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

    705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tailspin Turtle

  1. It’s a separate website: https://superheatmemorial.blogspot.com/
  2. If the canopy is closed, there isn’t anything under it other than the canopy shear web (structure bridging between the side frames of the canopy) and on some airplanes, a flush antenna on the inside of the canopy itself. For details on the Obscureco detail set, see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/03/obscureco-f11f-detail-set.html. I’m pretty sure ithat it’s still available directly from Obscureco (for $17 according to the website that I just looked at): http://www.obscureco.com/
  3. I’m behind on moving Superheat’s F8U material to the website I established for it. However, in his discussion of the relative merits of the 1/72 kits, he doesn’t mention the ventral fins. See: https://superheatmemorial.blogspot.com/2018/12/172nd-f-8-kit-review.html
  4. I need to revisit this but for the time being: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/f8u-crusader-variations.html
  5. Paul Boyer has one in progress for Fine Scale Modeler.
  6. That’s a definite maybe: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/07/f8f-bearcat-wheels-and-wheel-wells.html
  7. Something to think about: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2014/02/hasagawa-p2v-neptune-kit.html
  8. I’m just speculating, but I don’t think Grumman would have gone to the trouble (design, stress analysis, tooling, etc.) of making a pair of non folding wings for two civil Bearcats. There wasn’t much weight savings to be had since the wings folded manually (a lever released the locking pins and a bar stuck in a hole in the outboard panel used to fold the outboard panel up). My guess is that the paint shop simply puttied over the joint and sanded the putty smooth before painting. Maybe the inboard and outboard panels were physically attached to each other so the hinges and locking pins could be removed but that doesn’t seem worth the engineering effort involved.
  9. For what it’s worth, it doesn’t have the flange of the fuel tanks: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/09/things-under-wings-post-war-external.html Here’s is the original blog post that we’ve been referring to: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2017/09/f8f-2p-propeller-hub.html Note that the aft end of the pod does not taper as much as the fuel tank, indicative of the need for the depth of the third camera position. With respect to the camera location, I’d guess starboard, vertical, port from front to back.
  10. Sorry - that's all I've got on that pod. I lightened the picture of the it, which revealed a port on its left side. I'll add that to the blog post along with an illustration of a trimetrogon installation in a B-17. The pictures of the pod on F8Fs in flight aren't high enough resolution to reveal any details on it but my guess is that there was a port on the right side and one on the bottom.
  11. I've updated the post again with a Step 7 warning not to try to use one of the resin parts provided and also a link to a description of the configuration of the nose landing gear.
  12. I just added a correction to Step 13 of the assembly corrections to this blog post.
  13. My first impressions: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2019/04/sword-172-f3h-demon-kits.html
  14. Maybe in that case but in general it’s to allow for lengthening the forward fuselage if needs be while retaining the FS numbers for structure aft of the increase and also not going to negative FS numbers. Grumman engineers managed to get very confusing in this regard on the change from the F9F-2/3 to the F9F-4/5. See the drawing note here: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/accurate-three-view-drawings.html Also see the McDonnell use of “Buttock” in an F2H drawing in the same post.
  15. To expand a little on Sabrejet’s excellent explanation, the practice and nomenclature was a carryover from the “lofting” (defining the shape) of boat hulls. Station was the fore and aft reference; Water Line, up and down: and Buttock, left and right. U.S. practice is generally Fuselage Station, FS (and 0 was often ahead of the nose); Water Line, WL (with 0 almost always being far enough below the fuselage so there were no negative numbers); and Butt Line, BL (with zero being on the centerline).
  16. I’m pretty sure I would have remembered posting that one. No foul though.
  17. Huh? That reference doesn’t ring a bell. What was the post?
  18. 150-gallon tank info: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/09/things-under-wings-post-war-external.html
  19. Kitty Hawk is well aware of the substitutions made to create a presentable F6U from the junk taken out of the desert as well as having been presented with pretty good documentation of the actual configuration variations http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/06/relying-on-museum-examples-for-detail.html
  20. On further review, it looks like it was a heavy touchdown, with the forward fuselage breaking off at a manufacturing join. Most of the “bounce”, therefore, was aerodynamic, with the center of gravity shifting aft, resulting in a pitch up, which caused the angle of attack and therefore the lift to increase. Something similar occurred here, only with the extreme aft end of the fuselage breaking off: http://youtu.be/QIsbSz03WdU
  21. I’ve looked at the video a few times. The sink rate doesn’t appear to be overly excessive prior to touchdown but the bounce following suggests that it was. 7+ negative g would be well beyond any structural design criteria. However, I would expect the landing gear to collapse rather than the aircraft bounce if it were that high.
  22. I’m beginning to wonder about that aileron-snatch explanation, although it seems possible that the wings of the Bat caused a pressure change under the wing that sucked the aileron down or up. However, a wide, not very thick fairing that extends to or even a bit forward of the wing leading edge doesn’t strike me as a fix for that.
  23. As Dana has noted, the earlier GSB weathered/faded much quicker and more significantly than the later one, so there are at least three GSBs: new early, weathered early, and later...
  24. On page 151 of Veronico’s PB4Y-2 monograph, there is a picture of a VP-24 P4Y-2B with the fairing and the Bat rack. However, he does note that the fairing appears to have not been required unless it was a Bat that was loaded on that station, e.g. a KDH target or a depth charge could be carried without it.
  25. Or I could just look it up in Nick Veronico's excellent PB4Y-2 monograph published by Steve Ginter: "In addition (on PB4Y-2Bs armed with the SWOD Mk 9 Bat bombs), a small fairing was installed on the top of the wing to redirect airflow over the ailerons, thereby preventing airflow interruptions that caused 'aileron snatch.'"
×
×
  • Create New...