Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Trying to figure out a tail correction for a 1/72 F-105G.  I have the D&S book on the 105 and was surprised to find the Trumpeter and Monogram 1/72 tails fit the line drawings almost exactly, making them all undersized, supposedly.  

Is there a better reference on the tail difference? Tough to really discern the real difference from airframe photos, and the D&S book only points out an increase of 15% tail area, not the most helpful of references to a project such as ours....

Edited by Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say this, but NEVER rely on "scale drawings" by anyone, and never think that a kit is "off" because it doesn't match so-and-so's scale drawings. You'll only drive yourself to incurable obsession. Go ahead and compare a kit to photos of the actual aircraft and make your own decisions on how the model should look. You may not get it right, but that's the way most line drawings are created. Unless there are really obvious errors in the kit, you're probably better off believing the kit manufacturer's rendition of the aircraft than mixing in a conflicting third party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, viking73 said:

I have read that the Trumpeter F-105 tail is the correct height for the two-seat F/G models but too tall for the single seat D.  Just my $.02 worth.

 

-Derek

  

 

What?! I'd heard the opposite....in fact when I posted pics of my Trumpeter 1/72 EF-105F (rebuilt from G) someone pointed out my "mistake" of leaving the tail too small.  

That's the point of this thread, to rebuild a Trumpy tail for my G to go with the F.... so is it really ok as is?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy said:

 

What?! I'd heard the opposite....in fact when I posted pics of my Trumpeter 1/72 EF-105F (rebuilt from G) someone pointed out my "mistake" of leaving the tail too small.  

That's the point of this thread, to rebuild a Trumpy tail for my G to go with the F.... so is it really ok as is?

 

 

This is where I read about the "D" tail being too tall - it was on the LSP Forum concerning the 1/32 Trumpeter "D" kit.  So I wonder if this error was carried over to the 1/72 kit?  I would assume so but you know how that goes...

 

https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/40546-f-105d-tweak-list/

 

It's near the bottom of the fuselage section.

 

-Derek

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to 1/72 kits, if you can get over the raised panel lines, the Monogram F and G, and the Revell D (basically a scaled-down Monogram) are even better than the Trumpeter kits. They're not as easy to find as they have been out of production for decades, but if you peruse eBay or other sources with old kits, you can usually find them at bargain prices. And they have the tails right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Paul Boyer said:

When it comes to 1/72 kits, if you can get over the raised panel lines, the Monogram F and G, and the Revell D (basically a scaled-down Monogram) are even better than the Trumpeter kits. They're not as easy to find as they have been out of production for decades, but if you peruse eBay or other sources with old kits, you can usually find them at bargain prices. And they have the tails right.

 

I concur. Even with raised panel lines, the Mono & Revell Thuds are a class above the Trumpeter ones. And the underwing stores included in the Trumpeter kit look odd to me. IIRC the snakeyes ( or was it the droptanks?) are wrong in length.

Edited by JackMan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

When Monogram came out with their F-105G in 1/48 I liked it but really wanted an F-105D. So I could not wait and went about converting my G kit to the D. I found out that the tail of the D was smaller in chord so I cut it back. I think I did use some sort of drawings or was it by eye. It was so long ago I forget. However I think I missed the height of the tail. I will have to go check and see what I did. Still have the model although it did have an incident when it fell off  of the shelf. Too bad I did not take pics back then.

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...