ReccePhreak Posted June 18, 2022 Share Posted June 18, 2022 (edited) N/M Edited June 21, 2022 by ReccePhreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT7567 Posted June 18, 2022 Share Posted June 18, 2022 Not sure precisely what you mean by "just the bulged camera portion," as the photo Crusader conversion generally affects virtually the entire airframe forward of the wing (and some portions aft of it). Part of the issue is that to date only the F-8E and related late-model variants have been produced in 1:72, but the RF-8A and later upgrade RF-8G were based on the earliest Crusader airframe, so the nose and windscreen are entirely different from all existing kits. In very simple terms, looking at the nose from the front the late variants have a circular radome with a noticeable "crease" where the bulged shape meets the orginal contours aft of the radome. The early variants have a shorter nose, with the radome following the line of the windscreen in profile and the shape from the front more elongated with rounded top and bottom but nearly flat sides. I don't know about the Airmodel conversion, but my understanding is that most - possibly all - conversion kits miss this difference and basically provide variations on the photo bay (bulged and somewhat "squared off" lower forward fuselage compared to the fighter) but don't convert the nose and windscreen. Falcon, Ventura, and RVHP all have this failing. The best case approach without a huge amount of recontouring from scratch would be to combine one of the conversions with another conversion for the F-8A/C - Esoteric offered a "nose job" part, best used with the Heller kit, or Muroc Models produced a more comprehensive set designed for the Academy kit. Also note the RF-8 doesn't have the bulged fairing above the wing (only on the later fighter variants), which may or may not be covered in your conversion(s) - I know Falcon has the early fairing, as does the Muroc conversion). And depending on whether you're modeling an RF-8A or an RF-8G, some of the other details varied (engine scoops, ventral fins, etc). Bottom line is we are way overdue for a well-done early Crusader family of kits in 1/72, so hopefully someone like Sword will carry on their trend of covering neglected USN/USMC types like this one. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReccePhreak Posted June 18, 2022 Author Share Posted June 18, 2022 (edited) ... Edited June 21, 2022 by ReccePhreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted June 18, 2022 Share Posted June 18, 2022 I have this and it will need the back end of a kit. I used the back end of a Hasegawa kit to add to the front end of a RHVP kits as the back fuselage was not right on the RHVP. I reprofiled the nose some what but did not change the front screen. I must say the work paid off with the final look and even Tom Winel (not sure I spelt that correctly) over onARC said it came out well to his eyes. The esoteric nose job conversion mentioned is no good as it’s basically a cone where as the early nose is a cone with flattened sides. For my F-8C I basically filled the kit nose with miliput and then re-profiled it. Muroc do make good conversions if you can get them. I have a Mainrack and C&H recce conversion in 1/48, neither of them are great and getting decals is an issues, tho Caracl are intending to do a set I see. Either way we need a good kit in both 72 and 48. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReccePhreak Posted June 18, 2022 Author Share Posted June 18, 2022 (edited) ... Edited June 21, 2022 by ReccePhreak Changed mind 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted June 19, 2022 Share Posted June 19, 2022 9 hours ago, ReccePhreak said: Agree with the statement "Either way we need a good kit in both 72 and 48." I have my hopes set on Sword. In addition, I have the Ventura set somewhere stashed away. Cheers, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted June 19, 2022 Share Posted June 19, 2022 4 hours ago, Hook said: I have my hopes set on Sword. In addition, I have the Ventura set somewhere stashed away. Cheers, Andre I was hoping for Academy after their excellent 1/72 kits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theplasticsurgeon Posted June 19, 2022 Share Posted June 19, 2022 Final Touch RF-8G conversion on a 1/72 ESCI Crusader donor. It was hideous! Very low quality parts, massive gaps to fill. Sawed off front fuselage, replacing everything ahead of the main undercarriage bay. Use existing cockpit and canopy - an absolute miracle those bits fitted - and the nosecone.. Yes please to all requests for a properly engineered kit. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted June 20, 2022 Share Posted June 20, 2022 You made her look good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted June 20, 2022 Share Posted June 20, 2022 For what it's worth: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/12/photo-gator.html Weinel on F-8 radomes: https://superheatmemorial.blogspot.com/2018/12/f-8-radome-comparisons.html 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 On 6/18/2022 at 7:33 PM, CT7567 said: Bottom line is we are way overdue for a well-done early Crusader family of kits in 1/72, so hopefully someone like Sword will carry on their trend of covering neglected USN/USMC types like this one. Why so selfish? 😉 The earth is not exactly covered with 48th early Crusaders if I haven't missed anything, with I think the best being Lindberg's XF-1, which is almost as old as my father... @ReccePhreak, there was a conversion article on an RF in SAM (first 8 volumes I'd guess), but I don't recall whether it used the Airmodel set. This may (or not...) be of help in assessing whether the AM set is worth holding on to. @theplasticsurgeon, she looks really nice - the Esci kit regrettably is from the period when they were past their prime, and I am of the opinion it's basically a slightly modified recessed-panel Hase clone, just like the Ace/Kangnam/Revell kit (which is however from a different mould). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJP Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 The SAM article was by Peter Lockhart, December 1984. The base kit was from Heller and the conversion from Falcon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReccePhreak Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 @tempestfan Why is preferring a kit to be made in 1/48 scale so selfish? I don't criticize other modelers that like to work in 1/72 or 1/32 or whatever. Larry 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT7567 Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 7 hours ago, tempestfan said: Why so selfish? 😉 The earth is not exactly covered with 48th early Crusaders if I haven't missed anything, with I think the best being Lindberg's XF-1, which is almost as old as my father... @ReccePhreak, there was a conversion article on an RF in SAM (first 8 volumes I'd guess), but I don't recall whether it used the Airmodel set. This may (or not...) be of help in assessing whether the AM set is worth holding on to. @theplasticsurgeon, she looks really nice - the Esci kit regrettably is from the period when they were past their prime, and I am of the opinion it's basically a slightly modified recessed-panel Hase clone, just like the Ace/Kangnam/Revell kit (which is however from a different mould). I see nothing whatsoever "selfish" about speaking of the same scale and subject as the original poster of the thread. In this exceptionally rare example it is true that the scale could have been omitted and the observation on the lack of kits would remain valid, but was it really necessary to interject as if I was somehow stating that *only* my scale of preference needed and deserved a quality kit of this important subject? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 8 hours ago, ReccePhreak said: @tempestfan Why is preferring a kit to be made in 1/48 scale so selfish? I don't criticize other modelers that like to work in 1/72 or 1/32 or whatever. Larry 5 hours ago, CT7567 said: I see nothing whatsoever "selfish" about speaking of the same scale and subject as the original poster of the thread. In this exceptionally rare example it is true that the scale could have been omitted and the observation on the lack of kits would remain valid, but was it really necessary to interject as if I was somehow stating that *only* my scale of preference needed and deserved a quality kit of this important subject? Apologies to both of you (and anyone else if necessary) - I absolutely didn't want to step on anyone's toes (or criticise anyone), and obviously my attempt to denote the "selfish" as humorous by the smiley failed miserably. My only point really was to say that early Crusaders are a totally neglected subject in any scale (as regards modern kits), with the most recent one that I am aware of being the 1/70 Fujimi kit that must be some 55 years old now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 12 minutes ago, tempestfan said: obviously my attempt to denote the "selfish" as humorous by the smiley failed miserably. I got what you were trying to say, everyone's so touchy nowadays 😞 2 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