Jacarre Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Hi all, i have a question about Scooter's fuselage cross section width. In our study group of my friends of IPMS-Chile we noticed important differences between the different kits in the cross section after the intakes. Fujimi has the more width (and height), Esci less, Italeri less, and Airfix is the more narrower one. Anyone has compared these kits with a good set or drawings or has the measurements of fuselage cross section? I consulted in the excelent Tommy Thomasson's Tail spin topics blog but i didin't find the data. Thanks a lot in advance! Regards, Javier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Uncool Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Fujimi has the more width (and height) Hi there, Javier. No mention to as whut scale ya're referrin' to, so y'oughta bear in mind that the Fujimi Scooter is actually 1/50th scale, hence, dimensions compared to both the Esci and Italeri 1/48 kits will vary, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Hi all, i have a question about Scooter's fuselage cross section width. In our study group of my friends of IPMS-Chile we noticed important differences between the different kits in the cross section after the intakes. Fujimi has the more width (and height), Esci less, Italeri less, and Airfix is the more narrower one. Anyone has compared these kits with a good set or drawings or has the measurements of fuselage cross section? I consulted in the excelent Tommy Thomasson's Tail spin topics blog but i didin't find the data. Thanks a lot in advance! Regards, Javier The only difference in the single-seat Skyhawk's fuselage width is in the vicinity of the intakes for the so-called "Super Fox" configuration. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/02/super-fox.html The question of which model is correct in fuselage width has come up from time to time. I started to find an answer to it but got sidetracked. I'll take another look at the drawings I have. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) I have a Model Art book which has a set of drawings that is very detailed. Might be that some stations and measurements are also given. I'll have a look this evening if I'll not forget, but most likely Mr Turtle may have access to better source material. Dana Bell might also be an option as he did the drawings for the D&S book. Javier, is there a specific location you're interested in, like "six scale feet behind the splitter plate leading edges" or somesuch ? Not sure how many references mention the larger intakes on "high-thrust" Fs, and whether the drawings feature this if they include a specific F(hard as it is to depict in two dimensions). Interesting point, anyway. While we're at it, is there a good set of drawings for the production-style -1 ? Some photos seem to suggest quite different panel lines especially on the fuselage. It's a miracle the -1 has been almost completely neglected in kit form, at least post 1960 (I know it's an easy conversion, but wonder about the missed potential by the manufacturers for some of the most colourful markings imaginable). Airfix = new tool, or the venerable -1 ? Edited August 22, 2016 by tempestfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacarre Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 Hi there, Javier. No mention to as whut scale ya're referrin' to, so y'oughta bear in mind that the Fujimi Scooter is actually 1/50th scale, hence, dimensions compared to both the Esci and Italeri 1/48 kits will vary, indeed. Hi Uncle Uncool, sorry, i forgot to say that our studies are about 1/72 kits. Regards, Javier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Yeasr ago I had a chat with a local modeller who had studied the Skyhawk and he mentioned to me that in his opinion the Esci kit was the most accurate one while the Fujimi kit was of course the best detailed and the most modern tool (the Airfix kit did not exist then). Unfortunately I can't remember on which references he was basing his statement or even if he mentioned any reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacarre Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 I have a Model Art book which has a set of drawings that is very detailed. Might be that some stations and measurements are also given. I'll have a look this evening if I'll not forget, but most likely Mr Turtle may have access to better source material. Dana Bell might also be an option as he did the drawings for the D&S book. Javier, is there a specific location you're interested in, like "six scale feet behind the splitter plate leading edges" or somesuch ? Not sure how many references mention the larger intakes on "high-thrust" Fs, and whether the drawings feature this if they include a specific F(hard as it is to depict in two dimensions). Interesting point, anyway. While we're at it, is there a good set of drawings for the production-style -1 ? Some photos seem to suggest quite different panel lines especially on the fuselage. It's a miracle the -1 has been almost completely neglected in kit form, at least post 1960 (I know it's an easy conversion, but wonder about the missed potential by the manufacturers for some of the most colourful markings imaginable). Airfix = new tool, or the venerable -1 ? Hi tempestfan, we take the measures in the area where Fujimi's kit has the "cut" for the different front fuselages of the different kits. . Is behind the intakes area. And we are measuring the new Airfix A-4B, the old A4D1 is rather crude... Thanks a lot! Javier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacarre Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 The only difference in the single-seat Skyhawk's fuselage width is in the vicinity of the intakes for the so-called "Super Fox" configuration. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/02/super-fox.html The question of which model is correct in fuselage width has come up from time to time. I started to find an answer to it but got sidetracked. I'll take another look at the drawings I have. Thanks Tailspin, it's a pleasure for me to have your post in this topic, because i'm a avid reader of your excelent blog. We're measuring different kits and in my IPMS Chile friends's view the Fujimi kit has a fuselaje too great in width, and has 1 mm more of height of some drawings. I'll wait for your analysis. Thanks a lot in advance! Javier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Well, one millimeter isn't much, even in 1/72 scale, but it does appear that Dana Bell's top view drawing in Detail & Scale is incorrect in some respects by a lot more than that. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/08/a4d-skyhawk-one-more-time.html for my draft of what I hope is a pretty accurate top view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAVY870 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 The Airfix kit is a J-65 powered A-4B, this version has flush mounted intakes. The others are J-52 engined versions and has larger intakes mounted clear of the fuselage, thus the difference in fuselage width. The RANFAA museum has a B doctored to look like a G, the difference is immediately apparent to those of us who maintained the finest aircraft ever made. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuuumannn Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) The RANFAA museum has a B doctored to look like a G, The museum also has a G that was doctored to look like a K that was then doctored to look like a G again! Looking forward to visiting some day. Whilst I don't have drawings that can help, Javier, here are a couple of photographs that might be of use. Regarding side profiles, here is an A-4B: And here is an A-4K from roughly the same angle; note that the intake trunking is wider at the forward end: Regarding intake shapes, the differences that Navy870 mentioned can be appreciated here, this is an A-4Q (an A-4B, essentially): And this is an A-4K with the J52; note the boundary layer separator extending forward of the intake, also note the wider intake lip: Edited August 23, 2016 by nuuumannn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAVY870 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 The museum also has a G that was doctored to look like a K that was then doctored to look like a G again! Looking forward to visiting some day. 880, the last TA-4G Bought new by the RAN, sold to the sheep shaggers and ungraded as part of the Kahu program then returned to Oz as agreed by us and the RNZAF. Repainted by the Kiwi's in the RAN aggressor scheme and sent home in a Herc. She is displayed with her engine beside her, she looks bloody silly with no engine or fuel in her, the sit is all wrong. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junchan Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Hola Javier, There is an isometric station diagram of the A4D-5 (A-4E) on page 8 of Ginter Book, Naval Fighters Number Fifty-One. You can measure and calculate the fuselage width at each station from this diagram. The book is still available at Amazon.com. https://www.amazon.com/Douglas-USN-Skyhawk-Naval-Fighters/dp/0942612515/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471967495&sr=1-2&keywords=naval+fighters+skyhawk Jun in Tokyo https://www.flickr.com/photos/horaburo/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacarre Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 Hola Javier, There is an isometric station diagram of the A4D-5 (A-4E) on page 8 of Ginter Book, Naval Fighters Number Fifty-One. You can measure and calculate the fuselage width at each station from this diagram. The book is still available at Amazon.com. https://www.amazon.com/Douglas-USN-Skyhawk-Naval-Fighters/dp/0942612515/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471967495&sr=1-2&keywords=naval+fighters+skyhawk Jun in Tokyo https://www.flickr.com/photos/horaburo/albums Thanks a lot Junchan! Beautiful pics in your flickr album! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacarre Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 The museum also has a G that was doctored to look like a K that was then doctored to look like a G again! Looking forward to visiting some day. Whilst I don't have drawings that can help, Javier, here are a couple of photographs that might be of use. Regarding side profiles, here is an A-4B: And here is an A-4K from roughly the same angle; note that the intake trunking is wider at the forward end: Regarding intake shapes, the differences that Navy870 mentioned can be appreciated here, this is an A-4Q (an A-4B, essentially): And this is an A-4K with the J52; note the boundary layer separator extending forward of the intake, also note the wider intake lip: Great pics Nuuuman! Thanks a lot! Tailspint Turtle, can we say that the J-52 engined versions had more fuselage width with the intakes, and the P-408 engined (Super Foxes and Ms) ones had yet more width? Thanks a lot in advance. Regards., Javier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iaf-man Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Great pics Nuuuman! Thanks a lot! Tailspint Turtle, can we say that the J-52 engined versions had more fuselage width with the intakes, and the P-408 engined (Super Foxes and Ms) ones had yet more width? Thanks a lot in advance. Regards., Javier All the Superfox conversions in larger scales include only the forward wider portions of the intakes,that blend into existing fuselage.Does that mean that fuselage remained the same? I don't know,maybe just the resin conv.makers went by the less obstacle road?Otherwise fuselage cuts were neccesary Maybe in reality the outer size remained,and the intakes were widened on the inside. Isaac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 If I understand correctly, the intake (part, not just the hole) of the Superfox is bulgier on the sides (not really in profile), but I don't think it extended to the fuselage proper. Pretty sure Tommy covered it in one of his blogs. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 (edited) 880, the last TA-4G Bought new by the RAN, sold to the sheep shaggers and ungraded as part of the Kahu program then returned to Oz as agreed by us and the RNZAF. Repainted by the Kiwi's in the RAN aggressor scheme and sent home in a Herc. She is displayed with her engine beside her, she looks bloody silly with no engine or fuel in her, the sit is all wrong. NZ6255, - rescued from a fate worse than a fate worse than death Fixed up and upgraded, giving another 17 years of service before being sent back to Australia Oh BTW, it was repainted here by BAe at Nowra For anyone interested My A-4K walkaround is here Many of the photos are of NZ6255 when it was being rebuilt at Nowra prior to going to the FAA Museum. Edited August 28, 2016 by Calum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuuumannn Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Very nice Calum, I want to eventually replicate your A-4K walkaround on my site and although I have plenty of detailed images of the Kiwi birds, I still haven't done one comprehensive walkaround of one aircraft. There's a couple of pics of NZ6255 on my A-4 Gallery page: http://warbirdswalkaround.wixsite.com/warbirds/skyhawk-gallery?lightbox=dataItem-iqx3iei9 from here: http://warbirdswalkaround.wixsite.com/warbirds/skyhawk-gallery Regarding the Super Fox, just the forward section of the intakes was bulged, not the entire fuselage, whose cross section matched that of the conventional A-4s, like the K image I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Great pics Nuuuman! Thanks a lot! Tailspint Turtle, can we say that the J-52 engined versions had more fuselage width with the intakes, and the P-408 engined (Super Foxes and Ms) ones had yet more width? Thanks a lot in advance. Regards., Javier The J52-powered versions had an inlet that was located slightly forward of the J65's inlet. My drawing here shows that: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/08/a4d-skyhawk-one-more-time.html The fuselage of the J52-powered A-4 was therefore slightly wider at the inlet itself but the fuselage width remained the same as the original aft of that. As nuuumannn noted above, the Super Fox inlet was bulged externally when viewed from above but not from the side. The fuselage reverted to the original width within a few feet after the front of the inlet. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/02/super-fox.html Because the inlet ducts had to quickly angle inward to meet the J52 engine face, there was no need for an external bulge aft of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iaf-man Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 My walkarounds are at the bottom of the message The A-4s: E- http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/isaac_gershman/a-4e/ F- http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/isaac_gershman/a-4f/ H- http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/isaac_gershman/a-4h/ N- http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/isaac_gershman/a-4n/ Isaac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAVY870 Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 NZ6255, - rescued from a fate worse than a fate worse than death Fixed up and upgraded, giving another 17 years of service before being sent back to Australia Oh BTW, it was repainted here by BAe at Nowra Your first statement is in error. a Naval aircraft being forced to work for crabs is a fate worse than death. I'd be interested to know if BAE had a photo when they repainted it, there are some fairly major mistakes for an aircraft that all the documentation is still available for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Your first statement is in error. a Naval aircraft being forced to work for crabs is a fate worse than death. I'd be interested to know if BAE had a photo when they repainted it, there are some fairly major mistakes for an aircraft that all the documentation is still available for. I'm sticking with my version Steve As for Bae painting it, No idea if they had or used any drawings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacarre Posted August 30, 2016 Author Share Posted August 30, 2016 (edited) The J52-powered versions had an inlet that was located slightly forward of the J65's inlet. My drawing here shows that: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/08/a4d-skyhawk-one-more-time.html The fuselage of the J52-powered A-4 was therefore slightly wider at the inlet itself but the fuselage width remained the same as the original aft of that. As nuuumannn noted above, the Super Fox inlet was bulged externally when viewed from above but not from the side. The fuselage reverted to the original width within a few feet after the front of the inlet. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/02/super-fox.html Because the inlet ducts had to quickly angle inward to meet the J52 engine face, there was no need for an external bulge aft of that. Thanks a lot Tailspin Turtle! My last question (sorry for all the previous ones) is: A-4M rear fuselage is identical to the all other versions? With my IPMS-Chile friends we are working with Aeroguide drawings, and according to that, the Airfix fuselage is too narrow, the Italeri one is almost spot on, Esci one is a little bit wide at the intake area, and the Fujimi front and rear fuselaje have far too much height and width.In our opinion, and - we insist in this point - in according to Aeroguide drawings and some pics, the Fujimi fuselage shape and dimensions are seriously flawed. And comparing fuselage length, the Fujimi A-4C fuselage iths almost the same length compared to Italeri A-4M one, with the last one length ok with the drawings... Regards., Javier Edited August 30, 2016 by Jacarre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Thanks a lot Tailspin Turtle! My last question (sorry for all the previous ones) is: A-4M rear fuselage is identical to the all other versions? With my IPMS-Chile friends we are working with Aeroguide drawings, and according to that, the Airfix fuselage is too narrow, the Italeri one is almost spot on, Esci one is a little bit wide at the intake area, and the Fujimi front and rear fuselaje have far too much height and width.In our opinion, and - we insist in this point - in according to Aeroguide drawings and some pics, the Fujimi fuselage shape and dimensions are seriously flawed. And comparing fuselage length, the Fujimi A-4C fuselage iths almost the same length compared to Italeri A-4M one, with the last one length ok with the drawings... Regards., Javier I can't say how accurate the Aeroguide drawings are. I'm using pretty good factory drawings that appear to be accurate, certainly in dimensions. I haven't tried to compare the various 1/72 kits for size and shape other than noting the new Airfix A-4B nose is notably off in shape as is the location of the bottom of the rudder. It would appear, glancing at the Fujimi and Airfix kits just now, that the nose of the Fujimi A-4C is a bit too long relative to both the Fujimi A-4E/F and the new Airfix A-4B. The A-4M aft fuselage is identical in basic size and shape to the earlier versions. Note that you have to be cautious with respect to fuselage-length measurements. The A-4M is 40.26 feet long (tip of the nose to the aft upper tip of the rudder) when measured with respect to its waterline but 41.27 feet long when measured parallel to the ground (its "shadow"), a more useful number from the standpoint of planning how many will fit on the hangar deck. I would be very interested in knowing more about the flaws your group sees in the Fujimi kits. For a pretty good outline of the A-4A/B, see (including the link embedded in the post) http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/11/airfix-172-a4d-outline.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now