randypandy831 Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 i few members have brought that up about using the sword resin pit in the wolf kit. Don't think anyone has tried it. isn't the sword resin pit a little off though? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 I would bet my next six mortgage payments that a resin cockpit to fit the Wolfpack kit will be out within a matter of weeks. Name a recent kit where that hasn't been the case... Even when (as IMHO in this case) it really doesn't need one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CW4 Erick Swanberg Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Just got mine in the mail and it looks like on first appearances that the sword resin cockpit rear bulkhead might be a little short on the top end but it fits pretty good still doing some checking but it looks alot better than the kit cockpit. There also may be some tweaking of the instrument panels from the sword to the coamings of the kit but shouldn't be that bad. I am starting mine so more to follow. Erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
randypandy831 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Wip thread? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vodnik Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/SAC48237 Probably just a copy of kit gear cast in white metal, like most SAC products. Likely without even properly removing the ejector pin marks (if there are any on Wolfpack kit) and mold lines... In case you haven't noticed I'm NOT a fan of SAC products ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
randypandy831 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 do they produce anything else besides white metal landing gear? that's really all i see from them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
torchf4 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Had to ask this, anyone planning to do the mods and decals for the current NASA T-38 fleet?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Had to ask this, anyone planning to do the mods and decals for the current NASA T-38 fleet?? ask and ye shall receive.... :)/> Quote Link to post Share on other sites
randypandy831 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 wondering why they haven't hit the states yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Wip thread? In case you haven't stumbled on it, I did a WIP here: http://s490816932.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=268308 I used the kit decals. This build was a lot of fun, confirming that this kit is worthwhile. I used this build as a learning experience, in preparation for those NASA decals that will be coming soon. I want to build one that my friend Chris Hadfield has flown. ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) NASA decals are at the printer, and we hope to have them by early November(ish). The instruction sheet is 15 pages! :) Edited October 1, 2013 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pookie Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 NASA decals are at the printer, and we hope to have them by early November(ish). The instruction sheet is 15 pages! :)/> Coooooool. I have 8 fujimi kits ready! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Coooooool. I have 8 fujimi kits ready! Which are 1/50 scale, so I'm not betting these decals will work very well for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pookie Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) Which are 1/50 scale, so I'm not betting these decals will work very well for them. The only part that is off is the wings which are undersized, but the fuselage is right on. Fujimi is the white one and Sword is the grey one. I think I won't have any problem at all. Where there is a will, there is a way. Edited October 2, 2013 by pookie Quote Link to post Share on other sites
randypandy831 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 isn't the testors kit a rebox of the fujimi kit? so, im assuming the wolfpack kit is the most accurate? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 You're assuming the Sword kit is correct, which from what I've heard isn't a safe assumption... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pookie Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 You're assuming the Sword kit is correct, which from what I've heard isn't a safe assumption... Therefore; Wolfpack is 100% correct...right? I am buying one wolfpack kit to make landing gear parts for the fujimi kit. I bet it's very close to the fujimi fuselage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) Therefore; Wolfpack is 100% correct...right? I am buying one wolfpack kit to make landing gear parts for the fujimi kit. I bet it's very close to the fujimi fuselage. No, I didn't say, nor intimate that. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about the Wolfpack kit. Your statement is a logical fallacy. But the Sword kit has been out for a long time, and a fairly large number of people have called its accuracy into question. I've never owned one, and only laid eyes on one once. Edited October 2, 2013 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pookie Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 No, I didn't say, nor intimate that. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about the Wolfpack kit. Your statement is a logical fallacy. But the Sword kit has been out for a long time, and a fairly large number of people have called its accuracy into question. I've never owned one, and only laid eyes on one once. Sorry Jennings, I was not aware of your sarcasm deficiency. I didn't mean to take advantage of it. :) Looking forward to the decals' release. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
randypandy831 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 even if the sword kit is more accurate, I honestly don't care because I don't want to bother with a short run kit that fits like total crap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pookie Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 even if the sword kit is more accurate, I honestly don't care because I don't want to bother with a short run kit that fits like total crap. Really! they are that bad? How many have you built? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
randypandy831 Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 no pookie, I haven't built the sword kit. all the build heads I've read revealed horrible fit and some local modelers have said the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 On 2013-08-07 at 10:36 AM, ALF18 said: Gene I sure wish I had time in the T-38 as well, but no. The F-5 was a blast to fly. I went from a Tutor (412 knots max indicated airspeed) to a supersonic fighter. The thrust in the F-5 was not as WOW as the F-18, but compared to a trainer it was satisfying to plug in the burners and feel the acceleration. On take-off, the F-5 was super sensitive in roll compared to my previous jets, and even to the F-18. The control forces in roll are really light, and it was normal to see first-time students wagging their wings a few feet in the air as they took off, getting used to the sensitivity in roll. I suspect the T-38 was very similar. The F-5 is also very heavy in pitch control forces (needing a lot of arm strength, or trim action, as speed changed or G was applied). A loop was done with 500 knots indicated airspeed, and 5 G. Over the top, the speed had bled off to about 200 knots (very slow for the F-5), and there was a LOT of aft stick pressure required to keep the nose tracking around the loop. I always trimmed to help pull back, then as I accelerated I trimmed forward to compensate for the decreasing stick force as speed built back to 500 knots. Approaches were FAST. It was not uncommon to have to fly at nearly 180 knots on final (the Tutor was 115, and the F-18 was around 135 to 145 depending on weight). Things happened fast on approach, but the airplane always went where it was pointed. Navigation at low level and high speed (420 to 480 knots) was a dream; you could almost ignore the effect of wind, and the instruments were dead steady. Point the nose toward the way you wanted to go, and you got there. None of this bouncing around and uncertainty like a small aircraft; the high wing loading led to a solid, stable, and reliable ride. The differences between F-5 and T-38 (generally) are: F-5 heavier T-38 does NOT have leading edge flaps F-5 aerodynamically a bit less efficient (more drag) Unsure about the engines and thrust The F-5 was a real dog at slow speeds. The leading edge flaps were necessary below 300 knots to allow it to turn without stalling. I suspect the T-38 would need to be going fairly fast to turn, compared to an F-5 with its LEF down. I also think that the T-38 was more nimble, and would accelerate better, at higher speeds. The addition of the air refuelling probe on the F-5 added a surprising amount of drag. It affected the trim (rudder) at different speeds, and it added about the same drag as a centreline external fuel tank. The T-38 didn't have that problem, so a clean T-38 would have less fuel than an F-5 with tip tanks, but if the F-5 had a probe installed, it would have gone less far than the T-38. I learned to air refuel (the first times) with an F-5 loaded with two underwing tanks, a rocket pod on one outboard pylon, tip tanks, and a practice bomb dispenser (SUU 5003) on the centreline. At 20,000 feet, at tanker speeds (290 knots indicated), the F-5 wallowed like a pig. Plugging with a partial fuel load was a bit tough, because the throttle response was sluggish and the aircraft heavy and not easily controllable. After plugged in, that's when the fun began. Fuel flowed in. The aircraft got heavier. Soon, both throttles were at full military power (just below the afterburner range), and I was still slowly sliding backward toward a disconnect. The solution (which my instructor had briefed me to do), was to plug one engine into the afterburner range, and quickly reduce the other one to a mid-power range to stop from acclerating too much and going forward. One engine minimum afterburner, the other one in mid range, and could be modulated to control the speed. Talk about horribly inefficient! Burning fuel in afterburner to keep up with the tanker at 20,000 feet. Clean up the F-5, though, and it was a hot little jet. Probably like the T-38, so I have to assume the Talon must have been fun to fly. ALF Talk about bumping an old thread, I knew an CF-5 pilot well, I remember him telling me a loop in an CF-5 was a five mile radius. My neighbor growing up was an ex-CF-5 pilot, perhaps you knew him. He was mugged in Vegas (Red Flag-Nellis) one night and lost hearing in one ear. With the hearing loss he had to switch to Hercs and eventually he lost his flying status when his hearing degraded even more. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Can this be correct given that the F-5 have been used as Agressor both in early A/B version and E/F's? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CF104 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Niels said: Can this be correct given that the F-5 have been used as Agressor both in early A/B version and E/F's? Hi Niels, Can WHAT be correct? Specifics of your question would help formulate an answer. Cheers, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.93bec6792d8c24df3038f789b80940d5.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.