Jump to content

F-84F Thunderstreak drag chute housing


Jon Bryon

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

I've started Kinetic's 1/48 F-84F Thunderstreak and the plan was to make this aircraft using Super Scale set 481275:

 

275633848_331698705665921_23367802068300

 

This is an F-84F-35-RE 52-6500 pictured in 1957 (according to the decals) of the 509th FBS/405th FBG. I am already aware I need to cut down and reshape the tail and I will be replacing the nose with the Quickboost one.

 

Here is a photo of an F-84F from the same production block:

 

17-2.jpg

 

My question is simple: does 52-6500 at this time have the small keel or large drag chute housing under the rear fuselage?

 

To me the photo is unclear. There's another picture in the 'F-84 Thunderjet in Action' book, but that's even less clear.

 

I have spent hours on Google trying to resolve this without success. All photos of similarly marked F-84Fs I can find from the 405th FBG show the small housing under the rear fuselage (where visible). Having looked at countless F-84F images, it seems pretty clear to be that the presence of the large drag chute housing doesn't really correlate to block number, but unit/time of service. That is, it looks like all 405th aircraft didn't have the housing, and almost all ANG F-84Fs did (only very early ones seem to have it missing). Was it a retrofit item?

 

I am leaning to towards 52-6500 having the larger housing just because what is visible in the photo shows a slightly concave shape to what's under the rear fuselage, but I'd love to be sure. Before I contemplate hacking off the lower rear fuselage and scratchbuilding the smaller ventral keel, does anyone have definitive evidence as to what the situation would have been with 52-6500?

 

Many thanks for any help

 

Jon

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52-6500 was assigned to the 405th straight from production (8 July 1954), and the photo dates from around that time period, when it would not have had the drag chute. Circa 1955, the 'U.S. AIR FORCE' script was painted on the fuselage, as seen in the second photo.  Aircraft built to this standard were often retrofitted (at Farmingdale, IIRC) and so you will often find these machines fitted with drag chutes later in service.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

52-6500 was assigned to the 405th straight from production (8 July 1954), and the photo dates from around that time period, when it would not have had the drag chute. Circa 1955, the 'U.S. AIR FORCE' script was painted on the fuselage, as seen in the second photo.  Aircraft built to this standard were often retrofitted (at Farmingdale, IIRC) and so you will often find these machines fitted with drag chutes later in service.

 

Thank you - this is super useful information.

 

Do you know if the ventral keel was the same as for the F-84G? I'm wondering if I can get hold of a Tamiya or Revell kit that might help me towards back-dating the Kinetic kit in this area.

 

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re. the original tail bumper.

 

I backdated the Revell/Monogram kit for a magazine article some years back and looking at the article this might help with the Kinetic kit which I believe has some similarities in the way that the parts are broken down.

 

I removed the extended fairing from each fuselage half and the then to simplify reinstating the fuselage  extended the gaps created into rectangular shaps to fill with plastic card.      The shape of the original strake can be found in the plans included with Warpaint No.100 on the F/RF-84F and scaled up from 1/72 scale to what I calculated to be the 51mm length required in 1/48.        From there I fixed a suitable length of 'U' section sprue onto a card plinth and , sanded to shape and scribed panel detail.

 

If it will help I am sure that I have the images of this somewhere 'safe'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Des said:

Re. the original tail bumper.

 

I backdated the Revell/Monogram kit for a magazine article some years back and looking at the article this might help with the Kinetic kit which I believe has some similarities in the way that the parts are broken down.

 

I removed the extended fairing from each fuselage half and the then to simplify reinstating the fuselage  extended the gaps created into rectangular shaps to fill with plastic card.      The shape of the original strake can be found in the plans included with Warpaint No.100 on the F/RF-84F and scaled up from 1/72 scale to what I calculated to be the 51mm length required in 1/48.        From there I fixed a suitable length of 'U' section sprue onto a card plinth and , sanded to shape and scribed panel detail.

 

If it will help I am sure that I have the images of this somewhere 'safe'.

 

Hi Des,

 

That sounds like a logical approach although I've started on a slightly different path using body filler. However, it's not working out that well and I haven't actually cut anything yet. If you have any photos to share I'd love to see how you did it.

 

Kind regards

 

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/1/2022 at 6:08 PM, Sabrejet said:

52-6500 was assigned to the 405th straight from production (8 July 1954), and the photo dates from around that time period, when it would not have had the drag chute. Circa 1955, the 'U.S. AIR FORCE' script was painted on the fuselage, as seen in the second photo.  Aircraft built to this standard were often retrofitted (at Farmingdale, IIRC) and so you will often find these machines fitted with drag chutes later in service.

 

I wonder if I can ask for your opinion on an RF-84F and the drag chute housing? I want to make 52-7366 from the 45th TRS (USAF) from around the 1955-1957 or so timeframe. This aircraft is on the 1/48 RF-84F sheet by Caracal with the polka dot markings.


I can only find one photo of this aircraft that shows the rear fuselage, but it's small and blurry. I *think* it doesn't have the large drag chute housing, but can't be sure. I'd love it if it did since I could make this using the Tanmodel kit, but I'm pessimistic. Anyway, I'd love a second opinion:

 

Screenshot-2022-08-21-160600.jpg

 

Many thanks

 

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...