Jump to content

Hasegawa F-35B 1/72 - new tool?


Recommended Posts

I have one question regarding new kit of Hasegawa's F-35B 1/72.

According to ScaleMates this is completely new tool, but on pictures I can see that some of sprues are very similar to old kit of F-35A.

Anybody knows is it really new tool kit?


One more thing: this kit is totally bald, there are no pylons or weapons (weapon bay is closed), so maybe there are any aftermarket wing pylons available?
It could be nice to hang something under the wings.

 

24106_rd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be classed as "changed parts" with a link-line to the older kit.

 

I'll go fix it unless someone beat me to it.

 

edit, okay, fixed and it now shows the linked kit

Edited by Rex
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rex said:

-35It should be classed as "changed parts" with a link-line to the older kit.

 

I'll go fix it unless someone beat me to it.

 

edit, okay, fixed and it now shows the linked kit

 

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is a new tooled kit, plain and simple. The F-35A and F-35B are different airframes and the kits are completely different, so why would it be considered anything else? The ONLY parts the kits share are the ejection seat and pilot figure. 

 

The Kinetic F/A-18C kit includes the weapons sprue from the Kinetic F-16C, so wouldn't that classify it as 'Changed Parts' as well!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Solo said:

I have one question regarding new kit of Hasegawa's F-35B 1/72.

According to ScaleMates this is completely new tool, but on pictures I can see that some of sprues are very similar to old kit of F-35A.

Anybody knows is it really new tool kit?

 

With the exception of the ejection seat and pilot, none of the sprues are the same, nor are a majority of the parts. Yes, it really is a newly tooled kit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Dave, I'd call this a "New Tool".

 

The following quote taken from here:

 

https://modelingmadness.com/scott/mod/previews/hasegawa/72/01576.htm

 

"First thing I did was to look through the sprues to see what was common with the F-35A kit previewed a few years back. The answer is that only a cockpit sprue, the clear bits and the stand are the same. All the other sprues appear to have been tooled just for the B version."--- which makes sense as the 'A' and 'B' are quite different from each other.

 

Looks like something I'll be picking up.

 

A build thread by a fellow ARC'er if I'm not mistaken:

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235035599-172-hawegawa-f-35b-marines/

 

Nice work ^^^!

 

Regards,

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites

ack, read it too fast

 

I mis-read it as only two changed sprues, instead of only sharing two sprues

 

I'll fix it back

 

okay, fixed,,,,,,,I apologize. But, you'd be surprised at how many kits got labeled as "new tool" on there, simply because the modeler never saw the earlier releases, or didn't believe they were related toolings. I jumped the gun.

 

Edited by Rex
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Solo said:

Could you please summarize?

 

The fit of the fuselage, regarding the pegs put inside - you may want to eliminate front ones as they dont allow tight closure if the halves near front. If in V/STOL mode, you will have to angle horizontal rails. The colours you'll have to play with too...in order to match the decals. I'll add that the exhaust is possible to be made to swivel, but care is involved when actually doing so. It's a plastic washer attaching it, so take off, swivel, then reattach.

Overall though, it's a great kit. Put it beside an A version, and the differences pop out.

Of note, the Academy kit of the A version  allows all doors to be open, and comes with wing pylons and stores.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding above: I would like to make some additional wiring to this exhaust in landing position, but I can not find any good pictures with those details.

Anyone could help?

I need pictures of this exhaust nozzle in STOVL position.

Something like that, but of course in higher resolution.

 

main-qimg-f94340d50c89acfd11cfbde0b4ca95

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Solo,

 

This may help some, but I wouldn't count on a better view very soon.  First off, when the F-35B lands, the nozzle is rotated to the normal position at once, to allow for taxing.  To get a better shot, you'd have to be standing at the rear of the aircraft, whether landing or on take-off, with a camera, and be either an official or duty airman with a camera on the flight line  -- good luck with that.  Or, you might pray that some official allows the airplane to be so positioned at an airshow or open house somewhere.  Unless of course, someone on active duty can help us out without being "keel-hauled"!

 

In the meantime, this is the best that I could do, but be aware it may be of the prototype setup, vs the actual service nozzle:

 

2v2JjdqM8xfzdhW.jpg

 

For other issues, please feel free to consult the build thread, as linked above.

 

Ed

 

PS -- Solo, as an afterthought, it would be hard to do the in-flight thing, because on landing or take-off, the weapons bay doors are open except for right after landing, and just before transitioning to VTOL landing. Refer to on-line You Tube videos and you'll see what I mean...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Solo,,,,,,,,and if someone actually sees your model and says "that plumbing is wrong on your model",,,,,,,,,,you can just ask him for pictures for the next build. (or "here's a napkin, please sketch that out for me" lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2018 at 10:11 PM, Paul Boyer said:

 

Actually, it IS VTOL, but probably not with full load and when going off the carriers:

 

 

On 9/30/2018 at 7:31 PM, habu2 said:

Pretty sure F-35B is STOVL not VTOL, meaning no vertical takeoff...

 

Technically the B is VTOL but operationally is considered STOVL - Short Takeoff  and Vertical Landing  like the Harrier 

Edited by eraucubsfan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, it's a fuel issue. It takes a lot more fuel to go VTOL than STOVL, where you have a little air flowing over the wings, providing lift.  However, like the Harrier, the idea was to have a small deck or unimproved landing site/roadway capability for forward deployment if needed.

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheRealMrEd said:

Basically, it's a fuel issue. It takes a lot more fuel to go VTOL than STOVL, where you have a little air flowing over the wings, providing lift.  However, like the Harrier, the idea was to have a small deck or unimproved landing site/roadway capability for forward deployment if needed.

 

Ed

It is actually a Thrust to Weight ratio issue.

To go vertical you can only use the pure thrust of the engine and that, as Sir Isaac Newton teaches us, has to be greater than the weight, right?

A rolling take-off instead, uses the lift generated by the wings (combined in this case with vectored thrust) to augment the total thrust counteracting the good ol' gravity generated weight.

That also applies to helicopters, tiltrotors, composites, birds and pterodactyls.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hemspilot said:

It is actually a Thrust to Weight ratio issue.

To go vertical you can only use the pure thrust of the engine and that, as Sir Isaac Newton teaches us, has to be greater than the weight, right?

A rolling take-off instead, uses the lift generated by the wings (combined in this case with vectored thrust) to augment the total thrust counteracting the good ol' gravity generated weight.

That also applies to helicopters, tiltrotors, composites, birds and pterodactyls.

 

 

But then, there is the bumblebee . . . . 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Hemspilot,

 

As far as the theory. However, even on less than "full-weight" missions, STOVAL is pretty much always used, except at air shows, limited take-off space etc., with the direct reasoning,of  saving fuel costs for us good old taxpayers PLUS not having to logistically move as much fuel to forward bases, aircraft carriers, etc. is very much on each service's mind these days...

 

Ed

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...