1/48 F-86A: it's almost here...

[BWDenver]

3 hours ago, GeneK said:

Good post, of course, but his study of human nature in this case is limited to a very small sample. The yeas greatly outweigh the nay.

 

Gene K

Actually, I'm basing my observations on over 50 years of being around modelers.  

 

We had a modeler in the DC area that would spend a great deal of time complaining about the cost of 1/48 kits.  Every Hasegawa release would generate a torrent of complaints.   He would sometimes make the comment that "when I stated modeling you could buy a kit for $2 or $3".

 

One day I pointed out that the $30 1990 kit was the $2.50 or $3.00 kit in 1963 - adjusted for inflation, it went right over his head.

 

The interesting thing was, Ken NEVER built anything but 1/72....

 

As I said I likely will never build an F-86A.  I would love to build a Canadair Mk 5 with martin-Baker seat though...

 

Even though Flight Systems pulled the MB seat out of this bird and added the N American seat, or a Canadair License built seat.

 

[Sabrejet]

1 hour ago, BWDenver said:

As I said I likely will never build an F-86A.  I would love to build a Canadair Mk 5 with martin-Baker seat though...

 

Even though Flight Systems pulled the MB seat out of this bird and added the N American seat, or a Canadair License built seat.

 

Sabre 6, ex-Luftwaffe. 😉

Edited January 7 by Sabrejet

[BWDenver]

1 hour ago, Sabrejet said:

Sabre 6, ex-Luftwaffe. 😉

 I would love to build a Canadair Mk 6 with Martin-Baker seat though...😏

Edited January 7 by BWDenver

[Sabrejet]

9 hours ago, BWDenver said:

 I would love to build a Canadair Mk 6 with Martin-Baker seat though...😏

 

Agreed! Just need a decent Sabre 6 kit. FSI actually backdated their ex-Luftwaffe Sabre 6s with Sabre 5 wings/leading edges though they sometimes retained the M-B seat. As far as I recall they didn't remove the canopy rail mod on any of them however.

[JeffreyK]

On 12/28/2024 at 5:52 AM, dai phan said:

Now that makes more sense. As Ducan an expert modeler (I have seen his projects) I simply cannot see how Duncan can design an anti-logic kit this way. Dai 

 

First of all, the kit is not designed for you alone. Moulding the upper slat wells integral to the upper wing parts would mean you cannot build it with retracted slats, like in-flight. Yes, it may be the minority, but it's good they catered for this option. The alternative would be a step, like on the Hasegawa Skyhawks. Now, that would have caused a storm of complaints 🙂 Also, there are many modellers you explicitly PREFER to have part seams AWAY from panel lines as it can result in a cleaner end result. If all part joints or any kit would fit as well as Tamiya then OK, point taken, but often they do not and it's then more difficult to adjust and fill a mismatch that is right inside the panel line, often needing to fill it entirely, sand smooth and then rescribe that line.

 

Secondly, ClearProp use low-pressure injection moulding technology. This puts a strict limit on the size of sprues and vertical depth of parts, draft angles and sprue gates (usually have to be greater and more than on high pressure kits)....So decisions for part splits follow those rules first and build convenience second.

You need to find a happy compromise and when complete, there usually is room for improvement (i.e. forward planning from the earliest design stage) though and every new kit is a learning step....

 

J

[GeneK]

Logical anti-logic post, Jeffrey. 

 

Gene K

[dai phan]

5 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

 

First of all, the kit is not designed for you alone. Moulding the upper slat wells integral to the upper wing parts would mean you cannot build it with retracted slats, like in-flight. Yes, it may be the minority, but it's good they catered for this option. The alternative would be a step, like on the Hasegawa Skyhawks. Now, that would have caused a storm of complaints 🙂 Also, there are many modellers you explicitly PREFER to have part seams AWAY from panel lines as it can result in a cleaner end result. If all part joints or any kit would fit as well as Tamiya then OK, point taken, but often they do not and it's then more difficult to adjust and fill a mismatch that is right inside the panel line, often needing to fill it entirely, sand smooth and then rescribe that line.

 

Secondly, ClearProp use low-pressure injection moulding technology. This puts a strict limit on the size of sprues and vertical depth of parts, draft angles and sprue gates (usually have to be greater and more than on high pressure kits)....So decisions for part splits follow those rules first and build convenience second.

You need to find a happy compromise and when complete, there usually is room for improvement (i.e. forward planning from the earliest design stage) though and every new kit is a learning step....

 

J

Thank you for your reply. So the reason why CP have the seam lines AWAY from the panel lines is because if the gun panels lay on the panel lines, then by cleaning the seam you will lose the panel lines and need to re-scribe? I find the reasoning hard to accept because if the seam lines end on the panel lines simple swipe or two with sponge sandpaper will be just fine. There is no clean up and re-scribe needed. I also find seam lines end on surfaces rather at leading and trailing edges which is very odd. My goal is to point these out so maybe someone at CP may see my point and make changes if they think appropriate. I am just a beginner so my suggestions may not mean anything. Dai 

 

 

[dai phan]

If the gun blast panels seam lines are in line with the panel lines, then a simple swipe or two with 1000 grit sponge will give you perfect panel lines. But because the seam lines are positioned, by trying to fill the seams (red lines) you will affect the panel lines (green) that may require re-scribing and re-placement of rivets. I find the engineering in this area is flawed. My goal is to provide constructive criticism and not bashing anyone. Dai 

 

[BWDenver]

21 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

Sabre 6, ex-Luftwaffe. 😉

The wing fence threw me...

 

So, if I want to do a FSI Canadair “Mk6”, and I start with the Hasegawa Canadair Sabre Mk.5 Frecce Tricolori Kit, I have to do some re-scribing on the fuselage and adding the lower fuselage scoops?  The kit has the 6-3 wing and fences.

 

Below is some rework of a photo overlayed onto the profile plans out of Larry Milberry’s “The Canadair Sabre”, ostensibly to get a pattern for the FS fuselage stripe.

 

The shot was taken at Tyndall in 91, with a bit of “Lens Perspective” correction, as the shot was not a good “profile” picture.

 

I want to do either this bird, N89FS or N86FS with that huge data boom on the nose, as I saw and photographed the bird at Mojavi on the FSI ramp.  I think N86FS was a Canadian bird and lacks the Martin-Baker canopy rail mod.

Edited January 8 by BWDenver

[Sabrejet]

Pretty much: N86FS was a Sabre 5 that Bob Laidlaw effectively upgraded to a Sabre 6 (engine) but it retained the Sabre 5 wing for most of its life. Main parts to look for are the mid-fuselage re-scribings for the revised engine trunnions etc. Also the Hasegawa kit should need the fuselage top intake/vent panel sanding/removing so that you have just a vent forward of the dorsal fin extension. I can't recall if the 'Frecce' kit has the TACAN cooling duct forward of the RH speed brake (it shouldn't) but either way it shouldn't be there.

 

Then finally a lot of those target tugs had the aft fuselage tow reel fairing added.

 

FSI had a few Sabres with nose booms including N186F (early corporate scheme) and the two QF-86Es used in the Mill Race explosive effects tests.

[dai phan]

1 hour ago, BWDenver said:

The wing fence threw me...

 

So, if I want to do a FSI Canadair “Mk6”, and I start with the Hasegawa Canadair Sabre Mk.5 Frecce Tricolori Kit, I have to do some re-scribing on the fuselage and adding the lower fuselage scoops?  The kit has the 6-3 wing and fences.

 

Below is some rework of a photo overlayed onto the profile plans out of Larry Milberry’s “The Canadair Sabre”, ostensibly to get a pattern for the FS fuselage stripe.

 

The shot was taken at Tyndall in 91, with a bit of “Lens Perspective” correction, as the shot was not a good “profile” picture.

 

I want to do either this bird, N89FS or N86FS with that huge data boom on the nose, as I saw and photographed the bird at Mojavi on the FSI ramp.  I think N86FS was a Canadian bird and lacks the Martin-Baker canopy rail mod.

Greetings,

 

You may find this thread useful. Dai 

 

 

[JeffreyK]

9 hours ago, dai phan said:

If the gun blast panels seam lines are in line with the panel lines, then a simple swipe or two with 1000 grit sponge will give you perfect panel lines. But because the seam lines are positioned, by trying to fill the seams (red lines) you will affect the panel lines (green) that may require re-scribing and re-placement of rivets. I find the engineering in this area is flawed. My goal is to provide constructive criticism and not bashing anyone. Dai 

 

I can't answer the blast panel decision right away, need to look at it more closely, but I'm sure there is a technical reason behind this... I agree it's not ideal, I had to deal with very similar problems on their D-21 kit recently (i.e. part joins running through other surface detail). But if it hadn't been for a generally poor fit of the wing-fuselage joint, clean up wasn't actually that bad and as I said, sanding smooth a joint and then partially restoring panel and rivet detail ADJECENT or PERPENDICULAR to the join I find much easier than trying to re-create a neat and clean panel line right in that joint.

 

You mentioned the nose intake ring and where the joint is on the inside:

This is a clear example of tooling/moulding limitations. If CP had put the inner part split where the panel line between nose ring and intake trunk is, they would have had to put a massive draft angle on the inner opening of the nose intake, i.e. at the end (at that panel line) the opening would have had to be much smaller, creating a conical shape of the nose opening so that the ring can be extracted safely from the mould. This would have created a funny looking intake with an underscale intake trunk diameter. To get around this they moulded part of the inner nose ring to the intake trunk, thus creating a much more accurate replica. But you need to fill that inner joint seam...

 

J

[GeneK]

5 hours ago, dai phan said:

You may find this thread useful. 

 

Some of my favorite saved threads, Dai. Thanks.

 

Gene K

[dai phan]

34 minutes ago, JeffreyK said:

I can't answer the blast panel decision right away, need to look at it more closely, but I'm sure there is a technical reason behind this... I agree it's not ideal, I had to deal with very similar problems on their D-21 kit recently (i.e. part joins running through other surface detail). But if it hadn't been for a generally poor fit of the wing-fuselage joint, clean up wasn't actually that bad and as I said, sanding smooth a joint and then partially restoring panel and rivet detail ADJECENT or PERPENDICULAR to the join I find much easier than trying to re-create a neat and clean panel line right in that joint.

 

You mentioned the nose intake ring and where the joint is on the inside:

This is a clear example of tooling/moulding limitations. If CP had put the inner part split where the panel line between nose ring and intake trunk is, they would have had to put a massive draft angle on the inner opening of the nose intake, i.e. at the end (at that panel line) the opening would have had to be much smaller, creating a conical shape of the nose opening so that the ring can be extracted safely from the mould. This would have created a funny looking intake with an underscale intake trunk diameter. To get around this they moulded part of the inner nose ring to the intake trunk, thus creating a much more accurate replica. But you need to fill that inner joint seam...

 

J

Greetings Jeffery,

 

You have much more knowledge than me about injection molded technology so I am learning everything from you. However I have built models since 1978 everything from Lindberg to Monogram to Tamiya. And in my limited knowledge CP could easily had saved modelers lots of extra work by placing the blast panels seam lines at the panel lines. The fit is so good like Tamiya that a simple swipe with sand paper will make the seam lines as perfect as the panel lines. CP could easily place the mating surfaces of the airelons, flaps and fuselage at the leading and trailing edges rather than dead smack center where the fine panel lines and rivets run through. It is heart breaking when these fine details are lost when it is easily avoided. And the joint line between the intake lip and nose piece can easily be joined at the correct seam line (molded in the intake lip) rather at the weird curve away from the actual panel line . I have built hundreds over 47 years and I can tell you it does not have to be this way. It seems like I am bashing and not being appreciative but all I want is to provide constructive feedbacks. The kit has very good fit and fine details. But the engineering negates all the pluses the kit has to offer.  In my opinion, CP could easily set a landmark as the best absolute F-86A but too bad the engineering is a let down for me. Just a constructive suggestion. Dai 

[BWDenver]

6 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

Pretty much: N86FS was a Sabre 5 that Bob Laidlaw effectively upgraded to a Sabre 6 (engine) but it retained the Sabre 5 wing for most of its life. Main parts to look for are the mid-fuselage re-scribings for the revised engine trunnions etc. Also the Hasegawa kit should need the fuselage top intake/vent panel sanding/removing so that you have just a vent forward of the dorsal fin extension. I can't recall if the 'Frecce' kit has the TACAN cooling duct forward of the RH speed brake (it shouldn't) but either way it shouldn't be there.

 

Then finally a lot of those target tugs had the aft fuselage tow reel fairing added.

 

FSI had a few Sabres with nose booms including N186F (early corporate scheme) and the two QF-86Es used in the Mill Race explosive effects tests.

 

I reviewed the threads offered and it left a few questions with the wing on N89FS and N86FS.  Would both of these have the 6-3 hard wing as seen in the photos? 

 

I don’t see any evidence of slats drooping.   Is N86FS an Ex RCAF bird or German???

Edited January 9 by BWDenver

[ReccePhreak]

On 6/25/2024 at 4:59 PM, Sabrejet said:

 

I do have some: the Ashtray aircraft had two cameras, one shooting near-enough horizontally through the nose and the other mounted laterally and shooting through a mirror in the bottom of the fuselage. In many ways this installation is more interesting than the Haymaker aircraft.

Is Clear Prop planning on doing any of the RF-86A versions?

Or will I have to hope that someone will release conversion sets for those Recce versions?

Larry

Edited January 9 by ReccePhreak

[BWDenver]

1 hour ago, ReccePhreak said:

Is Clear Prop planning on doing any of the RF-86A versions?

Or will I have to hope that someone will release conversion sets for those Recce versions?

Larry

"Tactical Reconnaissance in the Cold War" has a couple of pictures of the RF-86A's.  One shot of the nose camera, the other of the blister on the rt side of the fuselage from the side.  It looks like it would be similar RF-86F birds, but only the one camera port.  Book is more on the people and Squadrons and not much on the hardware.

[jonbryon]

17 hours ago, dai phan said:

 I find the reasoning hard to accept because if the seam lines end on the panel lines simple swipe or two with sponge sandpaper will be just fine. 

 

 

 

Lots of modellers think they can do this and it will be fine. The reality is often very different. Getting a joint on a seam line to look invisible close up is extremely difficult (to the point where I've almost never seen it done to my satisfaction). Eliminating a seam is *much* easier than making it look like moulded recessed detail.

 

Jon

[Sabrejet]

6 hours ago, BWDenver said:

 

I reviewed the threads offered and it left a few questions with the wing on N89FS and N86FS.  Would both of these have the 6-3 hard wing as seen in the photos? 

 

I don’t see any evidence of slats drooping.   Is N86FS an Ex RCAF bird or German???

Yes 6-3 wing in both photos. N86FS was an ex-RCAF bird.

[Sabrejet]

5 hours ago, ReccePhreak said:

Is Clear Prop planning on doing any of the RF-86A versions?

Or will I have to hope that someone will release conversion sets for those Recce versions?

Larry

I can't speak for future releases, but I don't think so. Bear in mind that there were only six Ashtray RF-86As plus one 'proof-of-concept' aircraft and you can see it's probably a bit niche.

 

However I do hope that the aftermarket will come to the rescue here: the RF-86A 'Ashtray' camera fairings were a great deal different from the later RF-86F-30 'Haymaker' versions both in shape and placement. Then of course it would also be possible to do an RF-86F 'Ashtray' aircraft conversion (five converted).

[dai phan]

10 hours ago, jonbryon said:

 

Lots of modellers think they can do this and it will be fine. The reality is often very different. Getting a joint on a seam line to look invisible close up is extremely difficult (to the point where I've almost never seen it done to my satisfaction). Eliminating a seam is *much* easier than making it look like moulded recessed detail.

 

Jon

Tamiya places seam lines on the panel lines and you cannot tell which is which? The fit of the CP panels fit like Tamiya so CP can easily do what Tamiya does. If CP place the seam lines away from the panel lines with the reason you mentioned, then place them far away rather than 1 mm from the panel lines. For expert modeler like you, a 1 mm or a mile does not make a difference. But for an average modeler like me at best, it is very difficult to fill the seam lines without wiping away the panel lines and rivets. As such I had to re-scribe and re-placed rivets. Some were too hard so I left alone. Interestingly on the 72 scale version, the gun panels rests on the panel lines. Dai 

Edited January 9 by dai phan

[dai phan]

Greetings,

 

I am thinking of doing this unique scheme as I have 2 extra kits. This is an A but it had wider chord and no slats. The Air Force destroyed the original wing spar so it cannot be flown again,. Therefore this A does not have the original slatted wings as on the CP kit. I wonder if I can graft the Hasegawa/Academy  F-30 wing onto this to produce an accurate model?  It seems that will work assuming the graft is done correctly. Because the F-30 has wider chord and no slats. Thank you for your expert replies. Happy New Year everyone... Dai 

 

From Draw Decal:

 

Description

In the late 1960s Ben Hall found the remains of an F-86A in a reclamation yard in Fresno CA. After purchasing it he trucked it to Paine Field, North of Seattle, WA and started a very long and involved rebuild to flying status. Finding parts that would pass muster by the FAA was a long and difficult task. The Air Force cut the spars on the wings to prevent them ever being used again, so replacement wings were high on the list. The original wings were short chord wings with slats. The replacement wings came from a later version and were wider chord without slats.

First flight occurred in late 1973, and the airplane has changed ownership and home base several times over the years. The markings show it as flown at the 1988 Reno Air races. It did not participate in the races but was a demonstration participant only.

 

Edited January 9 by dai phan

[Sabrejet]

It's an F-86A with narrow-chord wing, slats bolted shut and a wing fence. Hence a unique configuration. All you need to do is add the fence to the CP kit. The aircraft is still airworthy, and still flying. 

[dai phan]

1 hour ago, Sabrejet said:

It's an F-86A with narrow-chord wing, slats bolted shut and a wing fence. Hence a unique configuration. All you need to do is add the fence to the CP kit. The aircraft is still airworthy, and still flying. 

In that case, install the slats onto the wings instead of the slat bases then add fences. Simple enough but the description on Draw site says it is a wider chord wings? I am not doubting you as you are an expert but I wanted to make double sure. Thank you Duncan. Dai 

[dai phan]

1 hour ago, Sabrejet said:

It's an F-86A with narrow-chord wing, slats bolted shut and a wing fence. Hence a unique configuration. All you need to do is add the fence to the CP kit. The aircraft is still airworthy, and still flying. 

I could only find these 2 photos on the Net. Dai 

 

 

Edited January 9 by dai phan