1/48 Tamiya F-14A VF-84 Jolly Rogers

[jenshb]

The outside of the canopy has a mould seam  from the slides in the tool to enable the correct omega-shape of the canopy.  This runs the entire length of the canopy and needs to be removed.  The lightning arrestors are moulded on the inside of the canopy and will be safe.

 

The only way to tell which mid-breech panel (or gun gas vents if you like) is having a photo of the real thing.  From what I can recall, they were interchangeable, so technically, an airframe that came off the assembly line with the style included in the Tamiya kit, could at some stage have the 7-hole mid breech panel  at the stage you wish to model it...  According to the Warplane Classics/World Air Power Journal book on the F-14, the seven-hole panel was used up to Block 80 airframes (BuNos 159430-159468).  160386 was a Block 95 (Bu Nos 160379-160414) aircraft, so in the absence of pictorial evidence, I'd say it would be as portrayed by Tamiya in that respect.

[A-10LOADER]

12 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

That’s looking great!  As I said before, I’m amazed nobody has ever done any wheel wells in 3D printing, with all the lines in place already.  Seems like a no-brainer to me, and the Tamiya F-14 would be a great first project.

 

Can anyone tell me if 160386 would have had the kit’s style of gun gas vents?  I picked up some of the “early” style ones from Quicboost, but I’m not sure what “early” means.

The timeframe your modelling will have a lot to do with what style gun vent you'll use along with the BUNO. Tomcats went thru a lot of mods over the years. 160386 is a Block 95 jet ( fiscal year 1976 ). So, to answer your question, the kits door is correct for that time period and BUNO.

"Early" style gun vents ( 7 vent style ) were on the early fleet jets which include VF-1, VF-2 and, other early jets. However, the early style gun vent was installed up to BUNO. 159611. Somewhere between 159612 and 159615 this was switched to the 2 hole style gun vent.

As stated above, finding photos of the jet you want to build is important for accuracy.

Steve

 

"TOMCATS FOREVER, BABY...!"

Edited June 15, 2021 by A-10LOADER

[Thunnus]

7 hours ago, jenshb said:

The outside of the canopy has a mould seam  from the slides in the tool to enable the correct omega-shape of the canopy.  This runs the entire length of the canopy and needs to be removed.  The lightning arrestors are moulded on the inside of the canopy and will be safe.

 

 

Thank you!  This is exactly what I verified yesterday.  I was puzzled to see both the mold line AND the lightning arrestors until I used my fingernail to discern the arrestors on the INSIDE of the canopy.  Tamiya engineering comes through again!

[A-10LOADER]

3 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

So 160322 and 160386 as delivered probably looked like the Tamiya kit parts then, right??

 BUNO's 160299 - 160328 were part of the first batch of 30 airframes for Iran so, I would say yes.

Yes as well for 160386.

Steve

 

"TOMCATS FOREVER, BABY...!"

[Thunnus]

Getting my mind wrapped around the wheel well situation has left me wanting some mental relief so I took a break from that troublesome area to cobble together some ordnance.  All of the missiles and drop tanks are comprised of multiple parts, so I wanted to assemble them and see how they look.

Each short range AIM-9G Sidewinder missiles are comprised of five parts.  Curiously, Tamiya chose to break the missile body in two.  However, the positive fit of the pieces ensures you get a straight missile.

 

 

The mid-range AIM-7E Sparrow missiles are more conventionally separated into missile body and fin components.

 

 

The long-range AIM-54A Phoenix missiles are a little more complicated and it took several steps to assemble since I wanted to take care of the seam along the missile halves before attaching the other body components and fins.

 

 

Here are the missiles after construction.  In addition to carefully tending to all of the mold and glue seams, I filled in any small gaps at the base of the glued-on fins with White Milliput.  I think the missiles look fine.  Yes, the fins could be thinner but sanding them would remove the subtle airfoil cross section that Tamiya has molded onto the fins.  

 

 

The propulsion ends of the missiles were dressed up using punched discs and rings of sheet plastic.  The hard part was centering the rings so that they were concentric.

 

 

I also added some detail to the arrestor hook assembly including hollowing out the elliptical port.

 

[Thunnus]

After assembling the ordnance, I shifted over to the jet exhausts.  I have a set of resin exhaust tubes and nozzles from Eduard that I wanted to check.

 

 

The resin is nicely cast and offers what looks to be great detail.  Unfortunately, there was a small chip in the edge of the open nozzle that needs to be fixed.  A bit tricky since the notch corresponds to a thinnest part of the resin.

 

 

I busted out the BIG razor saw to cut the casting blocks off.

 

 

There is a definite detail advantage with the Eduard resin over the kit parts but that will be somewhat negated by the limited view into the exhausts.

 

 

When mounted on the rear fuselage parts, the Eduard nozzles are just slightly oversized.

 

 

The kit nozzles, of course, are a perfect fit.

 

 

In terms of detail on the nozzles, the Eduard does have more detail but the fit issue bothers me.

 

 

Once mounted, the oversized aspect of the Eduard nozzles can be made to almost disappear, if they are centered exactly.  But this might be easier said than done since the join surfaces are simple butt joints with no positive location aids.  The Eduard exhaust tubes are also too large in diameter to fit into the fuselage openings without shaving down the locating rings within the fuselage, which further decrease the odds of perfect alignment.

 

 

I'll have to think this over.  One compromise would be to mount the higher detailed front portion of the exhaust tubes to the kit tube and nozzles.

[Uncarina]

Wow you are not messing around with the progress John!  Detail vs fit. That’s a tough tradeoff. Either way you’ll make it look great.

 

Cheers,  Tom

[Thunnus]

5 hours ago, Uncarina said:

Wow you are not messing around with the progress John!  Detail vs fit. That’s a tough tradeoff. Either way you’ll make it look great.

 

Cheers,  Tom

 

Thanks Tom!  I tend to work in flurries!  I'll figure something out with the exhausts.

 

 

4 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

Don’t forget that F-14As didn’t always have one nozzle closed and one open when parked….

 

 

Good to know!  I was wanting to portray both nozzles open when I started, which is still an option if I use the kit parts.  But the Eduard set only has one open and one closed.   I love the photo!

 

Still avoiding the main landing gear wells for now, I jumped over to the markings.  I have three sets of decals to work with.  The kit decals, I've been told, are accurate for the VF-84 bird that I am building.  But I have some concerns over the thickness of the Tamiya decals based on my experience with the 1/32 F4U-1A kit that I built a while ago.

 

 

So, for a back-up, I picked up a set of Hungarian Aero Decals for circa 1980's VF-84 Jolly Roger unit.  Based on what I have read, these should be thinner than the Tamiya decals but I have not verified that.  

 

 

I have some concern over what appears to be a registration issue with these decals.  You can make out the two shades of yellow around the border of the AJ letters and the VF-84.

 

 

Lastly, I also picked up a set of data stencils for the F-14A from Furball Aero Designs.  Positive reviews on the internet but again, I haven't verified the quality first-hand.

 

 

I also have the ability to cut my own masks.  This has worked well on my 1/32 scale builds but I wasn't sure if the smaller markings of this 1/48 scale jet would be do-able with masks.  One way to find out... I scanned the Tamiya decal sheet and imported it into AutoCAD.  I traced the larger markings and produced a test sheet of masks.

 

 

I did a quick and dirty test paint with the masks on the more problematic markings.  This test was quite sloppy as I rushed between paint colors... normally, I would give each color coat more ample time to dry prior to application of the next color.  Based on these tests, masked markings are an option with a couple of caveats.  For one, I cannot get as fine a border for the yellow AJ markings as found on the decals.  This is probably the limit for how fine a line I can produce with paint.

 

 

Secondly, the multi-color markings start stacking up paint layers and the advantage over a good set of decals starts to decrease.

 

 

I will probably use a combination of the Hungarian Aero and Furball Aero decals with some masks, avoiding the use of the kit decals whenever possible.

 

 

[Thunnus]

2 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

Be careful of the BuNo on the HAD sheet. The ones on their VF-1 sheet are completely wrong font/style. If you want to do a different aircraft with a different modex and BuNo, I can print those out for you on my laser printer.

 

Thanks!  Here is a closer view of the BuNos on the HAD sheet.

 

The Tamiya sheet...

 

Assuming that I will model BuNo 160393, the fonts look fairly similar, no?  I don't know what the actual font looks like so it is hard to say.  The Furball stencil set also has BuNo numbers, I think.

 

Does anyone know... would this aircraft have the vertical tail reinforcements in 1979?

 

 

[scvrobeson]

I can attest to the Furball decals being exceptional quality, but since you've got the ability to cut your own masks, that eliminates any potential carrier film or issues right away.

 

Wonder if there's any way to possibly insert a tiny shim in the plastic rear fuselage so that they now match the resin exhausts?

 

 

Matt 

[Thunnus]

I think I answered my question about the tail stiffeners.  I found an online photo of BuNo 160393 circa 1978 on the USS Nimitz.  A crop of the photo seems to indicate the lack of the stiffeners.  Am I seeing this correctly?

 

Also note, the double-line font of the VF-84 on the ventral strake.  Tamiya captures this but HAD does not.  The font style of the BuNo is evident as well... seems like the Tamiya matches it the best but the HAD is not that far off.

[Troy Molitor]

Bang up job John.

Kindest regards from Signal Mountain TN!   

 

The move has been brutal.  Need a fishing w/e......

 

Troy 

[jenshb]

Tamiya decals.  Yes, they are very well printed, but the decal film is thick.  This is especially noticeable over a gloss black background.  When I built my Jolly Rogers Tomcat, I used the kit decals, applied a few coats of varnish and micromeshed - trying to blend the edges as well as sand away some of that thick film.  In the end, I wasn't entirely successful, but felt that I was nearing the border between success and failure, so decided to quit while I was ahead.  The Furball decals are a lot better in that respect.  They also provide the right style and size of BuNos to be assembled.

 

Tail stiffeners - I see two elongated hexagonal shapes - the same as the Tamiya kit.

 

Nozzles.  From what I can recall from Gerry, the earlier Tomcats didn't have the automatic system for closing the nozzle when the engine was shut down with the other one still running (I think the procedure was to shut down one engine first, then the other), but later ones did, so it would be best to check the specific aircraft you're modelling at the specific time you want to show.

[Thunnus]

15 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

Yeah, HAD often misses a lot of small details like that.   Their BuNos are much to light (the font...).  

 

Close enough in my book.  Especially if the decals are thinner than Tamiya's.  Not sure I want to try and cobble together a six-digit BuNo using individual numeral decals from the Furball decal set.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Troy Molitor said:

Bang up job John.

Kindest regards from Signal Mountain TN!   

 

The move has been brutal.  Need a fishing w/e......

 

Troy 

 

I hear ya Troy.  Lots of stuff going on at home including the car going belly up.  So I'm going fishing this weekend to test out some of those new lure paints!

 

 

 

5 hours ago, jenshb said:

Tamiya decals.  Yes, they are very well printed, but the decal film is thick.  This is especially noticeable over a gloss black background.  When I built my Jolly Rogers Tomcat, I used the kit decals, applied a few coats of varnish and micromeshed - trying to blend the edges as well as sand away some of that thick film.  In the end, I wasn't entirely successful, but felt that I was nearing the border between success and failure, so decided to quit while I was ahead.  The Furball decals are a lot better in that respect.  They also provide the right style and size of BuNos to be assembled.

 

Tail stiffeners - I see two elongated hexagonal shapes - the same as the Tamiya kit.

 

Nozzles.  From what I can recall from Gerry, the earlier Tomcats didn't have the automatic system for closing the nozzle when the engine was shut down with the other one still running (I think the procedure was to shut down one engine first, then the other), but later ones did, so it would be best to check the specific aircraft you're modelling at the specific time you want to show.

 

Yup!  See photo above!

 

[A-10LOADER]

21 hours ago, Thunnus said:

I think I answered my question about the tail stiffeners.  I found an online photo of BuNo 160393 circa 1978 on the USS Nimitz.  A crop of the photo seems to indicate the lack of the stiffeners.  Am I seeing this correctly?

 

Also note, the double-line font of the VF-84 on the ventral strake.  Tamiya captures this but HAD does not.  The font style of the BuNo is evident as well... seems like the Tamiya matches it the best but the HAD is not that far off.

Any Tomcat post 1977 should have the tail stiffeners that run down by the rudder. The two, in the pic under the 00 should be there.

Steve

 

"TOMCATS FOREVER, BABY...!"