john53 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Is it possible to re configure this old 1/72 AMT (ESCI) kits boat tail to look like VF-1s in 1975? I have another 1/72 AMT kit I want to use and practice some plastic surgery, nothing to loose there. I already know about the gun vents and deleting the alpha probe. Thanks---John OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by jvandeu53, on Flickr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reddog-03 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 4 hours ago, bushande said: Not necessarily Darren. I remember to have shot of a '78 VF-1 bird with already overal gull grey but with tan nose somewhere in the pile but can't find it at the moment. Yet I think it was not common though and I might even go so far as to say the photo was just a lucky shot during that "transition" phase. During the third and last cruise of VF-1 aboard Enterprise the tan noses were generally gone. I got some shots of that cruise and I cannot find any Tomcat with a tan nose in both squadrons. VF-84 had a few birds in overall gull gray with tan radome. So did VF-101 and VF-124. Mid to late '80s, I think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 The Tomcat is every bit as varied as the Bf 109 and Fw 190. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 58 minutes ago, john53 said: Is it possible to re configure this old 1/72 AMT (ESCI) kits boat tail to look like VF-1s in 1975? I have another 1/72 AMT kit I want to use and practice some plastic surgery, nothing to loose there. People tend to dismiss that kit but if you compare the two you will find the AMT/ESCI kit is a copy of the early Hasegawa kit with the addition of engraved panel lines. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john53 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, habu2 said: People tend to dismiss that kit but if you compare the two you will find the AMT/ESCI kit is a copy of the early Hasegawa kit with the addition of engraved panel lines. I guess that's a yes to it's being possible to re configure the boat tail?---John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bushande Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) I think you mix this up a little John. The picture of your model shows a standard beaver tail similar to the one provided in the 1/48 Tamiya kit. The so called boat tail was the broader one. In general it is possible yes, depending on skill, time and patience. The easiest way I guess would be to just cut the smaller beaver tail section and replace it with a scratched plastic part. At least going for the first few ships that hit VF-1 and -2 during the work up phase and very early on cruise you could choose then whether you want dialectic panels on it or rather not. I once did that with a 1/32 Revell Tomcat which I converted to a depiction of 158627 as it flew during the work up phase in late '73 / early '74 just short before the first cruise. During that time a lot of configurations and load outs where tried by the squadron to accomodate with the then new jet. That was also the time when the first - mind it OPERATIONAL! - missile test shots had been conducted by the squadron. I know I dig that one out rather often but please bear with me, I'm a snails pace modeller and hence don't have a lot to show as ref. http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal9/8701-8800/gal8798-F-14-Breunig/00.shtm Just scroll down to about the middle of the thread after the VX-9 Delta. I was in touch with the crew who transferred 158627 from Bethpage to Miramar and who conducted the first missile shots in the squadron during work up phase. I think ... well .... hope it's a fairly accurate representation of the original between end of '73 / early '74. Modellingwise I changed wuite a lot after I posted these pictures years ago and I would do A LOT way different and hopefully better today and I had to scratch and print a lot myself as it has not been available at the time of build but despite being in 1/32 it might show that a scratch boat tail is far from impossible. Edited January 7, 2017 by bushande Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john53 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Here's VF-2 NK 203, Bu 158992 which was on that 1975 cruise. This picture is supposedly August 1975 after the cruise. To modify that boat tail would be major reconstruction. The "skinny" section on my AMT kit needs to be removed and the whole rear section rebuilt out of some kind of plastic sculpture media. No one makes an early boat tail in resin in 1/72 scale? Seems Darren already mentioned this. Oh well.---John F-14A August 1975 4 - Copy (640x332) by jvandeu53, on Flickr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john53 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, bushande said: I think you mix this up a little John. The picture of your model shows a standard beaver tail similar to the one provided in the 1/48 Tamiya kit. The so called boat tail was the broader one. In general it is possible yes, depending on skill, time and patience. The easiest way I guess would be to just cut the smaller beaver tail section and replace it with a scratched one or one. I once did that with a 1/32 Revell Tomcat which I converted to a depiction of 158627 as it flew during the work up phase in late '73 / early '74 just short before the first cruise. During that time a lot of configurations and load outs where tried by the squadron to accomodate with the then new jet. That was also the time when the first - mind it OPERATIONAL! - missile test shots had been conducted by the squadron. I know I dig that one out rather often but please bear with me, I'm a snails pace modeller and hence don't have a lot to show as ref. http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal9/8701-8800/gal8798-F-14-Breunig/00.shtm Just scroll down to about the middle of the thread after the VX-9 Delta. I was in touch with the crew who transferred 158627 from Bethpage to Miramar and who conducted the first missile shots in the squadron during work up phase. I think ... well .... hope it's a fairly accurate representation of the original between end of '73 / early '74. Modellingwise I changed wuite a lot after I posted these pictures years ago and I would do A LOT way different and hopefully better today and I had to scratch and print a lot myself as it has not been available at the time of build but despite being in 1/32 it might show that a scratch boat tail is far from impossible. Thanks, I am responding BEFORE I read your post, sorry. So there is a beaver tail and a boat tail but they AREN'T the same, I guess. I checked out your 1/32 build, GREAT job on that "boat tail" It's pretty much what I thought, no skinny center section. BTW I have 2 Tomcat books explaining different styles of boat-beaver tails. I just respond before I read sometimes,a BAD habit of mine. ---John Edited January 7, 2017 by john53 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bushande Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Thats correct John. There are several good ressources here on ARC that clarify the issue as that has been a frequent question by many modellers. If you search for "boattail" here on ARC I'm sure some threads will surface. Most folks usually refer to the well known MATS site of Torsten Anft. I think he has some decent drawings there as well, that illustrate at least the major differences for those that are not complete Tomcat nuts. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-beavertail.htm The broader boat tails had only been installed by Grumman for a rather brief time on only the first few lots of production ships (prototypes had boat tail layouts that differed even from the boat tails of the early production blocks and even from prototype to prototype!). However some earlier ships that hit the fleet before the change to the leaner beaver tail design and wouldn't get a proper upgrade, flew with the boat tail until the late eighties. The dialectic panels had been removed very early and permanently partially before and no later than during the first cruise. Your rendition of 8992 in August '75 would imply a boat tail albeit without the dialectic panels. It's no sorcery John. What I learned works as a good pattern for sucha scratch work are old laundry pecs for example. Just cut and sand and clue and the biggest part would already be done in 1/72. Edited January 7, 2017 by bushande Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 hours ago, john53 said: Didn't some of VF-2 have NO tan nose on 1975 Enterprise cruise?---John F-14As VF-1-VF-2 on Enterprise 1975 by jvandeu53, on Flickr I think I've seen one picture of a VF-2 jet WITH the white/tan radome. I always wondered why VF-1 had the tan nose while VF-2 didn't. Who's decision was that? You'd think with a new jet, they'd want consistency right from the start. Then you throw in VF-41 and -31 with black radomes! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 7 hours ago, bushande said: Yes both squadrons did air cover for the evacuation of Saigon. VF-1 became a little more "infamous" because of the elusive rumor of an alleged gun strafing which has so far not been confirmed however. have a buddy who was a Marine guard atop the Embassy. They flew over pretty fast (500 knots plus) and at a high enough altitude that the choppers could easily fly under them. A pot shot would never have been known. Still out west of An Loc and in the rubber plantations there were a few ZSU57's left over from the Easter Parade back in 72 or 73 ( well into their turning radius) gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john53 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, ChesshireCat said: have a buddy who was a Marine guard atop the Embassy. They flew over pretty fast (500 knots plus) and at a high enough altitude that the choppers could easily fly under them. A pot shot would never have been known. Still out west of An Loc and in the rubber plantations there were a few ZSU57's left over from the Easter Parade back in 72 or 73 ( well into their turning radius) gary Who strafed what? Did VF-2 do the strafing? This I have never heard of, is there somewhere I can read of this or is this off the records cause it never happened?---John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bushande Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, john53 said: Who strafed what? Did VF-2 do the strafing? This I have never heard of, is there somewhere I can read of this or is this off the records cause it never happened?---John That pretty much remains the question. According to some albeit UNCONFIRMED sources VF-1 did some strafing on yet never further clarified ground targets. But as said, it all remains a rumor so far. Quote I think I've seen one picture of a VF-2 jet WITH the white/tan radome. I always wondered why VF-1 had the tan nose while VF-2 didn't. Who's decision was that? You'd think with a new jet, they'd want consistency right from the start. Then you throw in VF-41 and -31 with black radomes! The tan nose didn't seem to meet much love with VF-2. There are only very few shots of some VF-2 birds during the work up and transition time that show the tan nose but it seems they got omitted rather quickly. My opinion: If you want to stay authentic, rather leave the tan nose away. Another shortlived attempt in '83: Oh btw, here is also that ominous 1978 VF-1 birdy with the tan nose. Just the same here. I personally think it is just a curious "flower" during transition / repaint. Curious nonetheless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) That just looks so WRONG on a Bounty Hunters jet! I'm wondering if the third VF-2 jet you posted was actually a replacement radome. The anti-glare panel seems to end right where the radome would open. I've seen some other pictures where the TPS scheme on the radome doesn't match up with the TPS scheme on the forward fuselage. It looks quite funny, and would make for a good model. One other oddity about those early VF-2 jets is the red striping on top of the wingbox. They seem to be the only squadron that had that. Do you know the reason behind it? Edited January 7, 2017 by Darren Roberts Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bushande Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) I actually saw the red striping also on - admittedly very very few - images of other squadron's birds. That striping goes over those areas that cover the center wingbox. This spot is not covered by removable panels but the fuselage skin is directly applied over the titanium wingbox. It was basically just supposed to indicate that there is nothing for maintainers to look for. Edited January 7, 2017 by bushande Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john53 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) That first bird, NK-201 looks real odd. Has black extending to the rear of the canopy but not on the canopy framing.I found the images I want to revamp the boat tail-beaver tail on Hobby Search. The Hasegawa F-14A instructions show me just where to go with the broad tail and dielectric panels. I never knew 1/72 and 1/48 Hasegawa Tomcats had different boat tail inserts. I guess I spent too much time modeling the old Revelogram ones to notice.---John Edited January 7, 2017 by john53 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, bushande said: I actually saw the red striping also on - admittedly very very few - images of other squadron's birds. That striping goes over those areas that cover the center wingbox. This spot is not covered by removable panels but the fuselage skin is directly applied over the titanium wingbox. It was basically just supposed to indicate that there is nothing for maintainers to look for. That's a lot of painting to simply tell the maintainers, "There's nothing to do here." :-) No wonder it didn't last long. It looked kind of cool, though. bushande, while I've got you here, when did the shape of the top speed brake change? The mock up had a essentially a rectangular shape. Did any of the prototypes have that shape as well, or did they have the shape that was on the standard airframes? Edited January 7, 2017 by Darren Roberts Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 5 hours ago, john53 said: Who strafed what? Did VF-2 do the strafing? This I have never heard of, is there somewhere I can read of this or is this off the records cause it never happened?---John I doubt they expended a single bullet gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, bushande said: Oh btw, here is also that ominous 1978 VF-1 birdy with the tan nose. Just the same here. I personally think it is just a curious "flower" during transition / repaint. Curious nonetheless. What is "ominous" about this bird? Looks normal to me other than the radome. Edited January 8, 2017 by Slartibartfast Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bushande Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) Quote What is "ominous" about this bird? Looks normal to me other than the radome. Well ominous just because of the radome. Has been fairly unusual for the Wichitas without the white belly. Is all. Quote bushande, while I've got you here, when did the shape of the top speed brake change? The mock up had a essentially a rectangular shape. Did any of the prototypes have that shape as well, or did they have the shape that was on the standard airframes? Don't get me started on those darned prototypes. I have amassed so much reference on them over the years, I even have a piece of no. 1s center beam and some shreds of 7989, i.e. no. 10 (the one that crashed short after the first carrier trials) and there's still hardly a time I look at all the stuff and don't find something new which differs from the rest and in between them and that needs to be considered. As far as I can make out of the shots I have, the mock up had an individual tail and hence individual speedbrake, 7980, i.e. no. 1 had it's own style of a speedbrake, namely a big flat almost foursquare panel, 7981, i.e. no. 2 had yet again a different layout of the speedbrake due to the spin chute in the tail, no. 3 had a different layout of the tail as well resulting in yet again another panel for the speedbrake, which seems to not be as broad as no. 1s but also not as lean towards the upper end as no. 2s. It seems that around no. 5 the typical speedbrake layout for the boat tail had finally been established. effin' Tomcats. Gotta hate them. Edited January 8, 2017 by bushande Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan buysse Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 34 minutes ago, bushande said: Don't get me started on those darned prototypes. I have amassed so much reference on them over the years, I even have a piece of no. 1s center beam Hi, That's pretty cool. Speaking of No 1...I had a look at the prototypes in "Tomcat Alley" the other day. It's probably just a trick of the light, but it seems like the upper surface of the flap on 157980 is LGG and not white. I also followed your link to that 1/32 scale inflight diorama of VF-1 Tomcat launching a Phoenix. Awesome work. Cheers, Stefan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
torchf4 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 9:14 AM, Darren Roberts said: The early VF-1 scheme from any decal sheet should work, with the exception of the BuNo. Steel Beach makes a backdate set for the Tamiya kit that includes the beaver tail, seven louvered gun vent, and IRST chin pod. Hi Darren Any chance you can list the item nos here as there's lots of different tomcat parts and I don't wanna end up with the wrong sets. Also is it possible to backdate the Tamiya 1/32 Black Knights kit to a 80s bird? Are the early parts still in the box or I need resin? Thanks and regards, Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RichB63 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) On 1/7/2017 at 11:48 AM, john53 said: Didn't some of VF-2 have NO tan nose on 1975 Enterprise cruise?---John F-14As VF-1-VF-2 on Enterprise 1975 by jvandeu53, on Flickr It looks as if 103 and 106 are block 85 aircraft with "two vent" gun panels, conducive to an out-of-the-box Tamiya build. Does anybody know the BuNo's? Edited January 9, 2017 by RichB63 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john53 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 103 is 158990 and 106 is 158981. Aren't they block 70?---John Edited January 9, 2017 by john53 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RichB63 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Lack of radome mounted alpha probe (discerned from earlier photo) and the two vent gun panel imply a (late) block 85 bird - 159612 to 159637. But I admit that it's somewhat of a quagmire...perhaps 106 is an early block aircraft with upgraded panel. I really like the early Wolfpack scheme. I was hoping this might be a worthy candidate for the new Tamiya kit, one that didn't require mods to the beaver tail or gun panel. 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.