Des Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 (edited) I bought a couple of the Airfix FG.1 when they were released and have kept them with their parts still sealed in the bags planning to get round to them one day but have followed some reviews and builds as time has passed and have noted some of the adverse comparisons drawn on this most up-to-date rendition of the type with the previous best in breed from Fujimi thirty years earlier. However it was not until buying the September crop of UK modelling magazines and seeing a built example on the front cover of one that I opened one of the kits up to verify what I was seeing and discovered just how poorly the one-piece Air-to-Air Refuelling probe and door had been represented perhaps to the point of best being ignored and the panel fitted closed or an aftermarket alternative sought instead. It almost seemed that after having spent time and effort to provide so much detail on the rest of the kit that the AAR Probe was added as an afterthought and while only one part if modeled opened the Airfix effort and reality differ quite considerably , seems a pity to have got it wrong. Rant over and apologies if this particular aspect of the kit has been previously ranted upon , did have a quick look to see. Edited September 5, 2018 by Des Too many insteads 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 I think it’s a fairly rare occurrence on USN-based versions to see the IFR probe extended on the ground, and IIRC Fujimi didn’t bother. But then your point is „why provide this part when doing it poorly“... no answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 I still fancy one, if only I could get a trade for one as swmbo as orderd 😁 But it's interesting how so much is well done and then they give up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Des Posted September 5, 2018 Author Share Posted September 5, 2018 1 hour ago, tempestfan said: I think it’s a fairly rare occurrence on USN-based versions to see the IFR probe extended on the ground ........... I believe that in UK FG.1 and FGR.2 use on landing back at an airfield following AAR it was extended while taxying back in so that it could be checked for any damage and necessary servicing but other than that the only times I ever saw any left extended was for airshow static display , bit like the extended nosewheel leg in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantomphixxer Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 As ex 29(F) Phantom groundcrew, I can say that we regularly did AAR & rarely did we have the probe extended on shutdown. As I recall, the drop in hydraulic pressure after shutting down meant that the probe would start to creep back & retract. Not fully but the only way to keep it out was by fitting a ground lock & you most definitely would NOT be fitting that with the engines running! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 On 9/5/2018 at 3:29 PM, tempestfan said: I think it’s a fairly rare occurrence on USN-based versions to see the IFR probe extended on the ground, and IIRC Fujimi didn’t bother. But then your point is „why provide this part when doing it poorly“... no answer... I agree, it was quite rare both USN and USMC but certainly not unheard of - usually when parked up onshore after a deployment ended. Two or three attached - something different to make a model more interesting :- On 9/5/2018 at 4:48 PM, Des said: I believe that in UK FG.1 and FGR.2 use on landing back at an airfield following AAR it was extended while taxying back in so that it could be checked for any damage and necessary servicing but other than that the only times I ever saw any left extended was for airshow static display , bit like the extended nosewheel leg in that regard. That is true. At Leuchars, the probe was usually extended after landing and after AAR or Q sorties. It was also extended in ASF during Maintenance and "just for show" at Airshows :- HTH Dennis 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 VX-4's 153088 is a queer beast! Soft wing of the S, nose of the B/N, fin without any RWR bulge and none on the intakes top and bottom either. I remember making the Esci kit while still stationed at Leuchars back in my spotty youth and I'm sure I built it as a normal J. I shall have to go back in time and berate myself for not seeking out reference photos. As for the photo taken in ASF, I'm guessing it was taken at 10am when everyone was in the T-bar shoving 'Jock pie rolls' down their throats. Duncan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Duncan B said: As for the photo taken in ASF, I'm guessing it was taken at 10am when everyone was in the T-bar shoving 'Jock pie rolls' down their throats. Duncan B I was talking to Tony Dawkins on a Friday afternoon Duncan, when you were all down "The Commie" or "Hendies" practicing for the weekend and pouring 80 shilling down yer throats ! Dennis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainpeden Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 12 hours ago, Duncan B said: VX-4's 153088 is a queer beast! Soft wing of the S, nose of the B/N, fin without any RWR bulge and none on the intakes top and bottom either. I remember making the Esci kit while still stationed at Leuchars back in my spotty youth and I'm sure I built it as a normal J. I shall have to go back in time and berate myself for not seeking out reference photos. As for the photo taken in ASF, I'm guessing it was taken at 10am when everyone was in the T-bar shoving 'Jock pie rolls' down their throats. Duncan B I think (access to long gone red wine affected brain cells) that the wing slats were not deployable/retractable but welded on as a test for the S. Did it have B or J engines? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, iainpeden said: I think (access to long gone red wine affected brain cells) that the wing slats were not deployable/retractable but welded on as a test for the S. Did it have B or J engines? Iain and Duncan. She was a J when I shot her in Oct 75 at NAF North Island en route for rework. It was during this that I believe she had the Bi-Cenntenial Eagle scheme applied. The slats were fixed on the outboard mainplane panels and she had J engines :- HTH Dennis Edited December 11, 2018 by sloegin57 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainpeden Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Dennis That's an interesting shot; what's the badge on the tail and the significance of the "FX65"? I'm assuming she was with an experimental unit and therefore that the undernose fairing (the B/N nose) held specialist instrumentation. It also looks like the inner wing slat actuators are in place - whether active or not. Thanks Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 2 hours ago, iainpeden said: Dennis That's an interesting shot; what's the badge on the tail and the significance of the "FX65"? I'm assuming she was with an experimental unit and therefore that the undernose fairing (the B/N nose) held specialist instrumentation. It also looks like the inner wing slat actuators are in place - whether active or not. Thanks Iain The patch on the fin is a stylised version of NATC's (U.S. Naval Air Test Center - note spelling) patch, based at NAS Patuxent River (also known as Pax.R or Pax River). The US Navy used the aircraft to test various configurations of slat for the 'S' model at that base :- My Collection The code on the fin is effectively the work number for feeding the aircraft through NAF The slats only had two positions as I recall - IN or OUT and could be controlled from the cockpit. My knowledge of later versions of Navy/Marines aircraft is somewhat limited. I once started an Itaerli 72nd kit of the 'S' but it is still in the box of doom as "Ugly". I doubt if it will be finished - ever. HTH Dennis 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