Jump to content

f8fanatic

LSP_Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I do believe this is the one you're looking for: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/aircrafts-2-3/tbd/tbd-1a-devastator-buno-0268-1939-2/ Here's a link to a good number of color photos of a model of same: https://www.modelaces.com/douglas-tbd-1a-devastator-floatplane/ A typical scene would show the plane near the beach in the water with crew members, and you could do that without specific buildings or other structures needed.
  2. Hiya, Looked it up on Joe Baugher's great site. It started life as an F-4E-42-MC. Assigned units as follows: 4th TFW, years unknown 57th FWW, years unknown 1979, transferred to 70th TFS, 347th TFW Then to 35th TFW, years unknown It was modified to F-4G standard, and then was sent to the 563rd TFTS (37th TFW) in 1987. In 1994, it was with 190th TFS, 124th TFW Idaho National Guard at Boise Airport. In April 1996, it was assigned ID FP1048 and sent to the boneyard in AZ. It was later converted to QF-4 drone and was shot down in a missile test over the Gulf of Mexico on May 13, 1998. This link shows the paint scheme worn by Wild Weasel F-4Gs while with the 563rd TFTS around the time this plane was there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/563rd_Flying_Training_Squadron#/media/File:F-4g-george-1989.jpg
  3. Looking closely, it does have the LERX's on it, the earlier wing's forward-most point where it joins the side of the air intake is further back. But it doesnt have the newer nose on it. This aircraft is 75-0609, and ended up in Yemen, where the remaining Tigers are now owned by the Iran backed Houthi rebels. I'm not sure if 0609 is still flying or not. I've put a link to a 3 view plan of the -E with the LERXs and original pointed nose. Notice the point where the leading edge meets the side of the intake--forward of the bulge on the side there. It's the same as the photo above. The earlier wing leading edge attaches noticeably further aft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5#/media/File:Northrop_F-5E_Tiger_II_3-view.svg
  4. I do not see a price listed there, it just says "promotion" and there's an option where they can notify you when it's available. How much did you pay for itr?
  5. There's another side to this discussion....Back in the 80s/90s, you could find kits at respectable prices. Back then, I knew that when I spent some money on a kit, the price left room for errors to be present. it simply was what it was, and that was that. Today, one of the reasons why we expect more is because they expect us to pay more--a LOT more--for these kits. In the other thread, someone posted a link to this brand new kit on ebay....for over $460. Why on earth should any of us expect to pay that kind of money for a kit that then requires us to go out and spend more $$$ to correct such big errors? There has to be an expectation of value, not just "hey, it's new and it's big so pony up".
  6. The USAF birds did retain the wing fold....I know of only one instance where it was used in USAF service, and it was done as a kind of thumbing their nose at the higher-ups. Richard Drury was a Spad pilot in Vietnam. He wrote a book about his tour. When he had flown his last mission, he folded the wings upon landing. They were still functional but not used by the USAF. Also, most if not all of the Skyraiders being flown by USAF in Vietnam were kept outside, so they were not inside a hangar very often, if ever.
  7. I might be too late for this project, but some info regarding the interior zinc chromate. During WWII, there were many companies and many factories sourcing components for aircraft. It was quite common for these to have slight variations in the colors. I recall reading an article on an A-6 Texan restoration not too many years ago, where "new old stock" components were sourced from some different places, and none of them had the same zinc chromate color on them. Some were more green, some more yellow, some more faded, etc etc. While I believe, and it would make sense, that the entire interior area would be painted during assembly, these planes were treated in a very harsh utilitarian way during their service. If a component in that cockpit needed to be changed, chances were at least fairly good that the replacement component might have a bit of a different color to it than the one it replaced. Just food for thought, depending on the look you are going for.
  8. You must be referring to an RF-8G from VFP-63....they did this every so often. Here's a shot of one from the Coral Sea in 1973.
  9. wow.....that's a great shot! You could, but this was the exception rather than the rule. not as common, but would make for a unique model...
  10. absolutely amazing and spot-on for your weathering.....just WOW!!
  11. Some of the changes were aircraft-specific, so to be certain, you should research the specific plane you wish to model. All RF-8Gs got an uprated engine, but externally there were no visual differences from that. 144 RF-8As were built, 73 of these were converted to RF-8Gs. RF-8 changes were different than the changes to the F-8 fighter models. For example, it was standard from the F-8C onward to include the afterburner cooling scoops on either side of the vertical tail. RF-8s were different, there were many RF-8Gs that did not get these scoops installed. the fighter conversions were a lot more standardized. The ventral fins is one common change....this was visually the biggest and most common change between the -A and -G. The vertical tail also had either no antenna installed or one of three different variants installed depending on the plane. Some specific planes actually had different antennas in this place over time. Here are some examples of this: http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/812/pics/3_98.png this one has just a small bump on the trailing edge of the vertical tail http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/812/pics/3_98_b1.png this one has the same as the first, but includes the larger fairing on the leading edge as well http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/MM/MM-250/1028-11-2-1.jpg this one has a longer antenna than the others It was still possible, though rarer than the above options, to have none of those antennas at all installed on RF-8Gs. The RF-8A typically had no such antenna on the tail. As far as the camera placements, the camera bays on the RF-8G as far as I can recall had no changes compared to the RF-8As....they were able to be changed so that different cameras could be carried. Again, researching the specific plane you wish to model will be helpful here, because not all RF-8s flew with the same camera/window arrangement all the time. There should be no other visual differences. The -G models did not get any of the "final" changes like BLC or the double droop leading edge like the F-8J got, so the regular kit parts will work fine for those. EDIT--reread your original post. The stabs were the small stabs, and were the same on both models. The seat changed from the lightweight Vought model to the MB seat early on, but two different MB seats were used in the Crusaders. First was the Mk. 5, which was swapped for the later Mk. 7. The two MB seats looked the same with the exception of the rocket pack at the bottom. The Mk. 7 had zero zero capability while the Mk 5 did not. Hope this helps.
  12. This article might shed some light on the issue: https://www.defensetech.org/2017/09/11/retired-still-flying-f-117-nighthawk-may-soon-fade-black/ It would appear that several have been seen flying in recent years, but the USAF is removing 4 of them from storage each year, starting this year, for demolition. I suspect, much like in many other situations, that the USAF retired these because it had something else to replace it with. Ask yourself why the U-2 still flies missions today, even though it is now a 60 year old design. It's still flying because there's no replacement for it that's yet in service. The plan is to use the RQ-4 Global Hawk to replace the U-2, but that plan is behind schedule and there's a question of potential capability gap. Some feel that the RQ-4 cannot do the job as well. The F-35 claim is not a valid argument for this one, though, IMO. F-35 is meant to be a tactical weapons system--multi-role, and despite its small size, it can still carry more weapons than an F-117 can. Nighthawk can carry exactly two bombs. That's it. No defensive weaponry. No room for expansion. The F-35 has the ability to carry external weapons on 4 wing stations plus two additional stations near the wingtips, in addition to the 4 weapons it can carry internally. The 117 was a strategic weapons system, designed for one thing and one thing only---to penetrate air defenses unseen and delivery "first night" strikes to critical targets. F-35 cannot be compared to the 117 for so many reasons. Technology for one....multi-role ability for another. The 117 was designed to be used in a very specific way--and no other way. Missions were planned so that the aircraft would arrive at a specific point in the airspace at an exact time, down to the second. The mission planning was as much a reason for the success of the plane as the technology used in it. When one was shot down, it was that precise planing that allowed this to happen....planners got comfortable flying the exact same route at a specific time, and the enemy learned the pattern. F-117 did not allow any real mission flexibility. Aircraft had to even retract a comms antenna when flying an operational mission to protect RCS. So radio silence was key. Once that antenna was retracted, the pilot was on his own and required to stick to the plan. F-35 is so filled with technology not even dreamed of when the 117 was designed that its abilities at intelligence gathering and information sharing might turn out to be its greatest contribution. If I had to guess, I'd say that the $$$ being used for the 117 program was thought to be of better use for new programs like the 35. Add in the B-2's abilities, and the fact that we now even see B-1B's and B-52s using such things as Sniper pods, and you can see why the 117 has sort of become all dressed up for the ball, but without a date. F-35 can carry up to 6,000 pounds of bombs on external racks, plus some bombs internally, and still carry up to 4 A2A missiles at the same time as those 6,000 pounds of bombs..... Let's also not forget that the 117 was designed with old stealth technology. The B-2 for example is far more capable in this arena.
  13. There are some that, by bureau number, I can say they still exist. That does not mean that they still have the wood structures....it's possible that along the way, they were rebuilt to have the standard aluminum alloy structures. One example is N694US, an SNJ-4 that has a current registration and is valid until 2020. It's Bu. No. is 51360. There are others, and this is a list you can check to see which ones might still be flying, or maybe on static display. http://www.warbirdregistry.org/texanregistry/texanregistry.html#SNJ-4
  14. I can think of two reasons for this. First, USMC F-4s were more likely to carry the centerline gun pod than USN jets, which would leave only two options----wing tanks, or a lot more aerial refueling. Second, the primary job for a Navy F-4 would have been as an air to air interceptor--even if bombs were carried, the Navy F-4s were still loaded for, and expected to tangle with, the MiGs....the primary job of USMC pilots is to provide cover to the Marines on the ground. Everything else is secondary for the USMC pilots. Marine pilots flying CAS missions could have to loiter in the target area for a longer period of time. By comparison, USN Phantoms that flew, for example, MiGcap missions for the strike packages off the carriers, they would fly in, escort the bombers. Bombers would drop their bombs on their assigned targets and then get outta dodge. There was no need to loiter, and often no need for the bombers to make multiple passes....drop and go. If you look at the 4 links Finn posted above, the last one is a USMC bird. Notice that it carries cluster bombs on the inner stations and bombs on the outer stations....but no Sidewinders at all. USN birds usually did not fly combat missions without sidewinders on the inner station, above the cluster bombs in that pic. During the entire Vietnam war, at least 63 USN aircraft were credited with either shooting down or sharing in the credit for shooting down enemy aircraft....by comparison, I found exactly one USMC MiG kill,an F-4 Phantom from VMFA-333 in 1972. Regarding the outside pylons, a search turns up as many photos without them installed as with. For this one, I would check the specific a/c you're looking to model. See if you can find one photo from the time period, and go with it. That's what I would do. Since the pylon was easily removable, and there are plenty of photos that show F-4s both ways, it's really a toss-up.
  15. Outer pylons would often be left off if not loaded with ordnance. It also depends on the variant and the mission. Example, the outer pylons on Navy F-4s were commonly used to haul bombs on MERs. So, if you're building an F-4 that was flying MigCap, chances are good that the outer pylons would be left off, or at the least, empty. But a Phantom that's on an air-to-mud mission would commonly be loaded up with Rockeyes, Mk. 82's, etc. and would be more likely to have stations 1 and 9 installed and loaded up. The most common way I have ever seen the outer stations used is with MERs. Keep in mind that when Duke Cunningham and Willie Driscoll became aces, they were flying an aircraft that carried a centerline tank, a combination of Mk. 20 Rockeyes and Sidewinders(on TERs) on stations 2 and 8, and no pylons on 1 and 9 if I recall right. You are correct that USN/USMC Phantoms did not often carry wing tanks for combat sorties. Remember too, an awful lot of this depends on the specific aircraft you are modeling. Some squadrons might use different practices than others. Of course, the mission matters. You would also see rocket pods, I believe more commonly on a USMC bird, and Snakeyes too. I've always seen rocket pods on 2 and 8 when they were loaded. Then, you also might see a centerline mounted gun pod too, since the early Phantoms(and all Navy birds) had no internal cannon. Sometimes, on 2 and 8, USMC birds would have TERs installed with a couple canisters of napalm each. If you're building one that was on air-ground mission, you could always use the MER on the outside stations and leave it empty. That's how it would have looked coming back from a mission anyways.
×
×
  • Create New...