Jump to content

72nd scale canopy for F-104B?


Recommended Posts

AFAIK, the B-canopy was not single piece, but there was no fixed part between the front and rear canopies.

 

A club member is trying to do what you want to do, but in 1/48 scale. I think he decided to make a vacform master from the kit parts: he glue the kit parts together, filled the interior to make a sturdy piece, then filled the panel lines and scribed new ones. The only problem now is that his vacform parts will be slightly oversized.

 

He could go one step further, and that is to pull a glassfiber mold from his master, and do 'negative' vacuum forming. That would give him an exactly sized vacform canopy, and better details on the formed part too.

 

All in all a lot of work..

 

Rob

Edited by Rob de Bie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I have never seen a photo of an open F-104B canopy, but it sure looks like a single piece when closed. That "brace" across the middle doesn't look very substantial if it is indeed a connection between two pieces. I'll keep looking and contact a fellow who flew the C model. He may know.

 

Thanks, Rob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rob de Bie said:

I found an online version of the photo I was refering too. Look at the second 104 on the right:

 

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Contrails/contPalmdale58.htm

 

You can see a slight kink in the hinge line, excluding the possibility of a single canopy.

 

The sixth and ninth are B's too, btw.

 

Rob

 

Dang! You are correct. That is the first time I have ever seen an image of the B with its canopies open. That actually only complicates building the B if you want the canopies open. I didn't plan on having them (it) open, but I will certainly not have them open now.

 

Step one remains obtaining the different canopy. I may have to look at butchering the kit canopies. I have two TF-104G kit. I'm wanting to build a B from the TENN AIR GUARD in Knoxville...from the last century.

 

Thanks for helping me clarify the issue...I think. 😉

 

BTW, someone in the forums was asking about the colors of the wings. The USAF painted the tops of the wings white and the bottoms FS 16473 "ADC gray." That info is from a pilot who flew them who is also a master modeler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rob de Bie said:

I found an online version of the photo I was refering too. Look at the second 104 on the right:

 

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Contrails/contPalmdale58.htm

 

You can see a slight kink in the hinge line, excluding the possibility of a single canopy.

 

The sixth and ninth are B's too, btw.

 

Rob

 

From the same site:

 

There does appear to be a metal "canopy bow" between the front and rear canopies (red arrows) upon which the aft pilot has left his helmet. I have no idea if there was glass (polycarbonate?) there, too. I doubt it would withstand the air pressures at a high Mach upwards ejection. So, I suspect you are correct in your comment about the canopy configuration being tied to the ejection direction (sounds like a medical issue with men.)

USBpromo2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great photo, good find! But what's that drumband waiting for, in the background? 🙂

 

Good point regarding the blast effect if there is a tranparancy mounted inside the bow. That wouldn't be nice for the backseater.

 

Another small detail I think I see is that there are not bullet-shaped explosive or pneumatic canopy lifters on the canopy rails. And no brackets on the canopies that rest on these lifters when closed. So this seems to be a 104 with downward ejection seats.

Rob

Edited by Rob de Bie
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rob de Bie said:

Great photo, good find! But what's that drumband waiting for, in the background? 🙂

 

Good point regarding the blast effect if there is a tranparancy mounted inside the bow. That wouldn't be nice for the backseater.

 

Another small detail I think I see is that there are not bullet-shaped explosive or pneumatic canopy lifters on the canopy rails. And no brackets on the canopies that rest on these lifters when closed. So this seems to be a 104 with downward ejection seats.

Rob

 

Hmmm. The absence of pneumatic lifters is not necessarily a determinant. I flew the T-38 for 2200+ hours. Its canopy was completely manual for opening and closing, but it was ballistically removed during the ejection sequence. Having said that, the B seats were still probably downward ejecting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about a normal canopy opening system, I'm talking about the system that in the ejection sequence lifts the front of the canopy a few inches, so the blast can rip it off. You can see the bullet-shaped thrusters very well in this photo. What you cannot see are the brackets on the canopy, that rest on the thrusters. I cannot see either in your B-model photo, hence the conclusion the canopies could not be removed in the ejection sequence, hence downward seats.

 

Luftwaffe_cockpit_of_F-104_Starfighter_2

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob de Bie said:

I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about a normal canopy opening system, I'm talking about the system that in the ejection sequence lifts the front of the canopy a few inches, so the blast can rip it off. You can see the bullet-shaped thrusters very well in this photo. What you cannot see are the brackets on the canopy, that rest on the thrusters. I cannot see either in your B-model photo, hence the conclusion the canopies could not be removed in the ejection sequence, hence downward seats.

 

Luftwaffe_cockpit_of_F-104_Starfighter_2

 

Rob

 

Rob, I am not that familiar with the 104's escape system. So, later models used pneumatic lifters to open the canopy enough for the wind blast to blow the canopy away, huh? The 104 would definitely need something pretty strong to get the canopy away at high Mach. I know the fear with the early seats was that the seat would not clear the T-tail at high speeds, thus the downward-ejecting system. I assume those were simple ballistic seats and not rocket seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2021 at 8:16 AM, Rob de Bie said:

To add some more: there were a few D-models with the B-canopy too. I *think* most were converted to the D-type canopy. And I speculate that there is a link with the type of seat installed: downward vs upward.

 

Rob

Actually All F-104A's and B's that survived in service past approximately 1960 had the downward C-1 seat replaced with the upward C-2 seat and new canopy. The same thing with the very few D's that had the C-1 seat as well. 

 

Cheers,

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

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...