Some ideas for building 1/72 Skyhawks with the "right shape"

[Rex]

In another thread, I realized that no one has posted how to build a 1/72 Skyhawk with the right fuselage shape, without building

a lot of "old tooled" models that don't have many details.

 

First, I will describe the basic problem, and this is NOT an attempt to insult anyone's finished Skyhawk model. If you take a photo from your book collection, or online,,,,of the Scooter from looking at the nose and then back up the spine to the tail, you can see what the Skyhawk is supposed to look like from that view.

 

Where the actual Scooter tapers back from the rear of the intakes back towards the tail, it is a taper from the large intake area back to the engine exhaust. Fujimi's tooling actually bulges OUT part way down that view. (and not by the "invisible mm" that is talked about a lot in modeling threads)

 

So, take the Fujimi main fuselage halves, temporarily glue them together with white glue or small dots of super glue. Then do the same with ALL other 1/72 scale kits from any other manufacturer. Hold them in each hand, fairly close together, at that same angle,,,,,,,and look down the fuselage length. You will see that everyone except Fujimi got this right, including the old Airfix kit from the late fifties.

 

I've experimented with various ways to slender back the Fujimi kit, but the only solution I have found is to use the Fujimi kits as conversion and upgrade parts for the Esci tooling. (the only accurate 1/72 tooling, but sparse on the details)

 

I know that "this doesn't matter" to a lot of 1/72 modelers,,,,,,,but, to Skyhawk people, this is the equivalent to building a Phantom with no area rule in the fuselage.

 

Here is a link to some Skyhawk tooling info, which I also posted in another ARC thread today, but "off topic" in that thread. http://z15.invisionfree.com/Hangar_Deck_Resource/index.php?showtopic=37

If you think it is useful to you, that is great,,,,,,,if it doesn't matter to you,,,,,that is also great.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Rex
edited to correct the auto correct

[anj4de]

Hi

 

Happy new year...

 

What about the "new" Airfix Skyhawk? I heard lot's of good coments on it.

 

thanks

Uwe

 

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

5 hours ago, anj4de said:

Hi

 

Happy new year...

 

What about the "new" Airfix Skyhawk? I heard lot's of good coments on it.

 

thanks

Uwe

 

 

See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-modeling-notes-on-172nd-airfix-4b.html and links within the post

 

[Rex]

I use the New Airfix Skyhawk as my "second place" build,,,,,,,and it is easier for any of the short nosed types.

 

Since I already had a few of the old White Metal A-4B nose conversions around from the days I was going to use them up on my Esci conversions,,,,,,I just use them or the Fujimi B nose to correct the Airfix. Rudders are also easy fixes, I just change out the Airfix "too tall at the bottom" rudders for something from any of the other toolings out there. The "wrong" little lumps and bumps and scribe lines" have to be done on almost all 1/72 Skyhawk conversions anyway. So I just pull out the notesheet for the version I am doing and fill, cut, or re-scribe as needed.

[SERNAK]

Hi Rex,

 

Just a quick question.

 

When researching the subject, did you compare Fujimi's parts (wings / fuselage) with drawings in 1/72? (I know for example, that the Italeri kit is a bit underscale)

 

By the way, you have opened a very interesting topic, as I am also a Skyhawk fanatic!

Edited March 12, 2017 by SERNAK

[Rex]

We can't really use drawings to see this.

 

The set that almost everyone has is wrong in the same spot of the fuselage as the Fujimi kit. (and no, the D&S drawing didn't cause the Fujimi flop, that kit is reviewed in the book)

 

As I said in my HD thread, one tooling is fat bodied (Fujimi), another is too long (Hasegawa), another is underscale (Italeri), two others are  crude (old Airfix and Matchbox),,,,,,,and then there are the Esci and new Airfix toolings.

 

The Esci is still the best shaped Skyhawk model, but, it only builds A-4E based aircraft (E,F, G, etc). And the details aren't that great. The new Airfix has a really good shape, but they messed up the nose and rudder area. (so, the Airfix A-4B isn't really a B, anyway)

 

I am kit bashing away with all of the Skyhawk toolings to get the right combination of parts to give the versions that we want. It is not posted on Hangar Deck yet, because I am not done with the cutting and glueing,,,,,,,and I want to point to at least a somewhat affordable solution.

 

And yes, I know,,,,,,,,,,"they all look like Skyhawks",,,,,,,,,but, they won't look like each other when 60 or 70 of them are put up on the same shelf.

 

 

[SERNAK]

Hi Rex,

 

You write, " to get the right combination of parts to give the versions that we want ". Looks like you're into some heavy "surgering"!!!

 

I see your point on evaluating ESCI's kit as the most accurate - as far as it concerns dimensions - but, how accurate-dimensionally is it's cockpit? Have you tried to put one of those aftermarket ejection seats in the cockpit? Did it fit?

 

I have the impression that the Fujimi cockpit has more accurate cockpit dimensions.

 

Looking forward to read more of your research and work on the subject!

 

By the way, are you planning to do a similar project for other aircrafts? For instance, for the F-4?

 

[Paul Boyer]

In my opinion, the inaccuracy Rex cites is barely noticeable in this scale. The time spent to "fix" it would be better spent on making more models. Here are my two Fujimi models. Can you see the problem? Me neither.

 

 

 

 

Like taking the time to fix the sagging rear nose-gear door on the A-4B!

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by Paul Boyer

[Rex]

Nice builds, Paul. (as always)

 

My notes are probably more useful for someone that only wants to build one. Or someone that needs to build 60 of them, and have them match.

 

And I sure do admit that it is very tempting to build all these toolings OOB, and then add in a category of "at least one of each tooling of each aircraft type" to my parameters as I build the collection.

 

The problem with seeing these kinds of problems in kit toolings is that once you see them on any certain model type, you can't just "unsee them",,,,,,and if you have a large group of any of them to do, it gets more difficult to just go ahead OOB and leave them all that way.

 

When did you notice that door sagging down? Is that something that happened after you had the model on the shelf for a while? Sort of "long term attachment droop"? And a big yes,,,,I agree that we could waste a lot of time going back to finished models and making changes to them. It takes up enough modeling time if we have to do repairs because of breakage after a model is finished and on display.

 

I have NO intention of saying that I built VA-12, VA-15, VA-22, redid VA-12, VA-23, changed kit choice and re-did VA-22, VA-34, re-did or changed etc, etc. I would end up building the collection 3 times instead of just once.

[Paul Boyer]

Yeah, I noticed the gear door just as I posted the shot. That model is at least 15 years old now, and no telling how long it has been loose. Simple fix, though. I have about 250 built ups and there are probably many that have something loose or missing that I haven't noticed. It sucks getting old, even for models.

[SERNAK]

1 hour ago, Rex said:

Or someone that needs to build 60 of them, and have them match.

 

I think you're referring to me! My aim is to do all the US NAVY Adversary paint schemes that the T/A-4 have used, from the early 70s 'till the mid-90s, in 1/72, 1/48, and 1/32.

 

"God willing and money permitting" I might succeed!!!

Edited March 13, 2017 by SERNAK

[Rex]

I have one that is 52 years old. That thing is a dust magnet, and very fragile. So, I shudder whenever I think it needs a cleaning. It has become the most "attention hog" of all of my built models. The routine with that one is Clean it, find the tiny bits again, try to repair it without changing the old "glue blobs", put it back on the shelf, wait for the dust to get in past the glass doors (again),,,,,and then repeat the process a few years later.

 

But, I *have* to clean it and keep it,,,,,,,it was my first model from my eighth birthday.

[Rex]

geez, Sernak, and here I thought Paul's collection of "each US aircraft" was ambitious, and my own "each Naval Squadron",,,,,,and we do ours in just one scale.

 

That is going to be a heck of a collection someday.

 

And, free advice (worth what you paid for it, lol),,,,,,,but, I wouldn't get too bogged down in kit-bashing "perfect" TA-4s in all three scales.

 

You are going to have enough "fun" just in finding decals for all of those. (or the equal "fun" in making your own markings from spares for the ones that haven't been done)

[SERNAK]

22 minutes ago, Rex said:

You are going to have enough "fun" just in finding decals for all of those. (or the equal "fun" in making your own markings from spares for the ones that haven't been done)

 

Now, you have mentioned a "sensitive" subject there! I've been trying to gather decals' sheets since the late 90s. NOT an easy task! On the other hand. making my own decals is quite difficult because even though I have an A3 printer, it doesn't print decals that well.

 

Now, things are a bit better BUT, the luck of cash flow is a matter!

[RKic]

6 hours ago, Rex said:

 

 

6 hours ago, Rex said:

 

The problem with seeing these kinds of problems in kit toolings is that once you see them on any certain model type, you can't just "unsee them",,,,,,

 

 

I hear that! I'm usually not too pedantic about my modeling, but once I know something is wrong, its hard for me to ignore it - even if its a little thing. Lack of X bracing on Hasegawa Mosquitos, closed auxiliary doors on Hasegawa phantoms, no periscope brush guards on Tamiya shermans, etc. 

 

Modeling is just my way of narrowly focusing mental illness! :) 

Edited March 13, 2017 by RKic

[Tailspin Turtle]

Pretty good A4D drawings (the one in the Detail and Scale book is somewhat off, at least as printed).

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/08/a4d-skyhawk-one-more-time.html

[Brian J]

I agree with Paul that unless you really look hard it is hard to notice that fuselage issue.  I've built three Fujimi kits, two A-4E's (one with the avionics hump, one without) and the two seater and it wasn't until I compared them to a 1/48 Hasegawa kit that I noticed the fuselage issue.  I also agree with Rex that the Esci fuselage looks right.  Notice the poorly rendered intakes on Paul's two-seater.  It wasn't until I made a comparison of them to the Esci kit that I noticed the difference.  For me, the nose on the Fujimi single seaters just don't look right as well.  I'd like to do a couple more 1/72nd A-4's and I  plan on using the Esci fuselage and the Fujimi wings and rudder.  Quite a bit of work at some level, but isn't that what we did in the old days...called 'kit bashing'!

[Rex]

To be fair, I think that part of that two-seater model's intakes looking funny is caused by the White paint scheme.

 

I think that if that had been built as a TA-4F used as a FAC in Vietnam, the Light Gull Gray and the White areas would show the shapes better in that area.

 

If you just lay a 4x6 card edge up against the fuselage side, you will see a gap at the rear or the front, depending on how you rock the card back and forth. Tommy's drawing shows how it should be,,,,,,,,a straight line.

 

Fujimi has a lot of positives,,,,,such as the bulged out intakes for the aircraft that need them, a steerable nose gear when needed, etc.

 

As for Fujimi's noses, at least those can be filed fairly easily to narrow them back a bit.

 

Oh, and Sernak, yes, I plan to do this with all the popular Light Gull Gray over White Era aircraft, including detailing the "worst" kit with the spare parts from the "best" kit for each A-4, F-4, A-7, F-8, etc.

[Darren Roberts]

Much of this has to do with passion. If you have a passion for the subject matter, you will see things that bug you that don't matter to other people. That's the beauty of this hobby. Everyone gets enjoyment out of it their own way. I personally don't see the issues discussed about the different A-4's. I'm sure if I spent time I'd begin to see them. I usually go by the rule that if I don't notice it at first, I don't really care about it being wrong. Here's an A-4 that we can all agree has issues: the classic Revell 1/50ish scale kit.

 

[Gene K]

Rex,

 

Your Hangar Deck is a superb reference site (among other things), and I really appreciate the enormous effort you are putting into this labor of love! 

 

Gene K

[Rex]

Thanks Gene. Growth over there goes in starts and stops. As you can tell, sometimes it seems not to grow at all, while I delve into a project compiling the index card notes. Then when I get something done or nearly done, I type away and put it up there. Due to a lot of help finding decals that were OOP for 15 years or more, the Naval decal locator list is going to grow again very soon.

 

Darren, that model (and Paul's) show that no matter how picky we are or aren't about a kit, most of the kits do indeed "look like a __________."

The only question with most kits is just how close they get. Even models like the two very old Hasegawas, Airfix, or old Revell do indeed "look like a Phantom",,,,,,but there is almost always  a kit that succeeds in "getting it closer."

 

My deal is that I have the boxes all open at the same time, for the various toolings, looking for the "best" of each type in my scale,,,,,,or the best solution to kit-bash a type. I don't compare built kits, or try to work from memory. Side by side is the way I prefer kits to be compared. (and I believe that is the only way that is fair to all the toolings)

 

But, after all the comparing, kit-bashing, and parts swapping, thanks to a comment by Paul, there will be at least one OOB of every tooling built up in my final collection. Including the Starfix/Airfix A-4, etc. I have two of those built up, and because I didn't keep Project Notes at the time of their assembly, I don't know which is which. The others from that tooling have notes for them, so I know which of those is which.

 

I'm doing the same thing that has been done with kits for years online,,,,,,it is just because of the subject matter, it seems to some that I am "attacking Sacred Cows." I *need* these subjects done to the best of my ability and knowledge,,,,,,,so, I share my results.

 

There is no way that I am going to waste expensive decals and paints (and time) on building Hasegawa A-7, Hasegawa A-4, Hasegawa A-6, Esci F-8, Revell F-4, and Fujimi A-1,,,,,,,except for one of each for comparison purposes. But at the same time,,,,,,,,I can't just keep "upgrading" the kit stash each time a new tooling of each of those comes out.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Rex

[Darren Roberts]

Starfix? You're a better man than I! Sometimes it is fun to build those bad kits to see just how far we've come (and to wonder what the heck the manufacturer was thinking!). It's interesting to see just where everybody's "looks like a ..." tolerance is. For me and the Skyhawk in 1/48 scale, I would pass on the old Revell, Lindberg, Fujimi, and Hobbycraft kits. The Monogram and ESCI are decent with the Hasegawa being tops. What's funny is that as much as I love the Tomcat, I'll build just about any kit out there. It may be that I have some sick idea of seeing if I can take a crappy kit and make it look halfway decent. It usually doesn't happen.

[Rex]

haha, Starfix A-4 is "Airfix quality", and the Starfix T-38 kit is "Hasegawa quality",,,,,,,,that is because those two molds are what they used.