Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I didn't even look at the hubs, but noticed the blade profiles looked like nothing I've seen in photos gary You, know- I should have taken a better look at the prop myself. I mentioned that the blade shape was wrong but for the first time I noticed that the blades are backwards. They did the same thing that is done on the 1/48 F7F kit. I can't understand HOW EVER Italeri could ever figured a retail price if $50 on that kit, the more I look at it. Tower has it for $37 and Squadron refuses to carry it. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXBJBB Compared to the Revell kit which is less than half the price. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXZWR6&P=7 And even the Tamiya kit which is less expensive. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXGW11&P=7 http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXTC82&P=7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) NEXT POINT ?!?!?!?! WING SWEEP If any one has noticed, the Monogram and Italery differ greatly on this subject. This is one part of the build that CAN NOT easily be changed on a model. Interestingly enough, Monogram and Tamiya agree on this design factor. On the Monogram kit the wing sweeps back much more then the Esci/Italeri kit. Can anyone make a comparison to the Matchbox kit? Available drawings also vary on this subject. Since I do not at this point trust any after market drawings because of this discrepancy, I will have to get something from Boeing (if possible) I would like to see a photograph of the AD from either the top or the bottom in flight at a ideal angle. OR, did wing geometry possibly change during the aircraft life? I doubt the wing changed once in service but during development? I think, that if this question gets answered it will for ever answer the question of "which kit is better, Esci or Monogram?". I think the looser will get relocated to the parts box or used for kit-bashing. Edited March 24, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) These pictures SEAMS to somewhat favor the Esci kit. While these pictures seams to favor the Monogram (Hasegawa) kit. This picture would make Monogram (Tamiya)a clear winner. And I think, so would this one. Edited March 24, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Now if only someone would come out with an un-armored fuselage/wing version. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe before Vietnam, there was no armor slabs on the fuselage sides and lower wing center-section. All the modern civilian flying examples have the armor removed. Honestly, I am having a problem even finding a picture with a Raider with the armor on it. The armor was integral on the AD-6 (A-1H) only, Correct? Edited March 24, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Where it comes to engine detail, none of them are worth the plastic they are made out of. No-one seems to be able to represent the R-3350 in any form. Landing gear is a toss-up. There seams to be good and bad on both. Monogram "seams" to be the better of the two. the detail is a bit more delicate. Wheel-well detail seams to be a bit more realistic on the Monogram kit. Cockpit? well there is none on the Esci kit. It is considerably better on the Monogram kit. The same seams to go for the Instrument cluster, monogram I would say is the clear winner. Where it comes to the wheels, Esci seams to have the slight edge. Horizontal tail surfaces???????? I don't know what Esci was thinking???? They aren't even the right size?????? Monogram agrees to Tamiya and the drawings I have. Now for the canopy, Esci has the widescreen section pretty good but the sliding hood is out to lunch. Monogram is the other way around. I think that a vac canopy intended for the Tamiya kit would fix both. unfortunately I am not aware of one. The main problem with the Monogram windshield is that the center armor plate is much too narrow, and the overall canopy is also a bit too narrow. What did I miss Chip in guys. Edited March 24, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 You, know- I should have taken a better look at the prop myself. I mentioned that the blade shape was wrong but for the first time I noticed that the blades are backwards. They did the same thing that is done on the 1/48 F7F kit. I can't understand HOW EVER Italeri could ever figured a retail price if $50 on that kit, the more I look at it. Tower has it for $37 and Squadron refuses to carry it. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXBJBB Compared to the Revell kit which is less than half the price. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXZWR6&P=7 And even the Tamiya kit which is less expensive. http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXGW11&P=7 http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXTC82&P=7 I did some reading about Skyraiders last night, and found that they used three different props on them! This would be a good issue for Mike West to tackle! gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 It would be nice to know what the difference between the props was???? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Now if only someone would come out with an un-armored fuselage/wing version. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe before Vietnam, there was no armor slabs on the fuselage sides and lower wing center-section. All the modern civilian flying examples have the armor removed. Honestly, I am having a problem even finding a picture with a Raider with the armor on it. The armor was integral on the AD-6 (A-1H) only, Correct? looks like the additional armor showed up as a retrofit on the AD-6 & AD-7 planes in Vietnam. And even then it looks like not every airframe had this mod. I'm almost betting that it was only used on cross border raiders and Navy planes gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Where it comes to engine detail, none of them are worth the plastic they are made out of. No-one seems to be able to represent the R-3350 in any form. Landing gear is a toss-up. There seams to be good and bad on both. Monogram "seams" to be the better of the two. the detail is a bit more delicate. Wheel-well detail seams to be a bit more realistic on the Monogram kit. Cockpit? well there is none on the Esci kit. It is considerably better on the Monogram kit. The same seams to go for the Instrument cluster, monogram I would say is the clear winner. Where it comes to the wheels, Esci seams to have the slight edge. Horizontal tail surfaces???????? I don't know what Esci was thinking???? They aren't even the right size?????? Monogram agrees to Tamiya and the drawings I have. Now for the canopy, Esci has the widescreen section pretty good but the sliding hood is out to lunch. Monogram is the other way around. I think that a vac canopy intended for the Tamiya kit would fix both. unfortunately I am not aware of one. The main problem with the Monogram windshield is that the center armor plate is much too narrow, and the overall canopy is also a bit too narrow. What did I miss Chip in guys. Honestly the Tamiya interior dosn't impress me as well. I don't have a Mongram kit to look at, but may pick one up. Somebody sells aftermarket landing gear (metal), but you also need to take into account what era airframe you after. There are two different sets of main landing gear according to the Squadron book. gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Honestly the Tamiya interior dosn't impress me as well. I don't have a Mongram kit to look at, but may pick one up. Somebody sells aftermarket landing gear (metal), but you also need to take into account what era airframe you after. There are two different sets of main landing gear according to the Squadron book. gary I think that the only one that was different was the one with the exposed wheel that would be the AD-5. The rest should have the same gear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I did some reading about Skyraiders last night, and found that they used three different props on them! This would be a good issue for Mike West to tackle! gary I did look at some pictures in my books and noticed that the Hi-altitude stuff like the AD-5 (EA-1) had wider blades. at the same time i also noticed that the Monogram canopy would be correct for some of the early ECM birds. They actually did not have armor plate in the screen and the two uprights were much closer together. I did not find any pictures of props that looked like the Tamiya prop nor the reversed Esci prop. The Monogram prop looks like the widest blade prop I could find in pictures. This is fine, since you can always narrow down blades if you have to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) OK I looked some more at the pictures I have about the props. This is what I found. Some of the very early AD-1s had Curtiss Electric props just like the ones on the B-29. But quite early on they changed to the Aero-Products props. These props looked just like the Hamilton standard props but had the Aero-products hubs. Than the prop blade tips were widened a bit at the tips. These are distinguishable by the tips not being perfect half-sphere but having slight flat spots on the tips. Than the "E" birds seam to have wider blades at the main body of the blade. This is all I could find. i would bet that by the time the last Raiders were flying they all had the same props and they were the later narrower Aero-Products blades. This prop I think is quite well represented by the Monogram prop. Now on the other hand, the Wide blade version for the "E" birds would be almost like the Esci prop, if the blades weren't backwards and the hub wasn't so clunky. Having said that; I think that if you were building a four seat or three seat "E" bird you could use the Esci blades cut off the hub and mounted on a Monogram or Tamiya hub in the proper way. I think that the Monogram hub would be a better choice in size and shape if not in detail. Edited March 26, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I think that the only one that was different was the one with the exposed wheel that would be the AD-5. The rest should have the same gear. they made a change back in the Korean War era for a 14" longer travel and slightly different oleos. Started with the AD-3 gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) they made a change back in the Korean War era for a 14" longer travel and slightly different oleos. Started with the AD-3 gary 14" longer travel where? remember that the gear folds back toward the flaps. There was only 10" of space between the wheel and the flap to begin with on the prototype XBT2D-1 which had no main gear door and is plainly visible in available pictures. If you lengthened anything 14" the wheel would be inside the flap when retracted. I think you meant to say was that the travel was lengthened to a total of 14" which is as much as they could do on the oleo stroke (also more than enough). The actual lengthening was only about 4" in the extended position. Standard practice is that oleo extension is never to exceed the radius of the wheel. This was done for reasons of airframe failures which the Raider experienced up until the AD-3. This was only observable on the extended strut. With the aircraft sitting on the ground only an expert could tell the difference. Here is a nice picture of the extended strut. Edited March 25, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Well guys, I guess I will seal the fate of the Esci kit. The Raider had offset vertical stab which was very prominent. Only the Esci kit FAILED in that department. All the rest have it. That is a hard feature to correct on a model ESPECIALLY this particular airplane, since the fin is an integral part of the rear fuse. Well, between the vertical tail being wrong, the wings having the wrong sweep, the cowling being too small, the prop being backwards and having the wrong shape, the canopy having the wrong shape, the cockpit being void of all detail, the horizontal stab cord being 5 scale inches too wide and 15 scale inches too grate of span and sweep being way off, the landing gear struts being 7 scale inches too long, the wheel wells being completely wrong, the tail wheel much too narrow, it is otherwise a nice kit for $50 retail and $39.95 shelf price, (yes folks on the average $10 more than what the Tamiya kit can be bought for) To be fair, it has relatively nice hard-points and separate tanks. All the Monogram/Revell kit has to offer is a correct shape (the cowling is way too small though), some cockpit and wheel-well detail, and a pretty nice folding wing option with wing fold detail, which even the Tamiya kit lacks, AND a proper prop, all for about $16 at your LHS. Now I just wish that someone did anything before the AD-6 that is a completely vacant field. Edited March 25, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The external "armor" was devised and retrofitted during the Korean War. It was removable. One easy way to tell if a Korean War AD had it or not was whether the step on the side of the fuselage was a "kick-in" (no armor) or a small ledge (armor). Some or all of the armor was also removed for the nuclear strike mission (Sandblower) to reduce weight. This is the dimensioned wing top view drawing produced by Douglas. It's for the AD-1 but it didn't change as far as I know. The airfoils may only be approximate but the wing tip did have notable camber. Also see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/10/ad-skyraider-modeling-notes.html for my recommendation for AD references and other configuration notes. (For one thing, it's the source for that illustration of the armament pylons above.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) I was thinking of getting the "Modelers guide to the Skyraider" from that site. I have been on there a few times. This drawing confirms the Monogram geometry and shows that the Esci Skyraider is wrong. On the Esci Skyraider the Leading edge is swept only slightly back. As can be seen here that the leading and trailing edge angles are about if not equal. The raider had a NACA2417 foil at the root and NACA4413 at the tip. Those are enormously different airfoils. Besides the very pronounced Washout at the tip. This provided for extremely good low speed maneuverability without tip stall. Tip Stall can flip an airplane on its back so quick you won't even have a chance to blink. Edited March 25, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 The very first Skyraider I built was the RoG boxing. Other then a bit of a wing fir issue, it's a great kit! If there was an aftermarket cowl available it would go from "Great kit" to even better. At that point the only detractor to "some" people would be the raised panel detail. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 Here is a very nice document. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AD-6_Skyraider_SAC_-_15_February_1956.pdf Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) I was thinking of getting the "Modelers guide to the Skyraider" from that site. I have been on there a few times. This drawing confirms the Monogram geometry and shows that the Esci Skyraider is wrong. On the Esci Skyraider the Leading edge is swept only slightly back. As can be seen here that the leading and trailing edge angles are about if not equal. The raider had a NACA2417 foil at the root and NACA4413 at the tip. Those are enormously different airfoils. Besides the very pronounced Washout at the tip. This provided for extremely good low speed maneuverability without tip stall. Tip Stall can flip an airplane on its back so quick you won't even have a chance to blink. if you want to see these airfoils use this fantastic site. Just put in the #s into the draw calculator and be amazed. http://www.desktop.aero/appliedaero/airfoils1/airfoilgeometry.html You can use it in conjunction with this site. http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html This is what you get when you put an R.C.guy that besides loves aerodynamics, on a plastic model site. Edited March 25, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 The more I look at the Monogram/Revell Raider, the more I like it. The optional wing fold parts they give in the kit are quite complete in detail. anything missing can easily be scratch built. I think I will build one of these just so I can build it with the folded wings. I will just make my own cowling for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) It is amazing how fantastic a blue Skyraider looks next to a blue F7F, F8F, F9F, F3D and F4U-4. Edited March 25, 2012 by Otto Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uscusn Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 It is amazing how fantastic a blue Skyraider looks next to a blue F7F, F8F, F9F, F3D and F4U-4. I agree. Revell/Monogram Skyraider with an F9F. Also a Monogram kit in 48th scale. Just completed the Raider last year for the Navy Centennial GB. Looks great in the Sea Blue. Chuck Fly Navy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Otto Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 I agree. Revell/Monogram Skyraider with an F9F. Also a Monogram kit in 48th scale. Just completed the Raider last year for the Navy Centennial GB. Looks great in the Sea Blue. Chuck Fly Navy those are beautiful. I want to build my Monogram kit with folded wings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uscusn Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 those are beautiful. I want to build my Monogram kit with folded wings. Thanks Otto, I have one more Skyraider which I think I will fold the wings. As well as a Tamiya USN and USAF Skyraider. It is a good kit to build. I am an old Monogram/Revell fan for since well when I was a kid. But this thread is the first I read about the cowl being off. I just don't have the eye for seeing such details so it may not be that obvious. And quite frankly don't really care. Amazing how some have an eye for that which may be a blessing or a curse. Regardless I enjoy building and in knowing that they will be some discrepancy somewhere no matter if it's a Hasegawa, Tamiya or Monogram. Just enjoy the hobby. Chuck Fly Navy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
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.