Sabrejet

Due to be announced officially at Mosonshow today: latest F-86 variant from Clear Prop! - the F-86E-1/5 in 1/48. This should keep folks happy for a while! https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235153679-clear-prop-f-86e-in-148/#comment-5212665

Similar here: I've made many, many visits to Kew and used my discoveries in websites and books. I find it very satisfying and it's a shame that a lot of people don't really understand what proper research is. When my first book was published, I showed it to a work colleague who asked if I'd just copied it all out of other books (!). Mind you I'm sure there are those that do. On the subject of "those who were there", I fully agree; I use primary-source documents to build a framework and then use the people to add context and colour. I've often found their recollections to be at odds with reality, but that is understandable since I was dealing with memories which were up to 50 years old at the time. However I still try to make sure that the 'official' accounts are not incorrect in themselves. Sadly most of those folks are no longer with us. Bringing the Anson analogy up to date, I used to work on SAR Wessex helicopters and someone asked recently what colour the cabin waterproof "wet fit" lining was. I looked at it every day for three years in the 1980s and couldn't remember if it was grey or green. Or pale blue maybe. Maybe I'll Google it...

What you have to bear in mind is that some information is not recorded anywhere on the internet. As a simplistic example, my favourite colour. My wife knows it, and my kids could probably guess. But no-one else does, and I've never written it down anywhere. But if I ask a well-known search engine, the AI answer I get is "red" (it isn't). So there you have it. The maxim here is, "Everything is not on the internet". And RESEARCH is not "I Googled it". Research is visiting archives, studying primary sources and speaking to people who were there and did it. AI can never replace proper research, because the internet will never contain everything. And I'm not going to tell you what my favourite colour is, but it certainly isn't red!

@LSP_Mike: check photo references. Early Thunderjets featured a plain speed brake panel with four rectangular holes. This panel was used into, and including early F-84Gs. The 'perforated' panel with multiple circular holes was introduced during F-84G production but many early-service F-84Gs still had the 'old' speed brake with the rectangular holes. So 'correct'/'incorrect' depends on the period of the aircraft you are modelling. In summary, I don't think the 'multiple-hole' speed brake panel was ever retro-fitted to F-84Es, but the version that HobbyBoss includes in its F-84G kit is accurate for some F-84Gs. For example: 51-1065, an F-84G-5 of the Skyblazers aerobatic team:

Well if it hit you'd probably swear, "That hit my noggin pretty canard".

That's not the USAAF machine: '563 was post-war.

On the subject of OA-12s, does anyone have photos of the single USAAF OA-12 used in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia? Seems like it might make an interesting subject (and would fit with Lukgraph's kit).

Looking at the J2F-6 it seems doubtful. More likely I'd imagine that they'd go for a 1/48 -5.

Incidentally the J2F-6 canopy also appears to be taller: I read elsewhere here that headroom was tight. One modern-day J2F warbird has a T-6 greenhouse installed for a similar result, though it does look weird. EDIT: this one - weird!!!

The red stripe in the star and bar IIRC dates from 1947. I'd noticed the differences aft of the cowling but wondered what the engine differences were to dictate the longer cowl? Accessories I guess.

Looking at photos of the -5 and -6, I can see that the -5 has a carb intake at the top/aft end while the -6 does not. The -6 also has a longer cowling. Can anyone advise on a suitable donor? Or explain the reason for the change?

This looks awesome; I have a few Lukgraph kits and I'd put them right at the top of the pile in terms of quality. Just thinking about how easy it would be to do a USAF OA-12 (J2F-6) from the -5 kit? I assume I'd need a new/modified cowling but is there anything else?

The Aviation News plans are not very accurate: avoid! In my experience, the Koku Fan and Model Art book plans are most detailed and reliable for all marks; Model Art did plans for the day fighters (including RF-86A, RF-86F etc) and Koku Fan has covered most of the day fighters plus F-86D/K/L. What is missing amongst all these are decent plans of CAC Sabre, F-86H and the FJ Fury series.

Not convinced that the TF canopy is raised enough at the rear; that feature is a big tell-tale of the TEMCO 2-seaters.

Revell's F-86D has long been a source of slatted wings in 1/48. Until now it was all there was aside from aftermarket.

The slat sections drop in really nicely: someone asked if there would be a 'step' (there's minimal step on the real aircraft): well there isn't!

The intake trunking itself should always be natural metal, even on the very early aircraft. The intake ring (the forward extremity/nose section) can be either pale grey (early aircraft) or dark reddish brown. Records exist showing various coatings (neoprene etc) but these either were overpainted in pale grey or did not affect the overall colour.

Sorry for the interruption: I'll let you get on with yours now!

Incidentally, in the 'draft' instructions, the LH console parts (Step 2) should be G21, G22 and G29 (not G28); G28 is the hand pump, located on the RH side of the tub in Step 5. Part G23 is the intake-mounted pitot probe (Step 10). Hopefully all will be correct in the final version

Mine's coming along too: the seat is a gem! I'm also making some ferry tanks to replace the 120-gallon versions in the kit: this is another "F-86A-only" item. Mine will be done in 56th FGp markings.

No news since May: has anyone heard more? I've dropped JETMADS an email but am still waiting for a reply.

Maybe this time we could restrict replies to a first in-box review instead of gazillions of "mine's shipped" and "mines in transit" and "mine's at my local hub" and "mine's arrived" and "my X-3 turned out to be a hair drier" replies?

It's a shame that people would see these awesome kits as just an opportunity to make a very slow buck. I'm glad to see that they are being built!

You forgot Halberd. If you stick to WW2 then you are missing real 'Tier One' kits like Silver Wings, Lukgraph, WnW (as was), JETMADS and many more. Accuracy: not sure Tamiya scores over many other manufacturers, especially since I've heard that Tamiya 'tweaks' its moulds so that a subject looks right rather than being 100% true to life. Detail: I've yet to see a styrene kit that exhibits the detail that is possible in resin. Ease of build? Possibly, but I don't buy kits because they're easy to build: often the opposite. So 'Tier One'? Not for me. But the subject of the thread isn't about whingeing that [my favourite manufacturer] hasn't been used in this conversion set. Or shouldn't be.

Another advert pretending to be a post. Amazing surface detail, spot-on accuracy etc are available on many other manufacturers' kits. And many of those are more of a pleasure to build. It's subjective. I can't stand Tamiya kits. They bore me to death. Having no resin parts doesn't help. But that's Me. My view.