Options for a FJ-4 in 1/72

[Courageous]

After the recent releases of the FJ-2, FJ-3 and FJ-3M by Sword, where does one go for a FJ-4 in 1/72? I know that the Emhar kit exists and available, and their is a cockpit detail set available but how accurate is this option? Can any parts from the Sword kits be used for a -4?

 

Stuart 

[72modeler]

3 hours ago, Courageous said:

After the recent releases of the FJ-2, FJ-3 and FJ-3M by Sword, where does one go for a FJ-4 in 1/72? I know that the Emhar kit exists and available, and their is a cockpit detail set available but how accurate is this option? Can any parts from the Sword kits be used for a -4?

 

Stuart 

Stuart,

 

The only other 1/72 kit that comes to mind is the Rareplanes vacform, which I have, and it's pretty good. I think there might have also been a resin FJ-4, but I don't remember who did it. I doubt that any of the Sword FJ-2/3 bits would work on an FJ-3, as the undercart and canopy were not the same, but can't say for sure about the cockpit and the seat.  I haven't really thought much about crossover of parts, as the FJ-4 is not on my research/detail set/decal  queue right now. I think the Pavla detail set/canopy is nice- I have I,t but haven't really compared it to TT's and Ginter's references to see how accurate it is...regardless, it's a whole lot better than what comes in the Emhar kit!  Best I can do- sorry! (Like many of you, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the good folks at Sword will consider doing one at some point.)

Mike

[John R]

I would avoid the Emhar kit unless you are desparate.

John

[Giorgio N]

It's a very basic kit, with what looks like a decently accurate outline (although IIRC the tailplanes are too long or something like that )  but some annoying omissions and some weird features. Among these are the use of raised lines for the airbrakes, the presence of only some fairings on the same airbrakes, and presence of ribbing on one side of the tail but not the other. Cockpit as said is useless but Pavla comes to the rescue here. Detailing in general is very poor, this looks like an early '70s kit even if it was issued in the mid '90s.

Said that, it's the only option easily available. I've seen the Merlin Models kit for sale quite often but this would be even worse.. on mine the two fuselage halves are of different length by several mm...  avoid at all cost !

[Courageous]

Cheers guys, this was an exploration exercise to see what my options are, not that I'm anywhere near doing an -4. But going on the current feedback:

1st choice- Rareplanes

2nd- Emhar

last- Merlin

Let's hope that after Sword's recent releases, they'll seriously look into producing FJ-4

 

Stuart

[Don McIntyre]

IMO, the Emhar kit looked a lot like a Matchbox kit. The moldings definitely had that look to them, even the sprue attachment points and the spring frames themselves.

The Emhar kit did have (quite prominent) raised panel lines, unlike those made by the Matchbox "trench digger" to whom much criticism was directed.

[Tailspin Turtle]

For more than you probably wanted to know, including a link to a build of the Emhar kit: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/10/north-american-fj-44b-fury-notes.html

 

My Rareplanes canopy has yellowed slightly but I suspect it will get worse if I bring it out of the closet. Aeroclub did a canopy and metal landing gear. Pavla has a canopy as well.

 

 

 

[72modeler]

9 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

It's a very basic kit, with what looks like a decently accurate outline (although IIRC the tailplanes are too long or something like that )  but some annoying omissions and some weird features. Among these are the use of raised lines for the airbrakes, the presence of only some fairings on the same airbrakes, and presence of ribbing on one side of the tail but not the other. Cockpit as said is useless but Pavla comes to the rescue here. Detailing in general is very poor, this looks like an early '70s kit even if it was issued in the mid '90s.

Said that, it's the only option easily available. I've seen the Merlin Models kit for sale quite often but this would be even worse.. on mine the two fuselage halves are of different length by several mm...  avoid at all cost !

Yep- it always me of an old Frog kit; basic outline and dimensions pretty much right on, but no scribing, no details, and coke bottle transparencies, but if you have a big spares bin and/or kits to rob better detail parts from, you make a pretty darned good model; I always felt a real sense of satisfaction when I built an old Frog or Airfix kit and people had no idea what kit is was! How are you doing, G?

Mike

 

Just got back from the airshow at Kelly AB-  fewest vintage and modern aircraft on static display and aerial demos in a long time, but the F-35 demo was impressive and Happy Jack's Go Buggy, a gorgeous P-51D that is owned and flown by an ex- USN F-18 pilot here in SA, is always a feast for the eyes and ears. Our local ANG squadron, the 182nd FS  Lonestar Gunfighters had two of their Vipers that are in special anniversary schemes on display. First link is to the 182nd FS F-16 Lonestar Gunfighters scheme, and the second link has great photos and history of our two best-known Texas ANG squadrons; I thought of you when I found it, Giorgio- hope you enjoy it!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/182d_Fighter_Squadron#/media/File:182d_Fighter_Squadron_General_Dynamics_F-16C_Block_30F_Fighting_Falcon_87-255.jpg

 

http://silverhawkauthor.com/warplane-survivors-usa-texas_285.html

 

 

 

 

[RidgeRunner]

6 hours ago, Courageous said:

1st choice- Rareplanes

2nd- Emhar

last- Merlin

 

All, 

 

the Rareplanes is wrong in outline in many ways. Just look at online images on line.  The Emhar is by far the best option, although not the greatest!

 

M

[Giorgio N]

14 hours ago, 72modeler said:

Yep- it always me of an old Frog kit; basic outline and dimensions pretty much right on, but no scribing, no details, and coke bottle transparencies, but if you have a big spares bin and/or kits to rob better detail parts from, you make a pretty darned good model; I always felt a real sense of satisfaction when I built an old Frog or Airfix kit and people had no idea what kit is was! How are you doing, G?

Mike

 

Just got back from the airshow at Kelly AB-  fewest vintage and modern aircraft on static display and aerial demos in a long time, but the F-35 demo was impressive and Happy Jack's Go Buggy, a gorgeous P-51D that is owned and flown by an ex- USN F-18 pilot here in SA, is always a feast for the eyes and ears. Our local ANG squadron, the 182nd FS  Lonestar Gunfighters had two of their Vipers that are in special anniversary schemes on display. First link is to the 182nd FS F-16 Lonestar Gunfighters scheme, and the second link has great photos and history of our two best-known Texas ANG squadrons; I thought of you when I found it, Giorgio- hope you enjoy it!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/182d_Fighter_Squadron#/media/File:182d_Fighter_Squadron_General_Dynamics_F-16C_Block_30F_Fighting_Falcon_87-255.jpg

 

http://silverhawkauthor.com/warplane-survivors-usa-texas_285.html

 

 

 

 

 

Makes sense if the Emhar kit looks like a Frog product, afterall the first 3 kits from this company had been prepared by Frog before the company closed. I wonder if the Fury came from the same "design team".

 

Thanks for sharing the links ! Love to see all those Texas ANG pictures, ANG aircrafts make for very interesting subjects. Having a Sabre Dog in the stash I'm now very tempted to build one of those shown in the link...

[Tailspin Turtle]

23 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

 

All, 

 

the Rareplanes is wrong in outline in many ways. Just look at online images on line.  The Emhar is by far the best option, although not the greatest!

 

M

? I've compared it to the pretty good North American FJ-4 drawings (which I may have provided to Gordon) and the parts match almost exactly. I don't know what online images you are referring to. Are they are built models or three view drawings? The only shape problem is the horizontal tail planform, which is understandable because the NAA drawing is incorrect (see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2015/04/esci-148th-fj-23.html and scroll down).

[RidgeRunner]

I stand corrected! The images I've see of it seem way off beam, though.

 

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal11/10401-10500/gal10474-Fury-Attard/00.shtm

 

Martin

Edited November 7, 2017 by RidgeRunner

[Tailspin Turtle]

10 minutes ago, RidgeRunner said:

I stand corrected! The images I've see of it seem way off beam, though.

 

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal11/10401-10500/gal10474-Fury-Attard/00.shtm

 

Martin

Hmm - That is a bit ugly. Some of it may be lens effect. However, the front of the kit fuselage (the inlet lip is a separate part) is canted forward and it shouldn't be. The refueling pod and matching drop tank are clearly too big (those weren't on the drawing). The models look better in the pictures taken from above since those two features aren't so evident.

[jpk]

The differences between the -3 and -4 cockpits are minimal and they are essentially the same. The main differences being the instrument panels between the two. The basic cockpit side consoles are the same as is the seat in the early -4's before MB seats were installed later towards the end of the -4's career. I would think that the cockpit from a Sword -3 would work well in an Emhar -4. Not saying it wouldn't need adjustment but as for similarity, it would work. Also useable would be the nose gear strut and well. They were also pretty much the same. If I recall correctly the Emhar's nose gear strut is not very good. I don't know though how willing one would be to sacrifice a perfectly good kit to provide a more accurate cockpit and nose gear for the Emhar kit.

[RidgeRunner]

53 minutes ago, jpk said:

I would think that the cockpit from a Sword -3 would work well in an Emhar -4.

 

Surely cheaper to get the Pavla FJ-4 cockpit set!

 

Martin

 

[jpk]

Yes, probably so. I'm not familiar with Pavla's resin and its quality or accuracy. I'm just commenting on the OP's question.