F-86H shape issues

[72modeler]

I thought it might be better to post this as a new topic, rather than take the two existing  F-86H threads further afield. I had some time this morning to pull my Special Hobby H, Hasegawa D and a reference I had forgotten about: Modeler's Guide to the Sabre/Fury, by Jay Sherlock, plus  Warpaint  1/72 scale drawings of the A through L variants. Up front, let me say that the Warpaint drawings do NOT match the F-86H dimensions published by NAA and the factory drawings that Sabrejet posted. The Sherlock modelers guide does have what looks like a good scale profile drawing of the H, but it is not to 1/72 scale. When I get a chance, I will get it enlarged to 1/72 scale and post my findings, if any of you are still interested.

 

What I am going to comment on is based on a fairly quick examination and measurement of the kits mentioned, as well as a  rough comparison to the Warpaint F-86H scale drawing, which is NOT to scale; I only used it as a general guide. I hope this will help @RidgeRunner @Sabrejet and @Courageous in particular, and that you three scholars will check this for accuracy, as I do not want to spread misinformation- there's enough of that going around already!

 

In the Sherlock guide, he states in a kit review of the 1/72 Special Hobby F-86H kit that the nose is 3/32" too short in front of the cockpit and the cockpit opening is 1/16" too far back; the lower nose is a little too shallow, due to excessive taper from the nose cap to the fuselage; in addition the vertical stabilizer is a little too narrow in chord. ( This is paraphrased from the original wording for brevity.)

 

Here's what I observed:

The cockpit openings of the Hasegawa D and the SH kit are identical in length from the front edge of the windscreen to the end of the canopy fairing, with the exception of the length of the fairing in front of the windscreen, so a Hasegawa D windscreen should fit the SH kit. As is already known, the SH kit canopy has the fixed rear fairing attached to the canopy and the Hasegawa D has the fairing as a part of the fuselage, which is correct for both the D and the H.

 

If you place a fuselage half from the SH kit against the Warpaint profile drawing, and line it up so that the wing LE and TE of the kit part match the drawing, the rear fuselage matches up very well in length, but the chord and taper of the fin is shallow along its entire length, but less at the fin cap- a pretty easy fix, if this is indeed correct. The chord of the wing root matches between the kit fuselage half and the drawing. The nose is 1 scale foot short between the LE at the wing root and the rear edge of the nose cap, with the lower fuselage contour being too shallow by about 3" at the nose cap. I think the metal fairing in front of the windscreen on the SH kit is too long, comparing it to actual photos and the Hasegawa D.

 

It appears to me that you could make a vertical cut at the rear edge of the canopy opening  of the H kit, then a horizontal cut along the panel line that runs above the wing root, then another vertical cut at the panel line behind the nose wheel bay to separate the  fuselage into a front and rear section. A one scale foot extension could be inserted at both of the vertical cut lines and the two sections  re-attached. (This would be much the same technique as has been published to show how the length of the F9F-2 and F9F-5 Panthers was increased and how modelers could make a dash 5 out of a dash 2 kit. See the Tailhook Topic on the subject for drawings and text.) Once the sections are re-attached, the gun gas vent locations will need to be changed as well as the location of the angled vertical panel lines under the canopy. This is all subjective, pending my finding some decent scale drawings which can be trusted. I hope this makes sense- I have got to learn how to post photos and drawings, but I hope my verbal description is clear enough to make sense. What do you all think?

 

I have attached a link to Joe Baugher's webpage which has a detailed (accurate?) description of the changes made between the F-86F and the F-86H. I thought it might be useful to those of you wanting to correct the SH F-86H kit.

Mike

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_16.html

 

Now, if Meng really wants to add to their USAF Golden Age jet collection....

 

BTW, according to a photo and caption in the Sherlock guide, that color photo posted of a QF-84H was originally a YF-84H-5, from the PMTC at NAS Point Mugu, taken in 1977, so it WAS technically a USN scheme!

Edited March 29, 2019 by 72modeler
added link and text

[RidgeRunner]

A very thorough write-up Mike @72modeler despite, as you say, not having an accurate drawing. However, I do  think the TO version that SJ posted is basically accurate. It would need to be so or the data shown in that drawing wouldn't make any sense. 

 

In terms of your thoughts on a "cut and shut" I suggested this to @wez earlier today:

 

 

does that match your thoughts?

 

Martin

 

[72modeler]

4 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

A very thorough write-up Mike @72modeler despite, as you say, not having an accurate drawing. However, I do  think the TO version that SJ posted is basically accurate. It would need to be so or the data shown in that drawing wouldn't make any sense. 

 

In terms of your thoughts on a "cut and shut" I suggested this to @wez earlier today:

 

 

does that match your thoughts?

 

Martin

 

Yep- except I was thinking of making a vertical cut at the first vertical panel line past the rear end of the cockpit opening as shown on SJ's stations drawing, and then running horizontally  to the 2nd vertical cut you have marked in red- this would preserve the cockpit opening in its entirety and keep that red-marked oblique panel line in the same relationship. Easier for me to splice in the extra length than to try to add to a slanting surface. Does that make sense? 

It seems such a shame that kit makers don't do better research or seek assistance from those who have the references and the knowledge to assist them in producing a more accurate model- a lot more economical than trying to send a crew and scanning equipment across the pond to examine a real example, of which they have little to no awareness of what they should be looking for. The SH kit is nicely scribed, has nice detail parts, and looks like it fits well, but in this day and age a modeler shouldn't have to resort to the extreme surgery required to get an accurate fuselage and canopy for an airplane that there are plenty of original examples remaining to be photographed, scanned, and measured. That being said, I'm not getting rid of my Special Hobby F-86 kits, and they are to be congratulated for bringing the versions they have released to fruition, as they are not the "mainstream" or most "popular" variants of the Sabre. (I, too am going to get SJ's NAA profile scaled to 1/72 and see if I have the skills needed to correct the major flaws. (I guess if all kits measured on the nose and fit like a glove, there wouldn't be a need for a great website like this one!)  

Mike

[RidgeRunner]

Yes, Mike, you are right, a vertical line would be more straightforward. My thoughts were also about preserving key and noticable detail. You are right, it is a shame that, at times, not enough research is done and the results applied correctly. As you say, though, these smaller producers have to be applauded for even producing the kits in the first place. 

 

I am going to try again with my comparison images based on the correct dimensions. Let's see what happens. Then there is the windscreen issue. To me the best alternative is a F-86E/F.

 

M

[Hamster Volant]

FYI, Air Force Legends n°212 is about the Hog and aside from tons of detail photos includes a 72nd scale drawing.

There's also what appears to be a TO repro, with the following dimensions:

• From nose tip to tailplane tip: 38.8 ft
• From nose tip to exhaust shroud end: 35.8 ft
• Height at top of tail 14.9 ft
• Height at top of cockpit 10.2 ft
• Height from fuselage bottom to top of cockpit 7.1 ft

[Plumbum]

Mike your verbal explanation makes sense and was easy to follow. I am a huge fan of the

Grumman F9F Panther and have seen the method of hacking up an F9F to get a -5 from a -2

or vise versa. I will go you one further, why doesn't some mold company just tool a new and

accurate F-86H and throw in an A model to boot. They could make a killing! ---John

[72modeler]

29 minutes ago, Johnv said:

Mike your verbal explanation makes sense and was easy to follow. I am a huge fan of the

Grumman F9F Panther and have seen the method of hacking up an F9F to get a -5 from a -2

or vise versa. I will go you one further, why doesn't some mold company just tool a new and

accurate F-86H and throw in an A model to boot. They could make a killing! ---John

I knew there was a reason why I liked you, John! 😜

Mike

[stevehnz]

What Mike has described is pretty much what I was getting at in post #37 in @Sabrejet's thread

but somewhat better described so thanks Mike for starting this thread, hopefully it will produce something of substance we can move forward with.

Steve.

Edited March 31, 2019 by stevehnz

[Andre B]

I don't have the drawings mentioned. But I have the Hasegawa F-86D the Special Hobby F-86L and the old Airfix F-86D  And I had to say that I an impressed how well the Airfix F-86D fits against the two other kits. One can almost glue the Airfix fuselage half against the Hasegawa fuselage half. The most noticeable difference is the fin wich is about 1 mm shorter in the Hasegawa kit. What stands out when I looking att the thre kits is the vortex generators in the Hasegawa kit. My opion is that Airfix did rather well with their old (1975) kit. And one also have to say that those three kits are of the same dimensions and neiter of them is made with LIDAR. So how correct are those drawings?

 

Cheers / André 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Andre B

[RidgeRunner]

Hi chaps!

 

So is a precis of the above and other threads: 1) the fuselage IS short and a vertical cut just ahead of the LE would fix that, and 2) the windscreen IS wrong but correctly placed and lastly, 3) a Special Hobby F-86K/L seems the best alternative snd more correct profile? Aside from the investment issues with 3) would this work?

 

Martin

Edited March 31, 2019 by RidgeRunner

[SAT69]

I had rather hoped that Kittyhawk, having produced the 1/32 scale F-86D and F-86K, would go the next step and produce a 1/32 F-86H. That didn't happen and most likely won't but this old geezer can dream. I too like the F-86H more than any other Sabre variant.