F-100C & F box art at Nuremburg

[thierry laurent]

As I wrote: Wait and see. We could hope the time to release other variants is the result of the time allocated to get it right...  We can still hope even if this has not really been their policy up to now. Regarding the D I do not think anyone wrote it was not buildable or did not look like a Supersabre. However, it is everything but not an accurate replica for sure! 

[ericg]

I am building the D at the moment. Using the tweak list as a guide, I am fixing most of the issues with very minimal effort. 

 

Don’t people want to use model building skills anymore?

 

 

[Out2gtcha]

Agreed, each to their own when it comes to desirable characteristics in a new model.  If changing and remedying things wrong with a kit is fun or desirable for some, then there is no reason that kits like that shouldn't be at the top of their list if they like the airframe. 

 

Personally,

I enjoy making and fixing/scratching some things, and love painting, weathering and modifying things, but honestly I get very little precious bench time as it is.............and having to fix things wrong with a kit that I generally might not even notice or care about is just not something I enjoy regardless of any skills used. Its just plain and simply not fun to me.

AAMOF, it really saps my MoJo, and if I get a kit that requires a LOT of modification, such as my F7F, it can take the wind right out of my sails to the point where I put the kit down......and there is NO airframe I love more than the Tigercat. 

 

Bottom line is, there isn't a wrong way to build kits. We each have our own definition of modeling "fun", and as demonstrated by such threads as the "perfect kit" type threads, there are nearly as many different answers generated as users who made them. 

[LSP_K2]

I can still readily recall the happy days of my youth, slamming together whatever junk kit there were at the time, Hawk, Airfix, Aurora, Lindberg, etc., really not knowing (or caring) how inaccurate they may have been, and having just tons of fun doing it. Granted, some things have now changed since I've gotten older, but I still don't tend to obsess over the accuracy stuff too much, unless it's so whacked out that I just can't avoid it.

[Darren Howie]

I think everyone grew up building kits with far larger problems than the Trumpeter F-100.

Times change peoples tolerance for issues change.

I used to obsess over errors buying tons if resin which made kits overly complex to build for very limited gain except my obsessed desire for accuracy.

Guess what the number of kits finished plummeted and enjoyment degraded sweating issues only i worried about.

These days a resin seat and some burners are generally enough...kits finished escalated, enjoyment returned.

So bring on the F-100F and some stuff to do a Wild Weasel 1...and a gloriously shiny F-100C.

 

 

[Out2gtcha]

I also guess I should state on my opinion, I would definitely get an F model or C if I found an attractive scheme. 

I dont mind adding resin or modding a bit. 

[Finn]

I suppose if a kit came out with a slightly out of shape canopy there would complaints it would never be seen in real life:

 

Jari

 

[Chek]

One of my related side interests is trying to collect photos of every serial numbered plane of a type. I've only started on the F-100D series, so my F-100C folder is as full as it's likely to get for the moment. I revisit folders every year or two to see if any gaps can be plugged by new pictures becoming available. It's surprising how much new stuff can turn up, although aircraft that crash early in their careers are almost always a lost cause.

 

From the F-100D builds I've seen, it appears the deficiencies aren't totally insurmountable, but despite the Vietnam schemes I wasn't that attracted. However, the announcement of a big F-100C model piques my interest. The straight tapered wing is very representative of a 50s jet, and as someone alluded to earlier, there are a bunch of colourful schemes all on a natural metal finish while some did indeed last into the SEA scheme era. 

 

There are possibilities for Turkish Air Force, Thunderbirds and Skyblazer teams, and even phoney Russian AF colours from the 70s movie skyjacked. I'll probably choose a  479th or 36th TFW example whose component squadrons could have red, blue, yellow or green nose and tail bands with some having waist bands as well such as F-100C 54-2109 of the 434th Fighter Day Sqn, 479th TFW below.

 

 

Although it would seem likely that new wing and fin sprues will be the route taken, it'd be interesting to see if the nose intake gets revised or if the Zacto correction will still be necessary.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Chek
photo URL

[norbert]

1/32 yak 28 or tippo ?

[thierry laurent]

57 minutes ago, norbert said:

1/32 yak 28 or tippo ?

If the Leopard box behind it is the standard Hobby Boss one, the kit cannot be a 1/32 one. 

[thierry laurent]

6 hours ago, Darren Howie said:

I think everyone grew up building kits with far larger problems than the Trumpeter F-100.

Times change peoples tolerance for issues change.

You are fully right but do not forget that the price is also quite different! Each of the Airfix series 1 kits costed me less than 1 euro of the seventies whereas the recent Pave Hawk, Mirage 2000 or Toryu costed me more than 100 times more! I know this is like comparing a Lada with a Jaguar but my expectations would be quite different for both cars either ! 

[Tony T]

3 hours ago, norbert said:

1/32 yak 28 or tippo ?

 

Tippo unfortunately, but I've been buying a lot of 1/48 Cold War jet subjects "on the side" and they fill an important gap. However, I bought the Bobcat Yak Firebar and have yet to get a Brewer — wonder which firm's is better?

 

On the big F Hun, the tanks might need stretching and the inlet lip replaced (AMS, Zacto), and I doubt that it comes with the Deuce AB mod (Master Details do one and it's nice) but as long as the canopy hood looks like a two seater it's a goer. The other stuff I can live with. I loved the way these aircraft were so beaten up in ANG service in the mid-late 1970s. 

 

Tony 

[vince14]

14 hours ago, Out2gtcha said:

.............and having to fix things wrong with a kit that I generally might not even notice or care about is just not something I enjoy regardless of any skills used. Its just plain and simply not fun to me.

So if you generally might not notice or care about the issues, why waste time fixing them?

[Out2gtcha]

16 hours ago, vince14 said:

So if you generally might not notice or care about the issues, why waste time fixing them?

 

That was exactly my point. A lot of fixes and tweaks for kits like the F-100 that involve non accurate parts of the airframe or to some make the model a waste of time, seem to be things like removal or additions of panel lines, removal or additions of scoops, incorrect airfoil, should have been squared instead of rounded, should be rounded instead of squared, wrong profile, not deep enough, too deep, wrong version  ect, ect.

 

I dont mind adding resin chunks to a model and fairing them in, but all the little minutiae problems that some seem to deem as an issue, or "needs correcting" really add up for me, and in the end its not something on my model that I really worry or care that much about.

That is not to say thats the only way to build, because I do mostly like being accurate, its just that when it comes to bench time we all have certain ways we like to spend it, and just me personally, I would not consider a kit bad, unbuildable, in need of correction or not worth buying because of issues like the above.  That is strictly my opinion, and I know a lot of fine model builders who only enjoy that kind of work. Each to their own, that is what makes this hobby so cool.

 

I should also add that just because I may not do or like all the things in a tweak list doesn't mean I don't think they have value. I think deep dives into any model can be  very valuable in a lot of different ways.

[Finn]

Here is a F-100F:

 

 

Jari