Scott Hemsley

Quick answer ... kinda identical to your kits. For the purpose of the OP's build, the Heller kit of a T-6G is definitely the kit to go with as it's already virtually identical* to a Harvard IV - no need for any kit-bashing. The ONLY 2 changes to the Heller kit (to be technically correct) is the longer canopy, but you'd have to do that to any true Harvard as all kits to date, have the shortened Texan canopy. and the fabrication of lengthened exhaust (which is btw, visibly different than that in the Airfix kit). FWIW ... Noorduyn was the only Canadian manufacturer of the Harvard in WW2. It was during WW2, that the CCF came under the administrative wing of Noorduyn since they both shared the airfield facilities at Cartierville (gov't owned airport near Montreal). They (CCF) only became involved with the Harvard post-war, when they got the exclusive contract to over-haul all Harvard II airframes and upgrade many to Harvard IV status for the NATO-related training that was still being carried on in Canada. The early North American-built Harvard's were generally distinguishable by twin venture tubes on the starboard side and a stepped pitot tube. By August 1938, Noorduyn (based in Montreal) had forged a deal with North American. North American had been providing Harvard's to the BCTAP, but by 1940, Noorduyn got it's first Harvard contact from the RCAF for the Harvard II. Unlike the North American-built Harvard's, their Harvard II's had no venture tubes due to the use of 'vacuum pumps' and a straight pitot tube. . (condensed from Dave Fletcher's book I mentioned above) *One thing to point out - it's a minor panel detail ... but all Harvard's had a long rectangle luggage door on the port side, unlike the Texan which exhibited an similar luggage door but with a 'chipped corner' on the lower front. Scott

TonyT says.... It wouldn't surprise me if that Kiwi conversion had a couple of the Falcon Harvard canopies included. Btw it's a Harvard II canopy that Falcon did. Mind you, this canopy would also be perfect for a Yale and a Harvard I - a conversion to be sure, but somebody's got to do it. As I meant to mention above, the only visual difference between the Harvard II canopy and the Harvard IV canopy (as per the OP's build plans) was that the Harvard IV has solid glass panels on the sides of the 3 sections of the canopy whereas the earlier versions had each of the 3 sections divided by an extra vertical frame. The Harvard IV also had a couple of scoops near the cowling, whereas the Harvard II had none. If those scoops are mistakenly included as separate pieces ala the Heller kit, there's no reason that a post-war Harvard IV can't be done from this pending Kiwi kit - apart from having to correct the canopy. If you 're lucky enough to find a copy of "Harvard! The North American trainers in Canada" by David C. Fletcher & Doug MacPhail (ISBN 0-9693825-0-2) either in a library, eBay or 2nd hand ... I highly recommend it. It covers in depth, all versions from the NA-26 and the Yale through to the Harvard IV in text, photos & 72nd drawings. As an aside .... Dave Fletcher was IPMS/Canada at the time of writing, so you also get that modeller's perspective in the choice of photos and the multi-view drawings. As for the longer exhaust pipe pointed out by the OP. There's a few lengths of sprue within the Heller parts trees that will suit the job quite nicely and if one looks at photos of a Harvard II/IV, you'll see it's a much simpler affair than what Airfix has provided in their kit. The main hassle with the Heller kit and maybe the Academy kit as well (I dunno) is that since the Heller kit is of an armed T-6G, location stubs(blocks?) are molded in relief on the underside of the wings for the zero-length rocket-launchers and the MG pods. It makes for some creative sanding or work with a No.11 blade shaving the blocks off, if one doesn't wish to rescribe the entire kit. Mind you, it can be done!! Scott

Actually, it doesn't. Compare the kit canopy to the photo you provide. A Harvard canopy is a 1/2 frame longer than the T-6 Texan canopies and neither the Airfix nor Heller kits offer this. In fact I believe no 72nd Harvard offers a proper Harvard canopy. The Airfix Harvard offers the earlier style Texan canopy with all the framing including bit of extra framing in the sliding portions. while the Heller comes with a later T-6G canopy, which has less framing on the side, but is still a Texan canopy. The difference between the Texan and Harvard can be seen aft of the rear sliding section. The Texan canopy sweeps up immediately while the longer Harvard canopy has that extra 1/2 panel before it sweeps up. The only proper Harvard canopies I've found in 72nd were done by Falcon Klear-Vacs ... not positive of the 'set' number though ... sorry. Google Falcon Klear-Vacs and you' should see a listing of all their sets as well as the instructions for each set. I had examples of both Falcon canopies (Harvard vs Texan) given to me and unfortunately, both canopies are the earlier style with the extra framing on the sliding panels. The good news is that they also appear to be a perfect match in terms of size and x-section, with the Heller later-style canopy, thus allowing you to (in theory) match the rear of the Falcon Harvard canopy with the Heller canopy ... giving you a Harvard IV canopy - which is what the example you're doing is ... in RCAF terms. One nice thing about the Falcon canopy is it includes a portion of the upper rear fuselage thus eliminating the issue of blending the new longer canopy with the kit's rear fuselage. I'll be doing this exact bit of surgery with my own Harvard IV when it hits the worktable. Right now, I'm doing a Harvard II (BCTAP, 1942) with an unmodified Falcon Harvard canopy. At this point, I can say the fit to the Heller kit is fantastic. Scott

Graham mentioned a Wirraway with a bit of TLC could (relatively speaking) be coaxed into a Harvard I without too much fuss. It's just what I plan to do using the Falcon Harvard canopy, which incidentally is intended for the Heller kit. But another hurdle in any Mk.I conversion has to be the squared-off rudder. Other than trying to scratch a new one ... I'm open to suggestions. However, the ultimate solution would be for a Harvard Mk.I to be released. Scott

Thanks for the clarification on the contents of each of the boxings. Giorgio.. My comment in that regard, stemmed from my understanding of comments from other club members during a club build, back in the day. The two I currently have on the work table are the CF-104G boxing (#1005) and the TF-104G/F-104DJ boxing (#1004). Scott

Seahawk asks "Are you saying you prefer the ESCI/Italeri kit over the Revell one from the 1990s? Would be interested to know why: I have both but Starfighters are Not My Subject.' As I stated above. I've not touched the Revell kit. However, the chap who recently mentioned his Revell kit in an email, also sent along a couple of sprue shots for me to look at. Quite frankly, I was not impressed by some of the parts break-down and as a result, I'm even more satisfied with how my two Hase. 104's are turning out. One of the main areas I found rather unnecessary concerned the fin. I realise that to accommodate the shorter fin of the F-104C, they had to break-up the fint to provide the option for the shorter "C" fin vs the longer "G' fin. It's where they chose to make the join. I guess a convenient panel line was just to obvious and they ended up vertically splitting the fin fwd of the rudder hinge-line, in a most awkward place for sanding. It might have been better to split the fuselage vertically cut the fuselage at the fwd tip of the fin and offered a complete fin/engine for either the (shorter) F-104A/C or the later F-104G, etc.. A lot of flak has been made of the Hase. kit and the tooling that vertically cut the fuselage just behind the intakes. This allowed common tooling with a complete front of the fuselage for either a single-seat or a dual, depending on the boxing. In my experience, this join can mate perfectly ... it all depends on how you assemble the previous step which include the MLG bay. It's that single assembly that determines the fit of the vertical join as it plays a major role in lining up both fuselage halves. But getting back to your question, the ESCI single-seater became my go-to kit until I managed to score my Hase. kits in a blow-out sale at my LHS. Unfortunately, I was denied a dual-seat Starfighter, until the Hase. came along. I got both of my Hase. kits in a blow-out sale my LHS had back when the kits were released. Seems people preferred to pick up the other F-104G boxings with either the Canadian or German boxart rather than the Japanese boxart, despite all the "G" kits having identical plastic, only differing in the parts marked 'do not use' on the part schematic. Returning to the Revell kit - I've never seen one in a LHS around me, either back in the 90's or now ... so it was never on my radar. Having said that, from the sprue shots I've recently seen, I'd say it comes a close 2nd to the Hase. kit, if only for some questionable part break-down. I can't comment on how it goes together or the resulting build. As I recall, I found the ESCI kit to be simple by comparison to the Hasegawa kit (surprise!), but it built up into a nice kit. Scott

You're correct, Jure. The key phrase to my post was "that I'm aware of" and having never seen the Revell offerings, that still applies. But having said that, one of the modellers I email fairly regularly mentioned his Revell kits, so I stand corrected for the over-sight. Thanks for pointing that out. Scott

It's a nice kit and when it first came out, it was my go-to '104, until I tried to put it next to a Matchbox F-101B ... it was as large or larger than the Voodoo! It was then I found out that as good as the kit was, it's not 1/72. Just thought someone should point that out. I think way back soon after it was first issued, I read someplace that stated it was actually more like 1/67(?). In any case ... if you plan on using AM 72nd decals for the '104, they won't fit the Heller kit properly. They'll be much too small. On the other hand, if you choose to build it OOTB and display it on it's own (where size comparisons aren't easily done), it's a great little kit. junglierating: Frog only released the single-seater (F-104G) and it was the same plastic as the original Hasegawa tooling - not the best rendition of the a/c by any means - as the two companies frequently swapped moulds during the late 60's and 70's. I'm only aware of two companies that offered the dual version ... Heller and the 'new tool' Hasegawa (1990). However, where Heller managed to offer both the single and the dual versions in the same boxing, Hasegawa later did it In two (but they are 1/72). I'm working on both Hase. kits, right now,. FWIW: If you're looking for a good 'inexpensive' F-104G (single-seater), it may take some looking in the secondary market, but ESCI did a nice 72nd kit for it's time. IMO, it was only surpassed when the 1990 tooling of the Hase. F-104's appeared on the scene. Scott

Thanks for the quick reply,, Procopius . That makes things a lot simpler. Scott

Interesting thread. I must bookmark this and refer to it when it comes time to tackle my kit. In the meantime, I've another cockpit-related question that hopefully one of you more experienced with the Eduards kit, can resolve before I finally decide to commit to glue. Just so we're all on the same page, the specific it in question is the Mk.IXc 'late version', Profipack #70121.. I intend to finish my model as one of the two 401 Sqn. (RCAF) examples flown by Jerry Billings ... decal options 'E' or 'F', Looking at the instructions, it isn't made clear what seat bulkhead option I should be using - part B39 or B41. What is the difference between the two options, anyway? Scott

What about 'Piccadilly Princess" of 424 Sqn. (RCAF) - a Mk.I - coded 'QB*P - s/n.NG347? No Mk.X mods needed. Zotz Decals did a 72nd sheet of Lanc's with pin-up nose art.that included both "Sugar's Blues" and "Piccadilly Princess". I'm not sure of the current status of Zotz decals, but if they're not around any more (used to have a web page) maybe a look on E-bay or a private sale, might yield a set. PM me as I might have a duplicate sheet that I could just pass off to a good home, but I'll have to check first. Scott

Exactly what scale are we talking about here? I take it from your description of a "large B-24", it's not 1/72 ... which is a bit of a pity as Pavla do a beautiful resin set with vac clear parts, that covers both the GR.V/VI as well as a set for the rocket projectiles. Scott

I recently (2015) completed a reworking of the Expeditor (C-45) based on the HobbyCraft kit(s) and FWIW, you can find my RFI with a link to the WIP. Unfortunately, in order to correct many of the kit's shortcomings and indeed those of any 1/72 kit, I used elements of both HobbyCraft kits (C-45H & C-45F) as well as the PM kit. All will be explained in the WIP. It was not, by any means, a weekend project ... but I think the results were worth it. You can find the aforementioned RFI/WIP http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/ar/t7607.htm (you may have to cut n' paste the URL as I'm having issues getting it to work with the link function) Just proves that we need a new tool of the Beech 18 in 1/72, both the C-45F and C-45H versions. Scott

Sorry, but I jumped in late to this thread. Regarding the issue with clears, I regularly use Model Master Acrylic clears (flat, gloss, semi-gloss) over both acrylics and enamels with no problem ... applied by both airbrush and brush. I haven't used an enamel-based clear in years. FWIW, I've used the MM acrylic clears over the following brands: Model Master (both enamels and acrylics), AeroMaster enamels, Compucolour & Xtracolour (both enamels) and Tamyia Scott

You're correct, Steve ... but I wonder if that effect is caused by the airflow over the wings? The link posted by Dave shows a wing just sitting there ... and there is some evidence of the geodesic frame, but not much. I'd be interested in reading about the explaination between the two photos. Can anyone with more knowledge of the effects of airflow vs fabric covered surfaces, address this? Scott