Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Tailspin Turtle

Members
  • Content Count

    727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

606 Excellent

About Tailspin Turtle

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    tommythomason@sbcglobal.net

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,777 profile views
  1. F2H-3/4. Thia particular radar altimeter system was left over from World War II. See https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/01/world-war-ii-navy-carrier-airplane.html and https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/06/f4u-2-antennas-and-other-stuff.html Subsequent radar altimeters were flush-mounted rectangle although the A4D-2N's was in a fairing under the left wing.
  2. Those are radar altimeter antennas.
  3. A widely reported error. Only the F2H-1 prototypes had the short fuselage (and one was tested with tip tanks). The production F2H-1 fuselage was the same length as the F2H-2. However, tip tanks were added for -2 production and not retrofitted to the -1s. Also see: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2010/09/xf2d-1f2h-1f2h-2-fuel-system.html and: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/12/f2h-banshee-modeling-notes.html
  4. I’ve got nothing better than the best speculation so far. However, I have asked my A-6 subject matter experts about it and will report what they have to say.
  5. http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/01/corogard.html
  6. For what it's worth: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2017/06/lockheed-pf-80-shooting-star-tip-tanks.html
  7. I don't have the Hobbycraft kit handy but what I would do is simply cut off the fork/wheel from the kit's nose landing gear and glue it at a more vertical angle on the front of the existing strut if it is long enough. I wouldn't bother adding much more than the shimmy damper for detail. Three aspects are visually noticeable though: the slight nose-up "sit" of the -3/4 compared to the -1/2, the angle of the fork, and the location of the nose wheel relative to the nose gear wheel well. Note that as long as you don't "land" the model nose wheel first, there isn't much strength required of the nose landing gear (that's why with too little weight in the nose, the model tips back). For much, much more detail, see https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2019/07/mcdonnell-f2h-banshee-nose-landing-gear.html
  8. The most significant error is the nose landing gear, which was not the same as the F2H-1/2’s. Also see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/12/f2h-banshee-modeling-notes.html
  9. Nobody has the F-111B nose exactly right, including Revell, because the lower portion of the conversion nose doesn’t extend far enough aft. Pete’s conversion is hard to find but the best part of it was the decal sheet. The Hasegawa kit main landing wheels can be converted to the high-pressure F-111B’s but note that the first few had Air Force hubs and tires. I’m not sure that I included all the F-111B posts that I’ve done as links in this post, but it’s a starting point: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-complete-f-111b.html One of them shows the correct shape of the early nose and another, the later nose.
  10. Ah, one of my favorite subjects. “Sit” and the location of the horizontal and vertical tails can make a difference on the length of the airplane’s “shadow” on the ground compared to one taken along the waterline: see https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/accurate-three-view-drawings.html What’s worse, tabular dimensions (no reference drawing) can omit details like the barricade deflector on the nose of F9Fs or the refueling probe on the A4D (A-4). For some reason, some Douglas dimensioned drawings of the A-4D show the overall length on the top-view from the tip of the nose to the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer, when the tip of the vertical fin actually extends a bit beyond that.
  11. Sabrejet and I have reviewed pretty good pictures of all three XFJ-2s taken from various angles. We agree that any horizontal-stabilizer fairing differences that appear to be present are most likely to be the result of the location of the camera relative to the aircraft (fore/aft and/or elevated) and/or the lighting. Also note that both 754 and 755 were used for at-sea carrier trials.
  12. Yes - see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/fj-fury.html. If you do the XFJ-2B, all you really need to do is change the armament installation. Maybe make sure that it’s got the early F wing. The XFJ-2s require the FJ-2 landing gear and to be accurate, a different windscreen. Also the wing thing.
  13. The Yankee system was only incorporated on the single-seat Skyraider of two Navy squadrons shortly before their withdrawal from combat operations. It was installed to the right of the existing sliding canopy mechanism and not covered by its boot. Also see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/10/yankee-tractor-rocket-escape-system.html
  14. Senior moment - I forgot I wrote a post on this: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2015/11/whats-under-ad-skyraider-canopy.html
  15. It was a "canvas" covering of the sliding canopy actuator. Any shade of canvas will do.
×
×
  • Create New...