sharkmouth Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I may have to visit my old high school (Aviation High School in Long Island City, NY) as they used to have a few Texans to work on. My interest would be the AT-6Gs as used by Portugal and France over Africa (yes, they have shark and dog mouth schemes). My Harvards are already in 1/48th scale so I am fine there since I could not find any Harvards with a shark (or dog) mouth. Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 That is one of several schemes I will choose from! Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KAGNEW Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) i know that Eli (Zotz) is doing an aftermarket sheet for my T-6 kit Edited December 9, 2013 by KAGNEW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 i know that Eli (Zotz) is doing an aftermarket sheet for my T-6 kit I wonder if Eli can elaborate on which schemes he has chosen. Time to PM him I guess. Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 hi all the airframe we used for this kit was built after WWII by Canadian Car Foundry. the only totaly new T-6 airframe built after the war were the 555 built at the Canadian Car Foundry. they rolled off the line as AT-6G's & Harvard IV's Glen They were built to T-6G standard but were designated T-6J from CC&F. They were actually built using Harvard Mk2 jigs and differed internally to T-6Gs. Some unique Canadian mods were incorporated and some American alterations did not appear on Harvard Mk4s. That still doesn't answer the question of "does the kit have the extended rear canopy of a Harvard Mk4 ?????" Enquiring minds want to know. Cheers, Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Colin K Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 (edited) hi all the airframe we used for this kit was built after WWII by Canadian Car Foundry. the only totaly new T-6 airframe built after the war were the 555 built at the Canadian Car Foundry. they rolled off the line as AT-6G's & Harvard IV's Glen The AT-6G and Harvard Mk IV were built at the same time at CCF, but that does not mean that the airframes were exactly the same. As has been stated, the Harvard Mk IV does not have the shorter rear canopy that the AT-6G did. The T-6's is shorter and the sheet metal area there is flat. On the Harvard, it is a bit longer and the sheet metal portion curves up. Just putting Mk IV decals in the kit won't make it a true Mk IV. Edited December 10, 2013 by Colin K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 (edited) So, the simplest fix for all this hoopla would be for KittyHawk to remove those markings from their sheet. At least the box title doesn't state Harvard anywhere other than the profiles on the sides. To me, the title (under which the kit will be described in catalogs) is indicative of what I will find in the box (which means I expect nothing specific to the Harvard production). Glen's answer above, about the pedigree of the prototype used makes it seem that perhaps those nuances were missed (or he had the same RT issue, I posted the diagram from, as reference). I do hope the kit build wells and therefore will sell well so more variations are released. I usually replace kit decals with aftermarket so that may be the route to take (for now) if one must have a Harvard in their collection. To prepare for this kit, which references are the most accurate since it seems those I possess aren't? Looking at the original CAD drawings, I see weapons which may not be included in this release. However, reading that Zotz decals are preparing French and Portuguese markings for the Texan leads me to believe the armed variant I seek is coming! Could the silence from Glen mean that other variants are under development? If so, would a Harvard be among them? Glen obviously would know. Will he tell? That's up to him. Regards, Edited December 10, 2013 by sharkmouth Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 It's too bad really, another model that won't make it to my stash from them. Who does their research? They have stated that a -3 Banshee is coming in 1/48 scale, I wonder if they know that there is a big difference between the -2 and the -3? I hope they do a good job with this one, as I am really looking forward to this one. Brad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moose135 Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I don't normally build 1/32 scale, but I'll have to make an exception here. Dazzlin Deb's owner is a friend of mine, and I've had the pleasure to spend some time in the back seat in the skies over Long Island. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I've had the pleasure to spend some time in the back seat in the skies over Long Island. Is Dazzlin' Deb based at Republic Field? Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moose135 Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Yes it is - he keeps it at the American Airpower Museum, although it is privately owned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) Yes it is - he keeps it at the American Airpower Museum, although it is privately owned. Ah, memories of that field! They used to have a flight school there. During the Summer, students from Aviation High School would attend (if they could afford it) or volunteer to work on the displays. I am not recalling a museum back in 1983. Oh wow! I just visited the American Airpower Museum web site. I will definitely need to visit! Back then, I recall a fiberglass fighter, not the real deal. Also, a T-33. Not being able to afford travelling to Farmingdale as often as I wished, I volunteered at HARP in Floyd Bennett Field (Brooklyn). Let's hope the decals for Dazzlin' Deb are correct and you can showcase the build here. Will you be building it for your friend? Regards, Edited December 15, 2013 by sharkmouth Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moose135 Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Thanks - we'll see how it turns out, but yes, I will likely offer it to him. I earned my PPL at Republic in the late 70s and early 80s. The museum was opened in 2000 - back in 1983, it was still a hangar owned by Fairchild-Republic. And I've visited the HARP hangar many times, including last month when I was up in NY for Thanksgiving. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Thanks - we'll see how it turns out, but yes, I will likely offer it to him. I earned my PPL at Republic in the late 70s and early 80s. The museum was opened in 2000 - back in 1983, it was still a hangar owned by Fairchild-Republic. And I've visited the HARP hangar many times, including last month when I was up in NY for Thanksgiving. I got my A&P Licenses from Aviation High School plus worked towards my Avionics as well. By the time I graduated, Grumman and other aircraft companies in NY weren't hiring as they planned to leave. Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FCM Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Is this a bad build, or a bad fit location of landing gear? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FCM Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 i know that Eli (Zotz) is doing an aftermarket sheet for my T-6 kit FCM Decals from Brasil will do this also (I just need to get a kit to work on it) ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TXCajun Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Not just the gear, which is mounted too far inboard and looks anemic. Look at the prop. That thing on the model looks like it was carved from a log. As a comparison: http://naturenm.org/AT6Texan2.jpg There's still some refinement of the product to go. Is this a bad build, or a bad fit location of landing gear? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aweber stoofan Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 These kinds of errors are really something! These aren't little nit pick mistakes. They are so "in your face" that one wonders why no one in their company saw them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Is this a bad build, or a bad fit location of landing gear? It was like that on the CAD's, and it was pointed out when they were shown. (among other things) So in the kit it is exactly as you see it here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aweber stoofan Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 (edited) It was like that on the CAD's, and it was pointed out when they were shown. (among other things) So in the kit it is exactly as you see it here. This is true and they aren't the only model company that didn't want to correct their errors when it was brought to their attention. There are others pumping stuff out with CAD that don't care if their product is way off the mark. There is no good excuse for the really big errors here. Well, all it will take is hours and hours of extra work on the modelers part to correct this stuff. I would like to build several of these, but that becomes a lot more challenging when you are performing a whole bunch of corrective surgery on each build. Edited December 18, 2013 by aweber stoofan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gene K Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Is this a bad build, or a bad fit location of landing gear? As regards the landing gear, I hope the artist got it wrong, and that kit has the struts positioned correctly relative to the doors (or vica vesa, if the struts are as off in the side view as they are in the front view). Gene K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 As regards the landing gear, I hope the artist got it wrong, Considering that the artist drew the wheel cover artwork on spokes, I'd say the artist is at fault. Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gene K Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Considering that the artist drew the wheel cover artwork on spokes, I'd say the artist is at fault. Yes, I should have put a :whistle:/>/> at the end of my post. :D/>/> Gene K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KAGNEW Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 hello Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 I see weapons! Also,. am I seeing things or are there two rear canopies and a long exhaust? Regards, 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.