Academy 1/72 F-8 Crusader windshield / canopy problem

[Rob de Bie]

I'd read a few times that the Academy 1/72 F-8 Crusader windshield / canopy had problems, being (far) too wide. The analysis came from a former Crusader pilot, later a well-respected model shop owner I believe.

 

My plan was to compare the Academy clear parts to that of the Heller Crusader, and last week I found the latter. I have no proof that the Heller canopy is accurate, but it's useful anyway to compare the two. Here are the canopies side by side:

 

 

 

Here's a rough test fit of the Heller canopy on the Academy fuselage. There's a width difference of about a millimetre or more.

 

 

 

The Heller clear parts have their share of problems. My canopy had an internal fracture, next to the attachment point. I cannot feel it on the exterior, but it's there. The windscreen had attachment points on the clear areas, another relic from the past.   

 

 

Comments are welcome.

 

Rob

[Julien]

An F-8 guy from over on ARC told me the Heller main canopy was the best, he said Academy was too wide, though you cant really fit anything else to the kit. 

[Rob de Bie]

Indeed it looks like a tough job to fit the Heller canopy on the Academy fuselage. But I don't mind fiddling with a model to achieve a better shape. Someone got to try it 🙂

 

Rob

[meindert]

Hi Rob

 

Interesting.

 

I measured up the Hasegawa F-8E 1/72 canopy (dimensions in millimeters).

 

May be nice to analyze the shapes

 

The biggest wide at the wind shield rear base is about 13,5 mm. The wind shield height is about 7,2 mm. 

 

No clue if this is accurate, I have no clear dimensional real F-8 data

 

 

Meindert

 

[Rob de Bie]

Hi Meindert,

 

Thanks for the measurement, I did some too tonight:

 

Heller (Rob's measurements):
 windshield rear: 11.1
 canopy front: 11.2
 canopy rear: 12.6

 

Hasegawa (Meindert's measurements):
 windshield rear: 13.5 (sits deeper hence wider)
 canopy front: 12.5
 canopy rear: 14.2

 

Academy (Rob's measurements):
 windshield rear: 13.5 (sits deeper hence wider)
 canopy front: 12.6
 canopy rear: 13.5

 

I think the canopy measurements are easiest to use. Heller is 0.9-1.4 mm narrower than Academy, and 1.3-1.6 mm narrower than Hasegawa.

 

The canopy shape differs too: Heller is an inverted parabola (y=-x^2), Academy is almost a semi-circle. From what I see in photos of the real thing, it's more a parabola.

 

I don't have airframe measurements either to judge things.

 

Rob

[tempestfan]

I am pretty convinced the Hase canopy (and the canopies in its offsprings) suffers from being too wide at the rear and hence having an excessive (and very noticeably at that) taper.

One of the Ginter books upstairs should have dimensioned drawings in it (though probably only for the stations) - not sure if the Vought publicity drawings are helpful?

[Tailspin Turtle]

My impression is that some 1/72 Hasegawa jet kits had a wider canopy than actual, e.g. the F9F Panther and Cougar. I asked but they didn't admit to them being incorrect, much less doing it that way on purpose. My guess is that it had something to do with injection-molding limitations. For Weinel's thoughts about the accuracy of the 1/72 F8U kits, see https://superheatmemorial.blogspot.com/2018/12/172nd-f-8-kit-review.html

[Rob de Bie]

9 hours ago, tempestfan said:

I am pretty convinced the Hase canopy (and the canopies in its offsprings) suffers from being too wide at the rear and hence having an excessive (and very noticeably at that) taper.

One of the Ginter books upstairs should have dimensioned drawings in it (though probably only for the stations) - not sure if the Vought publicity drawings are helpful?

 

Thanks for that link! Both F8U drawings show the 'inverted parabola' shape at the rear cockpit bulkhead. Heller (left) has that the shape copied best I think. Hasegawa (middle) is round and looks far too wide. Academy is roughly halfway.

 

 

 

Rob

[tempestfan]

16 minutes ago, Rob de Bie said:

 

Thanks for that link! Both F8U drawings show the 'inverted parabola' shape at the rear cockpit bulkhead. Heller (left) has that the shape copied best I think. Hasegawa (middle) is round and looks far too wide. Academy is roughly halfway.

 

 

 

Rob

Rob, I think your pics show pretty clear what the posts quoted by Tommy @Tailspin Turtledescribe as „fat“ in the Hase kit. 
Among the top 3 of my list is a bulgeless  -1 „The first of the last of the Gunfighters“ from the 65 years old Lindberg kit  in an attractive livery if only I can find a correlation of BuAer/VF/no bulge for the one I would like - Ginter has only stbd. pics for the livery I‘d like. I‘ll get back to this someday after 15+ years dormancy 😊

[Juan_M]

... And there was light!

I'm going through the models I have of the F-8, planning what I'm going to do with them.
I have read in several places about the canopy problems in the different models but nothing conclusive, until I finally stumbled across this thread.

Thanks to Rob de Bie's comparison photos, and the link provided by Tailspin Turtle, I've realized the root of the evil: The entire front section of Academy and Hasegawa kits are wrong.

In this other link https://superheatmemorial.blogspot.com/2018/12/f-8-radome-comparisons.html you can see what the section of the base of the radome is like: elliptical in the initial models (and their improved ones) and circular in the E, E(FN) and J.
On early models the surface between the edge of the canopy and the air intake's bulge is almost flat; but in the E there is a bulge to integrate with the circular base of the radome.
Heller has reproduced that bulge perfectly (or almost), but Academy and Hasegawa have reproduced it as an early model: no bulge. This, of course, makes the windshield much wider than it should be.


In some places it is said that possibly Academy has copied Hasewaga and therefore has made the same mistake, but perhaps this is not the case, perhaps they have been based on the same 'reliable plans'. I just haven't found any yet, even the most 'reliable' sources have errors, or are not accurate enough in this detail.
For example, in these Vought own drawings there are serious inconsistencies, such as these front views of which show the base of the radome as circular in all versions:

In D&S #31 there are plans on pages 42-43 of the F-8E, but what is shown in top and front views is an F-8H, with elliptical radome.
A side view of an F-8C (without hump) with spaced cross sections is given on page 55 of Naval Fighters Number Sixteen (Ginter Books); but those corresponding to the base of the nose (A–A) and the central section of the wing (H–H) show those of an F-8E (circular radome and hump).

In short, it is a subtle detail that cannot be 'seen' in plans, only in photos (and not always) or by having access to a real aircraft. Heller possibly had an F-8 on hand, but Academy and Hasewaga did not.

 

Juan

P.S: Rob, I've edited your image a little for sharing and comment with other friends; I hope this is not a trouble for you.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Juan_M
wrong saving without ending

[tempestfan]

21 hours ago, Juan_M said:

On early models the surface between the edge of the canopy and the air intake's bulge is almost flat; but in the E there is a bulge to integrate with the circular base of the radome.
Heller has reproduced that bulge perfectly (or almost), but Academy and Hasegawa have reproduced it as an early model: no bulge. This, of course, makes the windshield much wider than it should be.


In short, it is a subtle detail that cannot be 'seen' in plans, only in photos (and not always) or by having access to a real aircraft. Heller possibly had an F-8 on hand, but Academy and Hasewaga did not.

 

Nice observation re that fairing! Just had a look at the Monogram, it's also portrayed there, though with less of a sharp break. I had a short look at various pics at the Vought site, but they are small size/low res. If I could find my Fairford pics from the 90s, I'd have a look there (as I certainly did a number of shots of the FN there). Indeed, Heller probably had kind support by the Aéronavale when designing their kit.

[Rob de Bie]

On 12/4/2022 at 8:01 PM, Juan_M said:

... And there was light!

I'm going through the models I have of the F-8, planning what I'm going to do with them.
I have read in several places about the canopy problems in the different models but nothing conclusive, until I finally stumbled across this thread.

Thanks to Rob de Bie's comparison photos, and the link provided by Tailspin Turtle, I've realized the root of the evil: The entire front section of Academy and Hasegawa kits are wrong.

In this other link https://superheatmemorial.blogspot.com/2018/12/f-8-radome-comparisons.html you can see what the section of the base of the radome is like: elliptical in the initial models (and their improved ones) and circular in the E, E(FN) and J.
On early models the surface between the edge of the canopy and the air intake's bulge is almost flat; but in the E there is a bulge to integrate with the circular base of the radome.
Heller has reproduced that bulge perfectly (or almost), but Academy and Hasegawa have reproduced it as an early model: no bulge. This, of course, makes the windshield much wider than it should be.

 

 

Juan, I'm nearly three months late, but what a great discovery! I'm happy that my photo lead you there. But I'm still stuck with the question how to proceed from here. Have you found a solution maybe?

 

The Heller canopy isn't perfect either. One solution might be to modify them as if they were non-transparent parts, and then cast a copy in transparent resin. Last year I experimented with a special clear epoxy resin, and the parts were perfect, and did not yellow so far.

 

 

Rob

 

 

 

[Hook]

11 hours ago, Rob de Bie said:

Last year I experimented with a special clear epoxy resin

Oooh, Fokker G.1!

[Rob de Bie]

4 hours ago, Hook said:

Oooh, Fokker G.1!

 

Correct! More here: https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/g1.htm

 

Although the epoxy is difficult to work with, with a 10 hour pot life and 100 hour cure time at room temperature, it does open up new possibilities regarding clear parts.

 

Rob

[Juan_M]

On 2/24/2023 at 10:12 PM, Rob de Bie said:

 

Juan, I'm nearly three months late, but what a great discovery! I'm happy that my photo lead you there. But I'm still stuck with the question how to proceed from here. Have you found a solution maybe?

 

The Heller canopy isn't perfect either. One solution might be to modify them as if they were non-transparent parts, and then cast a copy in transparent resin. Last year I experimented with a special clear epoxy resin, and the parts were perfect, and did not yellow so far.

 

 

Rob

 

 

 

Hi Rob,

 

At this point my plan is simply: to cut the forward section of Heller kit and fit on the Academy ones. I can live with the Heller canopy. Not perfect but cheap. Maybe even try just to improve the Heller kit. That for a late F-8.

 

For an early F-8, I was thinking in a cut under the cockpit (green line), remove the excess in the nose (along the joining line) and force the union at the nose. This requires a new canopy, of course.

 

Keep me informed of your progress with that resin.

 

Juan
 

[Julien]

For an Early F-8 I just went with the Hasegawa kit, reprofiled the nose and removed the wing hump, looked ok.

 

Just checked and I see it was 2006, wow did not seem that long ago!

 

https://modelingmadness.com/review/viet/us/dixonf8c.htm