1/32 Academy F-18D to CF-18B kicked up a notch.

[Ken Middleton]

man oh man....Chuck - there's nothing I can add that has not already been said. Incredible and amazing build. It sure is an inspiration and great reference work

[HOLMES]

Just AWESOME.....FANTASTIC...STUNNING....,SUPERB..

I don't think I have seen another quite like this...

IT IS PURE PERFECTION...The build has been such a wonderous ONE to follow and I am stunned by the neat, faultless, flawless

work that you have done on this...Winner in MY eyes !

KUDOS...

HOLMES :wub:

[John Tavendale]

Chuck, this is one superb model! Outstanding in every way, shape and form.

[Felix Lucius]

Museum quality. Only modelling for a couple of years? Talented then IMHO. Born with it.............

[Pinguis]

I cant say anything that has not already been said in this thread.

Congratulations on a build which was followed almost religiously.

[chuck540z3]

Geez, guys, thanks a lot!

As promised, I'm now working on a quick write-up using a few pics from my build, on how to convert the Academy kit to an A/B version of the F-18. Sure enough, I just discovered two more edits which, thankfully, I am able to add at the last minute without breaking a sweat. Stay tuned!

[chuck540z3]

Here's how I converted the 1/32 Academy F/A-18D kit to a CF-18B. Much of what I'll note below is common to all C/D to A/B conversions, including those used by the Navy and Marines as Aggressors.

This build had many, many modifications, so I'll stick to the "biggies" and I'll color code the red ones as must haves (for CF-18's anyway) and purple as optional improvements or modifications you may want to make. I knew almost NONE of this stuff a year ago, so almost everything I'll note was pointed out to me by CF-18 experts who actually worked on them or flew them- guys like Jari (Finn), Gary (Scooby) and Dan (ALF18) and also Steve Bamford's great article here:

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/tnt1...ford/tnt100.htm

Many of these part numbers below are not mentioned in the instructions at all, so you need to dig for them. Hopefully this will take a lot of the guesswork out of your search.

First thing you need to do is delete those radar bumps off the fuselage as indicated by 1 & 2 and remove all panel lines and rivets from the front starboard side gear door (3). The only antenna that goes there is Part S19, which goes in the lower middle of the door (4). The rear antenna (5) is just like then one at the front for older Hornets (D36), but upgraded ones may get the swept back version, (D49)

Now things get really busy underneath the front. That front radar blister (6) must be removed for CF-18's and a new one added slightly to the starboard side (part B26). For older Hornets, the "udder" must also be removed (7), unless it has been upgraded, leaving a circular panel instead. Many older F-18's have a reinforcement strip around the front lower panel (8), so check your references. This one was scratch-built with foil.

The front antenna (9, part D36 again) is not an option, but all of them have a leading edge tape to help protect them from hits, as well as the "Do Not Paint" sign. You can sort of see some "tape" on this one, made from decal film. For the lower grill on all F-18A/B's (10), you need part B16 instead of E14.

Here's a better shot of that reinforcement strip (11), showing how it has straight corners at the front. This corner does not match the panel lines, but is slightly inside of them.

The kit landing gear has a bad reputation for sagging over time, so you may want to use the G-Factor brass gear or another product like Scale Aircraft Conversions (12). Also make sure you flip the shocks on CF-18's, with the shiny piston side down and only a few inches showing. The chaff (blue) and flare (metallic) dispensers are poor with the kit, so I used a couple from Lion Roar (13). If you want some decent mesh around the rear of the engines (top and bottom) or on the leading edge of the intakes, the Eduard mesh set is really good quality (14). The kit intakes are very poor and too narrow, so I used the D-Mold product, which fit really well (15). Early Hornets also have antenna blisters under the intake (16,17), which are parts J39 and J40. Make sure you punch the holes for these parts before intake assembly. Some Hornets have a mesh grill over the panel at the rear of the gear doors (18). This one was scratch made from leftover parts of the Eduard mesh set that was supposed to be used for the front on a more modern F-18C. And last, I used the Aires gear bays (19), although the kit ones aren't too bad. As usual with Aires, the quality of detail is extremely high, but they are slightly too small, so you need to make adjustments with plastic card, etc.

Many early CF-18's have a "Fat Pylon" with radar jamming electronics within (20) and almost all CF-18's today fly with a Cubic ACMI pod on the starboard side (21) and a CATM-9 pod without fins on the port side. Both of these items were scratch built, although I had a friend make the pod since he's so good at it.

CF-18's and a few F-18's I've seen have a raised panel near the wing root (22) and the antenna on the top is either the straight D36 or the swept D49 (23) as on the bottom. Do not attach those radar blisters B19 to the top behind the canopy (24,25) and remove the oval panels and rivets they would normally attach to.

All early F-18's have reinforcement strips attached to the tails (26), but I have only seen these strips on the port side of both vertical stabilizers. The stabs themselves are quite different with only 3 bumps on the top, rather than 4 (28) and they have 3 L-shaped reinforcements on the inside base (27), part numbers D7,D8 and D9. These stabilizers came with the Avionix cockpit set.

I've noticed some builds just remove the second bump from the top on the kit tails. This pic shows that it isn't that easy if you want it to look "correct".

The rear flaps should lay down at about 33 degrees and should not hang down below the aircraft (29). With options of 30 degrees and the often used 45 degrees, both are wrong, so you need to adjust the flap hinges accordingly. If not, at least go with 30 degrees because the 45 degree option looks really bad.

On F-18B canopies, there isn't the L-shaped notch between the front and rear halves (30). In spite of this, I went with it, mostly because my luck with playing around with clear plastic is abysmal. For the cockpit, you need the Avionix/Black Box F-18B pit, but I found the instrument panels to be poorly cast. Fortunately, the kit comes with a new correct set by utilizing part I7 for the rear (31) and G26 for the front (32). Make sure you use the correct decals for the displays, although anything other than black on the screens is unrealistic on a parked jet.

Edited February 1, 2013 by chuck540z3

[chuck540z3]

As covered earlier in this build, the big port side gear door at the front should not have a lip on it (Part J23), so it needs to be cut off.

The starboard door, J24, is OK with a lip….

But the opening to where it closes should be square. This needs to be modified because the kit has a curved corner on each side….

One other detail that you might be interested in is the red lips on the gear doors. The rear doors have red on BOTH sides of the outside doors (B5 & B6), but not the inside doors, B3, B4, J23 and J24.

The front is quite different, with no red on the outside of the starboard side doors, J20 & J62, but the port side door, J21, has red on both sides and a notch cut out of the front corner….

The port side…

Now for a few last minute edits I just did tonight. The first I was meaning to do with the ejection hoops, which is to add some fabric to the inside of the orange hoops to replicate a mesh-like material on Canadian Hornet handles, presumably as a safety feature so that you don’t get a leg or whatever caught within the hoop and eject the seat accidentally (34). It’s kind of crude at this scale and angle, but it seems to do the trick once the seats are tucked away within the cockpit..

And last but not least the CF-18 trademark: The searchlight on the port side (33). I wish I’d put more detail into this light behind the clear glass, but I did re-drill those tiny air holes in the light panel to give some depth. My expert source of detail information (Jari- “Finnâ€), tells me that the gun safety switch is always in the outward safe position when the jet is parked. It is colored red on the outside and silver/grey on the end, so I added one easily (35). Unfortunately, I just found out that the other circular location at 36 is a chaff/flare safety switch which Canadian Hornets don’t have. This time, I’m calling it a day and I'll ignore it!

There's lots of other details I'm sure I missed, but these will get you way down the road to CF-18A/B or F/A-18A/B accuracy.

Edited January 18, 2011 by chuck540z3

[Qian]

AMAZING!!!! :D

[pantani]

Awesome build, looks verry verry nice and nice topic to learn from, thanks for sharing

[RescueDiver]

[marek_1101]

'HATS OFF" !!! Fantastic job. I'm in progress with Hornet but in 1/48 Hasegawa kit, unfortunately I have to stop my build because of accident witch canopy, is completely damaged.

[RiderFan]

This turned out really well.

[usn sti]

It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between photo's of the model and the 1:1 aircraft...

[JMan]

It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between photo's of the model and the 1:1 aircraft...

I 2nd that! Shame on Chuck for tricking us like that!

Jeremy

[chuck540z3]

A bit of an "update", even though it's been months since I finished this build.

I recently entered this Hornet in a model contest, with the expectation of winning something. I evaluated the competition thoroughly and, to me, it was either #1 or #2. Well, it won NOTHING, so I was very disappointed to say the least. To make matters worse, a build with a quarter of the work I put into this one won silver. I should know, because it was also mine.

After pouting about things for a few days, I got in touch with a few of judges to find out what the heck had happened. Was I blinded by all the work I put into this build or were the judges just plain stupid or crazy? It turns out that my landing gear toed-in a bit, so it was penalized heavily for mis-aligned wheels. I tried to find an old pic I had to show this flaw and this is the best I could find. Note the top wheel tilting inward...

The other wheel toed-in a few degrees as well, so the total effect was amplified. The reason for the toe-in has everything to do with using the G-Force brass landing gear, which is almost impossible to align perfectly straight. As a matter of fact, ALL F-18 kits are hard to align properly due to their complex landing gear. Ironically, I used the metal gear to prevent the eventual sag of the kit landing gear, which is a known problem with the Academy kit. Now I have to admit I did know about this alignment issue, but to me it wasn't a big deal and I thought, wrongly, that all the other stuff I did to this model would overwhelm the flaw. No model is perfect, so one flaw shouldn't matter, right? Well, as it turned out, I was very wrong.

This post isn't to rag on the judges at all, but to point out that certain build flaws are "deal killers" and miss-aligned wheels happen to be one of them. I used to think that the odd silvered decal was no big deal a few years ago, but now I can't stand the sight of them. If I see even one obvious decal flaw, I'll stop looking at the rest of the build, which is exactly what the judges did with this Hornet. In hindsight, I don't blame them, and I'm likely to think the same way from now on.

I tried to break off the wheels from the brass gear last night and see if I could somehow realign them. Unfortunately, the CA glue I gooped inside the wheel was too strong, so I got out some pliers and broke them off in pieces, which wasn't very pretty. Thankfully, the brass gear is still rock solid and I've got some new wheels in another kit, so I'm going to give it another try. There's no point going this far and falling short with crooked wheels. I'll post an update when I'm finished.

Edited June 22, 2011 by chuck540z3

[Emvar]

Thanks for sharing, I am following your updates on your learning experience.

Emil

[steel_tiger1]

Can't tell you the number of times I judged a model that was awesome, but lacked 1 item in basic construction. For example a seam down the middle of a barrel. I would overlook a slightly silvered decal before I would crooked landing gear.Basic construction first. Kudos to you for understanding that.

[chuck540z3]

Basic construction first. Kudos to you for understanding that.

Well, I didn't always. As mentioned earlier, the gear is made of brass, is very difficult to bend into a perfect position (especially after it's painted!) and the F-18 gear is very hard to align due to its complex design. To make matters worse, I used the Aires wheel bays, which don't fit perfectly either, so a slight aberration in the brass gear coupled with a slight twist in the wheel bay = a crooked wheel no matter what you do. I'm building an F-4E right now which has basic straight sticks for gear, so that is never a problem with this model. In essence, the F-18 has a disadvantage over other fighter kits like the F-4, so I was hoping it wouldn't be penalized- or at least not so severely with everything mentioned above. Also, to be honest, I didn't think the wheels were all that crooked to begin with.

Apparently they were and I learned the hard way, so I have now come to realize that this is a big no-no in modeling judging. What I should have done, which is what I'm doing now, is to bore out the wheel hole on the bottom side where the spindle of the gear is bent upwards, creating the toe-in. With the wheels flush to the spindle as they should be on F-18's, you can't see this edit anyway, so it's really a no-brainer now that I think of it.

The new wheels have been bored out properly, painted insignia white and I'm waiting for them to dry a few days so that I can hit them with a weathering wash and get them good and dirty, just like the real deal. Based upon some dry fitting, I'm now really happy I ripped off the old ones. This Hornet really looks a lot better now- and it took a judge to tell me why. Thank you to the judges if you're reading this!

[RiderFan]

Hey Chuck.

I'd have to think that the judge was just looking for a reason. A slightly misaligned wheel, relative to the rest of the work put into it, should in no way be a deal breaker. Especially if the judge knows anything at all about the kit or the aftermarket parts that you put into it, he's going to know that perfectly aligned CF-18 wheels are rare.

[steel_tiger1]

I'd have to think that the judge was just looking for a reason. A slightly misaligned wheel, relative to the rest of the work put into it, should in no way be a deal breaker. Especially if the judge knows anything at all about the kit or the aftermarket parts that you put into it, he's going to know that perfectly aligned CF-18 wheels are rare

A good judge should be looking! I mean isn't that the reason for judging in the first place? It really shouldn't matter how hard it is to get wheels straight on any kit, if you didn't do it you flunk basic construction, period. Degree of difficulty only comes into play when you have models that are very close in comparison and you have to weed out one over the other.

[RiderFan]

A good judge should be looking! I mean isn't that the reason for judging in the first place? It really shouldn't matter how hard it is to get wheels straight on any kit, if you didn't do it you flunk basic construction, period. Degree of difficulty only comes into play when you have models that are very close in comparison and you have to weed out one over the other.

Bunk.

Do you really believe that this kit flunked basic construction given the amount of additional construction that went in to it? Seriously. A good judge shouldn't be looking to flunk a kit because his personal preferences lay with a different type of aircraft. And from the sounds of it, that is what I see happening here.

Edited June 25, 2011 by RiderFan

[steel_tiger1]

A good judge shouldn't be looking to flunk a kit because his personal preferences lay with a different type of aircraft.

You drinking? Where did that come from? I haven't read anything here that leads to that conclusion.

I personally think his plane looks awesome, but I have not ever seen it in person. To look at a model casually is completely different than judging a model for competition.

And would you be as forgiving if it had been, say, a seam down the middle of the canopy? Or perhaps a gap in the fuse join? A bad putty seam? Bad fit of the burner can? Which thing(s) should be overlooked just because the rest of the build was a lot of work, and a competing model had all those basic things done correctly but wasn't as converted as this model? Where do you draw the line? And at what point do you determine that the judge just liked different aircraft? IPMS judging states:

II. CONTEST DEFINITIONS AND JUDGING

1.JUDGING. Models will be judged for skill in construction, finish, realism, scope of effort, and accuracy.

See here:

http://www.ipmsusa.org/competition_handbook/CompHandbook2002.pdf

As I see it, fit & finish are first & second ie: basic construction.

This is my last post on this subject. I think this CF18-B is awesome to look at and a wonderful job, and in no way do any of my questions refer to this model.

Edited June 26, 2011 by steel_tiger1

[Scooby]

Hey Chuck.

I'd have to think that the judge was just looking for a reason. A slightly misaligned wheel, relative to the rest of the work put into it, should in no way be a deal breaker. Especially if the judge knows anything at all about the kit or the aftermarket parts that you put into it, he's going to know that perfectly aligned CF-18 wheels are rare.

Since I was one of the judges I guess I can comment on this. I know the work that went into this build. I even helped with it. If anything I was looking for a reason for it to win first. One of the things that is totally being overlooked by you is the three kits that placed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd did not have any flaws and were also heavily modified. For example, the fabulous CT-133 that placed first actually started out as a 1/32 F-80 and was converted over to the CT-133. It was flawless. The builder of this kit mastered all the T-33 resin sets for Harold. So this info may guage the level of competition in this category. I feel the best builds in the contest were entered in this 1/32 category, which is not typical from year-to-year. 1/32 was very strong this year.

Chucks work is well above exceptional. His Phantom was in third but there wasn't a lot of difference between first and fifth.

Your comments are only based on seeing Chucks work online, which is exceptionally good and is well above average. Chuck is in the top tier in modeling, he has some skills some of us only dream of. In fact, I have never seen his style of painting and weathering before. But you also can't comment on the outcome when you didn't see the other entries.

Bunk.

Do you really believe that this kit flunked basic construction given the amount of additional construction that went in to it? Seriously. A good judge shouldn't be looking to flunk a kit because his personal preferences lay with a different type of aircraft. And from the sounds of it, that is what I see happening here.

Bunk, I worked Hornets, my personal preference is with Hornets. So there goes that theory.

If you have judged at any level you would know it is always basic construction first. I once saw a build win gold because the other judges argued over the amount of detail the builder added (it was an Aires super detail set with engine, cockpit, and many other details). But the construction was awful, glue prints on the canopy, super glue all over the place, it almost looked brush painted, it was horrid. But the other judges argued it was a hard detail set to add.

[chuck540z3]

Wow! It feels like when I left town this weekend I must have left a candle on because the house is now burning! I'm sure Riderfan meant well, but I was trying to give a positive update to this build rather than a negative one. Now that Gary ("Scooby") has revealed himself as one of the judges, I can confirm that both he and another judge pointed out that my landing gear alignment was a fatal flaw against some other fantastic builds. The only thing he didn't get right is that my Phantom did not win bronze, because it actually won silver! ;) . You lose some, but you win some others too in a model contest where there are always surprises.

Now back to the topic at hand- fixed landing gear. As mentioned above I ripped off the old wheels with pliers and replaced them with another set of wheels, but these ones were bored out internally to accommodate the angle adjustment required to make them straight. After a review of several CF-18 wheels, I have determined that they are usually dead straight to maybe a degree or two tilted outwards at the bottom. Here is my attempt to replicate same. I took a few different angles and lighting conditions against a light background so that the black tires would show up properly. This is because they may look out by a degree or two from some angles, but not from others.

First, here's a pic of the real deal.....

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20101017/600_cp_jet_repair_101017.jpg

This is about as good as I can get. The irony is that it wasn't hard to do at all, so I really should have done so in the first place. I will never have a crooked wheel again!- or at least unless they are supposed to be, which can happen.

Since all my prior pics have been against a jet black background, I thought I would take the opportunity to re-shoot some of them on this light background for contrast. Excuse the number of pics.....

Edited February 29, 2012 by chuck540z3