Jump to content

Super 86 Sabre decals


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, john53 said:

Anyone make decals, Korean War, for this nifty looking

SuperSabre 86?---John

JM6bZzy.jpg

 

Someone needs a beat down, they put Pukin Dog markings on one of the fugliest aircraft ever build, that's just wrong, plain wrong.

 

Why couldn't they put the Jolly Rancher (VF-84) marking on it instead, it would be more fitting.

 

😁

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow is that what this was going to be called? Now that is cool. I actually have the Revell kit in my stash even though I am a 1/48th builder. It is one of these aircraft that you either hate or love. I had planned on doing mine in Canadian Air Force markings or an aggressor scheme.

 

As to your original question I don't think anything after market came out as it was such a short lived kit. I guess the only option is to cut and paste from left over sheets?

 

Edited by skyhawk174
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow someone actually kitted one. This plane is dam butt ugly.

I'm not sure what it would've been called. The Brits may have liked

this one in PRU pink. LOL---John

LJ0yiPd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

To this day, I can't understand what Boeing was thinking. It might have been a very well-designed, superb airframe - I don't know or care. Ignoring the aesthetics factor was a huge blunder in Boeing's JSF submission : all those thousands of hours of work by very capable, smart people gone down the drain. Not to mention the jobs that may have been lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that in the pic in the original post the intake is swept back but in the photo of the actual aircraft it is swept forward. The forward sweep of the intake is part of what made this aircraft so butt ugly, that and its big fat belly. The OP pics almost look like a different aircraft. Back swept intake, less of a fat belly. Still ugly though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugly and beautiful at the same time or at least I think so. As Kursad said you have to wonder what the heck the designers were thinking of or what the heck were the designers smoking?

 

I have actually seen a couple models built. One guy did it in experimental scheme with day glo panels. Now that looked sharp. Made perfect sense too..

Edited by skyhawk174
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, habu2 said:

Monica?  Is that you ???

 

lee01_jsf_mockup-728x477.jpg

Actually, that's what it was called by Boeing and folks at Pax.

 

This plane was a Charlie Foxtrot, it could not hover unless you took off three feet of the intake lip. As far as smart people at Boeing, not in their fighter department, hell, they canted the pylons on the Super Hornet just because one weapon (CBU's) loaded on CVER's on the inboard stations would hit the side of the bird, so they canted all six pylon for just one weapon.

 

BTW, I was at Pax River when they were doing the fly off between the X-32 and X-35, use to watch both taxi past my shop (VX-23 Ord) and let me tell you, the X-32 is even fuglier in person.😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 9:10 PM, GW8345 said:

Actually, that's what it was called by Boeing and folks at Pax.

 

This plane was a Charlie Foxtrot, it could not hover unless you took off three feet of the intake lip. As far as smart people at Boeing, not in their fighter department, hell, they canted the pylons on the Super Hornet just because one weapon (CBU's) loaded on CVER's on the inboard stations would hit the side of the bird, so they canted all six pylon for just one weapon.

 

BTW, I was at Pax River when they were doing the fly off between the X-32 and X-35, use to watch both taxi past my shop (VX-23 Ord) and let me tell you, the X-32 is even fuglier in person.😀

Was it actually proven that CBU's would hit the fuselage? I read somewhere it was only in computer simulation, so they never actually knew if it would happen or not. They didn't want to take a chance, so they designed the pylons to be canted even before weapons separation testing was physically done. Is that correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 9:10 PM, GW8345 said:

Actually, that's what it was called by Boeing and folks at Pax.

 

I know. That’s why I posted it. I’ve also seen them in person - but static not flying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

Was it actually proven that CBU's would hit the fuselage? I read somewhere it was only in computer simulation, so they never actually knew if it would happen or not. They didn't want to take a chance, so they designed the pylons to be canted even before weapons separation testing was physically done. Is that correct?

That I'm not sure about, Joe Hegedus is the one who knows all the info.

 

Ever wonder why the Super Hornet doesn't have a speed break, it has six of them on the wings.😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, habu2 said:

 

I know. That’s why I posted it. I’ve also seen them in person - but static not flying. 

I use to watch it fly, it's even fuglier in the air. 😀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...