Scott Hemsley

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

Thank-you for that pic, Dave. You even have t look hard for the geodesic framework ... interesting. Better stock up on that putty. Scott

Hence my previous comments. Instructions aren't foolproof. Adopt the idea of routinely checking C of G vs the position of the landing gear (especially when any doubt exists) and you shouldn't even need it mentioned in the instructions. After a while you'll get to the point that you can just look at a kit and determine if weight is to be required. Scott

Instead of listing specific aircraft that may or not need nose weight, just look at the positioning of the landing gear. If the C of G of the kit is to the rear of the MLG, add nose weight and add it fwd of the MLG - the further fwd you can add it, the less is needed. Simple as that. Solid fins/tailplanes can often add weight to a model that you wouldn't think would be a tail-sitter, so take that into consideration. A quick n' easy way to find the C of G if it's not apparent is to dry-fit/tape as much of the airframe together as possible and balance it while lightly holding it between your thumb and forefinger. A good starting place is holding it approx. at the position of the MLG and then working from there... Scott