Anigrand XB-43 What have I done to deserve this?

[John R]

Being interested in prototypes and experimentals much of my modelling involves 'limited run' kits which cause some degree of aggravation and all of my latest have ended up on the shelf of doom. However for this one I thought that I would build it 'from the box' just to get somehing finished.

Fat chance! The main landing gear did not appear to fit very well so I asked a question here about it and some kind souls provided me with photos. Whilst studying them a I thought that the fin looked a lot larger than that provided with the kit so I did some digging on the internet and came up with the proverbial can of worms. I found a dimensioned three-view and used this to give me a 1/72 drawing. This seemed to indicate that the wings and stabiliser were about the right size and shape but the Anigrand fuselage was too short. One of the a/c photos showed a side view so I scaled this to 1/72 and found a good correlation with the drawing. This revealed that not only was the fuselage too short but it was also much too shallow and the fin was so far undersize that it looked rediculous.

Where does one go from here? Shelf of doom? Fit the right size fin and hope it looks ok? Or get out the saw and Milliput and see what can be done?

 

Drawing with fuselage cut out and superimposed on a photo with kit fin for comparison

 

Model as it is

 

John

 

[RidgeRunner]

3 hours ago, John R said:

ok? Or get out the saw and Milliput and see what can be done?

Come on John, you’re an engineer and a modeller ...... you’ll sort it

 

Martin

[Space Ranger]

Where did you find the dimensioned drawing?

[Navy Bird]

I'm not surprised (again). I'm about to start the Anigrand kit of the XF8U-3 Crusader III, and when comparing against drawings from Vought, I would estimate the kit is actually 1:77 scale, not 1:72. It's kinda undersized all over. But I'll still build it because, hey, it's a Crusader III.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. Why not just scratch build a fin for the XB-43?

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

I agree with the others, possibly use thick sheet plastic to make your own vertical fin or make a rough shape and cast it then sand and finish it ? You can then pin it to the kit. 

 

Dennis

[Space Ranger]

12 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

I'm not surprised (again). I'm about to start the Anigrand kit of the XF8U-3 Crusader III, and when comparing against drawings from Vought, I would estimate the kit is actually 1:77 scale, not 1:72. It's kinda undersized all over. But I'll still build it because, hey, it's a Crusader III.

 

Anigrand kits remind me of the old Contrail vacform kits: Nicely molded, with a well-drawn set of plans. Sometimes the moldings matched the plans, and sometimes the plans were dimensionally accurate.

[John R]

On 8/25/2019 at 10:04 PM, RidgeRunner said:

Come on John, you’re an engineer and a modeller ...... you’ll sort it

 

Martin

Well - here's a start. Now where did I put that Milliput...

 

On 8/25/2019 at 10:12 PM, Space Ranger said:

Where did you find the dimensioned drawing?

Buried deep in an XB-42/XB-43 thread on the 'Secret Projects ' forum

 

On 8/26/2019 at 12:45 AM, Navy Bird said:

PS. Why not just scratch build a fin for the XB-43?

 

On 8/26/2019 at 12:56 AM, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

I agree with the others, possibly use thick sheet plastic to make your own vertical fin or make a rough shape and cast it then sand and finish it ? You can then pin it to the kit. 

 

Dennis

Too easy.... and it would spend the rest of its days looking at me from the cabinet with a sad look in its eyes that said 'Chicken!'

[Space Ranger]

9 hours ago, John R said:

Buried deep in an XB-42/XB-43 thread on the 'Secret Projects ' forum

 

I thought as much; found it! Thanks.

[bzn20]

21 hours ago, John R said:

fin was so far undersize

The XB-43 developed from the XB-42 that had a cruciform fin and tailplane . Fin above and below . They redesigned the back end for the 43 and had to enlarge the vertical Fin for directional stability. Your fin looks like the top fin on the XB-42 . Hope all that made sense . Do Anigrand make an XB-42 kit by any chance and used that instead of the correct one ?

[John R]

That same thought had occurred to me as there is an Anigrand kit of the XB-42. It seems a silly mistake to make. One (kinder?) possibility is that an XB-42 fin found its way in the XB-43 kit as the parts are individually cast and are not on a sprue.

[Navy Bird]

4 minutes ago, John R said:

One (kinder?) possibility is that an XB-42 fin found its way in the XB-43 kit as the parts are individually cast and are not on a sprue.

 

Which also doesn't surprise me, as my Anigrand XF-109 kit came with decals for the XF-108. They straightened it out though.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[John R]

More than they did when I had a problem. Just no reply.

It occurred to me that if the fin had been correct I would probably have just built it without any further thought but once you lose your innocence...

cheers

John

[John R]

So I lengthen the fuselage

but then I find that the tailplane is too low and I realise that as well as lengthening the rear fuselage I have to raise it at the same time

now all I have to do is build up the top of the fuselage so that it bears some remblance to the actual a/c.

Isn't this fun? I hope that you are enjoying this too. I should start a WIP thread but I fear that it might not get far.

John

[Mark Joyce]

8 hours ago, John R said:

That same thought had occurred to me as there is an Anigrand kit of the XB-42. It seems a silly mistake to make. One (kinder?) possibility is that an XB-42 fin found its way in the XB-43 kit as the parts are individually cast and are not on a sprue.

John, I have both kits although I've yet to build the XB-43.  The fin on mine appears identical to yours, except my kit has greenish resin.  It wouldn't surprise me if Anigrand uses as many of the same parts on both kits and simply failed to take into account the fact that the XB-43 has a noticeably taller fin than the XB-42. The horizontal fins almost look the right size.  Too bad I didn't get an extra one of those with my kit!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Sture Carlsson]

Could NAVY BIRD precent on this forum a Vought drawing of XF8U-3 I should be very thankful. If possible with dimensions in mm.

[Navy Bird]

7 hours ago, Sture Carlsson said:

Could NAVY BIRD precent on this forum a Vought drawing of XF8U-3 I should be very thankful. If possible with dimensions in mm.

 

This link will take you there. According to @Tailspin Turtle, this drawing was created and promulgated by Vought, so it should be good. I found this on the net, but I don't recall where. I used the published dimensions for the aircraft to set the printing scale for 1:72, and used that printout as my basis for evaluating the Anigrand kit. The drawing shows the aircraft with the larger vertical tail.

 

The best reference resource I've yet found for the XF8U-3 is Volume 87 in the Naval Fighters Series from Ginter Books (written by Tommy Thomason, aka Tailspin Turtle above). It includes the SAC (Standard Aircraft Characteristics) drawing with dimensions, plus a narrative that fully explains the development, testing, and disposition of the prototypes. Well worth the money!

 

My WIP thread for this kit will start soon...be on the lookout!  

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Sture Carlsson]

Thanks for your answer. I have Naval Fighters 87 but I belive a real good 72 scale drawing is missing. I also have a problem with not metric systems.

Sometimes it is also not clear if pitot is included in length.

I look foreward to your building.

I inserted two plugs in the fuselage when I built the Anigrand kit.

 

Cheers,

Sture

[Colin W]

The cruciform tail of the XB42 was replaced by a conventional fin on the XB43 . The 43 fin should therefore be much larger. I suspect Marks comments above may be correct.

 

Colin 

[72modeler]

18 hours ago, Jordi said:

I purchased some of their kits when they first started, but was not impressed by the accuracy.

Yep- the wheel bays and cockpits on their releases are always generic and fictional...that being said, they are the only ball game in town for many aircraft. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice! (I have several of their kits, but have not yet summoned the courage to tackle one...something about using only super glue and epoxy scares the bejeezus out of me!)

Mike

[Tailspin Turtle]

On 8/27/2019 at 10:18 AM, Sture Carlsson said:

Thanks for your answer. I have Naval Fighters 87 but I belive a real good 72 scale drawing is missing. I also have a problem with not metric systems.

Sometimes it is also not clear if pitot is included in length.

I look foreward to your building.

I inserted two plugs in the fuselage when I built the Anigrand kit.

 

Cheers,

Sture

There is a “1/144” F8U-3 three view on page 87 that is pretty good (note that it has the extended tail cone described on page 55 and I assumed that the length on the SAC drawing did not include the pitot). Unfortunately, it wasn’t printed to scale (which is why I normally put a dimensioned box around my drawings). On my copy, it scales to 1/135, I.e. it is larger than 1/144.

[Tailspin Turtle]

On 8/27/2019 at 9:52 AM, Navy Bird said:

 

This link will take you there. According to @Tailspin Turtle, this drawing was created and promulgated by Vought, so it should be good. I found this on the net, but I don't recall where. I used the published dimensions for the aircraft to set the printing scale for 1:72, and used that printout as my basis for evaluating the Anigrand kit. The drawing shows the aircraft with the larger vertical tail.

 

The best reference resource I've yet found for the XF8U-3 is Volume 87 in the Naval Fighters Series from Ginter Books (written by Tommy Thomason, aka Tailspin Turtle above). It includes the SAC (Standard Aircraft Characteristics) drawing with dimensions, plus a narrative that fully explains the development, testing, and disposition of the prototypes. Well worth the money!

 

My WIP thread for this kit will start soon...be on the lookout!  

 

Cheers,

Bill

That’s not to say that all Vought drawings are accurate. See https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/08/its-not-that-easy-to-get-it-right.html. The post also illustrates why kit manufacturers should not rely only on actual airplanes in museums for configuration details.

[Navy Bird]

12 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

That’s not to say that all Vought drawings are accurate. See https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/08/its-not-that-easy-to-get-it-right.html. The post also illustrates why kit manufacturers should not rely only on actual airplanes in museums for configuration details.

 

Great link, Tommy! Everyone should have a good look at that one.

 

Having spent some time on a drafting board (yes, I'm that old!) I know why the title box always says "Do Not Scale This Drawing." The drawing may not be accurate, but hopefully the dimensions are, and that is what is used by the machinists, etc. As a modeller, though, I tend to use both drawings and dimensions, and hope for the best.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[John R]

Methinks my thread is being hijacked but as always when Tommy gets involved it's very informative. I have said this before somewhere but it's worth saying again. When Tommy passes on his brain shoulds be preserved and wired in to Google.

John

[John R]

Meanwhile back at the ranch...

I have filled the gap around the raised tail and added sheet to raise the fuselage dept and slathered it with Milliput to fill in the gaps.The new, larger fin, is tacked in position. I think that the engine exhausts are now too high. The beat goes on...

Attention is currently focussed on the cockpit area

John

 

[hsr]

On 8/26/2019 at 1:59 AM, John R said:

On 8/25/2019 at 5:12 PM, Space Ranger said:

Where did you find the dimensioned drawing?

Buried deep in an XB-42/XB-43 thread on the 'Secret Projects ' forum

 

Not to act dumb (it comes natuarally) but could you be more specific? I found this thread https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/douglas-xb-42-mixmaster-and-xb-43-jetmaster.8699/ and this one https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/douglas-xb-42-xb-43.32014/ and while the first has a 3 view drawing neither seems to have a dimensioned one.

 

Thanks

 

Howard