Tailspin Turtle

I got the instructions in a heads-up email a month ago from the decal producer, Cut Then Add. Also a few pictures of some of the tooling.

“More like guidelines, really”

According to Elliott (Monogram), at this time the trainers were to be overall Orange-Yellow. The only dark color assigned for the fuselage band to the primary training squadrons at Pensacola was black.

Mentioned and illustrated in a link within the link I posted earlier in this thread: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/02/f4hf-4-370-gallon-external-tank-redux.html

With respect to the AJ cockpit, there was only one set of flight controls (they were different between the -1 and -2, however). The bombardier had a collection of electronic boxes and a periscope viewing port in front of him. With respect to the Roden kit, the empennage is definitely the original -1s: rudder, stabilizer dihedral, strake on the side of the fuselage aft of the jet engine tailpipe. The illustration of the floor part on the sprue is misleading with respect to the number of seats on the flight deck itself. There was a third crewman on the -1, but he was located on the lower deck on the left side of the fuselage from the cabin door. The assembly instructions clearly show that the floor part is comprised of both the flight and lower decks. The only nit apparent to me from the instructions was that the nose gear doors were the -2's, not the single door on the -1. Easy fix. The canopy framing was also only on the very early production airplanes but that is another easy fix except maybe for shape if it isn't exactly correct and the modeler cares... Note that I wasn't directly involved with Roden when they developed the kit (it was a surprise to me when it was announced) but I have provided others with information on the AJ and it is pretty well documented in my blogs.

Early is right: XT597 was the No. 3 F-4K as it was known at McAir (I was a McAir flight test engineer, beginning with preflight of No. 1, XT595)

Could be worse. The caregivers at my youngest (4 1/2 years old) granddaughter's daycare center refer to her as "Danger Baby".

Did you mean that the McDonnell tanks were not to be found after approximately the year 1966? Which is not correct according to people who pay more attention to these things than I do. It's true that the Navy stopped buying the McDonnell tank at about that time (the Sargent Fletcher tank was cheaper) so eventually they disappeared from the inventory. I also don't know for sure, but my guess is that the Brits used the Sargent Fletchers. For more on the 370-gallon tanks: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/06/things-under-wings-f4h-f-4-phantom.html

That's more comprehensive than what I've done; scroll down here: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/03/f4u-4-modelers-notes.html

Andre, I have some but they are not for sale at the original list price, plus postage to Europe would be pretty expensive as well.

n.b. "Black Angels" was the nickname that the squadron chose for itself at some point. The "orange" trim was standard for the 4th squadron in the air wing after the gray/white scheme was introduced: Transition from Blue to Gray/White The date of the transition was July 1955 out of overhaul (for natural metal experiment only?). It took some months to fully implement. One aspect of the change was that the second squadron trim, which had been white, was changed to yellow. That meant the fourth squadron color, which had been yellow, became orange. Squadron Was Then 1xx Red Red 2xx White Orange Yellow 3xx Light Blue Light Blue 4xx Yellow International Orange 5xx Light Green Light Green 6xx Black Black

I've created a set of documents providing errata and additional information with respect to my F-111B monograph (http://tommythomason.com/books/Grumman-navy-F-111b/). The price (free) is right. Just send me a request via message with your email address.

Not a problem but that post also provides other detail on the F4U-2 that might be of interest: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/06/f4u-2-antennas-and-other-stuff.html

The piston-engine powered Skyraider provided a significant difference in endurance combined with ordnance carrying capability compared to jets. Speed was not essential (in fact, it was much better matched to the cruise speed of the rescue helicopter) since most rescues were accomplished far enough away from heavily defended targets.

My impression is that some 1/72 Hasegawa jet kits had a wider canopy than actual, e.g. the F9F Panther and Cougar. I asked but they didn't admit to them being incorrect, much less doing it that way on purpose. My guess is that it had something to do with injection-molding limitations. For Weinel's thoughts about the accuracy of the 1/72 F8U kits, see https://superheatmemorial.blogspot.com/2018/12/172nd-f-8-kit-review.html

The tiny lettering, excellent stuff, reminded me of a very realistic painting by a famous artist that I saw in a museum many years ago. It was basically of a man reading a newspaper. You couldn’t quite read the printed words but were sure you could if you could just get close enough… You can't remember the name of the artist Mr. T? It was a very long time ago... But this gives you the idea: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/collier-a-trompe-loeil-of-newspapers-letters-and-writing-implements-on-a-wooden-board-t03853

The tiny lettering, excellent stuff, reminded me of a very realistic painting by a famous artist that I saw in a museum many years ago. It was basically of a man reading a newspaper. You couldn’t quite read the printed words but were sure you could if you could just get close enough…

That's the fairing over the port for 20 mm shell case jettison. It's close in shape. Also see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2022/06/f7u-3-cannon-link-and-casing-jettison.html

Excellent - I meant to suggest that if the wing tips were at or a little lower than the top of the fuselage, declare victory.

I've taken a close look at two PB4Y drawings, the one in the Ginter monograph and the PB4Y-2 SAC. That's frustrating because they are not only internally inconsistent between the front and side views to a degree but also slightly different, e.g. the top of the wingtips in the side view in the Ginter monograph is at the same height as the top of the fuselage but in the SAC side view, they are well below the top of the fuselage. However, my first cut at reconciling the given dihedral angle and the drawings suggests that the top of the wingtips should be at the same height as the top of the fuselage. How about taking a yardstick and placing it on top of wingtips to see whether they are lower or higher than the top of the fuselage now?

Personally, I think you should fall back on TLAR. However, if you want to refine that a bit, try looking at the wing directly head on, in other words with the fuselage slightly nose down. I'll be back in a bit with a estimate of the slope of the upper wing surface from that standpoint.

The control surfaces of the TBD were mechanically connected to the control stick or rudder pedals and were not, if I remember correctly, hydraulically boosted. Although there were (and are) airplanes with drooped ailerons for low-speed lift, the TBD was not one of them. If one is down, the other should be up.

Page 68 of the Ginter PB4Y-2 monograph lists the “leading edge dihedral” as 3.4°. From an aerodynamicist’s standpoint, it is definitely not the upper surface of the wing. Since the depth of the PB4Y wing tapers with distance from centerline, the top of the wing will be at less of an angle than 3.4° and the bottom, more of an angle. However, since the wing is at an incidence to the fuselage of 3° and the leading edge sweeps back at 3.5°, in an accurately drawn front view, the dihedral will appear to be less than 3.4°. With significant incidence and sweep, a wing that an aerodynamicist would consider to have 0° dihedral might even appear to have anhedral. Also see Https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/03/anhedraldihedral-and-wing-sweep.html

In case you missed the link to the modeling blog post on the L-39, it is http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/04/sweeping-change-bell-l-39.html And yes, serious nose weight is required, particularly if you add the aft fuselage plug...

For more on the "vortex de-generators", see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2015/02/swept-wing-tip-skid_22.html, including the comments.