Recommendation for F-84F Thunderstreak in 1/72

[Trenton guy]

I'm convinced that the Airfix is the most accurate. It is wider than the gorgeous PJ kit but every drawing I can find suggests that the PJ is too narrow (a not uncommon problem with PJ kits, think of the too fine forward fuselage on the PJ Hunter). Fitting the Airfix canopy to the Italeri fuselage may be the only achievable way to get an RF-84F - brilliant idea. It pains me to criticize a PJ kit as the Are so well made and cast but it seems warranted in this case.

[Giorgio N]

The measurements posted by Rob in this same thread, compared to measurements taken on a real aircraft, do seem to confirm that the rear fuselage of the PJ kit is too narrow but also that the other two kits are way too fat..

[fatalbert]

Loving this thread.The F-84 and RF-84 being some of my favourite jets.So just a thought.Would the best way of getting a decent RF-84 be to cross the airfix fuse with the italeri nose and wings and to crash mold a new canopy.

[Wez]

Loving this thread.The F-84 and RF-84 being some of my favourite jets.So just a thought.Would the best way of getting a decent RF-84 be to cross the airfix fuse with the italeri nose and wings and to crash mold a new canopy.

Please do go ahead with this and post your progress on the WIP section, as you know, the very second you hit post into RFI, somebody will announce the release of a new, mainstream, injection moulded kit in 1/72nd scale!

So what are you waiting for? Crack on - there's a good chap! ;D

[KRK4m]

The PJ canopy is around 11.0 mm wide (measured just above the bottom canopy frame), Italeri is 11.5 mm, Airfix is 9.0 mm. The latter looks very narrow!

What complicates things further is that both Italeri and Airfix have fuselages that are far too wide, 20 mm and 20.5 mm measured at the fuselage break where the tail section detaches for engine removal. PJ is 16.5 mm, and the real number is 17.5 mm (a friend measured a Streak under restoration). My PJ RF-84F needed a shim at the lower fuselage joint, to make the nose fit without a step, and that increased the width to 17.1 mm. Close enough for me.

But the F-84F canopy is narrow indeed and in my opinion (based on drawings I use) the Airfix canopy is about 0.5 mm too narrow, but Italeri one is more than 2 mm too wide!

Concerning the fuselage split station 237.5" (83.8 mm in 72nd scale) from the intake lip the drawings I prefer do really show 17.6 mm width (perhaps 50" on the real bird) and both kits are much broader there, but the difference is not as big as you stated - Italeri gives us 18.9 mm and Airfix 19.3 mm.

Thanks for your thorough examination, Michael! On which drawings did you base your assessment? Anyway, the close proximity of the kits in their shape suggesta both were based on the same drawings - possibly supplied by Fairchild Republic?

The drawings that look convincing to me are here:

http://grachmodel.narod.ru/air2-F-84F.html

(the upper ones, not those drawn by Richard Caruana). They are the only ones I met, where the height of fuselage section at station 321.5" (rear edge of airbrakes and front edge of dorsal transparent panel) equals 17.8 (scale) mm, being very close to 17.5 mm on factory drawings published by Joel Vanderhaegen and retouched by Bob Verhegghen. All other drawings do grossly exceed this dimension, with 19.0 mm given by GAG Cox and 19.5 mm by (otherwise beautifully drawn) R J Caruana. Both kits fail here too, with 19.2 mm in Airfix and 19.8 mm in Italeri one.

Nevertheless the rear fuselage (in both kits) would look slimmer if added some 1.5-2.0 mm they lack just forward of the airbrakes. According to the factory data the detachable tail section should measure 223.5" (78.8 scale mm) while both kits feature just 77.0 mm.

I must admit however that both kits "look better" when put on the drawings by Cox or Caruana. E.g. the 450 US gal fuel tank dimensions follow the drawings mentioned almost spot on (86.0 mm long and 9.4 mm fat, although the fins even on RJC drawings measure 17 mm) and the mainwheel diameter is drawn there as 11.3 mm. Nevertheless the Italeri canopy proves too wide once again, the main u/c bays are severely oversized and trying to achieve right shape of the wing you have to put a triangular distance (2 mm thick each side for Italeri, 1 mm for Airfix at the leading edge, nil at the trailing edge) at wing root thus increasing the trailing edge sweep. Then you have to cut off and reprofile the leading edge as deep as 3 mm for the Italeri or 1 mm for Airfix at the root, dimnishing to nil at the wingtip.

So, Messrs MPM/SH/Azur, AZ/KP, RS, Valom, Brengun (if not Airfix or Revell) - a new tool F-84F is what we need.

Cheers

Michael

Edited May 12, 2016 by KRK4m

[RidgeRunner]

Mmmm .... So whose counting the .5mm? Specially as he Italeri is way too wide!

[Rob de Bie]

But the F-84F canopy is narrow indeed and in my opinion (based on drawings I use) the Airfix canopy is about 0.5 mm too narrow, but Italeri one is more than 2 mm too wide!

Concerning the fuselage split station 237.5" (83.8 mm in 72nd scale) from the intake lip the drawings I prefer do really show 17.6 mm width (perhaps 50" on the real bird) and both kits are much broader there, but the difference is not as big as you stated - Italeri gives us 18.9 mm and Airfix 19.3 mm.

Michael, I remeasured my models, an unbuilt Italeri RF-84F and a scrapbox Airfix F-84F. On both the exact position of the fuselage break is difficult to point out, they don't even have panel lines there. I estimated the position from the rear spar position. My measurements are Italeri 19 mm, Airfix 20 mm (note rounded numbers). The numbers are close, but I think we're measuring at different points.

Your 50" estimate is very close: my Streak-restoring friend measured 126 cm / 1260 mm, and 50" is 1270 mm.

Rob

Edited May 12, 2016 by Rob de Bie

[Rob de Bie]

I'm convinced that the Airfix is the most accurate. It is wider than the gorgeous PJ kit but every drawing I can find suggests that the PJ is too narrow (a not uncommon problem with PJ kits, think of the too fine forward fuselage on the PJ Hunter). Fitting the Airfix canopy to the Italeri fuselage may be the only achievable way to get an RF-84F - brilliant idea. It pains me to criticize a PJ kit as the Are so well made and cast but it seems warranted in this case.

I'm still not convinced that PJ got the fuselage width wrong. If you take the drawing that Michael used, the fuselage width is constant from the cockpit to the fuselage break, and it's even less than 17.6 mm (50" equivalent). I guess one way to sort this out is a measurement of the Tan Models 1/48 scale kit. I understood it was based on a laser-scanned museum example, so it should be accurate. A canopy width measurement would also answer that question. I'm all for it!

Rob

Edited May 12, 2016 by Rob de Bie

[MarkoZG]

KRK4m, thank you for detailed and well elaborated analysis. This is extraordinary reading!

[e8n2]

On 5/9/2016 at 10:45 PM, e8n2 said:

I built both decades ago, and still have a couple of the Airfix kits in the stash. What I do remember though was that the Italeri kit did not have the prominent fairing behind the ejection seat and visible through the rear side windows. I'm not sure what it was for, but it is very visible in all photos of the F/RF-84F from the sides.

Later,

Dave

Took me a while to find this topic again but now I have.  I was able to procure an Italeri RF-84F a few months ago and I scanned parts of the instructions from both kits to show the "fairing" (apparently it is a fuel tank) that the Airfix kit has and the Italeri does not. 

 

Airfix:

Notice part #7.  This is the fuel tank visible through the rear side windows.

 

Italeri:

Notice that there is NO fuel tank behind the seat, just what looks like maybe some kind of radio.  I have never come across a photo of a RF-84F or F-84F that had what Italeri shows behind the ejection seat.  If there is a newer tool Italeri kit than this one, then I am not aware of it.

Later,

Dave

[stevehnz]

Thanks for the heads up on that Dave, I've got both the Italeri kits, F- & RF- plus the Warpaint volume so will be sure to factor this in.

Steve.

[TEMPESTMK5]

Good morning

 I think we need a good F(RF) 84 in 1/72 scale

Patrice

[Booty003]

I love the early jets, especially in NMF and fancy almost outlandish schemes.  I have built both the F-84F and RF from the ancient Italeri/Revell kits.  Very, very basic but sitting on the shelf they look okay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Used spare decals to depict two random USAF birds.

 

Phil

[RidgeRunner]

We need a good F-84F/RF-84F in 1/72, as has been said many times, like we need many others in this scale to replace very old mouldings. Having seen this one pop up again I'll just re-iterate that given the options currently available I'd go for Airfix for cockpit and canopy shape, while the overall kit shape isn't that bad. For a little more refinement, and I think I said this before, trick the eye ands use an Airfix canopy on a thinned Italeri fuselage.... and remember the tank behind the cockpit!

 

Martin

  

[stevehnz]

A good looking pair of birds there Phil, nicely modelled even allowing for some inaccuracy in the kits. It looks to me that the RF- has something more behind the cockpit than does the F-, maybe something simialr to what Martin has pointed out, guess I'll have to break mine out of hibernation to compare them. They'll be getting build pretty much OOB oversize canopys & all, its the Belgian schemes I'm interested in rather than turning out a perfiect -84F model, I'll wait for that from someone else. I had enough trouble finding the two I have.

Steve.

[ReccePhreak]

On 1/24/2017 at 0:35 AM, e8n2 said:

Notice that there is NO fuel tank behind the seat, just what looks like maybe some kind of radio.  I have never come across a photo of a RF-84F or F-84F that had what Italeri shows behind the ejection seat.  If there is a newer tool Italeri kit than this one, then I am not aware of it.

Later,

Dave

There are quite a few photos showing that fairing in Aerofax Minigraph 15 - Republic F-84 (Swept-wing Variants).

 

Larry

[e8n2]

6 hours ago, ReccePhreak said:

There are quite a few photos showing that fairing in Aerofax Minigraph 15 - Republic F-84 (Swept-wing Variants).

 

Larry

Are you talking about the fuel tank behind the ejection seat, or the radio (or whatever it is that Italeri has there)?  Sorry I don't have that particular Minigraph. 

Later,

Dave

[Hook]

Some nice pics here: 

 

https://jetpilotoverseas.wordpress.com/category/f-84f-thunderstreak/

 

HTH,

 

Andre 

[KRK4m]

On 5/11/2016 at 4:24 PM, KRK4m said:

...There are only two areas though where the shape differs - one is the width of canopy and dorsal spine (max. 11.0 mm in Airfix, 13.7 mm in Italeri and 11.4 mm on real craft) and also the width of main engine intake (7.7 mm in Airfix, 8.6 mm in Italeri and 7.3 mm in the real bird). These width differences do imply a little on the fuselage maximum width (at the wing leading edge), which is 20.2 mm for the Italeri kit, 19.0 mm for the Airfix one and 18.0 mm for the original scaled down...

... Front u/c leg and wheel are better in Airfix kit, while mainwheels in both are severely oversized. My drawings show 10.5 mm diameter, while Italeri gives us 11.9 mm and Airfix even more - 12.1 mm. The Italeri wheels are more finely detailed, but it's Airfix who follows the original rim perforation layout more precisely... 

At last I managed to visit the Polish Aviation Museum (just 10km from my home, but they have exactly the same business hours as the shop I work at) to take some measures of the real F-84F 52-7157 exhibited there in Belgian AF scheme of DG/DSG/PRU. Frankly speaking all the F-84F drawings I know (by Caruana, Cox, Vanderhaegen and Squadron Signal) are wrong. So here I will give you some correct dimensions of several crucial F-84F items.

First is the nose intake - 52cm wide and 67cm high (7.2 x 9.3 mm in 1/72) - so the Airfix is light years ahead of Italeri here.

Then is the cockpit canopy GLAZING max width - 79cm (11.0 mm) - and the Airfix is spot on. On the picture below you can easily see, that canopy width (at base level) is 58% of max fuselage width, while all drawings show 65-68% there.

 

Then there's the inner MGs distance - 44cm (6.1mm in scale, Airfix spot-on), while on the drawings you have either 25, 29, 32 or 50 cm

The wing leading edge protrudes from fuselage at station 324cm (127.6", 45mm in 1/72) - exactly the same as Airfix kit.

The nosewheel bay has complicated outline, but max width (at rear) should be 52cm (7.2 scale mm) and minimum (just behind the leg in vertical position) 24cm (3.3mm). In Airfix kit both dimensions are wider - 7.5 and 4.2mm respectively.

The wing should taper even less than the drawings show. The width at aileron outer end is 221cm, and 348cm at the fuselage fairing. This makes 30.7 and 48.3mm respectively, while the kits feature 29 and 49mm there.

The main u/c bay is 182cm wide (spanwise) and its inner edge is 79cm afar from the fuselage. It makes 25.3 an 11.0mm in 1/72 - the Airfix size is spot-on (25.5), but it's too close to the fuselage - just 8.5mm.

The u/c leg cover is 97cm long and 38cm wide (13.5 and 5.3 scale mm, Airfix spot-on). The inner cover is 94cm wide (13.0mm, Airfix is 13.6mm - not bad).

The mainwheels are total disaster of both kits. Real diameter is 71cm (9.9 mm in scale), while Italeri gives us 11.9mm and Airfix 12.1mm (>20% too big).  

The fuselage total lenght is 11.71m (162.6 scale mm), while Airfix is 1.6mm too short. The missed "splice" should be added between the wing trailing edge and the airbrake, as the 418cm distance from airbrake forward edge to the end of tailpipe is spot-on (58.0mm). 

The (oval) tailpipe is 64cm high and 60cm wide (8.9 x 8.3mm) with Airfix round one of 8.7mm dia almost perfect. The Airfix brake chute housing is a bit too wide at 4.5mm - should be 3.9mm (28 cm in reality).

So - after the real bird thoroughful examination - I have to say (once again) that Airfix F-84F is much closer to the reality than its Italeri/Revell competitor. The only three serious flaws of the Airfix 03022 are:

• too big mainwheels (impossible to correct - one must find much smaller ones in a drawer)
• wrong outline of the wings (the leading edge is OK, but the trailing edge sweep should be increased with widening the wingtips for some 1.7mm each)
• too short rear fuselage (an 1.6mm thick insert needed as described above).  

After all it still remains the best 1/72 Thunderstreak on the market so far.

Cheers

Michael

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by KRK4m
prematurely posted