Uruguay Lockheed T-33 - 1/48 conversion from Monogram F-80

[gingerbob]

Here's what I've got to work with (haven't found the rest of the Monogram bits yet):

I'm using this particular F-80 purely because it is the only one I can get my hands on at the moment. The plan is to make a T-33 out of the F-80, which will involve cutting it in front of the wing and separating the "removable" tail cone, adding a 1/4" ring. True Details cockpit, and whatever is needed from the Hobbycraft/Academy T-33 to get the job done.

Now, I know there's a rule about "25% started", but I submit to you that if you consider that I'll be making more parts that need attaching than were put together in the first place, and using an entirely new cockpit, (oh, and I've got to remove one tailplane to put it on in better alignment), then I'm certainly not 25% of the way into this build.

bob

Edited January 9, 2015 by gingerbob

[Col.]

Looks a lot more than 75% work still to do there in my opinion but will leave final judgement to Cliff on this one.

[CliffB]

Hi Bob

Yes I agree with Col. Go for it!

Cliff

[gingerbob]

Ah, good, then Uruguay it shall be! Unfortunately my decals are appropriate to a silver, not camo'd, era, which I hadn't bargained for. What, me worry?

What's really nifty is that I think I can salvage the "leftovers" to turn the T-33 (and friends) into the XP-80, which is a subject I've long wanted to do but thought was too different. With some help from Tommy Thomason and others, I've begun to think that I understand how the type evolved from XP to production P/F-80- and then to T-33. [EDIT: Link to XP-80 build here, but so far just a place-holder.]

For those few of you wondering why I don't just build the T-33 as a T-33, here are some of the things I've noticed about the Hobbycraft/Academy kit:

1. fuselage too "slim"- max diameter should be 56", the kit measures out to about 50" (the Monogram to about 55.5") Now that in itself isn't something I'd get too worked up over...
2. from the back end of the canopy (or sooner) back to just before the removable tail section, it should be a level, straight line. The kit rises up and then curves back down again
3. this is not helped by the profile "sinking" as the nose rounds toward the windscreen (EDIT: actually, it just goes level, whereas it should still be rising), and again (as already hinted at) at the back end as the fuselage top keeps going up. The impression is a bit like your gran when she hasn't put her false teeth in yet (or maybe that's just my gran I'm remembering...)
4. The fairing at the back of the canopy is a bit abrupt. It seems about the right angle, but needs to be faired to the fuselage line a bit more smoothly, and again the "hump" might accentuate this.
5. The windscreen is too far back from the angled rear edge of the armament bay (or nose compartment) doors- I think it reflects the position of the windscreen on the P-80A, while the windscreen moved forward to make room for ejection seat on the F-80C (or possibly B ), and this latter is correct for the T-33. However, the farther back seems about right for my XP pipe dream!
6. Intake lips not as accurately shaped as on the Monogram kit, and also the "mouth" isn't at the right station. (It lines up about right with the windscreen- but the windscreen is too far aft.)
7. Very late to catch on to this, but thanks to the windscreen, the canopy is not as long as it should be.
8. Monogram gear legs, etc, somewhat more refined.
9. The wing gives me the impression of being too thin, not having enough "airfoil curve" to it at the root. The Monogram curve seems to my eye quite accurate, if perhaps not to scale thickness.
10. Wing root/ fuselage/ intake duct juncture seems a bit clunky compared to the Monogram smoothness (and compared to photos).
11. The shape of the back end of the wing fillet also doesn't seem as accurate as the Monogram- it needs to shift relative to the tailcone, but shape stays the same on the T-33.
12. Actually, the shape of the fillet in general (top line, where it meets fuselage) is way off.
13. Something about the sit of the tailplane... comparing to the Monogram it is hard to spot where it's off, but I think a combination of that excessive curve on the fuselage and the tail fairing shape (which also seems to not extend far enough forward) makes it look really wonky.
14. Nearly forgot- they omitted the dive flaps from under the belly/wing.
15. Shape of fin tip not right.
16. The armament bay doors in the nose are a bit shorter front to back but the bottom edge is noticeably lower than Monogram's rendition. Not sure either is perfect, but Monogram's seems pretty close.
17. The overall effect, as one of my subsequent comparative photos shows, is that the Hobbycraft is a bit "squashed" in the vertical.

• One thing that they might actually have better than the Monogram is the leading edge extension or fillet, which is larger and sharper- it may possibly angle TOO much forward, but I'm not certain yet. Yep, it does.
• Also, some say that the canopy incorrectly tapers, and should be straight (parallel). I'm not convinced, and it seems to match up to photos quite well.

Anyway, I've heard enough complaints about this kit, and seen enough desire for a better T-33 in 1/48, that I looked to see what could be done using the Monogram kit, and it really doesn't seem like it'll be that hard... he says, naively... For the rest of you, beginning to grumble about rivet-counters, it will be clearly recognizable as a T-33 if you build it straight out of the box. I'm just not the type to settle for that when I can make life more difficult for myself!

I'll try to work up a decent photo of the kit fuselage shape, and maybe a little summary of how they created the T-33 out of the F-80, which will help you understand my plan of attack.

bob

p.s. If you are determined to turn a blind eye and just build the Hobbycraft kit (which is a comparatively sane idea!) I'd reshape the top of the fin a little, sand the "hump" in the fuselage down to make it more of a cylinder, and "smooth out" the back fairing of the canopy- just a little filler and blending where it meets the fuselage. If you want to get a little more adventurous, you might move the windscreen forward (if you have the canopy open I don't think it would show that it was too short) and work on the intake shape and position. If you're willing to do even more than that, you probably don't want to start with the Hobbycraft kit!

Edited February 18, 2015 by gingerbob

[wyverns4]

Getting settled in for this one!

Christian the Married and exiled to africa

[Col.]

Plenty work to do there but you seem to have it all in hand. So long as you keep it nice and smooth the silver finish should be fine. As for the future XP-80; sure I have a couple magazine articles stored that may be of interest to you if I can dig them out.

[gingerbob]

Col, if it's the conversion by Gerry Asher in SAM, I've got that, but anything else I'd love to see.

Thanks,

bob

[Col.]

Col, if it's the conversion by Gerry Asher in SAM, I've got that, but anything else I'd love to see.

Thanks,

bob

Alas it is Bob. Think the only other source I may have is the Squadron/Signal book on the type but can't recall if there is much on the XP birds.

[gingerbob]

Here is a station drawing for the F-80, but cut to approximate the XP-80 (the intakes are still connected to the back end, so don't reflect the shape or position on the prototype). The "overlapping" station numbers give you some idea of the change- about two feet less than on the production F-80, and as far as I've figured, pretty much all in the nose:

The T-33 station drawing shows what was done to create the T-33- they didn't renumber the station locations from the F-80, which helps when comparing! (the added sections are highlighted for my, and now your, convenience):

Beyond the aft extension is the same removable tail section. The fillets stayed more-or-less the same, so 12" less of them are attached to the tailcone.

bob

Edited January 9, 2015 by gingerbob

[Col.]

That certainly clarifies the work done to produce a T-33 from the P-80. A minimum change engineering project that looks to be less work than you're doing to model it.

[gingerbob]

Well, it wasn't (and won't be) quite as simple as "insert section here", but pretty straightforward.

I realized this morning that I started this thread on the 71st anniversary of the XP-80's (delayed) first flight- rather appropriate!

I've noticed (or remembered) some more discrepancies between the kits, but I'll update my squawk list later. (once again some of the "flaws" play toward making an XP-80- thanks, Hobbycraft!)

bob

[SleeperService]

I shall follow this one VERY closely. Tailhook Topics got me interested in the early model and you've got further with the research than I have. Nice one.

The idea of cutting and shutting a T-33 is excellent I hope it works out. Like many I had hopes of the HobbyBoss/Trumpeter offering. I was stupid....

[gingerbob]

I was a little uncertain about how to cleanly cut up the assembled F-80, and I think instead I've found another copy of the kit.

Meanwhile I can still attack the T-33, though

...and of course, research continues.

bob

[gingerbob]

Just back from the post with my new Monogram F-80, and a quick comparison with the Hobbycraft major components makes the latter look even more wanting than I'd expected. I'll work up some comparison photos eventually, but it may take a few days. Just for fun I held the F-80 forward fuselage halves together and laid the T-33 canopy on top. Ooh, that looks nice!

bob

[gingerbob]

OK, get a cuppa and find a comfortable position. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I'll try not to reach that word count! Here are some comparative photos, with inevitable commentary, between the Monogram F-80 (darker plastic, when it isn't obvious) and Hobbycraft/Academy T-33. (And sorry about the fuzziness of some of them.)

First, wings, just to get that out of the way: (Hobbycraft upper surfaces already glued, and I've broken off the tip-tanks, which is why the tips look a little ragged.)

T-33 underside (need to check if F-80 looks the same):

You can see the "extension" for the T-33- obviously that'll be different, but I don't yet know if the fairing shape changes a bit toward the front- I would think not, but want to make sure before I say anything about kit differences there.

And the nose. Nose tips are "together", which results in nosewheel well pretty much agreeing, and, despite the appearance, the angled back edge of the armament bay doors. But look where the front edge is... Note also the difference in windscreen bases- as I said earlier, the F-80 one is about right for the ejection-seat later ones, while the Hobbycraft is in about the position for the P-80A, which is wrong for a T-33.

But what's with the depths?! (top is about aligned, and you can kinda see how the Hobbycraft windscreen seems a bit "sunken")

And check out the intakes:

To be continued- I've got to resize some images. (Hmm, I thought smaller file size would equate to image size, but apparently not... there, that's better.) Now I can carry on- I'll be back.

bob

Edited January 23, 2015 by gingerbob

[CliffB]

And check out the intakes:

That's funny, I could have sworn that I only had one glass of wine with my meal tonight.......

Cliff

[SleeperService]

That's funny, I could have sworn that I only had one glass of wine with my meal tonight.......

Cliff

Maybe but how large was the glass????

[AngstROM]

For those few of you wondering why I don't just build the T-33 as a T-33, here are some of the things I've noticed about the Hobbycraft/Academy kit:

1. fuselage too "slim"- max diameter should be 56", the kit measures out to about 50" (the Monogram to about 55.5") Now that in itself isn't something I'd get too worked up over...
2. from the back end of the canopy (or sooner) back to just before the removable tail section, it should be a level, straight line. The kit rises up and then curves back down again
3. this is not helped by the profile "sinking" as the nose rounds toward the windscreen (EDIT: actually, it just goes level, whereas it should still be rising), and again (as already hinted at) at the back end as the fuselage top keeps going up. The impression is a bit like your gran when she hasn't put her false teeth in yet (or maybe that's just my gran I'm remembering...)
4. The fairing at the back of the canopy is a bit abrupt. It seems about the right angle, but needs to be faired to the fuselage line a bit more smoothly, and again the "hump" might accentuate this.
5. The windscreen is too far back from the angled rear edge of the armament bay (or nose compartment) doors- I think it reflects the position of the windscreen on the P-80A, while the windscreen moved forward to make room for ejection seat on the F-80C (or possibly B ), and this latter is correct for the T-33. However, the farther back seems about right for my XP pipe dream!
6. Intake lips not as accurately shaped as on the Monogram kit, and also the "mouth" isn't at the right station.
7. Monogram gear legs, etc, somewhat more refined.
8. The wing gives me the impression of being too thin, not having enough "airfoil curve" to it at the root. The Monogram curve seems to my eye quite accurate, if perhaps not to scale thickness.
9. Wing root/ fuselage/ intake duct juncture seems a bit clunky compared to the Monogram smoothness (and compared to photos).
10. The shape of the back end of the wing fillet also doesn't seem as accurate as the Monogram- it needs to shift relative to the tailcone, but shape stays the same on the T-33.
11. Actually, the shape of the fillet in general (top line, where it meets fuselage) is way off.
12. Something about the sit of the tailplane... comparing to the Monogram it is hard to spot where it's off, but I think a combination of that excessive curve on the fuselage and the tail fairing shape (which also seems to not extend far enough forward) makes it look really wonky.
13. Nearly forgot- they omitted the dive flaps from under the belly/wing.
14. Shape of fin tip not right.
15. The armament bay doors in the nose are a bit shorter front to back but the bottom edge is noticeably lower than Monogram's rendition. Not sure either is perfect, but Monogram's seems pretty close.

• One thing that they might actually have better than the Monogram is the leading edge extension or fillet, which is larger and sharper- it may possibly angle TOO much forward, but I'm not certain yet. Yep, it does.
• Also, some say that the canopy incorrectly tapers, and should be straight (parallel). I'm not convinced, and it seems to match up to photos quite well.

Anyway, I've heard enough complaints about this kit, and seen enough desire for a better T-33 in 1/48, that I looked to see what could be done using the Monogram kit, and it really doesn't seem like it'll be that hard... he says, naively... For the rest of you, beginning to grumble about rivet-counters, it will be clearly recognizable as a T-33 if you build it straight out of the box. I'm just not the type to settle for that when I can make life more difficult for myself!

I'll try to work up a decent photo of the kit fuselage shape, and maybe a little summary of how they created the T-33 out of the F-80, which will help you understand my plan of attack.

bob

Well, it did sound a bit like chopping up the lifeboat to make a raft at first, but that is a fairly damning list of flaws you have there. Looking at the Academy parts and a number of photos, I'm not sure I 'get' all of them...but it will be interesting to watch this awesome project taking shape!

[gingerbob]

Well, having studied long and hard, or at least over a long period of time, and having run out of/ gotten bored with my excuses, I finally seized razor saw in hand and had at it:

As usual in such cases, it went far better and less painfully than I feared. (Either that or it goes quite the other way!) The "new" kit I got (F-80) is very brittle, but this one seems more forgiving, thank goodness. Hopefully Tad will forgive... Now that the nose is off, I think I have a slightly improved plan, too. What a relief!

bob

[Tom Cooper]

Oh man, this is what I call a 'courageous enterprise'.

Looks like you've got quite some work ahead of you - and one more 'viewer' too, Bob.

[CliffB]

That's pretty dramatic surgery, Bob. I'd glad that the patient (and the doctor), survived the op.

Cliff

[gingerbob]

Well, a brief and tentative update- having finally performed the surgery, I appear to have discovered that the canopy from the Hobbycraft kit is too short, by approximately 3mm. This means that it doesn't end at the right station. A quick comparison to a side-on photo suggests that the shape might be improved by adding the missing length on at the front. There is a vac replacement available, but I doubt that it corrects the length. However, as I was composing that thought, I got an idea...

I'll give it more study later (no, that's not the idea!) Oh, I also saw "official drawings" that put the windscreen at three different places! One, a station drawing for the Canadian production, I think is just plain erroneous, as it has it start JUST after the armament bay doors. Another I think is still showing the position for the P-80A, which is farther aft. The middle one is just right, or so Goldilocks tells me.

bob

[gingerbob]

Another critic- I got up this morning inspired to do some further work on the T-33 chopping and such, reached for the open box which I tuck into the stairwell to my upstairs "office", and find that the papers and boxes (top and bottom) had been hit by cat spray. Well, that's a bit of a turn-off! By the time I washed the vulnerable pieces and disposed of the box, life in general had caught up with me. Grr!

bob

p.s. I do love our cats. I do love our cats. I do...

[CliffB]

I must admit that might test my patience just a bit!

Cliff

[Gene K]

Cliff,

Where did you and this ambitious your project go?

Gene K