F-80 accuracy

[TheRealMrEd]

Thanks, Thud

 

To my  admittedly aging eye, there's not enough difference between the kits to get too worked up about -- except maybe they're getting a little hard to find!

 

So as not to hijack the thread, here are a few related items, concerning the P-80 family:

 

 

Ed

[RidgeRunner]

I beg to differ. Put a Sword half fuselage against an Airfix and the difference is obvious. The main difference is the position of the cockpit and canopy.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by RidgeRunner

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

I beg to differ. Put a Sword half fuselage against an Airfix and the difference is obvious. The main difference is the position of the cockpit and canopy.

 

ah, well, the windscreen on the P-80A is further back than the P-80C, it was moved to allow fitting on an ejector  seat but older information  says the entire cockpit is further back

see

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/lockheed-p-80a-carrier-trials.html

 

Tommy is a member here, this is the  relevant drawing and  info

 

Quote

  Several minor modifications are required to accurately represent the P-80A. For one thing, it did not have an ejection seat. The windscreen was about nine inches farther aft than later P-80s and aft end of the canopy ended in a point, not a half-round "tail." The landing light was located in the tip of the nose rather than on the nose landing gear and the pitot, on the upper leading edge of the tail fin, not under the forward fuselage. A wire radio antenna ran from the canopy to the leading edge of the vertical fin.The red turbine warning stripe was not yet used. However, my guess is that it did have red lines around the flaps on the upper wing surface. My notes say that the airplane was AN512 light gloss gray, something very close to FS 16492 according to Dana Bell. Based on fuselage station drawings provided by Gerry Asher, this is my best guess at the windscreen location of the A and the B/C airplanes:

Also, when the windscreen was moved forward on the P-80B to provide clearance for an ejection, the sliding portion of the canopy was lengthened so that its aft end remained in the same place as on the A.  Cutting the "tail" off the end of the F-80C canopy and sanding it to a point will approximate the P-80A canopy. For the correct length, you'll have to shorten the sliding canopy by cutting about six-seven inches off the front of it.

 

the Sword kit maybe based on the information the entire cockpit  was further back, there are more images and information in the link!

 

HTH

T

 

[stevehnz]

I noticed this on Hattons website when I was having a furkle through it upon reading they were going out of kits, thought it might be of use to someone on here, I picked another up recently.

Steve.

[TheRealMrEd]

Hi all,

 

Here is a pic of the two different kit halves, taped together, Airfix on the near side and Sword on the backside:

 

 

Next, we have the view switched 180 degrees, Sword to the forefront and Airfix canopy sitting where it should. Not gap on Sword canopy.

 

 

Next view, Airfix canopy removed:

 

 

 

 

Lastly, a copy of the Vol 1, #2 issue of Replica In Scale, with each hald overlaid on the appropriate side drawings. Each on fits perfectly. Note that these are stated as being F-80A drawings, and I suppose one could email Phillip Friddel over at the current R.I.S. blog and ask whether his drawings were truely of a F-80A on that page from 1972:

 

http://replicainscale.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&max-results=7

 

With the simple bodywork needed to move the canopy one way or the other, I would feel very confident about building an accurate P-80, even using these two different kit parts, and coming up with a very nice model. Admittedly, the differing style of panel lines would be a chore! In short, I reiterate my contention that either would be a good choice to build, unless one wishes to consider only a "shake and bake" assembly.

 

Ed

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by TheRealMrEd

[RidgeRunner]

Thanks Ed. Very comprehensive.

 

martin

[Eric Mc]

On 10/6/2016 at 9:34 AM, Graham Boak said:

It was certainly stated that the Spitfire I and Lancaster toolings were excessively worn, though calling either "crude" seems harsh, particularly in comparison with so many other kits!.  I haven't seen the tooling state mentioned regarding the P-51D or Fw190A.  The latter was one of their better kits, but not the former.  I have the replacement P-51D and it is rather nice.    I gather from comments that the new Fw190 lacks the accuracy of the older kit.  Be that as it may, I agree that the F-80 is unlikely to appear high on the list of Airfix kits requiring replacement, but a re-release may be likelier.

That emphasises my point.

Moulds that are from a later era but are now worn - because they were big sellers and produced in large quantities - also needed replacing too.

 

I would suggest that the F-80 would not fall into this category and therefore we won't see a new tool any time soon. The same goes for their F-84 and their F-86D - which are both decent mid 70s era models.I certainly would not say that the 1978-80 era Spitfire I or Lancaster were crude.

 

When I said "crude" I was referring to releases that date back to the late 1950s to the mid 1960s. 

[Graham Boak]

I agree with you.  However, there are those who argue that the presence of raised panel lines and the lack on internal cockpit or wheelwell detail means that these models do indeed deserve the adjective "crude".  This is sufficient to rule them out of consideration for making and thus a new tooling is required, nay, demanded,   So it is useful to add some qualification at times.

[Tailspin Turtle]

I'll check with Phil, but I'm pretty sure that the cockpit stayed in the same place. See http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/02/lockheed-p-80-shooting-star.html and http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/10/lockheed-pf-80.html

[72modeler]

Not exactly on topic, but I found some really neat photos of 36th FS 8th FBG F-80C's, apparently taken at K-13, Suwon, Korea. Lots of diorama possibilities and good views of assorted bomb loads and Misawa tanks. Note that on some aircraft the serials have been removed or painted over. Also a couple of photos of the armed T-33A's that most of the groups used for familiarization flights for new pilots. Enjoy!

 

Mike

 

https://jetpilotoverseas.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/f-80-korea-1951/

[Jacarre]

On 05-10-2016 at 5:12 AM, Giorgio N said:

 

Javier, have you had any chance to compare the Pavla vacform canopy with the Airfix and the real one ? If the Pavla part is correct, it would be an easy way to sort this area on the Airfix kit

 Yeah Giorgio, my friend Fernando has the Pavla one but it's not a real progress on the Airfix one. Is better the Sword effort. I would like to have it...

[Gene K]

On 10/1/2016 at 10:25 AM, 72modeler said:

...waiting for Platz to do one- if they engineered their excellent T-33A kit molds for a later F-80 kit, it would be great!

 

Yes, a Platz F-80 would indeed be great.

 

Here are a couple of Platz T-33s cut along the lines of how the T-33 evolved from the F-80:

 

 

I moved on to another project after I did the preliminary fitting above (incomplete, for example the cockpit position). Plan was to use Mattel Vac-U-Form with Sword parts such as canopy and tanks. A fun exercise.

 

Gene K

Edited November 19, 2016 by Gene K

[Jacarre]

On 12-10-2016 at 2:34 AM, TheRealMrEd said:

Hi all,

 

Here is a pic of the two different kit halves, taped together, Airfix on the near side and Sword on the backside:

 

 

Next, we have the view switched 180 degrees, Sword to the forefront and Airfix canopy sitting where it should. Not gap on Sword canopy.

 

 

Next view, Airfix canopy removed:

 

 

 

 

Lastly, a copy of the Vol 1, #2 issue of Replica In Scale, with each hald overlaid on the appropriate side drawings. Each on fits perfectly. Note that these are stated as being F-80A drawings, and I suppose one could email Phillip Friddel over at the current R.I.S. blog and ask whether his drawings were truely of a F-80A on that page from 1972:

 

http://replicainscale.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&max-results=7

 

With the simple bodywork needed to move the canopy one way or the other, I would feel very confident about building an accurate P-80, even using these two different kit parts, and coming up with a very nice model. Admittedly, the differing style of panel lines would be a chore! In short, I reiterate my contention that either would be a good choice to build, unless one wishes to consider only a "shake and bake" assembly.

 

Ed

 

 

Very interesting... is there a possibility to work on the cabin area of the airfix to fix this problem? I want to clone the clar parts of an sword F-80, because the two main problems of the airfix kit - i think  - are the windscreen and canopy and the intake width. Here my friends of IPMS Chile measured an example of our Museum (FACh F-80C) and the intakes of the airfix kit are a little too big (in height, 1mm bigger than the real deal in scale).

 

Regards.,

Javier

[Trenton guy]

They are indeed some good looking F-80's. Is it me or are the Airfix wing tip tanks larger ( and too large). Also the Platz T-33 was engineered with a F-80 in mind. All but the forward fuselage sprue are labeled T-33/F-80. Too bad Plarz are in no rush to complete the set..

[DennisTheBear]

Very interesting discussion. I have 2 of the Airfix 1/72 F-80s, and a Hasegawa 1/72 T-33 in the stash.

Glad to know the old Airfix stacks up well.

 

DennisTheBear

[RidgeRunner]

Quote

Very interesting discussion. I have 2 of the Airfix 1/72 F-80s, and a Hasegawa 1/72 T-33 in the stash.

 Me too, in fact I have 2 Airfix, one Hasegawa T-33 and a Platz T-33 .. :)... One day I'll make a start on them

 

Martin

 

[Jacarre]

5 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

 Me too, in fact I have 2 Airfix, one Hasegawa T-33 and a Platz T-33 .. :)... One day I'll make a start on them

 

Martin

 

 Interesting, i would like to see that WIP! With my friends we analyzed the Hasegawa and Heller offerings, and the former has the canopy shape a little off, apart of the width of the vertical tail surfaces (too narrow) and wrong scribing of the ailerons. Heller one appears to be ok, only the lower rear fuselaje has too much "curve", should be a more straight line from the wing trailing edge to the tailpipe (Hasegawa is ok in that point).

 

Regards,

Javier

 

 

[RidgeRunner]

Well, the Hasegawa is only there as a donor of the wing tanks for the F-80...... After that it'll bee bayed as parts. Also one of the F-80s is already in parts mode ;)....

 

martin

[junglierating]

I put my airfix effort on here last Month ....nice kit