72modeler Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) TT, Just saw your post- thanks for the analysis! I'm guessing 1/8" is roughly 3mm? I get the part about removing that amount from the aft end of the intake, but where would you suggest to be the best location to remove 1/8" from the fuselage? Wonder how Sword got the length so wrong? The adventure continues! Mike Edited October 21, 2017 by 72modeler corrected measurement 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, 72modeler said: TT, Just saw your post- thanks for the analysis! I'm guessing 1/8" is roughly 3mm? I get the part about removing that amount from the aft end of the intake, but where would you suggest to be the best location to remove 1/8" from the fuselage? Wonder how Sword got the length so wrong? The adventure continues! Mike I/8 " is 3.175 mm. I only plan to reshape the front of the inlet although not cutting it back that much. If you look at the comparison photo of the FJ-2 and Sword noses (http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2017/10/sword-fj-2-preliminary.html), it looks like the cannon ports are too far aft of the inlet on the kit nose, so cutting back the inlet also solves that problem. I don't see a good way to shorten the aft fuselage so I'm just going to leave it as is. With respect to the length error, my guess is that Sword assumed that the overall length of 37' 7" was from the tip of the nose to the end of the fairing over the tailpipe. It's actually to the aft tips of the horizontal stabilizer, which are 21 inches aft of the fairing, or 7 mm in 1/72. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David H Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 I'm not what you'd consider a "Nut" about the FJ-2/-3 but its undeniably a pretty aeroplane compared to say, the Dassault Mystere. What i find interesting is the contrast between how heavily documented (in books and drawings and photos) the F-86 Sabre family is, in contrast to how seemingly unknown / overlooked the FJ Fury series seems to be. Hats off to Sword for doing the best they could. Like Tommy said, perfection is hard- especially in the case of the Fury. In reading up on the plane, there are a TON of subtle shape differences between an FJ and a Sabre. Despite what ESCI would have you believe, a Fury is far, far more than just an F-86 with a tailhook. david 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Well, mine arrived and I'll build them as they are. I'm just thankful that somebody out there saw the need to mould this great machine Has anyone built one yet and can say it looks odd or inaccurate? Martin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 I'll take my advice from a man who knows a bit about Sabres and Fury! Quote This thread seems to have gone a bit off-topic and seems now to be more about the Sword kits than the FJ-2 itself. The diagrams I have previously posted (fuselage stations, general arrangements etc) are just that - diagrams. NAA never meant them to be scale drawings, so any attempt to use them as such is likely to bring incorrect assumptions. What they do give is key dimensions, which are very useful, but to use them to validate shapes or to scale dimensions from them would be akin go using the London Underground map for a similar purpose. From what I've seen, Sword have done a good job - maybe the fuselage is a bit long, but it looks like an FJ-2. And some of the 'errors' would appear to be minor and easy to correct. I also noted comments about the FJ-3 kit which were made using just the sprue photos for guidance (notably on another thread, where it was suggested that there appeared to be no difference between the nose/intake contours on the Sword FJ-3 when compared to the FJ-2). So (and I have no links with Sword by the way), here is my initial comparison of the FJ-3 kit nose (FJ-3 at left, FJ-2 at right): Also I think Sword have done a fair job with the barrier guards on the FJ-3 leading edge: And also the wing camber on the FJ-3's extended leading edge: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 24 minutes ago, David H said: I'm not what you'd consider a "Nut" about the FJ-2/-3 but its undeniably a pretty aeroplane compared to say, the Dassault Mystere. What i find interesting is the contrast between how heavily documented (in books and drawings and photos) the F-86 Sabre family is, in contrast to how seemingly unknown / overlooked the FJ Fury series seems to be. Hats off to Sword for doing the best they could. Like Tommy said, perfection is hard- especially in the case of the Fury. In reading up on the plane, there are a TON of subtle shape differences between an FJ and a Sabre. Despite what ESCI would have you believe, a Fury is far, far more than just an F-86 with a tailhook. david Yep, in spite of everything posted, they are new-tool injected kits that are pretty darned accurate, nicely detailed, and reasonable in price; I agree with your comments on "perfect," as any of us who is absolutely nuts about a particular aircraft can always do what needs to be done to make it a better replica; what seems like a small or insignificant flaw to one modeler might be unacceptable to another...like they say- beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Don't get me wrong, the FJ's are beautiful airplanes, no matter what scale or maker! Sword has done us all a great favor with their recent golden age Navy jets.....now, if they would only get around to an F3H! Well said, David! Mike 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 15 minutes ago, RidgeRunner said: Well, mine arrived and I'll build them as they are. I'm just thankful that somebody out there saw the need to mould this great machine Has anyone built one yet and can say it looks odd or inaccurate? Martin Martin, I'm in the midst of the FJ-2 as we speak and I have to say it looks OK to me. I think that once I get the windshield in place I'll know more but so far I'm more than happy. Main area of effort will be thinning down the trailing edges of the wings and perfecting a good joint at the rear wing/fuselage join. But nothing too challenging and I'm enjoying the build a great deal. It's not a Tamiya shake-n-bake beginner's kit but one for the modeller. As such I expect it to be a great deal more rewarding to make! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 He's far too modest to post it here, but Tailspin Tommy has done a good redux on the Sword kits here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/10/sword-172-north-american-fj-23-furies.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 (edited) One of the only rules I remember from my MBA marketing courses is "Sometimes, there's a hole in the market, because there's a hole in the market", meaning that there appears to be a need to fill, but it hasn't been (or there were failed attempts to do so) because there really is insufficient demand. If there's a long-standing hole, you need to examine the reason for it very carefully before deciding to fill it. For decades, one of those holes has been a 1/72 injection-molded kit of the NAA FJ-2/3 Fury. Sword is to be commended for not only stepping up to the hole represented by the FJ-2/3 Furies, but recognizing the small, but to some significant, differences between the -2 and -3 fuselage and later wing. My hope is that if sales are good, they will rearrange the -2 or -3 molds or create new ones from the master models and produce a blue -3 configuration (basically the -3 fuselage and -2 wing) with decals to match. They do plan to produce a 1/72 injection-molded kit of a different long-neglected U.S. Navy carrier-based jet next year and I'm lobbying them to also take a chance on another one. However, that bright future for modeling fans of U.S. Navy aircraft is at least in part dependent on the success of these three kits. In my opinion, admittedly without doing more than examining the contents and dry-fitting a few assemblies, these kits do the type justice. The few nits that I have identified so far (see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/10/sword-172-north-american-fj-23-furies.html) should not be a deterrent. Moreover now that these kits are available, I doubt that another company will issue an FJ-2/3 Fury in 1/72 scale, and in the event that one does, it is unlikely to be a "better" one. In other words, if you want 1/72 kits that fill holes in your collection of U.S. Navy aircraft, please buy these kits. Don't write them off as having fatal flaws based on photos, speculation, or snarky comments and wait for a better one. Don't even wait to buy these—their initial sales success will almost certainly increase enthusiasm at Sword for filling holes like these. I can also assure you that Sword is intent on achieving accuracy. The fact that they went to the trouble of producing a different fuselage and wing for the smallest of differences between the FJ-2 and -3 is proof of their dedication to it. That they didn't achieve perfection is because it's very, very hard to do so. Edited October 23, 2017 by Tailspin Turtle typo 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 (edited) I agree! I didn't take any of the comments made on BM regarding the Sword kits to be negative or deal breakers, but were intended to give those who have the wherewithal and ability some of the little details that very few of the major kitmakers were aware of or could offer, considering their limitations. In my communication with Sword over the past couple of years, it was obvious to me that they want to put a product out there that is accurate and of good quality; it was also stated to me that they are very fond of 50's era USN weenie cookers, and I am happy as can be that so far that all but two of the 'wish list' USN models that I sent for possible consideration awhile back have been released. I can't wait to see what the next 'secret' project will be, but I'm keeping my fingers and toes crossed that it's either one or both of the two left on my bucket list! It's nice to have a company that is not only improving with each release, but is so receptive to modelers. Each of us decides what's worth fixing or correcting, but the new Furies give those of us who are nuts about FJ-2/3's a very good foundation on which to build a really good replica as well as a darned good OOB model for those so inclined. Mike I'm envious of all of you, as I'm still waiting by my mailbox for my two kits! Edited October 23, 2017 by 72modeler added word for clarity 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Well here's my WIP (which I might post in the WIP section...): 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 18 minutes ago, Sabrejet said: Well here's my WIP (which I might post in the WIP section...): Great googly moogly! That's not the kit I have. How do you cut out those new openings and the wing fold so cleanly? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said: Great googly moogly! That's not the kit I have. How do you cut out those new openings and the wing fold so cleanly? A trained spider with a jigsaw? Mike 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 41 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said: Great googly moogly! That's not the kit I have. How do you cut out those new openings and the wing fold so cleanly? Razor saw and scalpel for the wings, drill bit (chain drill) and scalpel for the other bits. Needs cleaning up a bit but it's a start. Plus it's upwards from here on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courageous Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said: One of the only rules I remember from my MBA marketing courses is "Sometimes, there's a hole in the market, because there's a hole in the market", meaning that there appears to be a need to fill, but it hasn't been (or there were failed attempts to do so) because there really is insufficient demand. If there's a long-standing hole, you need to examine the reason for it very carefully before deciding to fill it. A bit off topic, but seeing that you are a 'man in the know', how do manufacturers know what holes to fill, how do they know what the demand would be, sometimes they must just take a chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted October 23, 2017 Author Share Posted October 23, 2017 I know this might be a little premature but while I haven't seen a clear photo of the nose of the Sword FJ-3 and if it suffers from the same issues as the -2 except for it being deeper, I wonder if a grafting of the nose of an Emhar -4 might be an option to correct any problems. The intakes and actually the whole nose is the same between the two real aircraft. The only difference being the angle of the guns in the nose. In 1/72 it may not be that noticeable. The Emhar nose looks reasonably accurate in photos. I did have the Emhart kit at one time but it was at least twenty years ago so my memory of it is fairly dim. I recall it was a sort of scale down of the Matchbox kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Courageous said: A bit off topic, but seeing that you are a 'man in the know', how do manufacturers know what holes to fill, how do they know what the demand would be, sometimes they must just take a chance? Good questions. I am in contact with a few kit manufacturers but I'm not involved in the selection process so I don't have any answers. Either I volunteered my help as a resource or they came to me as a known subject-matter expert for information. I do suggest subjects, which are occasionally taken up. More usually, I get a request for drawings and illustrations of a specific aircraft. I don't ask why the interest in it but it is apparent that the boss has a strong opinion as to what will make money and what won't. If I can help, I always do. Note that only about 3 in 10 of the projects that I have supported have resulted in a kit. Also, if it does, I have rarely had an opportunity to provide feedback during the process of transition from what I (and presumably others) provide to the test shots (at that point, changes are prohibitive from a cost and schedule standpoint). I have discovered that it is not good to just provide stuff because if it can be misinterpreted, it probably will be. The documentation has to be focused and specific or the result is a mishmash of configurations. There was one project that I suggested that was green-lighted by the owner. Moreover, I was given the opportunity to review both master models and test shots and provide corrections, which were incorporated. I'm proud of the result but that particular manufacturer has not asked for my help since... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 5 hours ago, jpk said: I know this might be a little premature but while I haven't seen a clear photo of the nose of the Sword FJ-3 and if it suffers from the same issues as the -2 except for it being deeper, I wonder if a grafting of the nose of an Emhar -4 might be an option to correct any problems. The intakes and actually the whole nose is the same between the two real aircraft. The only difference being the angle of the guns in the nose. In 1/72 it may not be that noticeable. The Emhar nose looks reasonably accurate in photos. I did have the Emhart kit at one time but it was at least twenty years ago so my memory of it is fairly dim. I recall it was a sort of scale down of the Matchbox kit. That's a possibility. I've also added some thoughts on and illustrations of the shape of the nose to my blog post: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/10/sword-172-north-american-fj-23-furies.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, David H said: I'm not what you'd consider a "Nut" about the FJ-2/-3 but its undeniably a pretty aeroplane compared to say, the Dassault Mystere. What i find interesting is the contrast between how heavily documented (in books and drawings and photos) the F-86 Sabre family is, in contrast to how seemingly unknown / overlooked the FJ Fury series seems to be. Hats off to Sword for doing the best they could. Like Tommy said, perfection is hard- especially in the case of the Fury. In reading up on the plane, there are a TON of subtle shape differences between an FJ and a Sabre. Despite what ESCI would have you believe, a Fury is far, far more than just an F-86 with a tailhook. david The same could be said for most US Navy aircrafts before the Crusader, the amount of refefences available compared to contemporary USAF aircrafts is invariably smaller. From a modelling point of view I'm very glad that companies like Sword are finally giving us decent kits of these types, hopefully Sword will expand the Fury range and maybe they'll look at a Demon at some point I'm still annoyed by the errors in fuselage lengths found on these Furies, at the same time I'm now reaching the same conclusion I reached a while ago on the equally overlong SH F-86K/L: just build them how they are ! Edited October 24, 2017 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 6 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said: That's a possibility. I've also added some thoughts on and illustrations of the shape of the nose to my blog post: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/10/sword-172-north-american-fj-23-furies.html I just looked at your Fury blog page and your illustrations show the area that needs correction very well. Certainly not a game changer, just need to do a little styrene landscaping. The pugnacious nose and intake is such a prominent visual cue of the Fury v the Sabre. When it is wrong it really detracts from the overall look. (Example #1, the ESCI Fury) The really good news is that now one can build the Fury series all the way from the -1 thru to the -4B in 1/72 albeit with some adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 53 minutes ago, Giorgio N said: The same could be said for most US Navy aircrafts before the Crusader, the amount of refefences available compared to contemporary USAF aircrafts is invariably smaller. From a modelling point of view I'm very glad that companies like Sword are finally giving us decent kits of these types, hopefully Sword will expand the Fury range and maybe they'll look at a Demon at some point I'm still annoyed by the errors in fuselage lengths found on these Furies, at the same time I'm now reaching the same conclusion I reached a while ago on the equally overlong SH F-86K/L: just build them how they are ! The USAF has had a better PR department than the Navy. While the USAF generally built their planes with the latest and greatest speed enhancing technology and their aircraft were regularly in the press because of it, the Navy conservatively had to design their planes to operate off carriers, many of which were still the older Essex class which hampered their ability to use the latest research at the time. Also, the USAF built in the thousands while the Navy in the hundreds. Not until the Crusader and Phantom along with the new super carriers did the USN garner some of the press that up until then the USAF had enjoyed. That's my take anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene K Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 21 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said: My hope is that if sales are good, they will rearrange the -2 or -3 molds or create new ones from the master models and produce a blue -3 configuration I'm surprised they haven't ... yet! Do the present -2 wings fit the -3 fuselage? And talk about the -3 extended slats - should be easy (?) to fabricate ... or take from the Hobbycraft/Academy Sabre kit ... or find the old Cutting Edge set ... or?. What's your plan? Tommy also said: They do plan to produce a 1/72 injection-molded kit of a different long-neglected U.S. Navy carrier-based jet next year... . Hmmmm. ? Tommy then said: .. I'm lobbying them to also take a chance on another one. Hmmmmm x2. ?? Gene K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Can anyone say......FH1 Phantom? Maybe a Savage as well? I may have to switch to 1/72 from 1/48. Edited October 24, 2017 by jpk Updates info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 24 minutes ago, jpk said: Can anyone say......FH1 Phantom? Maybe a Savage as well? I may have to switch to 1/72 from 1/48. Didn't I read somewhere that Special Hobby had announced a new-tool FH-1 in 1/72? (Since MPM and Condor ranges are being discontinued) Re Sword: there are two 50's era USN types from the list I sent to them a while back and discussed for possible consideration, but I'm keeping my lips sealed until they are announced, as neither was said to a "sure thing" and I want to respect the conversation. Suffice it to say, we will be overjoyed at either or both if they are announced! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Forward cannon muzzle is a bit too far aft on the FJ-2 so I have filled the holes: Then re-drilled. I think the aft one may be a bit too far aft also but I'll see how it looks with a primer coat. Started to box in the speed brakes too. The inner wall is just tacked in place and will be placed further outboard to give a shallower bay (+detail). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now