Jon Bryon

I wonder if I can ask for your opinion on an RF-84F and the drag chute housing? I want to make 52-7366 from the 45th TRS (USAF) from around the 1955-1957 or so timeframe. This aircraft is on the 1/48 RF-84F sheet by Caracal with the polka dot markings. I can only find one photo of this aircraft that shows the rear fuselage, but it's small and blurry. I *think* it doesn't have the large drag chute housing, but can't be sure. I'd love it if it did since I could make this using the Tanmodel kit, but I'm pessimistic. Anyway, I'd love a second opinion: Many thanks Jon

A UK seller on eBay has sold a few. He has one left last time I looked. Jon

I'd be grateful if they released the IM canopy separately as I have the original release. Special Hobby did this for the MPM L-39. Not holding my breath though 🙂 Jon

The problem is that it doesn't matter what anyone does. No one has come up with a meaningful definition of what a 'type' is beyond arbitrary nomenclature. What's the parts commonality between a Mk.I and Mk.24 Spitfire? I don't know, but given the nose, tail, rear upper fuselage, canopy, wings, etc., are all different, it can't be that much. That's what the discussion is about: what is a type vs a sub-type. You have your opinion and I have mine, but that's all it will be: an opinion. Jon

Well my comment was intended to show the futility of trying to distinguish between an aircraft type and sub-type in any meaningful way, but when it comes to the Mirage/Kfir and Spitfire 1/24 distinction I'll stick with what I wrote on the basis that a kit manufacturer can make a Mirage/Kfir by modifying a common set of mould (a la Kinetic) but no one has done this for a Spitfire Mk.I and Mk.24, presumably because you can't. Ergo a Kfir is a Mirage sub-type (at least the wings are the same!) but a Spitfire Mk.24 is effectively a different aircraft. Of course it also matters which Kfir we're talking about... But all this is highly debatable, which is precisely my point. Jon Jon

Good to see some progress on this! Jon

Hi Des, That sounds like a logical approach although I've started on a slightly different path using body filler. However, it's not working out that well and I haven't actually cut anything yet. If you have any photos to share I'd love to see how you did it. Kind regards Jon

Thanks. It might give me a good starting point if I can find a scrapped kit. Jon

Thank you - this is super useful information. Do you know if the ventral keel was the same as for the F-84G? I'm wondering if I can get hold of a Tamiya or Revell kit that might help me towards back-dating the Kinetic kit in this area. Jon

Hello all, I've started Kinetic's 1/48 F-84F Thunderstreak and the plan was to make this aircraft using Super Scale set 481275: This is an F-84F-35-RE 52-6500 pictured in 1957 (according to the decals) of the 509th FBS/405th FBG. I am already aware I need to cut down and reshape the tail and I will be replacing the nose with the Quickboost one. Here is a photo of an F-84F from the same production block: My question is simple: does 52-6500 at this time have the small keel or large drag chute housing under the rear fuselage? To me the photo is unclear. There's another picture in the 'F-84 Thunderjet in Action' book, but that's even less clear. I have spent hours on Google trying to resolve this without success. All photos of similarly marked F-84Fs I can find from the 405th FBG show the small housing under the rear fuselage (where visible). Having looked at countless F-84F images, it seems pretty clear to be that the presence of the large drag chute housing doesn't really correlate to block number, but unit/time of service. That is, it looks like all 405th aircraft didn't have the housing, and almost all ANG F-84Fs did (only very early ones seem to have it missing). Was it a retrofit item? I am leaning to towards 52-6500 having the larger housing just because what is visible in the photo shows a slightly concave shape to what's under the rear fuselage, but I'd love to be sure. Before I contemplate hacking off the lower rear fuselage and scratchbuilding the smaller ventral keel, does anyone have definitive evidence as to what the situation would have been with 52-6500? Many thanks for any help Jon

Thank you Yuebin. Say hi to them from me as well Jon / Baixiang

太好了！不巧我没有去过洛阳 😪 当然我知道老麦模型！在我家很附近也是我最喜欢的商店 🙂 每个星期我去过。 我很想那个地方。 I was that foreign modeller The world is small. Where do you live now? Jon

Where are you from in China? I lived in 郑州市 from 2006-2013 (and wrote a bit about it here: https://jonbryon.com/modelling-in-china/) I loved China and miss a lot. 过去的时候我汉语说得还不错可是因为九年多没有说现在的水平非常低！太可惜了！ The models you have made are very nice. I hope you post more pictures. Jon / 白翔

Here's another perspective. This model also has the Belcher Bits tail. I always thought the incidence of the engine nacelles looked odd too, as if they should be more parallel to the ground, but I've not done any meaningful research into that. Jon

The Mikromir kit has a reputation for appalling fit problems, to do with the undercarriage bay IIRC. I've never made one, but also never bought one purely on the basis of its reputation. Jon

I'd be surprised if you've got a Dmold 1/48 Do17 resin tail correction, but if you have, I'd be very interested Cheers Jon

Thanks. Do you mean the tonal variation in the paint or the splattered weathering? The former is thin layers of paint using different mottle masks. The latter is flicking diluted oil paints from a partially loaded brush over a cocktail stick. Cheers Jon

Thanks Pete. I'm not sure lacquers are any better than other paints for getting a smooth finish (although they are more user friendly than water-based acrylics!). The main advantage for me is the super-quick drying time and ability to spray fine lines. The chipped nose was done with some sponged on masking fluid. Cheers Jon

This model completes a trio of late 1940s seaplanes built from my stash: Mars Models 1/48 Beriev Be-4. Aside from some seat belts and the aerial wire, it's out of the box and a thoroughly enjoyable kit to make. Be prepared for some work though - there are a *lot* of parts. The scheme is one provided in the kit and the finish is Akan and MRP lacquers. A full build article on this has just been published in the July issue of SAM. Thanks for looking and comments welcome. Jon

Interesting that the clear sprue is different from the F/G kit and they've abandoned providing separate open/closed canopies. Jon

The main reason I stopped buying SAMI several years ago was the poor standard of writing (as in spelling and grammar). Has this improved with the reincarnation? Jon

This was the reaction I was expecting from a lot of people, but I don't think it's really fair. The Hasegawa kit is from 1983 and suffers from lots of flash and very basic detailing. It's just not up to the standard of what one of the most popular modern jets should be moulded to these days. Tamiya never did an A. Kinetic's original tooling is awful (yes I have built one). All the other contenders (Academy, Italeri, Revell, etc.) are widely regarded as sub-standard. I'm not going to buy this kit - between Kinetic and Hasegawa the early F-16 slots in my collection have been filled. But the lack of a modern tooling for this aircraft has been a gaping hole for years. I'm just surprised GWH didn't get there first. Jon

This has been a gap amongst modern, well produced kits for a long time. 👏 Jon

Thanks Latinbear. I'm trying to figure out if I can manage to take it to Telford. Hope to bump into you there and chat further. Cheers Jon

I think the pricing is about right for this kind of product. I want to use Archer resin rivets on an Academy 1/48 CH-46 this year and I reckon that will cost me about £50 just for rows of rivets. Jon