Kinetic A-6 Intruder help please

[Pappy121]

G'day people,

 

I have both the Kinetic and HB 1/48 A-6 Intruder kits. I have noticed something strange with the Kinetic kit. In step 6, there is an insert diagram which indicates the pats placement for several items.

 

 

The parts labelled H14 and H13 seem to be some sort of fairing that is added adjacent each wing 'cuff'. These cuffs were integrated into the wing LE to incorporate some antennas when the A-6A was upgraded to the A-6E.

 

Here is a pic taken by Howard Mason I found on Prime Portal of the area in question.

If this contravenes any rules I will happily remove the pic (if the mods don't do it first) as I have only included the pic for illustrative purposes

 

 

This is the RH wing and fairing part  (H14, H13 opposite side)provided by Kinetic. I will only show the RH wing parts but the same issue occurs with the LH wing. I believe that this is a fixed part of the wing. As depicted in the Kinetic instructions, it needs to be installed over the slat which would prevent their deployment. I don't think any part of it is attached to the slat, nor does any part of it move with the slat when deployed.

 

 

If I add the item as suggested it does not fit flush as per the pic with a noticeable step. Also, it seems too long as it extends aft of the adjacent cuff area when compared to the ref pic

 

 

Here is a direct comparison with the HB wing

 

 

Notice how the cuff extension of the HB kit includes the extension and the back edge lines up with the cuff. The HB wing could probably do wth having te outboard extension scribed in but it is otherwise correct.

 

So, my questions are in regards to correcting this;

 

1. Should I shorten the tail of parts H13/14 and glue into place adjacent the wing cuff?

 

2. This means the slats need to be modified by leaving small inboard sections (the ones directly under the cuff extensions) fixed. In other words the slats are shortened lengthwise and this inboard sections is faired back into the wing?

 

This are of the Kinetic kit is a mess, but I want to complete the kit. I think the issue is that Kinetic have tried to include a common wing (for metal winged A-6s anyway) so that you can build an A-6A/E/E TRAM but in doing so they have taken shortcuts. The HB kit is better BY FAR and if  you want to build a 1/48 A-6 I would suggest avoiding the Kinetic kit, but since I have the kit (it was a freebie!) there is still the potential for a nice kit to emerge with a little work

 

thanks,

 

Pappy

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Pappy121

[Tailspin Turtle]

I had assumed that outboard ECM fairing moved with the slat (and that would be wrong). I'll have to check that. In the meantime, here's some detail on the differences among the A-6s (I recommend that you check the location of the inboard fence on the upper surface of the wing): https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/09/grumman-6a-vs-6e-intruder.html

Edited June 30, 2023 by Tailspin Turtle
Correction

[Tailspin Turtle]

4 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

I had assumed that outboard ECM fairing moved with the slat (and that would be wrong). I'll have to check that. In the meantime, here's some detail on the differences among the A-6s (I recommend that you check the location of the inboard fence on the upper surface of the wing): https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/09/grumman-6a-vs-6e-intruder.html

The first picture that I looked at: the fairing doesn't move. Now I suspect that the inboard end of the slat is mislocated on the Kinetic kit. More later.

[Tailspin Turtle]

I'm pretty sure that that the slat did not change. I'm looking for a drawing that would accurately locate its inboard edge. In the meantime, this is a bottom view of the fairing and the interface with the forward main landing gear door. Note that the cutout extends outboard of the wheel well opening because the door is outboard of the wheel well when the gear is down.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Tailspin Turtle

[Dave Roof]

[Pappy121]

8 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

I'm pretty sure that that the slat did not change. I'm looking for a drawing that would accurately locate its inboard edge. In the meantime, this is a bottom view of the fairing and the interface with the forward main landing gear door. Note that the cutout extends outboard of the wheel well opening because the door is outboard of the opening when the gear is down.

 

G'day Thommy, I am a big fan of your work (thank you very much) and I have been using on that post to update some details already. I was planning on moving the I/B wing fences further I/B by about 8mm to place them in the right spot

 

I think that Dave Roof has nailed identified the issue in his pot below

 

7 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

Dave, you rock man!

 

As soon as you pointed that out that point in the picture, it all made sense. That is a much better solution, thanks very much

[JeffreyK]

11 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

This.

[Tailspin Turtle]

For what it's worth, I was able to nail down the actual wing stations of the inboard fences: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2023/06/a-6a-versus-6e-inboard-wing-fence.html

[Tailspin Turtle]

9 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

For what it's worth, I was able to nail down the actual wing stations of the inboard fences: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2023/06/a-6a-versus-6e-inboard-wing-fence.html

In glancing at this post just now, I realized that the dimension for the location of the leading edge slat and the one for the inboard A-6E wing fence couldn't both be correct. It appears that Grumman misplaced the location of the arrow for the leading edge slat on two different drawings (very precisely in one case: 87.476"). I've corrected it on the post.

[Pappy121]

7 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

In glancing at this post just now, I realized that the dimension for the location of the leading edge slat and the one for the inboard A-6E wing fence couldn't both be correct. It appears that Grumman misplaced the location of the arrow for the leading edge slat on two different drawings (very precisely in one case: 87.476"). I've corrected it on the post.

 

G'day Thommy,

 

Thanks very much for doing that, that is a great help,

 

cheers,

 

Pappy