Niels Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 46 minutes ago, Stefan buysse said: I would not know where to find a decent FSD or prototype F-16 kit, but that sheet did rather well. Tamiya's original F-16 is the one that comes the closest. If I remember correctly, it even had the split front wheelbay doors? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan buysse Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 7 hours ago, Niels said: Tamiya's original F-16 is the one that comes the closest. If I remember correctly, it even had the split front wheelbay doors? Hi, I never owned one of those and I don't think I'd find one easily. I seem to remember from discussions on ARC that the Kiddyland model is good for a very early F-16. I had never heard of Kiddyland before and I don't think they're readily available either. Cheers, Stefan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 (edited) Yes the Kiddyland kit is the best option for a YF-16 in 1/48. The Tamiya kit is a close second, the fuselage is slightly longer than the Kiddyland kit but everything else is the same. The Idea / Hobbycraft kit is also a YF-16, I can't remember if it is identical to the Tamiya or the Kiddyland kit wrt fuselage length. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hobbycraft-hc1510-f-16-fighter--163644 . Edited March 3 by habu2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 4 hours ago, habu2 said: Yes the Kiddyland kit is the best option for a YF-16 in 1/48. The Tamiya kit is a close second, the fuselage is slightly longer than the Kiddyland kit but everything else is the same. The Idea / Hobbycraft kit is also a YF-16, I can't remember if it is identical to the Tamiya or the Kiddyland kit wrt fuselage length. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hobbycraft-hc1510-f-16-fighter--163644 . For those who do a prototype F-16, don't forget the Stencel seat.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Arrowhead Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 7 hours ago, BWDenver said: For those who do a prototype F-16, don't forget the Stencel seat.... Nice pic! Only FSDs had the STENCEL seat. The YF-16s had an ESCAPAC. My take on the 1:48 YF-16 is underway : https://www.master194.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=126221&sid=3abe3f5b4994f64c5fcb97a5acfb1690 (in Molière’s tongue, sorry for that). Caracal decals at the end of the journey, of course. Stay tuned! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KursadA Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 10 hours ago, The Arrowhead said: My take on the 1:48 YF-16 is underway : https://www.master194.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=126221&sid=3abe3f5b4994f64c5fcb97a5acfb1690 (in Molière’s tongue, sorry for that). Caracal decals at the end of the journey, of course. Stay tuned! You must be a surgeon of some sort!! Impressive work - I will be following it with interest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 11 hours ago, The Arrowhead said: Nice pic! Only FSDs had the STENCEL seat. The YF-16s had an ESCAPAC. My take on the 1:48 YF-16 is underway : https://www.master194.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=126221&sid=3abe3f5b4994f64c5fcb97a5acfb1690 (in Molière’s tongue, sorry for that). Caracal decals at the end of the journey, of course. Stay tuned! Knit one, pearl two.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 14 hours ago, The Arrowhead said: Nice pic! Only FSDs had the STENCEL seat. The YF-16s had an ESCAPAC. Yes the two “prototypes” had ESCAPAC IH-7 seats, and no, all the early (72 & 75 contract year F-16A/B were listed as YF-16A/B…. The 2 Light Weight fighter competition prototypes YF-16A 72-1567 & 1568 had a Douglas IH-8 seat, with the rails reclined to “37 degrees aft of vertical” according to Douglas tech info. It was a 0-0 seat (upper speed envelope of 600 KEAP) with an inverted capability of down to 330’. Presumably 72-1567 also had the IH-8 seat. YF-16A 75-0745 (No3 AC), and 75-0746 (No 4 AC) (and other FSD airframes) had Stencil S3S-3F16 seats. With seat rails at 37 degrees. But all 4 F-16 airframes listed above are documented as YF-16A’s… So, it’s clear as mud… Information on the F-16A indicates the seat is reclined at 30 degrees aft of vertical. It was configurationally similar (excepting install angle) to the IC-7 and IG-7 as installed in the early F-15A/B AC. The TF-15A IG-7 had a lateral trajectory rocket, SKS Ear Burner. And IE-9 A-10A for that matter, but the A-10 seat had a “reduced height”. They also had an “Ejection Controls Safety Handle”, in the headrest, AKA “Head Knocker” All weighted around 55- 60 lbs. 8 FSD birds are serialized: YF-16A 75-0745 – 750, YF-16B 75-0751 – 0752. I do not have information indicating if and when the SIIS seats were replaced with ESCAPAC IH-7 seats… The production F-16’s, 78-0001 on, had the IH-7 seats until they were pulled and replaced with ACES II seats. However some F-16A’s had ESCAPAC seats with Face Curtains, one photo I have, F-16A 80-0568. I unfortunately do not have the serial range with ESCAPAC seats, and the changeover to ACES II... Not sure what the rational was for switching to the ESCAPAC seat as the Stencil was more advanced, in a number of ways. And the ESCAPAC seat had a nasty habit of hitting the crewmember in certain ejection sequences. That’s why they were pulled from the USN tactical A-7’s and replaced with SIIIS-ER seats. So, depending on what tail no you're building… Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 hours ago, BWDenver said: Yes the two “prototypes” had ESCAPAC IH-7 seats, and no, all the early (72 & 75 contract year F-16A/B were listed as YF-16A/B…. The 2 Light Weight fighter competition prototypes YF-16A 72-1567 & 1568 had a Douglas IH-8 seat, with the rails reclined to “37 degrees aft of vertical” according to Douglas tech info. It was a 0-0 seat (upper speed envelope of 600 KEAP) with an inverted capability of down to 330’. Presumably 72-1567 also had the IH-8 seat. YF-16A 75-0745 (No3 AC), and 75-0746 (No 4 AC) (and other FSD airframes) had Stencil S3S-3F16 seats. With seat rails at 37 degrees. But all 4 F-16 airframes listed above are documented as YF-16A’s… So, it’s clear as mud… Information on the F-16A indicates the seat is reclined at 30 degrees aft of vertical. It was configurationally similar (excepting install angle) to the IC-7 and IG-7 as installed in the early F-15A/B AC. The TF-15A IG-7 had a lateral trajectory rocket, SKS Ear Burner. And IE-9 A-10A for that matter, but the A-10 seat had a “reduced height”. They also had an “Ejection Controls Safety Handle”, in the headrest, AKA “Head Knocker” All weighted around 55- 60 lbs. 8 FSD birds are serialized: YF-16A 75-0745 – 750, YF-16B 75-0751 – 0752. I do not have information indicating if and when the SIIS seats were replaced with ESCAPAC IH-7 seats… The production F-16’s, 78-0001 on, had the IH-7 seats until they were pulled and replaced with ACES II seats. However some F-16A’s had ESCAPAC seats with Face Curtains, one photo I have, F-16A 80-0568. I unfortunately do not have the serial range with ESCAPAC seats, and the changeover to ACES II... Not sure what the rational was for switching to the ESCAPAC seat as the Stencil was more advanced, in a number of ways. And the ESCAPAC seat had a nasty habit of hitting the crewmember in certain ejection sequences. That’s why they were pulled from the USN tactical A-7’s and replaced with SIIIS-ER seats. So, depending on what tail no you're building… I don't want to get into a pissing contest here, but your information is highly inaccurate. There were only two YF-16s - never called YF-16A - these are the two FY 72 jets 01567 & 68. Both had Escapac seats for their entire flying careers. The first 8 pre-production jets FY 75-0745 thru 752 were never referred to as YF-16s, they were always referred to as FSD (Full Scale Development) jets, 6 F-16A and 2 F-16B, and were sometimes (unofficially) called Block 0 (zero) airframes. All 8 jets were delivered with Stencil seats, no exceptions. During the FSD testing period some of these jets were refitted with ACES II seats to qualify them for production. All production jets, from 78-0001 (the first Block 1 F-16A) were delivered with ACES II seats - no exceptions. Airframe 80-0568 was a Block 15 jet, build sequence #289, delivered to Kunsan AB in Korea, with a DD250 date of 15 January 1982. I guarantee you it, or any other production F-16 airframe, never had Escapac seats in it. I suspect your photo is of YF-16 #2 which also ended in tail # 0568. I worked on the F-16 program for many years, and counted Harry Hillaker as a personal friend. (look him up) I also worked on the JASDF F-2 (FS-X) and F-35 programs. I have before me Lockheed document 16PR5946, "F-16 Worldwide Aircraft Delivery Schedule By Type, Contract Number F33657-83-C-2034, listing details on every single F-16A/B/C/D produced through 1990. I'm stating verified, documented facts, not something I read on the interwebz.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 hours ago, habu2 said: I don't want to get into a pissing contest here, but your information is highly inaccurate. When someone starts out saying “I don't want to get into a pissing contest here, but your information is highly inaccurate.” Then follows it with absolutes, I generally just smile. I started flying military AC in 1973, and along the way I have seen numerous instances where documentation and experts are in error. “All production jets, from 78-0001 (the first Block 1 F-16A) were delivered with ACES II seats - no exceptions.” Please refer to attached shot of F-16A Block 15 80-10568. The cockpit shots I posted are from 568. And no, that’s not an ACES II seat… As to the AC “never” being referred to as YF-16A… Please refer to the two additional references, joebaugher.com… 75-0745/0750 General Dynamics YF-16A Fighting Falcon MSN 61-1/6. 75-0751/0752 General Dynamics YF-16B Fighting Falcon MSN 62-1/2. I personally try not to user the terms “never” and “no exceptions” as I’ve been around long enough to know those terms probably should not be used in an argument… And when you use absolutes, all it takes is a picture to indicate that you might be in error... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) Well, a pissing contest it is then. First of all, the photo you posted is clearly YF-16 #2 72-01568. The cockpit photo you posted is also clearly a YF-16. Can't tell if it's 01567 or 01568 but I have spent literally hundreds of hours in F-16 cockpits and your photo is of a YF-16 prototype not a production jet. This is evident by the non-ogive nose (YF-16 only) the split nose gear door (YF-16 only) and the unique (non-production) shape of the ventral stabs. Furthermore, there is no such serial number as 80-10568 for an F-16. There was a serial # 80-0568 as I stated earlier, but the airframe in your photo is clearly not 80-0586, a Block 15 production jet. Joe Baugher has done a great service in compiling the serial numbers of thousands of USAF/USN/USMC aircraft on the internet but his list is not without errors. Explain why 75-0751 is a YF-16B yet 75-0752 is an F-16B? Sorry, both were officially FSD F-16Bs. Joe is not General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, USAF, DoD or Pentagon. The document I cited earlier is the official contractual document that the aforementioned organizations used to identify production contract jets by their FY #s. I'm not proclaiming to be an expert, but I am quoting official US Government contractual documents, not someone's interpretation on the internet. And again, I worked the program, I was there. That doesn't make me an expert but it does make me someone with real life first hand experience. Sorry for this discourse Kursad but, given the accuracy and fidelity of your Early F-16 sheet, I feel your customers deserve accurate historical information. . Edited March 5 by habu2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 I think the intelligent thing at this stage is to simply agree to disagree... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 A little bit of Raspberry Ripple from across the pond, and a few others. taken in the early 90's buy a friend Doug Morrow. Great modeler. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Couple of USN F-4's. YF-4J (looks like the rear seat is not installed), QF-4B. Both taken at China lake. I know you've done QF-4's but I love the shot... I believe this YF-4J was used for MB Mk H7 seat tests. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 FA-18A 162451 CVW 13 VFA 132 AK202 USS Coral Sea LF NAS Washington ADW late 80's, rather low-key FA-18A with interesting lettering... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 A-6E 162198 611 NAWCWD China Lake Navy Washington/ADW 21-9-96 interesting tail art While the LH shot is not the worst I've ever taken, it's certainly up there... Typical NAS Washington day, overcast in the morning.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 I know you've done an AV-8B sheet, but if you want to do some war vets... Taken at NAS Washington/ADW in late March '92 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 If you should want to do another A-6 decal sheet. These are a few of the National Museum of Naval Aviation shot I have. All total I have a tad over 42,000 shots from the museum. In addition to my own shots... Not entirely sure what unit flew A-6A_149948 the rest of the CAMO A-6's are from VA-65 and I believe the Constellation. They are almost devoid of markings, in the background ate A-4 and RA-5C in similar camo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 EA-6A, one bird, 147865, is referred to a Methuselah. My SN records indicate it's the No 2 A2F produced, later A-6A. It's currently preserved at Cherry Point. I think I have a shot of Methuselah at NAS Oceana in the mid to late 90's. Just have to find it. I've adjusted exposure on the shots, and in a lot of cases flipped them as they were shot backwards. But have not done any other "tweaking" of the images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 A-6E, off the Nimitz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Arrowhead Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 (edited) WoW! What a series! That all-grey Blue Blasters KA-6D (149937) with tan nose and black subdued markings was truely unknown to me. It is reminiscent of the markings adopted on some VF-14 F-14As also off JFK at the same period. Did some VA-34 A-6Es wear the same scheme as well? Edited March 6 by The Arrowhead Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 36 minutes ago, The Arrowhead said: WoW! What a series! That all-grey Blue Blasters KA-6D (149937) with tan nose and black subdued markings was truely unknown to me. It is reminiscent of the markings adopted on some VF-14 F-14As also off JFK at the same period. Did some VA-34 A-6Es wear the same scheme as well? Not sure, I just went through the shots yesterday. I know the all grey scheme was a brief. I shot an EA-6A on the Midway when she came into Puson in 1977. I just have to find the shot. Somewhere in my 3000 slides, and maybe in the 42,000 Navy shots. The scans date to 2009. The shots are not labeled, just an accession No which I included with each shot. I'll look over the A-6 shots again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 1 hour ago, The Arrowhead said: WoW! What a series! That all-grey Blue Blasters KA-6D (149937) with tan nose and black subdued markings was truely unknown to me. It is reminiscent of the markings adopted on some VF-14 F-14As also off JFK at the same period. Did some VA-34 A-6Es wear the same scheme as well? It would appear at least one A-6E VA-34 was in the interim scheme of grey with a tan radome. And another KA-6D. What I find fascinating is the EA-6A, EA-6B and KA-6D have aircraft model stenciled in tiny lettering on the back. But the A-6E lacks the model stenciling. Like you need someone to tell you yours're crawling into an EA-6A??? Maybe if another A-6/EA-6A/B/KA6D sheet comes out.... Enjoy, Bryan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BWDenver Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 On 3/3/2024 at 11:21 PM, The Arrowhead said: Nice pic! Only FSDs had the STENCEL seat. The YF-16s had an ESCAPAC. My take on the 1:48 YF-16 is underway : https://www.master194.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=126221&sid=3abe3f5b4994f64c5fcb97a5acfb1690 (in Molière’s tongue, sorry for that). Caracal decals at the end of the journey, of course. Stay tuned! Good info and a great modeling effort! For those interested in modeling the F-16 seat… It appears the two prototypes used in the flyoff did not use the production ESCAPAC IH-9 seat. Among other reasons the qualification test for the ESCAPAC IH-9 seats for the YF-16A took place in 1973. The seat in the shot looks like it has a face curtain, that was no on the IH-9 seats. The IE & IH-9 seat was slightly different than other ESCAPAC seats. The thigh guards were canted out slightly, around 2” on each side. While the IE seats had canopy breakers, the AF was generally loath to send a crew member through a canopy. In any event the F-16 canopy was not suitable for the use of breakers, and the IH-9 seat did not have them. The primary difference between the IE and IH seats was lack of breakers, and a face curtain. The gallows humor of the time in the seat community was the Air Force didn’t mind killing a pilot, they just didn’t want to hurt him. The Navy routinely sent crew members through canopies as it reduced the ejection sequence time to a full canopy. This sometimes resulted in scrapes and cuts. Douglas also incorporated a ballistic spreader that was essentially an instant open device at line stretch. I’ve talked to one AF Crew Station manager at Wright-Patt who tried to get the spreaders removed. He was also a proponent of removing the Martin-Baker seats from the F-4. I have documents that indicate A) the seat rails were installed at 37 degrees, and B) the seat is reclined at 30 degrees (from vertical) and C) the “rail angle” was 55.5 degrees. The rail angle for the F-15/A-210 is 73 degrees (from horizontal). The difference between rail angle and “pilot” angel is the headbox and chute pack. The idea behind it was to allow the pilot to take a higher G’s in maneuvering. I’ve talked to several F-16 pilots, that indicated it also added to neck and lower back issues later in life. The IH-9 seat qualification test for the YF-16A took place between 23 Aug 1973 and 15 Jan 1974. A total of 7 sled runs were conducted at Holloman AFB with speeds ranging between 0-0 and 0-600 KEAS. Two runs were for crew members at the 5th (small) percentile and the rest were for 95th (large) percentile crewmen. The seat frames weighed in at 58 Lbs, ballistics, survival kit and parachutes added another 77 Lbs. One of the “ballistics” is a seat/man separator rocket that reduced the chances of seat crew impact after separation. The F-16B seats had a yaw rocket installed that separates the two crew laterally. The Douglas ACES II seat was initially a test article and showed significant advancements over the Douglas ESCAPAC seat. The AF elected to replace the F-15, F-16 and A-10 seats with the ACES II. The Navy elected to take a pass. Some seat folks I talked to at Chanute AFB indicate the initial ACES II seats were a bear to maintain as they were essentially a “test design” and not designed to go into aircraft and be routinely maintained. The primary difference on the seat pan between the F-16 & F-15/A-10 seat was a notch on the F-16 seat. For the F-15 the incorporation of the ACES II seat was TCTO No. 1F-15-502, late 1979. Unfortunately TO 1F-15A-2-00GV-00-1 does not list a date for the TCTO. Presumably the F-16 and A-10 were also modified around this time frame. With the A-10’s AC 79-0173 was delivered with the ACES II. The seats were made by Douglas and Webber in a leader follower contract. Presently the current state of the art seat is the Collins ACES 5 here in the Springs. The current addition of female crew required some tweaking to the seats as some female crew fell outside of design envelope range due to height differences. Attached is a IE Series, likely very similar to the IH-9 seat, without the breakers. I don't have a specific IH-9 drawing, but this is from a report on the IE & IH seat test's. ACES II for the F-16 (2shots) and over the shoulder shot of an F-16 ACES II, they were taken at Chanute when I visited the Tech Egress school to do research on seats. As an historical side, the ACES II went through at least two test configurations before the final design. The first looked like an ESCAPAC, but with air data horns on the headbox. The second looked like the final ACES II, but the thigh guards were curved like the ESCAPAC. I have 8x10 shots of both prototype seats. In fact, I missed the air data horns on the headbox on the first shots. It was only when I was trying to see the headbox stencil that I realized it was likely the first ACES II prototype seat. Enjoy in any event. And great job. Hope the info helps. Bryan 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.