Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Sign in to follow this  
waltmert

1/48 Hobbycraft T-33

Recommended Posts

I am sorry to revive this very old subject. I researched the  forum files and I think the subject was first

discussed in 2013. WOW!! time flies.

Any ways, I just purchased the GWH 1/48 T-33's. OMG those kits are amazing!!!

I am an airliner fan so I build military subjects very randomly. I do get tired of white some times!! :)

The fact is my dad flew all kinds of cool stuff for the Guatemalan Air force.  I grew up watching P-51's and T-33's.

Ha! No wonder why they are two of my all time favorite airplanes......like ever!!!! 

The question that I got for you all is.... what is so terribly wrong with the Hobbycraft T-33.

The files that I read they all state that the kit is horrible???? a copy of the Hawk kit, and some of the experts hate it.

Funny, some of those super model experts got kick out of this forum!

But..... I could not find any files showing or pin pointing exactly what where how the kit is bad.

 

The thing is I got 10 Hobbycraft T-33's that I inherit from a fellow modeler best friend (with 25 P-51, 14 C-47, etc, etc) and I compared them to the GWH kit and.......yeah ok,

the intakes are a tad off, the speed breaks are not open which I can care less, the canopy is for sure not as crisp and I see a little proportions/scale discrepancy but over all? 

 

Please enlighten me, point out what all is wrong with the kits?

Both Hawk and Hobbycraft 1/48 T-33's?

 

Thanks in advance!

Walter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing, they look like CT-133s when done to me!!! Built 10 of the Academy/Hobby craft and even a couple Testors. Best thing I have been picking them up at shows for $5 while every one else was looking for the new wonder kit.  Sure the cockpits are lacking, but black interior with the canopy down, you can not tell the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, all mine are going to be hanging from the ceiling.

But I must know, what all is wrong? Shape wise?  I can care less if the instrument panel is incorrect or the ejection seat is wrong, I am not going to fly the darn thing!!!

I have even read an article about mix matching the 

Hobbycraft T-33 with a Monogram F-80 and how terrible the intakes are.

Funny, the Hobbycraft and the GWH kits match intakes.

Not criticizing here, just inquiring?

 

Walter

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have 4 of the Hobbycraft kits and 1 of the GWH one. I know the fairing behind the canopy needs fixing on the HC kit but it is subtle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got 3 HC, along with both F-94s they did. Also have 2 testors. They're close enough for me.

 

Here's an old thread on the subject.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The most striking issues are the length of the fuselage and the shape of the area aft of the cockpit. The spine is too "hunchbacked" and the aft canopy fairing is off.

For a more comprehensive list, see here:

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234974215-uruguay-lockheed-t-33-148-conversion-from-monogram-f-80/&

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/ct133silverstarda_1.htm

 

Note that the GWH kit is a massive improvement over both the Hobbycraft/Academy and the older Hawk/Testors kits. But there are still a few issues with the GWH kit, like the fuselage/tail cone and the belly in the intakes area...

 

Jeffrey

Edited by JeffreyK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, waltmert said:

The thing is I got 10 Hobbycraft T-33's that I inherit from a fellow modeler best friend (with 25 P-51, 14 C-47, etc, etc) and I compared them to the GWH kit and.......yeah ok,

the intakes are a tad off, the speed breaks are not open which I can care less, the canopy is for sure not as crisp and I see a little proportions/scale discrepancy but over all? 

 

 

12 hours ago, waltmert said:

Exactly, all mine are going to be hanging from the ceiling.

 

You sound like a guy who just enjoys modelling, nothing wrong with that. The problem with asking your questions on ARC is you will get all the expert opinions.

The kit was good enough for Academy to box it and sell it under their label.

 

I can speak as someone who fiddles with modelling details most people would not notice and maintained the aircraft with the Canadian Forces for several years. You will not lose sleep over the small dimensional issues with this kit.

 

Go and build those kits and just have fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks,

Yes, modeling is the only thing I do in life that takes "ALL" worries away.

There is no way that a few scribe lines are going to ruin that for me.

So, thanks you all,

enough typing, time to glue stuff!!!!

 

Walter

 

P.S. I do appreciate the experts opinion, I do not want to spent precious time building a T-33 when it really is an F-94!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2019 at 10:22 PM, JeffreyK said:

But there are still a few issues with the GWH kit, like the fuselage/tail cone and the belly in the intakes area...

 

Care to enlighten us on those areas?  That’s the first mention I’ve heard of either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GWH aft fuselage is a dead straight cone, but on the real aircraft it’s curved. The bottom of the intake area is not defined enough I think. Intakes and fuselage form a sort of “UUU” shape, but as far as I remember when checking this at the time, it doesn’t quite capture the shape. But this may be down to tooling restrictions as the area is really difficult to break down into producible parts that then assemble together well.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, JeffreyK said:

The GWH aft fuselage is a dead straight cone, but on the real aircraft it’s curved.

 

Actually it isn't.  The real thing is three intersecting cones with no curve.  I've put a straight edge on the real article.  GWH is the first ones to get that right.

Edited by Sleepy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sleepy said:

 

Actually it isn't.  The real thing is three intersecting cones with no curve.  I've put a straight edge on the real article.  GWH is the first ones to get that right.

Not only do I have the original cross section data from the structural manual, I also have a 3D scan of a 1:1 article and can say with some confidence that it’s curved.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cross sections are all circular regardless of whether it is curved in side view or not, so that’s irrelevant.  I’ve put a 5’ piece of aluminum bar against the aft end of a T-33 and it is *not* a compound curve.  The aft end is three intersecting cones.  You can feel the change of angle with your hand where they intersect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not sure...where would your three straight sections be, or their intersections?

Here is an isometric view if the scanned tail and with a straight line in red below. I cannot identify straight cone sections here.

Tail%20Scan%20pic.jpg

The pink verticals indicate the cross sections for which I had actual construction data. The red vertical indicates the fuselage split line. When lofted, only the last four cross sections indeed form a straight cone shape. Of course you can loft all cross sections straight individually, but the scan indicates a continuous curve.

Here is the connected fuselage outline, created from the cross sections, without the scan in the way (or course without the whole empennage section). The red line at the top indicates the last four sections in a straight line:

Tail%20loft.jpg

Cheers,

J

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...