Jump to content

Cat4 F7U-3 Cutlass Intakes/Nose - Looking for Opinions


Recommended Posts

Looking to see if anyone has seen or used the 1/48 resin intakes and nose replacement from Cat4 for the Hobbycraft F7U-3 Cutlass.    I built a -3M Cutlass several years ago for a customer and would like to do build one and paint it in a natural metal for myself.   I just ordered a replacement cockpit from Lone Star Models so I have that deficiency covered.  I recall the cockpit, nose, intakes, and canopy were the main bugaboos that needed work. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The HC Cutlass has many issues which you mentioned. The nose, canopy, cockpit. bang seat and intakes all need replacement. The CAT4 nose and intakes look very nice. They may correct some flaws with the kit but the canopy still needs replacement because it is way wrong. I had also bought the LS cockpit set, I was not impressed for the price. I had the HC Cutlass several years ago. I bought the Collect Aire forward fuselage correction set for it. The set is very comprehensive and covers what CAT4 does as well as a new canopy, whole forward fuselage, nose gear well with strut and bang seat. It corrects most of what is visually wrong with the kit but it is a fiddly build. It is not without it's issues as well. It is unfortunate that Kitty Hawk shuttered their doors since they had intended to do a Cutlass. Perhaps CAT4 will learn to master casting clear resin and do a corrected canopy. A new set of burner cans would be nice as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, I will be interested in your opinion of the CAT4 parts after you get them. Just as an aside on the subject of the Cutlass. There are many inaccurate drawings of the F7U-3 online as well in publications. I was concerned about where they got their info when Kitty Hawk several years ago announced their Cutlass release was getting close. Even Steve Ginter's book on the latter Cutlass, Vol.6, has some bad side view reference drawings. His books are generally well regarded in that respect, however this is one of his earliest publications in his series. He had a tendency to reuse the hand drawn images from his earlier publications like his Tiger, Skyknight, Banshee, etc. in his newer releases on those subjects. As I understand it, Tommy Thomason is in the process of research for a future release of an all new Ginter Book on the Cutlass. It should be quite a bit better than the original.  

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

Don, I will be interested in your opinion of the CAT4 parts after you get them. Just as an aside on the subject of the Cutlass. There are many inaccurate drawings of the F7U-3 online as well in publications. I was concerned about where they got their info when Kitty Hawk several years ago announced their Cutlass release was getting close. Even Steve Ginter's book on the latter Cutlass, Vol.6, has some bad side view reference drawings. His books are generally well regarded in that respect, however this is one of his earliest publications in his series. He had a tendency to reuse the hand drawn images from his earlier publications like his Tiger, Skyknight, Banshee, etc. in his newer releases on those subjects. As I understand it, Tommy Thomason is in the process of research for a future release of an all new Ginter Book on the Cutlass. It should be quite a bit better than the original.  

Jon - thanks for the plug on the F7U-3 monograph. My coauthor is Al Casby, who not only knows more about the F7U than anyone else on the planet but is rebuilding one to flight status. The monograph is about 85% complete. At the moment, I'm working on the model kit section, which is basically a summary of the major kits that have been produced. I would very much like to know what the CAT4 radome looks like in profile as well as any information on the 1/144 Matti's Mini's kits.

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

Jon - thanks for the plug on the F7U-3 monograph. My coauthor is Al Casby, who not only knows more about the F7U than anyone else on the planet but is rebuilding one to flight status. The monograph is about 85% complete. At the moment, I'm working on the model kit section, which is basically a summary of the major kits that have been produced. I would very much like to know what the CAT4 radome looks like in profile as well as any information on the 1/144 Matti's Mini's kits.

You're welcome Tommy, I'm anxiously awaiting it. I know it will be great. I absolutely love your monograph on the F4H-1 Phantoms. Some of Steve's earlier monographs really need updating. Happy to see you're up to the challenge on the Cutlass. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Tommy A flight worthy Cutlass.  That airframe had an horrendous accident record.  I suspect there will be some serious updating to make that a safe aircraft to fly.  Will the powerplant be upgraded to more efficient turbofan engines?  That will help immensely for the 'Gutless' which was always under powered.  I would really like to see that beauty fly at an airshow!!! 

 

I do love the look of the bird it looks like it could go into space.

 

YES the 1/48 HC Cutlass is a bugaboo of a build......even with the Collec-Aire set It was laborious build and lots of dry fitting and swearing LOL.  Lou told me at Collect-Aire [a while back] that his set is basically rebuilding 1/2 the kit.  He did a very nice all resin kit of the earlier F7U-1 Cutlass.  Fotios Rouch has built it....AND many others!!  Over the years I have built the following Collect Aire kits: F3H Demon,Mig-19, F6U Pirate, F9F-8 Cougar...most were pretty good  THE Pirate  was a bit crude BUT the only game in town ....solid resin fuselage makes it heavy!  


Steve

 

 

 

 

 

"My coauthor is Al Casby, who not only knows more about the F7U than anyone else on the planet but is rebuilding one to flight status. The monograph is about 85% complete. At the moment, I'm working on the model kit section, which is basically a summary of the major kits that have been produced. I would very much like to know what the CAT4 radome looks like in profile as well as any information on the 1/144 Matti's Mini's kits."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve - Much of what you and almost all other aviation enthusiasts have read about the F7U-3 Cutlass is incorrect or at best, an exaggeration. For example, the accident rate, when examined in context, was not significantly worse than other U.S Navy carrier-based jets at the time and arguably better than the F8U’s. It was also not underpowered relative to early jets before the Navy added useful load and avionics, etc. to make it the first carrier-based fighter to be deployed with the big Sparrow missiles: that made it much heavier but by then the Cutlass was just a placeholder for the F3H Demon that was completing development and its performance was adequate for a missile truck. In other words, it wasn’t originally gutless, certainly not in afterburner.  Since Al’s Cutlass will be light (modern avionics, no mission equipment, guns, ammunition), the thrust of the original Westinghouse J46s will  suffice.

 

Thanks for the notes on the Hobby Craft kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is a maligned airframe  I actually like the aircraft a lot. It just seems betwen the -1 and -3 development the Navy was impatient with the Chance Voughts progress... it didnt serve in many squadrons.  Mostly Recce squadrons as an active duty airframe for the USN.

 

Is this a worthy source on the Cutlass??:

 

https://www.historynet.com/voughts-visionary-fighter.htm

 

 My take is that the Cutlass was too little & too late in its developement since other airframes surpassed its performance ---even internally corporate-- Chance Vought F-8 Crusader.  The other airframe that gets maligned too is the F4D Skyray.  I love the look of that one It looks like it should fly in space and under the water  ala Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea Flying Sub!

 

I love this era of aircraft !!


Steve,

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, scorvi said:

I know it is a maligned airframe  I actually like the aircraft a lot. It just seems betwen the -1 and -3 development the Navy was impatient with the Chance Voughts progress... it didnt serve in many squadrons.  Mostly Recce squadrons as an active duty airframe for the USN.

 

Is this a worthy source on the Cutlass??:

 

https://www.historynet.com/voughts-visionary-fighter.htm

 

 My take is that the Cutlass was too little & too late in its developement since other airframes surpassed its performance ---even internally corporate-- Chance Vought F-8 Crusader.  The other airframe that gets maligned too is the F4D Skyray.  I love the look of that one It looks like it should fly in space and under the water  ala Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea Flying Sub!

 

I love this era of aircraft !!


Steve,

That link is better than most but not the complete story and there a few errors. It did take too long to reach the fleet, in part due to short-sighted decisions by the Navy in addition to Westinghouse being late in the development of the J46. Note that the Cutlass was mostly assigned to attack squadrons; there was a photo reconnaissance version but it wasn’t assigned to deployable squadrons. The F7U was assigned to about as many Navy squadrons as the F4D but most with Skyrays made more than one deployment. No Cutlass squadron made more than one and some did not make any. As to why it wasn’t more successful, that’s a long story, which I hope to finish writing one of these days…

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

Steve - Much of what you and almost all other aviation enthusiasts have read about the F7U-3 Cutlass is incorrect or at best, an exaggeration. For example, the accident rate, when examined in context, was not significantly worse than other U.S Navy carrier-based jets at the time and arguably better than the F8U’s. It was also not underpowered relative to early jets before the Navy added useful load and avionics, etc. to make it the first carrier-based fighter to be deployed with the big Sparrow missiles: that made it much heavier but by then the Cutlass was just a placeholder for the F3H Demon that was completing development and its performance was adequate for a missile truck. In other words, it wasn’t originally gutless, certainly not in afterburner.  Since Al’s Cutlass will be light (modern avionics, no mission equipment, guns, ammunition), the thrust of the original Westinghouse J46s will  suffice.

 

Thanks for the notes on the Hobby Craft kit.

Tommy, I am surprised Al is using the original J46's. I would have thought newer engines would have been better, more reliable and spare parts more readily available, like was done with the Me 262 replicas. It seems according to Wikipedia there are several airworthy engines at locations around the country in various museums in addition to what Al has noted in the posting at Wiki. Does he feel he has sufficient parts available to him to keep his Cutlass airworthy once it is there? Also, is this the Cutlass that Paul Allen was working on before his passing?  

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

Tommy, I am surprised Al is using the original J46's. I would have thought newer engines would have been better, more reliable and spare parts more readily available, like was done with the Me 262 replicas. It seems according to Wikipedia there are several airworthy engines at locations around the country in various museums in addition to what Al has noted in the posting at Wiki. Does he feel he has sufficient parts available to him to keep his Cutlass airworthy once it is there? Also, is this the Cutlass that Paul Allen was working on before his passing?  

Al now has 129544 that was at the Museum of Flight in his hangar in Arizona. I don't know what Paul Allen's relationship with it was. Al also has hunks of 129622 and smaller pieces of other F7U-3s. The J46 may not have been particularly durable (durability, TBO being one measure, generally increases proportionally with the number of overhaul inspections but the J46 wasn't in service for very long) but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest that it was considered unreliable and in any event, the Cutlass has a spare if one has to be shutdown in flight. I'm sure he'd like to acquire more J46 parts, particularly the life-limited ones, but my guess he has enough to fly for a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

XMM air intakes and exhaust nozzles for Hobbycraft / Kitech kit. As well as for F11F-1, they were made for personal use, but it is possible to make personal copies

It is also possible a very simple way to correct the shape of the nose, and a photo of the model in the process is also shown.

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dinozavr said:

It is also possible a very simple way to correct the shape of the nose, and a photo of the model in the process is also shown.

 

 

3.jpg

4.jpg

Thanks for the suggestion. It does look a bit better but doesn’t address the fact that the bottom of the forward fuselage should not curve upward before it reaches the radome.

E8B4D202-EEC6-4F65-8132-09C7AC0B5928.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dinozavr said:

XMM air intakes and exhaust nozzles for Hobbycraft / Kitech kit. As well as for F11F-1, they were made for personal use, but it is possible to make personal copies

It is also possible a very simple way to correct the shape of the nose, and a photo of the model in the process is also shown.

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

The shape of the vertical stabilisers, the position of the rudders as well as the position of the wing fold lins are also off, amongst the general lack of detail of course 🙂

J

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

MAYBE all this talk will spawn someone to do a NEW TOOLED F7U-3 IN 1/48.....like a distant Karma thing...We can hope  LOL

 

BUT I think I would want a F11F-1 FIRST in 1/48!!


Steve

Everyone go to your favorite happy place and think good thoughts about a new 1/48 F11F-1 Tiger.    I mean like, so many positive waves… maybe we can’t lose!

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

Thanks for the suggestion. It does look a bit better but doesn’t address the fact that the bottom of the forward fuselage should not curve upward before it reaches the radome.

E8B4D202-EEC6-4F65-8132-09C7AC0B5928.jpeg

You can look at it from an other angle. Tilt of the nose and light sweep of the file to slightly straighten the top line of the radome. Not perfect, but very similar

 

5.jpg

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

The shape of the vertical stabilisers, the position of the rudders as well as the position of the wing fold lins are also off, amongst the general lack of detail of course 🙂

If only this :-)))
These are little things in comparison with the wrong shape of the upper and lower parts of the fuselage and the unnecessarily long tail section.

6.jpg

7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that Hobbycrap just gave you a rough outline of the airframe.  Some proportional dimensions are off too....WE just need a new tool   What IF Great Wall did one? That would be nice!?!  Loved their T-33....want them to push into the F/P-80 realm  to replace the abomination from Hobbyboss!!! 

 

 

I found the Hobbycrap Sea Fury wasnt that bad if devoid of much detail.  I remedied it with lots of resin and etched brass sets.

 

Steve,

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, scorvi said:

Seems that Hobbycrap just gave you a rough outline of the airframe.  Some proportional dimensions are off too....WE just need a new tool   What IF Great Wall did one? That would be nice!?!  Loved their T-33....want them to push into the F/P-80 realm  to replace the abomination from Hobbyboss!!! 

 

 

I found the Hobbycrap Sea Fury wasnt that bad if devoid of much detail.  I remedied it with lots of resin and etched brass sets.

 

Steve,

We want a lot of things ... but this is business. In addition to our desires, they also must to think about business efficiency

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

You can look at it from an other angle. Tilt of the nose and light sweep of the file to slightly straighten the top line of the radome. Not perfect, but very similar

 

5.jpg

My apologies: I was wrong, the bottom of the fuselage does begin to curve up a little before the radome according to pretty good Vought drawings.

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

If only this :-)))
These are little things in comparison with the wrong shape of the upper and lower parts of the fuselage and the unnecessarily long tail section.

It also depends on what drawing or museum example is being consulted: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/08/its-not-that-easy-to-get-it-right.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

It also depends on what drawing or museum example is being consulted: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/08/its-not-that-easy-to-get-it-right.html

Thank you, I really respect Tailhook Topics and keep this page in my computer's memory.
When working with the models, I generally prefer to clarify all the details, proportions, shapes and check the drawings using different photoes of different years, not only by photoes of museum exhibits.

Edited by dinozavr
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...