !! many thanks for this info !

anyway, i'm happy that CA have the scooter in its catalog....and i'll wait it....as for the decal sheets.....

the only TA4J i build was a mix of the Hasegawa and the Monogram kit.....here's a shot !

ta4j10.jpg

Pat

Link to post
Share on other sites
whow;..that's the first time i heard about canons on TA4J !! many thanks for this info !

anyway, i'm happy that CA have the scooter in its catalog....and i'll wait it....as for the decal sheets.....

the only TA4J i build was a mix of the Hasegawa and the Monogram kit.....here's a shot !

ta4j10.jpg

Pat

Thats Awesome Pat! Well done and a build to be proud of. I miss the Cylons, nice to see a build of one of their machines. Yes, TA-4s in the training command had cannons. They would train pilots on basic gunnery and ground attack using Mk76s Blue Death. Many TA-4s in the adversary fleet had the cannon fairing in the right wing root blocked off with a circular plate. VC-10 Challengers was tasked with an air defense and ground attack role so they had both cannons and were wired to carry live AIM-9 Sidewinders. They were based at Guantanamo Bay NAS, Cuba.

I have always loved this image and its one of the Scooters I would like to build.

http://www.skyhawk.org/5e/g152846/html/152863a1.htm

Edited by Fuji
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification about the training Scooters Fuji. I can chalk Jacksonville up to a sleep deprived brain after helping out at a model show for two days. ;)

Anyway, lack of cannon fairings in the CA kit won't bother me much as I don't believe every training scooter had a cannon mounted. The TA-4 at the Combat Air Museum in Topeka, KS is in the same patchwork painted condition it was in when they had it flown in and both wingroots were plugged. But if I do plan to mount the guns, I can always scrounge a pair from a Hobbycraft A-4H or A-4N kit as Israel got rid of the Colt guns and went with 30mm DEFA cannons mounted under the wings anyway on their single seater Skyhawks (their TA-4s still had the Colt guns though). So I can use the ports from a kit that won't need them. The Hobbycraft Skyhawks are priced so low these days that one could use them for just the parts, bombs and decals anyway to use with Hasegawa (and now CA) kits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the clarification about the training Scooters Fuji. I can chalk Jacksonville up to a sleep deprived brain after helping out at a model show for two days. :thumbsup:

Anyway, lack of cannon fairings in the CA kit won't bother me much as I don't believe every training scooter had a cannon mounted. The TA-4 at the Combat Air Museum in Topeka, KS is in the same patchwork painted condition it was in when they had it flown in and both wingroots were plugged. But if I do plan to mount the guns, I can always scrounge a pair from a Hobbycraft A-4H or A-4N kit as Israel got rid of the Colt guns and went with 30mm DEFA cannons mounted under the wings anyway on their single seater Skyhawks (their TA-4s still had the Colt guns though). So I can use the ports from a kit that won't need them. The Hobbycraft Skyhawks are priced so low these days that one could use them for just the parts, bombs and decals anyway to use with Hasegawa (and now CA) kits.

Jay

No worries on the NAS Jax info. As for guns in the training command, you're right, not all of the TA-4s had them, most did though. I also hadn't thought of the Hobbycraft A-4s, that might be a viable option. Still ... I know I know I know.. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and can anyone tell me why the rear bottom portion of the fuselage is a separate piece?

Pattern Making 101

They don't have fancy slide moulding facilities, so the moulds have to be 2 part. They have a choice. If the under fuselage is split in two and made as part of the fuselage sides, there can be no inscribed detail on that area.

By making the separate part they can mould detail consistent with the fuselage sides. The top of the fuselage is much more curved, so detail can still be inscribed and the part withdrawn from the moulds but I bet you find that as the detail gets closer to the centreline it also gets shallower.

Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites
did someone has pics about those gunny cooters....... :woot.gif:

that could be a great subject, a fully armed TA4J......

Pat

Pat

VC-10 Challengers / Proud Pelicans were based at NAS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and were frequently seen with live weapons. There is a series of images on the Skyhawk.org site that show JH-3 with two live Sidewinders, 5 Mk. 20 Rockeyes and of course, two cannon in the wing roots. I believe they were the only VC squadron left with a combat role though much of their work was also providing adversary support when they were needed like VC-8 did at Rosey Roads.

http://www.skyhawk.org/3e/vc10/vc10p.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just might get me a cupple of them Scooters.

One in agressor colors, and the other in either IAF or US Navy school colors.

Hope this one is way better than the F-5a CA made a few years back.. I was major disapointed with that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Fuji !

ow, surely a stupid question...but was not able to save some of the pics, always a .GIF transparency...none of my programs read that file type ?

Pat

Edited by foxtwo
Link to post
Share on other sites

HI guys,

About those cannons.... I see the wings are clipped at the leading edges where they meet the fuselage, and there are separate parts for the missing bits. The photo of the sprue with the fuselage parts is cropped. Maybe the cannon parts are to the left of the nose gear strut on that sprue, or they could possibly be done in resin in a future release with different markings?

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
HI guys,

About those cannons.... I see the wings are clipped at the leading edges where they meet the fuselage, and there are separate parts for the missing bits. The photo of the sprue with the fuselage parts is cropped. Maybe the cannon parts are to the left of the nose gear strut on that sprue, or they could possibly be done in resin in a future release with different markings?

Ben

Unfortunately Ben, we see everything here. If you look at the bottom of the fourth photo, you can see the intakes and nose strut which are at the left of the first image. The aerodynamic fairings are located on the forth photo to the right of the instrument panels.

As for the resin issue, my main concern has always been that I don't want to resort to aftermarket resin if I don't want to or to cannibalize another kit. While I am thankful that someone is giving the TA-4 some attention (Thank you Afterburner Decals for doing my jet), I still see this kit as a half :coolio: job. Corners were cut and insufficient research done. Most people here didn't know about the guns. Imagine the disappointment when you work really hard to finish off this thing and someone comes by with a flippant "yea but its wrong, you didn't do your research. You should have done this and that.." Its happened to me and its never fun to have your hard work so casually dissected and verbally trashed. As a manufacturer, you should do the research. Is this anything new? No. Manufacturers have always dropped the ball one way or another, but we're seeing other manufacturers like Kinetic and even Trumpeter correct their molding to correct what should have been right in the first place. If we don't say it, it won't get fixed. Maybe someone else is thinking of doing a TA-4 and maybe they'll look at this and say, OK, I didn't know that either, let me dig a bit deeper and make sure its right.

thanks Fuji !

ow, surely a stupid question...but was not able to save some of the pics, always a .GIF transparency...none of my programs read that file type ?

Pat

Pat,

The Skyhawk group doesn't allow the saving of its images and unfortunately, those images are no longer available at the DVIC site. I'll see if I can dig them up for you. Drop me a PM with your email and I'll email them when I dig them up in my archives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuji-

Personally, I can see where your accuracy concerns are strongly noted...and, as always, those who strive to build the most accurate model will probably have numerous issues with this kit. You've pointed out quite a few, and that's just from some online pic references. If history bears out, it's unlikely to improve once folks have plastic/resin in hand.

However, there is also the case of having a subject with broad appeal, that may be scarfed up by folks who just like the look of the aircraft, and aren't that into accurized models. Normally, I'd fall into that second category...but I still won't buy this kit. Why not?

Well, for starters, CA kits aren't known for their great fit. They also don't produce the numbers/quantity that's going to make it such a great price that I'd be willing to deal with the ill-fit. All told, while I might be interested in the schemes/variations available, it's not worth the time it's going to take me to make it look good, and its not economical enough to make up for the frustrations of the build.

So even as a casual "it just looks cool" modeler, I'm not going to be jumping for a CA release of the TA-4 any time soon. Later in life, when I've got more time to battle ill-fitting kits, and I can pick one up at a swap meet for 69 cents or so....maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuji-

Personally, I can see where your accuracy concerns are strongly noted...and, as always, those who strive to build the most accurate model will probably have numerous issues with this kit. You've pointed out quite a few, and that's just from some online pic references. If history bears out, it's unlikely to improve once folks have plastic/resin in hand.

However, there is also the case of having a subject with broad appeal, that may be scarfed up by folks who just like the look of the aircraft, and aren't that into accurized models. Normally, I'd fall into that second category...but I still won't buy this kit. Why not?

Well, for starters, CA kits aren't known for their great fit. They also don't produce the numbers/quantity that's going to make it such a great price that I'd be willing to deal with the ill-fit. All told, while I might be interested in the schemes/variations available, it's not worth the time it's going to take me to make it look good, and its not economical enough to make up for the frustrations of the build.

So even as a casual "it just looks cool" modeler, I'm not going to be jumping for a CA release of the TA-4 any time soon. Later in life, when I've got more time to battle ill-fitting kits, and I can pick one up at a swap meet for 69 cents or so....maybe.

I concur Waco. I too usually fall into that second category. These were all things I had also wanted to mention but figured I'd beat the horse enough. How's Alaska?

Link to post
Share on other sites
and its not economical enough to make up for the frustrations of the build.

That's the main reason I'm not getting excited over this release. Too much $$ for too little value, based on previous CA releases. As for the decals that are coming, I'm game for those as I am a Scooter fan, and am interested in several of the schemes. As to what I'll put them on? Well, as I don't have a whole lot of building time currently I'll just hang on to them for future use. Sooner or later, Hasegawa will most likely release a TA-4. Until then, the Monogram OA-4M is a decent, accurate kit that isn't a hard conversion to a TA-4, and they're not hard to come by nor are they so pricey as to be prohibitive of getting multiples and/or worrying about gooning one up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...