Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sabrejet

  1. Ah - you mean Phantom FG.1 or F-4K Mk. FG.1 then.
  2. Tamiya does an F4U-1 which IIRC is close enough to an FG-1D.
  3. Nice rundown: thanks. We still need a decent BUFF book!
  4. Kitty Hawk already does a Harvard; probably due for re-release under new ownership.
  5. That's my old website! Glad it's still of use.
  6. This is the same aircraft while Penhall had it: note the hard-edge Sabre 5 wing. It also carried this scheme when it gained the F-40 wing.
  7. It's a Sabre 5 with F-40 wings; a non uncommon conversion done for the 1970s civilian market. In this case the conversion was by Leroy Penhall, who did a few Sabre 5/6 with F-40 wings. You could always model a civilian bird based on this configuration of course!
  8. Sabre 6 doesn't have the extended-span wing.
  9. The Hasegawa kit is good shape-wise but is the extended-span F-86F-40 so you'll need to shorten the span (Sabre 6); shorten the span, fill the slats and add a wing fence (Sabre 5/hard-edge Sabre 4) or reduce the chord and shorten the span (early Sabre 4). If you want to do a Sabre 2 then it will be something of a challenge with a revised windshield plus the other bits. The kit is also a bit clunky in terms of detail. Also note that the landing gears are modelled in the 'weight-off-wheels' configuration so unless you shorten the oleos it will look clunky. The Hasegawa Sabre also comes with the forced-ejection drop tanks (not applicable to the Canadair Sabres), as well as a set of 120-gallon tanks which are Ok but you need the later 200-gallon finned tanks if you want to do a Sabre 5 or 6. Whichever kit you choose, you'll need to modify, with the main items to look for the mid-fuselage vents (same as F-86A/E), 'sugar scoop' intakes on the aft lower fuselage (later Sabre 5 and Sabre 6) and flush fuselage top with dorsal vent in place of the raised intake/vent panel unique to the F-86F. There are a few extra vents in the aft fuselage for the Orenda-engined Sabres, but generally these are round orifices so no great difficulty. Canadair Sabres wore NMF in Canadian service up to and including the Sabre 5, with Europe-based models being camouflaged in-theatre. Sabre 6s were camouflaged during build. However you could do NMF RCAF schemes for Sabre 2 (plus Greece and Turkey); Sabre 4 (plus RAF), Sabre 5 and Luftwaffe and SAAF Sabre 6, plus the QF-86E drone Sabre 5s were NMF too. Best book: Larry Milberry's Canadair Sabre book for CANAV.
  10. Very few 'missing' if you count types which haven't been kitted at all in 1/32. But for a start, Martinsyde Elephant; Bristol Scout; DH.6; BE.12. Anything preceded by, "A new-tool...", "Recent..." or containing the word "recessed" doesn't count.
  11. Shame: this sounded interesting. However I'd imagine a conversion won't be long coming.
  12. Pretty sure this is more of a kids' toy than a scale model kit but it might be a nice blank canvas. Similar kits (Bf.109, Me 262 etc) have looked very clunky.
  13. With a (related?) A-20 Havoc by HPH and Saab Draken (JETMADS) both on the cards, I find those two by Infinity a bit strange. I'd always go for resin over plastic so my choice would be HPH and JETMADS for those two.
  14. Missed this one too: thanks for posting
  15. Back in the day (seems not that long ago) you couldn't go through Lincolnshire without being buzzed by a Lightning or a Vulcan. Golden era for sure.
  16. F.6 for me always. Mind you every Lightning is something special.
  17. Late to the party (as ever), but regarding the original Sabre seat. Early in 1946 the US Army Air Force decided to pursue an agreement with NAA to change from a standard AMC-specified ejection seat to a purpose-built item designed by the manufacturer. On 21 March, WH Kuntz, the AMC Representative at Inglewood, was requested to investigate if NAA had in fact reached any tentative agreement to comply. The change was subsequently approved, and the technical response made via two MCR’s (Master Change Requests) – P-2-1 and P-2-2 – to firstly cancel the initial request for the proprietary "Seat – Ejectable Type", and to move towards the content of MCR P-2-2, dated 19 April 1946 for, "Seat – Design and Installation of Contractor-Furnished". The content of the latter MCR noted that, "AMC has decided that it would be advantageous for each manufacturer to design an ejectable seat to suit the particular airplane design; therefore, the ejectable seat is to be Contractor-designed and furnished in lieu of a standardized, Government design seat". However it is worth noting that NAA was, at around this time, directed to consult documents relating to the German Fw.190 canopy jettison system. So some aspects of the XP-86 were undoubtedly influenced by German data, but less so with the ejection seat.
  18. A YouTube opinion isn't a reference. I'm asking for proof, not someone else's opinion. And minor kit gripes do not a bad kit make. I'm not sure why you'd have such a downer on KH when in fact they've done a pretty good job in my book. Meanwhile Trumpeter is still in business...
  19. Which 'fact' are you referring to? A reference will be fine: I can Google it. Meanwhile KH produced some really nice kits (both FJ Furys in 1/48 and the F-86D family in 1/32). Not sure what was 'unacceptable' about any of those, so maybe again you can explain where this is all stated.
  20. Awesome, inspired choice. One for me too. Shame it's not resin but it will do
  21. I'd agree but wonder how HPH etc can pack so much into similar prices...
  22. They do look nice, but they are VERY expensive for what is basically a 'curbside' kit.
  23. A while back one of the UK IPMS shows included a beautiful monochrome WW1 diorama which included an observation balloon. It was awesome - wonder if anyone has photos of it?
  • Create New...