1:72 Planet Models Grumman XF10F-1 Jaguar

[Navy Bird]

On 6/1/2013 at 23:05, Learstang said:

Very nice, Bill! Our friend "Jaggy" is looking good! That horizontal stabiliser assembly looks like a tiny delta-winged aeroplane was slapped on top of the fin. You're certainly not going to have anyone saying when they see the model, "Oh, great it's just another...", more like "Ye Gods! What is that THING!."

Regards,

Jason

 

I agree. It's different, that's for sure.

 

For all its coolness, the horizontal stabiliser was a constant source of problem on the plane. I believe the general idea behind it was that the stick moved the tiny canard delta, and the aerodynamic forces on it would move the larger delta. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, Tommy!) Think of it as an elevator in front of the horizontal tailplanes. The biggest problem was lag - Corky would move the stick and some seconds later he would get a response. If the stick were moved too far, and he had to correct, the lag time resulted in over-correction and at times an uncontrollable aircraft. After trying numerous different methods to solve the problems, they ended up mounting an F9F Panther tail (EDIT: F9F-6 Cougar horizontal stabilisers), which worked quite well. If that had been there from the beginning, and of course if Westinghouse could have delivered an engine to spec, things might have been different for the Jaguar.

The test rig for the double delta tail was mounted on a rocket sled traveling on rails. Check this out:

 

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Learstang]

Hmmmm. That test rig would actually make an interesting model.

Regards,

Jason

[Tailspin Turtle]

I believe the general idea behind it was that the stick moved the tiny canard delta, and the aerodynamic forces on it would move the larger delta. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, Tommy!) Think of it as an elevator in front of the horizontal tailplanes. The biggest problem was lag - Corky would move the stick and some seconds later he would get a response. If the stick were moved too far, and he had to correct, the lag time resulted in over-correction and at times an uncontrollable aircraft. After trying numerous different methods to solve the problems, they ended up mounting an F9F Panther tail, which worked quite well. If that had been there from the beginning, and of course if Westinghouse could have delivered an engine to spec, things might have been different for the Jaguar.

Cheers,

Bill

All correct except it was a Cougar horizontal stabilizer, not a Panther tail. Grumman developed the concept to avoid the need for a hydraulic system for the flight controls (roll control was also bad but not as bad as pitch control). The engineers were a bit misled by good results from an early test of the pitch control system on a model airplane (beware scale effect and Reynolds Number).

[Navy Bird]

On 6/2/2013 at 13:26, Tailspin Turtle said:

All correct except it was a Cougar horizontal stabilizer, not a Panther tail. Grumman developed the concept to avoid the need for a hydraulic system for the flight controls (roll control was also bad but not as bad as pitch control). The engineers were a bit misled by good results from an early test of the pitch control system on a model airplane (beware scale effect and Reynolds Number).

 

Thanks, Tommy! I read the F9F, but didn't read the Dash 6 in the description. An F9F-6 is most definitely a Cougar! Here is a shot of the Cougar horizontal stabilser installed on the XF10F:

 

 

Just finished re-scribing and rubbing down the primer. I found a bottle of Glossy Sea Blue in the stash and I'm off to stir it up!

Edit: No paint yet! I forgot all about the speed brakes! These were mounted for the 17th flight as well. You can see them on the forward section of the Stars & Bars in the photo above. Hmmm...I'm going to have to dig for this.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Navy Bird]

All right, just one photo for today. After a thorough search of the stash, I found some photoetch speed brakes which will work. Well, not from the stash proper, but rather removed from an old model and soaked in lacquer thinner to remove the paint. Here they are, after I modified them just a tad:

 

 

They're just about the right size, but the hole pattern is different. I'm OK with that, as I suspect there will be few here or at any exhibitions that will know how many holes were in the Jaguar's speed brakes. Well, except for Tommy of course. So, Tommy, look the other way when these speed brakes come into view!

 

I got as close as I could, these are from a McDonnell F3H Demon, which was a contemporary of the XF10F Jaguar. Who knows, maybe they both used the same speed brake vendor, like Speed Brakes 'R' Us or something.

 

I'm going to paint these and apply after the fuselage has been painted and the transfers applied. This is because I have some photos that show the US national insignia underneath the speed brake, which is slightly proud of the fuselage surface. I'm not surprised at this, as the speed brakes were added well after the aircraft was built.

 

The model has been painted Glossy Sea Blue, and will now sit and cure for a few days before I even attempt to touch it. Glossy Sea Blue does NOT look good with my fingerprints in it!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Tailspin Turtle]

All correct except it was a Cougar horizontal stabilizer, not a Panther tail. Grumman developed the concept to avoid the need for a hydraulic system for the flight controls (roll control was also bad but not as bad as pitch control). The engineers were a bit misled by good results from an early test of the pitch control system on a model airplane (beware scale effect and Reynolds Number).

I forgot that I mentioned this subject on a post: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2009/01/it-seemed-like-good-idea-at-time.html

[Navy Bird]

I thought I'd add a few photos of the now blue XF10F as she continues to cure. The model was dry enough to pick it and put it in the photo booth, but I know that gloss enamels take a long time to fully cure. So Jaggy ain't dry enough yet to have me go and mask off the gear bays, leading edge surfaces, etc. Maybe this weekend.

 

So here she is, curing away:

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. Thanks Tommy for the link - never saw a picture of the spin test model before, that was great. I've been thinking about a way to add the paddle spoilers, but these were sealed up for Flight 17, the first with the horsals and speed brakes. The spoilers were unsealed for Flight 24, but this also had a "Larger Balanced Tail" of which I know nothing about. Flights 27 and 28 could be candidates, as the original smaller tail was reinstalled, the spoilers were unsealed, whilst the horsals were not removed until Fight 29. But if I can't figure out a way to make the paddle spoilers then it's moot anyway!

[Learstang]

Hmmm, we've got horsals, paddle spoilers, "Larger Balanced Tail", smaller tail, you don't think ole Jaggy had some stability issues? Looking good, though, Bill.

Regards,

Jason

[David H]

I believe it was a Blackburn Firebrand, not sure on the pilot.

Julien

My Guess would be none other than Eric "Winkle" Brown. Always good for the occasional one-liner. His remark about the Firebrand, "Blackburn engineers proclaimed with pride the Firebrand was as sturdy as a Battleship, and i can attest that it certainly flew like one."

Or something like that....

david

[David H]

I thought I'd add a few photos of the now blue XF10F as she continues to cure. The model was dry enough to pick it and put it in the photo booth, but I know that gloss enamels take a long time to fully cure. So Jaggy ain't dry enough yet to have me go and mask off the gear bays, leading edge surfaces, etc. Maybe this weekend.

So here she is, curing away:

Cheers,

Bill

PS. Thanks Tommy for the link - never saw a picture of the spin test model before, that was great. I've been thinking about a way to add the paddle spoilers, but these were sealed up for Flight 17, the first with the horsals and speed brakes. The spoilers were unsealed for Flight 24, but this also had a "Larger Balanced Tail" of which I know nothing about. Flights 27 and 28 could be candidates, as the original smaller tail was reinstalled, the spoilers were unsealed, whilst the horsals were not removed until Fight 29. But if I can't figure out a way to make the paddle spoilers then it's moot anyway!

You know, it looks less dysfunctional with the wings swept back.

david

[Navy Bird]

On 6/6/2013 at 21:37, David H said:

You know, it looks less dysfunctional with the wings swept back.

david

 

David, it does, doesn't it? From some angles it even reminds me of an F-86 (other than the double delta tail). It makes you wonder what might have been if the Grumman engineers hadn't designed an airplane with so many features that pushed the boundaries. You know, just one or two impossible things instead of forty.

 

Jason, if you have a chance to read the Ginter book on the XF10F, you'll find that the aircraft had stability issues, although primarily in the swept wing configuration. Although Corky Meyer writes in an informal style with more than a bit of tongue in cheek, it's obvious that there were several flights where he could have lost it all. One "highlight" was the canopy blowing off at 400 mph, which caused the ejection seat face curtain to fully extend. The seat wouldn't be hot necessarily, because there was a micro-switch preventing that from occurring until the canopy frame was jettisoned. Corky wasn't sure, however, if the micro-switch would still do its job if the canopy glass was all gone. So besides being buffeted around like a crash test dummy at 400 mph with no canopy, he had to land with a potentially hot ejection seat. After landing and performing a wide ground loop, he climbed over the windscreen and slid down the nose! It turns out that all that prevented a "premature ejection" was a safety pin in the seat that was connected via wire to the canopy frame. It was just barely in its hole, and if it had come out...

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. The paint still smells like paint, which means it is still out-gassing and has not finished curing. Wifey keeps looking strange at me when I keep smelling the model. Don't know why, seems normal to me!

[Learstang]

Thank you for the information, Bill! I think I'll have to look for that Ginter book. For all its problems, the Jaguar was an interesting aeroplane.

Regards,

Jason

[Navy Bird]

Hi Mates!

 

Methinks the paint has dried sufficiently to proceed with model building. I wanted to make sure the paint was properly cured because the next step would be masking off the areas where the plane was either natural metal (wheel bays) or aluminum lacquer (leading edges of the flying surfaces, plus a small area around the exhaust). The latter may have been natural metal, as this was just a prototype and probably didn't need corrosion protection from salt spray while at Edwards. If the Jaguar had reached production, the aluminum lacquer would have been used. For all of this detailing, I used good old Alclad Aluminum.

 

The fun part was the masking. The leading edges of the wings were easy, but the forward lip of the intakes and the small delta on the double delta were a bit of a bear. I thought at first about masking them all and having just one airbrush session, but I decided instead to break the job up, making sure that I had adequate protection against any accidental overspray onto the Glossy Sea Blue. So here are some photos that show the result:

 

 

 

 

I've also started the brush painting of the landing gear struts, and I've sprayed some Glossy Sea Blue on the fiddly bits (gear doors, horsals, speed brakes, wheel hubs, and tail bumper).

 

Speaking of Glossy Sea Blue, I've always felt that a super glossy finish on a 1:72 scale aircraft model doesn't quite look right. I always seem to want to tone it down to achieve "scale glossiness" if there is such a thing. What do you guys think? The real XF10F probably stayed pretty shiny during its short life, and I don't plan to weather the model other than maybe some shadowing in the gear bays. No panel line wash; black wouldn't really show up anyway and I always cringe when I see someone use a gray panel line wash for a black or dark blue model. That really looks weird.

 

Should I tone down the glossiness with a semi-gloss overcoat? Or leave it like it is?

 

Cheers,

Bill (who still has never built a Bf 109 model of any kind in any scale!)

[David H]

Hi Mates!

Methinks the paint has dried sufficiently to proceed with model building. I wanted to make sure the paint was properly cured because the next step would be masking off the areas where the plane was either natural metal (wheel bays) or aluminum lacquer (leading edges of the flying surfaces, plus a small area around the exhaust). The latter may have been natural metal, as this was just a prototype and probably didn't need corrosion protection from salt spray while at Edwards. If the Jaguar had reached production, the aluminum lacquer would have been used. For all of this detailing, I used good old Alclad Aluminum.

The fun part was the masking. The leading edges of the wings were easy, but the forward lip of the intakes and the small delta on the double delta were a bit of a bear. I thought at first about masking them all and having just one airbrush session, but I decided instead to break the job up, making sure that I had adequate protection against any accidental overspray onto the Glossy Sea Blue. So here are some photos that show the result:

Speaking of Glossy Sea Blue, I've always felt that a super glossy finish on a 1:72 scale aircraft model doesn't quite look right. I always seem to want to tone it down to achieve "scale glossiness" if there is such a thing. What do you guys think? The real XF10F probably stayed pretty shiny during its short life, and I don't plan to weather the model other than maybe some shadowing in the gear bays. No panel line wash; black wouldn't really show up anyway and I always cringe when I see someone use a gray panel line wash for a black or dark blue model. That really looks weird.

Should I tone down the glossiness with a semi-gloss overcoat? Or leave it like it is?

Hey Bill,

Yeah, i know what you mean. I know the real thing had a gloss on it (at least when it was new anyway) .Not only does a glossy model look toylike in 72nd scale, IMHO it amplifies the depth of the panel lines. Which makes it look more toylike.

There was a modeler in So Cal named Alan Hess, and he did lots of scratch-built 48th scale subjects, many of which were in Gloss Sea Blue. He was a big fan of using lacquers and after painting he rubbed out the finish by hand which obviously smoothed down the surface but i think it may have also knocked down the shine just a little bit. I've noticed the same thing happens if i rub out enamels with toothpaste and a cotton t-shirt. The problem of course is if you rub too much you can rub thru to the plastic underneath.

Another, lower-risk alternative may be to simply experiment with adding Tamiya Flat Base to Future floor wax. I did exactly that the reduce the shiney-ness of my F4U-1D, which i posted over on the 72nd scale discussion group. The use of an Engine Gray enamel wash in the panel lines may have had something to do with reducing the gloss as well, but its been a while since i painted it and i'm not sure if i remember the details correctly. Some people have also commented that you can rub out Future with polishing compound with less risk of 'Burning through" to the underlying plastic.

Just an opinion. Feel free to use as you see fit.

-d-

[Navy Bird]

A quick update for today - the transfers are applied! The decals supplied with the kit have to be the thinnest decals I have ever used, and therefore very delicate. Plus, of course, they tended to immediately adhere to wherever they landed. Lots of fun over the last couple of days getting these on. But they're on, and I refuse to tell you which ones are cocked up.

 

I was quite happy that the white in the decals is quite opaque, with very little bleed-through. I think they were printed by Aviprint. Here goes the pictures:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the crummy photos, I'll work on some better lighting. Everything is dark on the model other than the white in the markings.

Despite the thinness of the decals, they refused to get sucked into the holes on the speed brakes. I'll have to use a pin to poke a hole in each one, and then reapply the decal solvent and see if they conform then.

 

There is still a lot of work to do, paint and finish the windscreen and canopy, add the gear doors, add the horsals, add the Mullaney diffuser, nose probe, antennae, etc. An ejection seat might be a good idea, too! Plus whatever I'm forgetting...

 

David, thanks for the comments. I thought about rubbing it out, but it seems like too much work! What I ended up doing was taking an old Panther that I built years ago, and started experimenting on it. I had used a clear gloss on that model (on top of the glossy paint) and as you correctly said, it looks rather toy-like. Which I don't want! So I've sprayed several different concoctions on it to see what I like best. Right now I'm leaning towards Alclad "Light Sheen" or Floquil "Flat Finish" which both left a nice, semi-gloss finish and were virtually indistinguishable from each other. I'll probably use the Alclad because I don't have to thin it!

 

Cheers for now,

Bill

[Learstang]

Whatever problems you had with the decals, they look nice now! That is one strange-looking bird, but therein lies its attraction, to me at least. It'll certainly stand out amidst all the Spitfires, Bf-109's, P-51's, etc. at you local hobby meet.

Regards,

Jason

[trickyrich]

what a great job, looks fantastic with the decals on.

I would personally as neat and spotless as you can.

I would have thought that this being a test beasty that it would have had a very pampered life. Especially kept spotless and shiny and clean, for all those visits by pollies and service big knobs to see where all their (sic) money was going.

[Navy Bird]

Thanks, guys!

 

No weathering on this bird, it spent most of its life indoors. Over the course of a year, it made only 32 flights. The shortest was 15 minutes; the longest 67. However, there was constant reconfiguration and trying of different ideas. It was worked on a lot, and the mechanics were crawling all over it. None of the flight summaries included in the Naval Fighters volume indicate any flights for visiting dignitaries - but that doesn't mean the brass wasn't watching.

 

Here is a picture of the XF10F with the rear fuselage section removed, prior to Flight 27. Looks pretty scruffy!

 

 

However, the pictures of the Jaguar after the Cougar tail was grafted on (starting with Flight 29) still show some degree of gloss. My biggest concern is that I personally don't like a super-glossy model in 1:72 scale. The gloss looks out-of-scale, if you know what I mean. So I want a solution that still has some shine, but doesn't look like a thick layer of super shiny Future. But I also don't want any orange peel or otherwise bumpy look either. I'm still experimenting...

 

Cheers,

Bill

[David H]

I'm sure you will find the right answer.

Really comes alive once the kitty goes on the side. WOW!!! No mistaking which branch of the military paid for it, either.

-d-

[Navy Bird]

Today's quiz is worth 100 points! Name which aircraft this instrument panel actually belongs to!

 

 

Imagine what you can do with 100 points! Enter early and often - contest ends at the discretion of Jaggy!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Learstang]

A 1931 Pitcairn Autogyro!

Regards,

Jason

[Navy Bird]

Interesting guess, Jason! But sadly, no, that's not it. Come on guys, think a little closer to home!

 

I thought it was interesting that this left over Eduard color PE instrument panel (from a recent project) fits almost perfectly. It has other similarities to the Jaguar panel, too, like it has round holes in it with some kind of gauges, etc. Plus it's black, and is part of an airplane. Good enough for me!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Learstang]

All righty, a more serious answer, then. How about a Panther/Cougar?

Regards,

Jason

[Navy Bird]

A most excellent response, Jason, and one that makes logical sense from Grumman's standpoint. The Panther/Cougar production line was running in earnest while the XF10F was being developed, so it's natural that Grumman would have used some parts that were already in inventory. So why not the instrument panel? For all I know, that may be what they did.

 

But alas, the instrument panel from my spares box is not from a Panther or Cougar. It's from a Spitfire Mk. II !!!

 

Does look the part though, don't you think? Tarts up the cockpit a bit, too. The flat surface for the panel came with the kit, but they didn't even supply a decal to go on it. Odd.

 

I used Floquil Railroad Colors "Flat" for the final overcoat. I like the effect - it gave me a nice eggshell finish, which is just what I was looking for. I thinned it way down, and sprayed several "mist" coats until it built up to what I wanted. Floquil used to be a lacquer, but since being purchased by Testors, they seem to be stating that it is now an enamel. But it dried really fast, so I think it may still be a lacquer. It certainly acted like one!

 

I added the landing gear doors, windscreen, tail bumper, and horsals before the clear overcoat. More pictures soon!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Procopius]

Blast, wish I'd beaten you to your answer, I looked at it and though "Spitfire" to myself immediately and then felt terribly clever, but now it looks like it was all ex post facto.