Jump to content

1/48 - Lockheed U-2A/C & D Dragon Lady by AFV-Club - U-2A, U-2C & U-2D released - new Metallic Details sets


Homebee

Recommended Posts

:analintruder: Monsieur Laurent!

How are you doing, my good mate in La France?

Judging by the sprues on "they're" piccies, I highly doubt AFV are going to correct the issues on both the nose and windshield now. Highest hope is to see whether a Testors/AFV kit bash is ever possible. At least, try to see if the Testors forward fuselage (nose aft to the base of the windshield) will fit on to the rest of the fuselage in the AFV kit, no?

What are yer thoughts regarding this idea? I know it's a waste of resources, but guess I could still make Francis Gary Powers' downed U-2 outa the Testors kit. :bleh:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Uncle Uncool said:

How are you doing, my good mate in La France?

I'm fine thanks.

:analintruder: Monsieur Laurent!

How are you doing, my good mate in La France?

Judging by the sprues on "they're" piccies, I highly doubt AFV are going to correct the issues on both the nose and windshield now. Highest hope is to see whether a Testors/AFV kit bash is ever possible. At least, try to see if the Testors forward fuselage (nose aft to the base of the windshield) will fit on to the rest of the fuselage in the AFV kit, no?

What are yer thoughts regarding this idea?

I was looking for another justification not to buy the AFV kit (the first one being that I wouldn't have room for such a wide model, second that it's the U-2R/S/TR-1s that I'm really fond of)... now I've got a third. My cheque account is happy. The idea of using an old kit to correct a brand-new one is somewhat disturbing to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with the canopy issue - based on the picture (!). Also he nose looks a bit short/upswept/blund. The intakes maybe the interim ones (there were the early noarrow, the slightly larger interim and the "coke bottle" late style).

Even if these issues proove to be existing, it will be a lot less hassle to correct these than to bring the old Testors/Italeri U-2 A/C to the same level of detail. Lots of scratchbuilding or deeeeeep pockets for long OOP Cutting Edge sets will be needed. Even then the new kit seems to have full length intakes (the CE set mimics this only), cameras and sun screen and maybe more not existing in kit or aftermarket form before.

If the nose and windscreen are off this will be a pity to say the least but I am sure Jeffrey and others will come to the rescue with aftermarket correction sets pushing the global economy.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Caerbannog said:

Agree with the canopy issue - based on the picture (!). Also he nose looks a bit short/upswept/blund. The intakes maybe the interim ones (there were the early noarrow, the slightly larger interim and the "coke bottle" late style).

Even if these issues proove to be existing, it will be a lot less hassle to correct these than to bring the old Testors/Italeri U-2 A/C to the same level of detail. Lots of scratchbuilding or deeeeeep pockets for long OOP Cutting Edge sets will be needed. Even then the new kit seems to have full length intakes (the CE set mimics this only), cameras and sun screen and maybe more not existing in kit or aftermarket form before.

If the nose and windscreen are off this will be a pity to say the least but I am sure Jeffrey and others will come to the rescue with aftermarket correction sets pushing the global economy.

 It's a shame, with all the information available, they can't make a new kit "right".

Edited by B.sin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Testors canopy arrangement (or maybe a spare F-104 windshield) would fix it. (Or maybe some filler and masking at an angle?)

I really liked the aircraft dolly that came with the Testors kit. And now a Howdah sunshade from AFV. More aerospace ground support than you can shake a stick at!

 

Really wanting a U-2CT trainer with double Howdah, and a sooty matt black red cat U-2R/TR-1A to go next to it. Remember seeing them fly at Alconbury thirty years ago. Climbed almost like a rocket.

 

Tony

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There is one shot on HS of the canopy/nose which seems to justify the fear of a spape problem on. Sure it is not released yet but it is already quite obvious:

U-2 nose

 

Sure the perspective is a bit different - but not as much that explains the shape of the kit parts IMHO. I copied the outline of the top picture and placed them over the test build picture:

U-2 nose 2

 

The nose is a bit blunt but the canopy is way too high. This will be tricky to correct I suppose.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems so - and will most likely affect the supplied cockpit parts as well. I hope it is not as bad as in the picture because the kit side view is from slightly above and the real side views from slightly below.

Maybe one can swap a Testors font on the AFV kit - but it will be lots of filling, sanding and rescribing (Testors has raised detail). Best would be if AFV are hinted and they correct the tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any chance they correct the tools. 

For correcting the model I would currently go with cutting the AFV fuselage in certain segments, and correct them individually. This should ensure an acceptable baseline fit, when reassembled. (did I just make the buying decision?!) 

I concurr that the issue probably will be less obvious than on your comparison pictures, due to the different viewing angles. 

Very tempting kit none the less. Even more as there will probably be no other than this (and the old Testors*) for the next decades. 

 

 

* had built it some 20yrs ago. Definitely a good kit for the age! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Caerbannog said:

There is one shot on HS of the canopy/nose which seems to justify the fear of a spape problem on. Sure it is not released yet but it is already quite obvious:

U-2 nose

 

Sure the perspective is a bit different - but not as much that explains the shape of the kit parts IMHO. I copied the outline of the top picture and placed them over the test build picture:

U-2 nose 2

 

The nose is a bit blunt but the canopy is way too high. This will be tricky to correct I suppose.

 

 

No it won't. Use the HAWK U-2 forward fuselage and graft it on. Hard to believe the HAWK kit is almost working on 60 years old and still very accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2018 at 3:26 AM, Homebee said:

06_fs.jpg

The inlets are quite wrong too. The J57 powered U-2A/D had really small inlets, the kit's captuare area looks biggish. The bulged shape that I see in this view is completely wrong. In fact it should be an almost straight line from the inlet to the first glue joint! I found a few photos that illustrate this fairly clearly:

 

- Jay Miller's Aerofax 'Lockheed U-2', page 56, has a photo of a J57 powered U-2 approaching a tanker, and you can clearly see how flat the sides of the inlet ducts are. There's almost a kink in the fuselage plan view contour at the glue joint.

 

- Jay Miller's 'Skunk works', page 77, shows a J75 powered U-2F on the tanker's boom. This aircraft clearly has the enlarged but non-bulged intakes, and a continuous curve of the fuselage sides

 

The AFV Club model mixes the bulged plan view of the J75 version (sort of) with the small capture area of the J57 version. It looks plain wrong. Actually it looks wrong for the J75 versions too, the bulge is far too far aft.

Rob

 

Edited by Rob de Bie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothers me most currently (from a 'correctability' view) ist the fuselage aft of the cockpit. The horizontal joint area where the lower (main) fuselage is connected to the upper (aft cockpit 'spline') is totally off*. That'll be an entertaining fix. 

 

 

*: hope I could explain somehow understandable. Can't add pictures atm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Caerbannog said:

There is one shot on HS of the canopy/nose which seems to justify the fear of a spape problem on. Sure it is not released yet but it is already quite obvious:

U-2 nose

 

Sure the perspective is a bit different - but not as much that explains the shape of the kit parts IMHO. I copied the outline of the top picture and placed them over the test build picture:

U-2 nose 2

 

The nose is a bit blunt but the canopy is way too high. This will be tricky to correct I suppose.

 

 

 

In the bottom picture, the annotated taped kit, you are looking down a tad.

I'm inclined to mask/fill at the halfway point - inbetween the yellow line and the bottom of the clear parts, more or less coincident with the bottom L/H side as seen through the clear parts. 

 

However, all things considered, I'm inclined to wait for the U-2CT boxing (and the Hobby Boss U-2R). Lovely camera bay detail on the AFV. Would be nice to see a big Sigint "farm" on the Hobby Boss.

 

Tony

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, exdraken said:

Is the intake to camopy distance ok??

 

As supplied no it isn't. The rear of the transparency is too far back. I suspect they've made the canopy too deep and then lengthened it to keep proportion.

 

Follow the line of the bottom edge of the window extended back to the inlet. Regardless of the angle (within reason) it will always end up in the same position along the inlet edge. The kit misses this by a mile intersecting far too low on the inlet. As others have said there are other areas that just don't seem right, it may be easier to get the Hawk kit and use this one for upgrade parts.

 

06_fs.jpg

 

Is it me or are the wings on upside down? I know the tip turndown is but that is a separate part.

 

Like @tony.t seeing them at Alconbury over the years made me put one on the bucket list. I suspect it will still sell very well in Taiwan but just looking at photos on the internet should have let the designers spot several things. Very sad really.   

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2018 at 6:33 AM, JeffreyK said:

The exhaust is that of a J75 engines plane so not correct for a U-2A. I’m also unsure about the vertical tail - in the real U-2 it’s tilting slightly aft (incl. the chord of the horizontal stabs)...

Well spotted!! Would you happen to know the (approximate) diameters of the fuselage exhaust openings for the J57 and J75 versions? I've tried to find them for ages, so I can get that detail right on my 1/72 U-2C.

 

Here are the fuselage halves of the two versions of the Hawk / Testors U-2A and U-2C held together. I'm of course nit sure whether they are correct, but at least they knew there was a difference 🙂

 

u2-33.jpg

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...