F-94c plan showing rivet details?

[phat trev]

I am trying to find some kind of plan view of an F-94c Starfire showing rivet details? (trying to add a little interest to an 1/72 Emhar kit)

or failing this a T-33 which although is a different aircraft may have some similar riviet pattens (I am not wanting to reproduce ALL the detail just alleviate

and improve on the 'matchbox trench' like Emhar details.

Hope someone can help?

[John R]

Is this any help? No rivets but shows panel lines

http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/f94c_3v.jpg

Good luck with the kit - especially around the cockpit area

John

[Jennings Heilig]

Keep in mind that manufacturers don't produce drawings showing rivet lines. Any drawing you may find (and I seriously doubt you're going to find an F-94C drawing showing them) is simply someone's idea of where the rivets were. You're just as well off to look at photos and do what you see. Also keeping in mind, of course, that at much of a distance you really don't see them on the real thing. Lockheed products were typically *very* well finished, and even natural metal airplanes looked pretty smooth.

[phat trev]

I just want to give the model some detail, at present the OOB parts look very toylike, but thats a great point concerning distance and well made Lockheed prototypes thanks (I was planning on making the prototype)

Edited May 8, 2013 by phat trev

[e8n2]

Keep in mind that manufacturers don't produce drawings showing rivet lines. Any drawing you may find (and I seriously doubt you're going to find an F-94C drawing showing them) is simply someone's idea of where the rivets were. You're just as well off to look at photos and do what you see. Also keeping in mind, of course, that at much of a distance you really don't see them on the real thing. Lockheed products were typically *very* well finished, and even natural metal airplanes looked pretty smooth.

However to work on a Lockheed product, especially the avionics, it quite a different story! There is the Boeing design philosophy, which is "How can we help out the poor schmuck that is going to have to work on this thing later on?", and the Lockheed design philosophy of "How can we screw over the poor dumb SOB that is going to have to work on this thing later on!"

Later,

Dave

[phat trev]

However to work on a Lockheed product, especially the avionics, it quite a different story! There is the Boeing design philosophy, which is "How can we help out the poor schmuck that is going to have to work on this thing later on?", and the Lockheed design philosophy of "How can we screw over the poor dumb SOB that is going to have to work on this thing later on!"

Later,

Dave

Sounds like you have experience of this perhaps?!

[fatalbert]

However to work on a Lockheed product, especially the avionics, it quite a different story! There is the Boeing design philosophy, which is "How can we help out the poor schmuck that is going to have to work on this thing later on?", and the Lockheed design philosophy of "How can we screw over the poor dumb SOB that is going to have to work on this thing later on!"

Later,

Dave

I agree,sometimes its like they built the aircraft around the bit you want to get at

[e8n2]

Sounds like you have experience of this perhaps?!

In my time in aircraft maintenance, I worked avionics systems, specifically INS, Doppler Nav Radar, instruments, and autopilot. I spent time on KC-135s, Sr-71s, U-2R/TR-1A/Bs (a.k.a. Deuces), C-141s, and C-5s. After retirement I worked mostly on C-5s doing modification work for Lockheed on Air Force contracts. Don't really care for C-5s too much, but really enjoyed my time on the KC-135, Deuces, and C-141s. My avatar is from the last mod I was on and is of my home away from home, the Flight Station 506 disconnect on a C-5.

Later,

Dave